Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive134

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Peggy Adler

Bxzooo (talk · contribs), self-declared as the subject of Peggy Adler, has repeatedly inserted a statement that she is a victim of domestic violence, linking the statement to her ex-husband, without providing any WP:reliable sources. She has stated that she has forwarded copies of the police blotter and the judge's protection order to User:Killiondude, but that doesn't seem to me to be sufficient to state in Wikipedia's voice that he is an abuser.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

No way - warn, and if she continues, block away. Off2riorob (talk) 15:26, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Remove : It's a simple matter on this one: per WP:BLPPRIMARY, Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. The material must be removed until/unless Peggy (and I'm still baffled why she isn't blocked from "her" article...) comes up a valid third party source for the point. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
As best I can tell she has already agreed not to post it again (see Talk:Peggy_Adler#Thanx.21_I_like_the_way_the_article_now_reads and User_talk:Bxzooo#OK. I would say it's moot unless the user resumes adding the information. fish&karate 14:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Primary Sources (Email) in Articles

I hope you don't mind me contacting you, I got your name from the Editors Assistance list. I conducted a GA Review of the article Robert Abbott (game designer) which you can read here: Talk:Robert Abbott (game designer)/GA1. One of the issues that I identified was that quite a bit relied on emails received by Hi878. I checked WP:Primary, and understand that primary sources can be used if necessary, although with caution on BLP pages, however nothing is mentioned about emails - merely self-published Websites. Do you know of any process, perhaps through OTRS that we can arrange for the emails to be acceptable references?

Thanks in advance for your help, Deadly∀ssassin 07:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

OTRS already certified the email as coming from him, with the template at the top of the talk p. and it's "published" on the article talk page, so it could be considered to essentially has the same status as if he had published the same thing on his blog: usable for routine details only. The problem I see is that on his blog, we could also quote from it about what he says are his motivations, , and I just don't feel comfortable doing that based on the email. It's a blurring of boundaries. I would certainly not give GA status to an article relying on it. This is a difficult question: usually OTRS is used to permit people to correct facts about themselves, and to donate copyright, not more generally to permit sourcing from emails. I've never seen such a request on OTRS., but I work there only a little. I would want to check how often this has been used. I suggest that you move this question to either the RS or BLP noticeboards. I think a general opinion is needed. It's not a question for the OTRS volunteers primarily but the community. DGG ( talk ) 19:37, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The above was copied from DGG's talk page to elicit a more general opinion.

To put in my two cents, as the one who is wanting to use the e-mail, I would not use information told to me in e-mails other than to add straightforward facts that cannot be found anywhere else. For instance, in the article, I only have used it to back up the statements that his sister helped him test games when he was young, that he sent a letter to Martin Gardner about Eleusis and subsequently was written about in his column, and that Sol Stein noticed his games and published a book of them. The only other thing I can think of that I would use an e-mail from him for his when he was married, and who to; there isn't anything about that anywhere else. I would only use e-mails for facts that aren't covered anywhere else; I don't really see any other alternative, other than having a sizable chunk of information missing. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 04:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't add anything from any email, its self published (its not even published - its being published primarily by wikipedia - and I certainly wouldn't see any article supported by such as a wiki good article) and such editing doesn't seem in line with the projects objectives. The fact that these emails aree required for content additions seems to reduce any assertions of notability - where are the reliable independent reports?Off2riorob (talk) 11:02, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Interesting issue. While the work in getting the email is terrific, I don't think it should be used on Wikipedia. My main feeling is that when information is verified by a personal email to an editor, the information will either be inconsequential (and so could be omitted, despite some loss of interest), or the information will be important (and so needs much more than a personal email for verification—rather like a WP:REDFLAG issue). Also, the precedent is terrifying—imagine a politician's article full of all sorts of embellishments sourced to emails from the politician or their publicist. What if we get an email from the politician's opponents with the inside dirt—of course the source would not be suitable. Johnuniq (talk) 11:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from, and you're right that it is prone to abuse, but is it really any different from using a self published website as a source? Per WP:PRIMARY they are acceptable in certain circumstances and with care in BLP articles. --Deadly∀ssassin 12:28, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

An email to an anonymous Wikipedia editor? Yee. Try to get Abbott himself to put the emails up on a website he controls. He seems to have one: http://www.logicmazes.com/ --GRuban (talk) 15:06, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I have suggested that, GRuban, but he seemed to not be wanting to. In response to Off2riorob, he is still notable; things that he has done have made him notable, and those are backed up by reliable sources, but said sources don't have many personal details. In response to Johnuniq, would the name of his wife and when he was married fall under either of those? There isn't anything about that anywhere; the only way I would be able to add that is if he tells me in another e-mail. I compeltely see where you are coming from with not wanting to set a precedent for that, but it seems as though something like that, or the minor ways I have already used one, would not cause any problems. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 22:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you're coming up against one of our core policies. WP:NOT#OR. "If you have completed primary research on a topic, your results should be published in other venues, such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, or respected online publications." That's exactly what you've done by getting information from the article subject. That now needs to be published somewhere else, "other venues". Not here. --GRuban (talk) 00:20, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks GRuban, that's a lot clearer to me now. Hi878, I've commented on the GA page if you could take a look? --Deadly∀ssassin 23:08, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Berezovsky

Editors are removing reliably sourced information from the Boris Berezovsky article, and on the talk page seem to indicate that it is a WP:BLP violation. Can uninvolved editors take a look at Talk:Boris_Berezovsky_(businessman)#Use_of_libel_tourism.2Fterrorism and opine over there. There appears to be gaming going on to keep relevant information out of an article. Appreciate any input on the talk page. Thanks, Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 20:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The discussion on the Talk page has been fairly robust. I'm not sure why Russavia brings it here as no one has said that inclusion of the material he wants added to the article would constitute a BLP violation. Russavia has also done an WP:RFC on the Talk page, which is perfectly fine.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

This is an unfortunate expansion of a Russavia combat-mode which was noted in prior ArbCom decisions. The talk page discussion is extremely clear on the article talk page, and I doubt Russavia will gain from this post. I think he would be quite well-advisednot to advertise his problems at this point in time. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Umm, I've brought it here, because BBb23 was talking about keeping information out of a WP:BLP article. Hence, it is insinuating a BLP violation, and hence, I'd like some BLPN regulars to take a look; particularly those who were involved in the last round of comments. Bringing such things to BLPN is of course the right course of action. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 20:41, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I've already explained on the Talk page why the material doesn't belong, as have other editors. It doesn't follow that just because someone wants to keep material out of a BLP article, that means the basis is a BLP violation. And it certainly isn't true in this instance - nor has anyone implied it to be true. You're just persisting in your own misinterpretation of other editor's actions.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

You haven't explained anything on the talk page, and in fact, at the 3RR report you again insinuated that there were BLP violations in there. You were going to post to ANI to ask about the article and my alleged BLP violations. And you are avoiding discussion on the talk page, not engaging in it. Of course, scholars disagree with you, and given your history on the article in question, we go with what scholars and reliable sources say. If the scholars comments were BLP it would be WP:FRINGE material, but it's not. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 18:18, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Just a quick and final comment that all of your remarks about me are untrue. I was actually thinking of closing this topic because the article has again been locked, but that didn't seem fair to you, so I didn't.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:23, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Bill Young

Article about a Republican congressman from Florida which could use some attention for OR and POV concerns. Early in the article there is a paragraph about a committee Young served on and this paragraph makes some sweeping accusations without a source: "This committee was created by the Florida Legislature in 1956 to investigate and intimidate civil-rights groups such as the NAACP, and went on to conduct a witch hunt against gays and lesbians in public schools, state universities, and state employment." There is a lengthy controversies section which repeatedly implies that Young did something wrong without using a source to say that it was wrong. For instance, the section on the Walter Reed scandal reads: "As chairman of the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee during 2005 and 2006, Young did not call hearings or otherwise engage in active oversight on the matter." This really should be stated as: "Commentators such as x, criticized Young for not using his oversight power as chairman of ... even though he claimed to have known of the situation at the time" or something to that effect. I'm also concerned that the ratio of information about controversies to information about his record is quite high.

FWIW I am not a Republican. GabrielF (talk) 22:05, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the committee paragraph. The only source was at the beginning, and it was non-functional. I have no idea whether it had any support for the remainder of the paragraph. I haven't looked at the Controversies section yet.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I've now removed the Reed subsection as well as it, too, was sourced only by a dead link. Also, its reference to the Walter Reed article wouldn't work to implicitly source what it was saying as the Reed article had only one mention of Young, which was sourced to the same dead link. I've removed that sentence from the Reed article. It's like a badly constructed house of cards.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:29, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

The parenthetical material about his son only having a GED etc. does not belong. Collect (talk) 22:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I rewrote the Johns Committee paragraph, using a 1993 article from the St. Petersburg Times about his involvement. I think its relevant to discuss, but it should be limited to events that occurred when he was on the committee and not before. Let me know if you have any suggestions for improvement. GabrielF (talk) 23:22, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Without looking for more sources, it's hard to know what to suggest because the only source (the 1993 article) is apparently not online - I'm assuming you have a paper copy.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I found it by searching LexisNexis. Its part of a series of articles on the committee from when its records were released. I've put a copy online here so that editors can comment but I can't keep it online permanently for copyright reasons. GabrielF (talk) 23:38, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, it looks to me like you were very careful in conforming to the source. I've made a few minor changes to the section, but they don't have to do with your description.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:46, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

shannon wheeler

Resolved

– Article updated.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:18, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I would like to ask for two points of information to be removed from this article: - "Shannon Wheeler grew up in the 1960s in Berkeley, California.[1]" This is not correct. Wheeler was born in 1966 and for the rest of that decade, lived in Texas, until moving back to Berkeley at the age of four. - "As of March 2010, Wheeler lived in Portland, Oregon, and had twin sons then 12 years old.[1]" We would like to avoid direct references to the children. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamdao22 (talk • contribs) 10:46, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

The problem with your first point is that the material is reliably sourced to an interview with Wheeler. Now, perhaps Wheeler was speaking loosely when he tacitly agreed he was brought up in Berkeley in the 60s, but you would need to find another reliable source that gives the history more clearly. As for his children, when you say "we would like to avoid", who is "we"? Again, the same interview sources the twins.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:27, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

For the first point, the interviewer asked the question about "growing up in the 60s" based on his own research and Wheeler went along with it as the meaning behind the question was something more akin to "What was it like being raised by hippie parents in Berkeley, California?" And about finding a source that cites he was not in Berkeley for most of the 60s, I'd be hard pressed to find a written source of his mother's statements. (I heard this from her direct.)

In "we," I mean that Wheeler and myself feel uncomfortable having detailed information about the boys in a forum that people access easily. Concerning their mention in a public forum, I feel differently about a local weekly paper mentioning them than I do if it's on Wikipedia. Wiki has a much greater outreach and many more people use it as a go-to resource. The information here spreads quite rapidly. In the Portland Tribune that's used as citation, the interviewer brought in a question that lead with the statement "You’ve got twin 12-year-old boys of your own..." I think that Wheeler would not have brought up this specific information himself. I still feel that the boys would feel uncomfortable if people assumed they were 12-years-old because that's the most recent information in a Wikipedia article. They are feeling well beyond that age now, I believe.Tamdao22 (talk) 05:30, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Based on your explanation and your very polite request on my Talk page and the fact that including his sons' age is unnecessary anyway, I've removed the age part from the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:18, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! The result is better than what I requested. Very much appreciated. Tamdao22 (talk) 16:56, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

David Axelrod

Before I break 3RR even more, can I ask another editor to take a look at the unreferenced edits that 67.86.0.20 has repeatedly inserted here [1], here [2], here [3], here [4] and here [5]. There has been no discussion on the talk page, and no response to queries in edit summaries or on their talk page. --Deadly∀ssassin 02:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

If he continues you could ask for semi protection. I reverted them, some known commies seems a bit pointy to me. update - the ip continued with the edits and was blocked. Off2riorob (talk) 03:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Block seems reasonable here. Reverting blatant BLP issues is exempt from 3RR (or you wouldn't get blocked for it, at least). I warned the IP to behave, but there's clearly some kind of vendetta thing going on here, so a block makes sense. I doubt it'll be particularly effective, though. A few more eyes on the article would be good. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:01, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Quan (rapper)

- Quan the rapper, I'm him and I want to correct the information they have up here about me

To whom this may concern my name is Clifford Peacock, better known as the rapper/singer QUAN aka DONFERQUAN I'm honored to be apart of your historic site, and I'm thankful someone has taken the time to attempt to keep up with my career. There are some corrections that must be made . and I would like to prove my identity so that we can make those changes. (Redacted)

i go by Quan ...thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clifford peacock (talk • contribs) 15:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Best thing to do is to suggest the changes you want made on the article's Talk page (identifying who you are). Wikipedia works with verifiable, reliable sources, so for each change you wish you should also give us a reliable source to cite to for the change. You shouldn't include personal-identifying information (e.g., e-mail, address, phone number, etc.) in these forums.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:47, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Étienne_Tshisekedi

This article is not neutral. The information is highly biased, especially as one reads on in the article. I noticed that it recently underwent a lot of heavy editing, and this is likely why. Given that this person is a political figure and running for a coming election, this bias is not surprising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarewen (talk • contribs) 08:56, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

This politician has been around for a long time, and there's a lot of info about him at Google Books. The best way to improve the article would be to use that info from Google Books, accompanied by a lot of footnotes. Unfortunately, Google Books doesn't seem to work well on an iPhone, so I can't get started on it right now.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, the article has now been thoroughly overhauled. Unfortunately, it took a second thread below to get me off my butt (or rather to get me on my butt in front of a desktop computer).Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:16, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Étienne Tshisekedi

Resolved

Dear Sirs,

Further to our 2 emails we sent to "info-en-q@wikimedia.org" complaining about the validity and neutrality of the content published on your website regarding the biography of Etienne Tshisekedi, we were very disappointed for not receiving any response to our request.

As we wanted to follow all procedures as stated in your terms and conditions in regards to changes which are not minor and failure of response as mentioned here above, we decided to correct these damaging affirmations on the biography of Mr Etienne Tshekedi.

Our concern, except cables from wikileak, is that the content published by Mattgirling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mattgirling), one of your Administrator on the person of Etienne Tshisekedi contain defamatory information and its sources are biased and not legally reliable; for instance the quote used about the assassination of the First Prime Minister of the Democratic Republic of Congo Mr Patrice Emery Lumumba.

The delibarate choice of the Editor not to mention the political and life struggle of Etienne Tshisekedi.

We will indeed be happy to see readers not being misled as it is the main aim of Wikipedia to provide non biased and also trustworthy information.

We sent our reaction to the editor notifying him about the character of his changes.

We hope and trust that you response to this dispute will help really readers to have correct information from your website.

Kind regards

Alain Kabuika — Preceding unsigned comment added by EditorUd (talk • contribs) 19:32, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Please note that there is a section above about this BLP. EditorUd has been repeatedly invited to discuss at the article talk page why he has deleted sources that are apparently reliable, but EditorUd has not discussed anything so far at the article talk page.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:39, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I make no claims about the current sources in the article, but removing sources en masse and adding even more text with no sources is not acceptable. Regardless of the current sources, the text is written largely unbiased (even if it is factually negative) whereas the proposed addition by EditorUd is far from neutral.

It appears that EditorUd has got confused over who added what material; I simply reverted his edit as I felt it was against policy. I resent being told I deliberately chose not to mention certain aspects and have deliberately defamed an individual. I request that EditorUd retracts this accusation.

As is clear on the article's talk page, Anythingyouwant and I have offered help to EditorUd. I've not got the time or knowledge to sit down and rewrite the article at the moment, but have suggested EditorUd brings content and sources to the talk page so we can work something out. This offer has been continually ignored, and his repeated reversions (despite his unfulfilled claims that [he]'s "opened to a constructive discussion"), he is now in violation of WP:3RR. matt (talk) 20:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The bit about him being involved in the Lumuumba killing was iffy (cite did not appear to support wording) so I went to the New York Times for what appears to be a reliably sourced claim. Collect (talk) 20:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

That's okay by me (I quoted the non-NYT source at the article talk page, BTW). Collect, now that Google News Archive is gone, did you find that NYT article using a general google search of the web, or instead using advanced google news search?Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

(Undent) The article has now been overhauled. Thanks to User:Collect and User:Mattgirling for the help.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Journal of Cosmology

Is the usage of the blog Pharyngula ok to source this statement? "it isn't a real science journal at all, but is the ginned-up website of a small group of crank academics" I believe this is an attack on a BLP although no names are mentioned. So is the blog OK to use to call the editors of a journal "Cranks" Darkness Shines (talk) 20:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's a widely reported quote featured in nearly all the coverage about the Hoover controversy. See e.g. [6][7][8][9], and so on and so forth. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

A few comments. First, another editor has removed the phrase "of crank academics", apparently in an effort to appease Darkness Shines. Second, there is an edit war going on and a report by Headbomb of Darkness at WP:AN3. Third, it might help to cite to some of the secondary sources for the quote in addition to the source (Myers) of the quote itself. Finally, as to the BLP issues, it's borderline. The journal has received a lot of negative press, and to the extent that criticism of a journal is criticism of the journalists, I don't see that as a BLP issue. It's just that Myers speaks his mind more directly and more colorfully.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:13, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Darkness has also raised this issue at WP:RSN.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:15, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The result of the edit-warring report was full protection of the article for 3 days.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:25, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Louie Gohmert article and rogue user

I removed the section on Gohmert's comments on Obama policies towards the Middle East. As far as I've research this only has been referenced to on Talking Points Memo which is a web-based political journalism organization created and run by Josh Marshall, journalist and historian covering issues from a "politically left perspective," The other references in Google are also all from left-wing blogs. http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&source=hp&q=louie+gohmert+islamic+caliphate&pbx=1&oq=louie+gohmert+islamic+caliphate&aq=f&aqi=&aql=1&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=570l6454l0l6744l29l21l1l4l4l0l314l2410l5.9.2.1l21l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=ff4e2b09f4e053ae&biw=1152&bih=584 From what I have seen all the referrals to this quote are attributed to left wing sources promoting a point of view. The source who put this cited CSPAN directly, not what should be cited if this was truly a controversy. In the mainstream media for instance it doesn't look like this actually caused much controversy. The other two incidents are more cited in the news media. For instance, the Terror Babies incident should indeed be kept in because it was widely covered in the news. The college of fine arts director incident was also not covered widely outside of one story on CNN and again on the website Talking Points Memo so I am not sure if it should be included because it also did not cause controversy. I have read the guidelines for reliable sources and the context of the, and the guidelines on controversy and I am not sure if these fit the context to be included. Just opening up the discussion. --Andy0093 (talk) 22:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Controversial_articles I forgot to add. I don't know if these comments belong here and were controversial just because they enflamed one side of the political aisle. Article related to other figures like Nancy Pelosi, John Boehner, Eric Cantor and Steny Hoyer do not have a controversies section even though I am sure one side could carve one out with the hundreds of floor speeches these people have given. --Andy0093 (talk) 22:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore the article has continuously been stopped from being edited by a ip user. He has been using three IP address 99.168.72.86, 75.60.185.120, 75.60.186.187 and two user names Jdblack326 and Johnnyb.3261. The IP addresses all trace back to Columbus, Ohio and have the edits are all revert attempts to edit and a section in the article entitled "Implication Obama is complicit in creating a Islamic Caliphate." He seems to have now made an account Johnnyb.3261 after being warned about being blocked. He has refused to engage in the talkpage rather. He has reverted any attempt to modify this section or put in perspective changing the article back a total of at least 11 times with the edit summary (These statements, accurately reflected in the heading, attracted national attention and are historically significant as example of the type of inflammatory rhetoric that has been employed in the 112th Congress along with hate speech against the Presi)

--Andy0093 (talk) 00:38, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

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

I believe we are talking about edits like this. The article has been fully protected owing to an edit war, and the text is currently not in the article. The proposed text is totally inappropriate for Wikipedia because it is synthesis whereby an editor has decided that a particular extract from some statement indicates something. Johnuniq (talk) 03:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Phil Collins and Dana Tyler

Resolved

– Discussion now moved to more appropriate and centralized one at Talk:Phil Collins#Dating gossip. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Phil Collins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dana Tyler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

For two weeks, Kumkwat (talk · contribs) has constantly removing information about Collins and Tyler dating despite multiple warnings not to do so ([10]). With the situation continuing, I am taking this discussion here to see if others can voice their opinions on this matter. Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

What opinion would you like? He's citing 3 sources. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 02:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, the 2006 reference is not considered a valid source for relationship claims. What I actually meant was: the user in question was re-adding the invalid sources in those articles. Should we remove those if possible? Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:43, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Is this a controversial issue for any reason? The third source is from 2010 and from the music section of the Telegraph. I'm not sure why an issues is being made of this. Are there conflicting reports? Otherwise I don't understand why you all keep reverting him. If one of the soruces isn't great then remove that one source.Griswaldo (talk) 03:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think this is controversial. I am partially involved in this issue. The conflicting sources in question can be found here and here. Does this make sense? Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:40, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

How are those sources "conflicting" with any other sources? Don't all three sources say that the two are dating, and isn't the third from 2010? I'm not sure I understand where the controversy is.Griswaldo (talk) 03:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes. However, the sources do not state that their relationship is current or continuing. Should we open up a discussion on the talk page to see if we can sort this out? Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

That's what you should have done, like, yesterday. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The discussion is now open here. Sorry for any confusion this may have caused. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Darlton Kenton

Darlton Newton Kenton. Chef and author of three published books. Was raised and educated in, Jamaica. He has been writing poetry since the age of nineteen. Kenton trained at the Culinary Institute of America. He is also the owner of DNK Catering Services LLC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darltonk (talk • contribs) 03:26, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

You may wish to consider using WP:AFC. Can any of this information be found in a newspaper? Hipocrite (talk) 18:20, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Shawn O'Sullivan

This page currently includes the following line in the section titled 'Life After Boxing': "Currently Frequents Vic's place and enjoys the drink." This seems slightly cruel and libelous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wlkrryan (talk • contribs) 06:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Done — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Herbert Mataré

According to User:Wikinaut (talk) Herbert Mataré died on September 2. I did not find any reference yet, but he has send a copy of the death card to OTRS: "Dem Support-Team liegt unter Ticket:2011092210019198 ein Scan der Todesanzeige vor". Can somebody check this OTRS ticket and confirm that this enough to allow the update of his article, till the official reference is available? -- SchreyP ^(messages) 18:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Can somebody answer above questions? Is the OTRS content enough as reference for the recent changes on the article? -- SchreyP ^(messages) 17:20, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Case still open at WP:OTRS/N#Herbert Mataré -- SchreyP ^(messages) 10:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Eron Falbo

Resolved

– Speedily deleted.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

This article does not meet any criteria for notability, it does not use any reliable sources (according to Wikipedia's definition) and it sounds like advertising. It sounds very much like the person himself, or someone very close to the subject, has written it. This article should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.15.133 (talk) 16:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I note that you have requested speedy deletion of the article. I'm not sure how far that will get. At the same time, the article appears to have been written by Falbo. I have left a COI tag on the editor's page, along with a username tag as his username is fairly close to the name of the production company that apparently is owned by Falbo (according to the article, one of his AKAs is Leon Quills). In terms of notability, I've done no searching for sources, but the sources cited in the article are generally not supportive of notability.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:43, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The speedy deletion based on G11 (unambiguous advertising or promotion) was declined with the following comment by the admin: "May be a7able but isn't promotional in its entierty". The speedy deletion request was originally based on G11 and "fails to meet relevant notability criteria", which I guess was the IP's attempt at doing an A7 ("no indication of importance"), but another editor removed it because it's not a valid criterion. Not sure what would have happened had the IP properly specified A7 or if the other editor hadn't removed part of the tag.

Since the decline, I have stubbed the article because virtually nothing in it was reliably sourced. I seriously doubt the subject is notable, but I'm not going to AfD it because the last time I AfD'ed an article that I had removed sources from I got pummeled by one of the commenters in the AfD discussion who assumed I'd "set the article up" to be deleted. It's a wonderful wikiworld.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

After discussion with the admin who declined the speedy delete about the history of the article and the speedy delete tag, the article was retagged and speedily deleted.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Marko Attila Hoare

I don't know if this is the right place to report it, but I'm concerned about this academic's biography because the negatively worded lead is entirely sourced from a rather obscure web site. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 22:26, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I hardly have any expertise in the subject matter, so it may be appropriate to describe him like that, but the source seems rather questionable. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 22:30, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

yes, its not a reLiable source for wikipedia and the lede was very opinionated in a attacking way. I removed it - it has been there a while though....it was added in Feb 2010 by Special:Contributions/82.160.239.145 - Off2riorob (talk) 22:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Done -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Louie Gohmert

- Louie Gohmert edit war.

Now that the page has been locked. Can the community offer their opinions as well. I've made my views on the section known but will put it again below. This is the history behind the dispute.

I removed the section on Gohmert's comments on Obama policies towards the Middle East. As far as I've research this only has been referenced to on Talking Points Memo which is a web-based political journalism organization created and run by Josh Marshall, journalist and historian covering issues from a "politically left perspective," The other references in Google are also all from left-wing blogs. http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&source=hp&q=louie+gohmert+islamic+caliphate&pbx=1&oq=louie+gohmert+islamic+caliphate&aq=f&aqi=&aql=1&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=570l6454l0l6744l29l21l1l4l4l0l314l2410l5.9.2.1l21l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=ff4e2b09f4e053ae&biw=1152&bih=584 From what I have seen all the referrals to this quote are attributed to left wing sources promoting a point of view. The source who put this cited CSPAN directly, not what should be cited if this was truly a controversy. In the mainstream media for instance it doesn't look like this actually caused much controversy. The other two incidents are more cited in the news media. For instance, the Terror Babies incident should indeed be kept in because it was widely covered in the news. The college of fine arts director incident was also not covered widely outside of one story on CNN and again on the website Talking Points Memo so I am not sure if it should be included because it also did not cause controversy. I have read the guidelines for reliable sources and the context of the, and the guidelines on controversy and I am not sure if these fit the context to be included. Just opening up the discussion. --Andy0093 (talk) 22:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Controversial_articles I forgot to add. I don't know if these comments belong here and were controversial just because they enflamed one side of the political aisle. Article related to other figures like Nancy Pelosi, John Boehner, Eric Cantor and Steny Hoyer do not have a controversies section even though I am sure one side could carve one out with the hundreds of floor speeches these people have given. --Andy0093 (talk) 22:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC) Furthermore the article has continuously been stopped from being edited by a ip user. He has been using three IP address 99.168.72.86, 75.60.185.120, 75.60.186.187 and two user names Jdblack326 and Johnnyb.3261. The IP addresses all trace back to Columbus, Ohio and have the edits are all revert attempts to edit and a section in the article entitled "Implication Obama is complicit in creating a Islamic Caliphate." He seems to have now made an account Johnnyb.3261 after being warned about being blocked. He has refused to engage in the talkpage rather. He has reverted any attempt to modify this section or put in perspective changing the article back a total of at least 11 times with the edit summary (These statements, accurately reflected in the heading, attracted national attention and are historically significant as example of the type of inflammatory rhetoric that has been employed in the 112th Congress along with hate speech against the Presi) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy0093 (talk • contribs) 01:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Its complete partisan rubbish. Its just a soapboxing coatracking attack on Obama. - Off2riorob (talk) 05:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

It would have been better to continue the discussion at #Louie Gohmert article and rogue user above rather than start a new section about the same issue. I gave my opinion earlier: the proposed text (which Andy0093 removed) is totally inappropriate for Wikipedia because it is synthesis. Johnuniq (talk) 11:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

José Eduardo dos Santos

This article is an important key to understanding contemporary Angola. Unfortunately few Wikipedians with a solid knowledge of the subject matter have until now been contributing. A more intense particpation would be all the more important as again and again partisan edits are made, bent on either preventing critical information from appearing in the text, or on the contrary on introducing polemical texts and/or references. It would thus be helpful if more people took part in the constant attention called for. -- Aflis (talk) 12:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Laurence Tribe

Resolved

– some experienced NPOV/policy compliant trimming has benefited the bio

Serious BLP issues are raised by the subject of the article in an RfC on the talk page. Input by experienced editors would be useful. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:04, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

There's been a very good response to this notice, so this section can be archived. There were numerous, serious BLP issues in that article that have been addressed. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thanks to the editors there. I also notice that the user that was historically replacing the content is blocked for block evasion - Special:Contributions/ZHurlihee - Off2riorob (talk) 21:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Would that other BLPs also were cleansed of such "stuff" introduced by editors less interested in an encyclopedia than in being "sensational" in articles. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:38, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Michael Clemons

- Michael Clemons' "Pinball' nickname

For the correct record...Michael Clemons nickname "Pinball" came from guest Running Back coach Tom Cudney, NOT, Bob O'Billovich!!! Here's exactly how it originated...

In 1989 at the Toronto Argonauts training camp @ the University of Guelph after every practice, all the coaches would gather in a room to review and discuss the most recent practice and player performance. Each coach was asked by Bob O'Billovich, "What players looked good and who stood out"?! I (Tom Cudney) said, "...Michael Clemons is like a little 'Pinball'! He hits, spins and bounces. He's very difficult to tackle". That evening a sports reporter from a Toronto TV network (City TV-?)interviewed, then Head Coach Bob O'Billovich. During that interview, Bob was asked who looks good in camp, part of his response was that "...Michael Clemons is like a "Pinball" out there. The rest maybe history and yes, Michael "Pinball" Clemons earned his own merit and acclaim, but for the true record...Bob O'Billovich did not orignate the nickname "Pinball" for Michael Clemons, ...Tom Cudney did!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.59.229.122 (talk) 17:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Scott Ritter

Currently, the lead at Scott Ritter is 50% devoted to discussing sexual misconduct. The article's body is more around 15% devoted to sexual misconduct. The sexual stuff is not related to his notability. I can see having a sentence in the lead, but I guess an argument could be made it doesn't belong at all. Should the lead mention the sexual stuff? Jesanj (talk) 21:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Some mention in a dignified manner in the body can not reasonably be avoided - but I reduced the sensational ("juicy bits") stuff. Collect (talk) 22:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. You meant to say lead instead of body I assume. Jesanj (talk) 23:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Lacey Sturm

User:Lauren3333 repeatedly adding material from the subject's website, http://laceymosley.com/. Some is paraphrased, some is just directly copied. Have left several messages on editor's page. I'm at my WP:3RR limit and require some additional support in explaining the problem of copyright violations to the editor. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Continues to add material and now claims material is from a YouTube video. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I reverted after investigation of the users desired addition (and it is clearly disputed and in need of discussion) and linked the user to this discussion. Considering their single purpose and revert filled edit history over a two week period - Another replacement without discussion after attempts to discuss without any success imo is report and block worthy. If I was an administrator they would be blocked already. We have a duty of care to the living subjects of en wikipedia articles to pick up such attacking COI BLP violating contributors as soon as possible and block/ban them or topic ban then early as possible. Off2riorob (talk) 01:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Paul Krugman

[11] has been strenuously objected to as an edit on that BLP. In point of fact, however, I think more eyes would benefit this article where even tepid criticism of the person seems to run afoul of WP:BLP as a matter of course. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:57, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the two sources that appear to be opinion pieces. It a rather blatant mistake to include cites to opinion pieces, in the lede no less where the specific material is not developed in the body of the article, to source that a person's critics claim that a liberal bias impugns their credibility. The editors who are edit warring over this are old hands here who should know better as a matter of style, reliable sourcing, consensus, BLP, etc. Nevertheless, the third source, an article in the Economist is a factual piece that sums up from a third party perspective that Krugman has critics, the critics complain about his political partisanship (which is somewhat different than merely being liberal or having liberal views), that he does in fact appear to be partisan in his writings, and that it is a significant aspect of his public persona, hence biographically important. The claim it makes is discussed in the body of the article at some length. If we accept that source as reliable, I don't see the BLP issue, though there can always be differences among editors about weight and relevance. And as a MOS issue, we don't need a citation in the lede if it's cited in the body (though in some extraordinary contentious cases it can help avoid dispute). - Wikidemon (talk) 18:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Seems that since almost every BLP about contentious figures have at least one word indicating such in the lede, that omitting it entirely from the lede is hagiographic entirely (noting the huge amount of criticism currently mentioned in the article <g>). Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:40, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Strongly agree. Also, those that are continually removing it are all but absent from any discussion. It appears to be a clear case of simply not liking it. The critism in the lede is a fair summary of his work. Arzel (talk) 04:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Also strongly agree. Strongly opinionated op-ed writers, there is always a ton of criticism, so you need to make sure that the criticism comes from RS, which tends to be nil. And I pretty much agree with that for a BLP, it is an article about the person not a place to rehash his views. But, in order to state what he does, you have to say he is a *liberal op-ed columnist*. If the article is otherwise good NPOV, how is the reader supposed to figure out what the person does?Jarhed (talk) 08:07, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

If the critical opinion pieces and criticism was developed in the body of the article, would that make the material appropriate to include in the lead? CRETOG8(t/c) 15:59, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

This person is a celebrity opinion journalist with a huge following, of course there is going to be criticism. Strict BLP policy should apply, in that all such criticism must come from reliable secondary sources and not other opinion sources. In other words, for this person's BLP, almost all personal criticism is going to be invalid because no reliable secondary sources are available other than other opinion pieces which, according to BLP policy, are invalid for BLP facts especially negative ones. If everyone followed this rule, BLPs would be much more accurate and easier for editors to work on.Jarhed (talk) 09:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems that I might just not fully grok WP:BLP, because that's a surprise to me. Where does the policy say that a critical piece (say, an attributed editorial in a respected newspaper) isn't an acceptable source for there being criticism? CRETOG8(t/c) 17:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

In addition to the very strict WP:BLP guidelines, this has to do with notability. That is, the notability of the criticism to the subject of the article, which should not be confused with the inherent notability of whomever stated the opinion. It is not notable to an encyclopedic understanding of an individual that some random pundit criticized them unless that criticism turns into a much larger issue for them that gets reported on by second-party reliable sources. If the only criteria for including criticism was that it was printed in a "respected newspaper" then every single political figure's bio would be nothing but a coat rack of criticism (and the more famous they are, the more criticism there would be). --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:58, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I see your question on this noticeboard a lot, and I always wonder why it is so hard to understand the difference between the front page of a newspaper and the editorial page. The difference seems obvious to me. Editorialists opine on a wide range of subjects with widely varying reliability, while news articles report the news. A news article is from, say the WSJ, while the editorialist is just himself. For a BLP fact, especially a negative one, the opinion of a single person is insufficient for inclusion as per BLP. Grok now?Jarhed (talk) 16:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I haven't bothered to look at the Krugman article, but of course assuming good faith, I can imagine a "roundup" of opinion about Krugman from other notable opinion journalists that could give the article the flavor of Krugman's notability. If they were all from RSs and spanned the range of opinion, that might be a nice, NPOV addition to the article.Jarhed (talk) 16:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Nicolas Berggruen

Resolved

– Cleaned up.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:24, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Reviewing the talk page shows that Bioplus (talk · contribs) clearly has an axe to grind against Nicolas Berggruen. Bioplus insists on using his own extrapolation to describe the subject pejoratively as a party animal, without any sources supporting his claim, and now 86.173.211.194 (talk · contribs) is adding the same material, which absolutely quacks WP:DUCK to me. WilliamH (talk) 18:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Rm puff as well -- is he actually "notable" per WP? Collect (talk) 18:22, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I think so. It would appear that he has begun working in politics in California as one of the cited sources (the interview) talks about.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Charles Kushner

This article is about Charles Kushner. Two editors concerned with Wilda Diaz, a peripheral character in the article, are editwarring. I've tried to fix BLP probs about Kushner, but their "bleed-over" editwarring on Kushner is getting worse. 3RR doesn't apply to BLPs, but editwarring does. So I'm looking for a BLP admin to look over the article, talk page and, most especially, edit history and counsel all three of us. I think I'm within poicy but it's starting to feel like I'm becoming an inadvertant party to an editwar from another page, so admonish me, too, If I'm wrong. David in DC (talk) 11:23, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Someone took notice and improved the article immensely. The two warring editors still seem to have difficulties with how BLP works, but as to Charles Kushner I think the problem's solved. I'm not wading into Wilda Diaz, or the topic of BLP and people of Puerto Rican ancestry generally, which seems to be the focus of the warring. But someone who's objectivity and assumption of good faith as to these edit warriors might not now be called into question probably should. David in DC (talk) 15:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Diane Rehm

Done Collect went in and cleand-up the vandalism, still worth keeping an eye on, but in current status its ok.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 18:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC) In the 1st paragraph of this article she is referred to as an "old hag". It appears that the article has been edited to not be neutral about "liberal" thought, and seems negative against liberals instead of being neutral as should be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Turner200 (talk • contribs) 14:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Diane Rehm

Done Collect already went into this article and cleaned up the POV.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 18:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Makes disparaging comments about Diane Rehm, including calling her an "old hag":

Under the heading "Personal Life," the writer says "She espouses liberal viewpoints, which allows her to continue to broadcast on NPR despite the availability of better broadcasters. NPR has a liberal tilt that is so bad that they continue to let this old hag broadcast."

This is definitely violates your biographies of living persons policy and needs to be deleted immediately.

Lisa Dunn — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.9.134.38 (talk) 14:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Larry Walker, Artist

Larry M. Walker (b.1935) is an American artist living and working in Georgia, USA. A 1952 graduate of the High School of Music and Art in Manhattan.

The baseball player Larry Walker is incorrectly cited as a fine arts graduate of the Fiorello H. LaGaurdia High School of Music, Art and the Performing arts. ^[1]

Larry Walker is a recipient of numerous awards and recognitions and was Director of the Georgia State University School of Art and design from 1983-1993 ^[2]. ^[3]

There is not at present a Wikipedia biography for the artist, however there is for his daughter, the American artist Kara Walker^[4]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kara_Walker — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.249.217 (talk • contribs)

I've changed the link on the page The High School of Music & Art so it no longer directs to the athlete. I've set it to the redlinked Larry Walker (Artist). However I don't have the time at the moment to research further to see if a stub should be created or not.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Christopher Stasheff

An admin advised me that I might want to bring up this subject here, for my own education at least. It's a BLP of an author with, as far as I can tell, no known sources which meet Notability for Creative professionals. I'm interested in the general principle of voting "keep" on deletion discussions based on the intuition that RS establishing notability ought to exist, but with no such sources actually known. Maybe we ought to have a principle in policy that if no RS are found during a deletion discussion, the article shouldn't be kept? B^e——C_ritical_{__Talk} 20:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I had this come up in a discussion once and it was difficult to get my head around also but I accepted it in the end - its all tied up to ignore all rules. If there are no WP:RS to be found but users with perhaps personal knowledge of the subject or from the same locality are supporting it as notable. As long as there is nothing contentious in the article its acceptable for the time being - ...it might even be ok until citations are found (open ended) but you might look back after some months and see if additional cites are in place if not and you feel the same way you might renominate. Ultimately if doesn't get a couple of citations some passer by will sent it back to afd again and that is the way of the wiki - there are no rules (not fixed in stone anyways). Off2riorob (talk) 21:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense. Not my personal inclination, but maybe I should just drop it. No one else seems bothered by the disconnect between our sourcing policy and the reality. B^e——C_ritical_{__Talk} 21:09, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I am sure the other editors will be looking out for one or two to add in the future. Such situations where editors apparently vote comment against policy are quite rare, it was a good learning point for me. - The article I nominated was a small library in the states, as in this case - a pretty harmless rare IAR exception regards. Off2riorob (talk) 21:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Um, not exactly rare.... really very common I think. Yeah, I just have to get used to the obscure corners being unsourced but kept. You'd think from a perusal of the policies that unsourced material should be tagged, then deleted, and that BLPs with no known notability should be deleted, etc. But then you get loopholes, such as the argument on the other page that even though we don't have any sources from which to actually write an article, since the guy is mentioned in some list-type books and encyclopedias of fiction he's "regarded as an important figure", for example. I think this is all stuff, but I guess it's a nonstarter. B^e——C_ritical_{__Talk} 21:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, one option is to keep out of the dark corners of the project, hehe. I think standards of reporting and Wikipedia:Policy and guidelines compliance is higher now than ever before. Please note I have not really investigated the notability of the person (he's a horror writer with released book is all I have looked at). I am just really chatting about the broader issue. I feel an essay coming on ..WP:LOOPHOLES - if you feel strongly about it WP:DRV is an option, but I think it will be endorsed there, they only look at the close of the AFD. Off2riorob (talk) 21:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

That would be a fun essay, "You don't have to establish notability according to GNG if the person can be proven to be important." Cool :D B^e——C_ritical_{__Talk} 21:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

"proven to be important" - see it's a WP:Loophole.... Support - complies with WP:Loophole, ha.. Off2riorob (talk) 21:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Independent sources added. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 21:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

He's the author of 44 novels[12] published by the likes of Random House [13] and Macmillan Publishers [14]. That ain't hay. --GRuban (talk) 21:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

You know, those are very cool if they are genuinely sufficient. I did know about them, and took them to be insufficient for a BLP. That's all. B^e——C_ritical_{__Talk} 21:54, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Nancy Dell'Olio

Resolved

– Article cleaned up and editors watching.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:14, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Not that I don't appreciate the often sarcastic and acerbic tone of this article--I'd be lying if I said I didn't--but I'm pretty sure this is not the way a Wikipedia biographical article should read. I almost don't want to see it go, I wish there was a section for more opinionated columns or something, but I appreciate what Wikipedia has offered me over the years too much and I'd hate to see this type of material coverage become a norm. I come to Wikipedia to get a good base of understanding from which to form my own opinions, not have them made for me. This is why I'm reporting this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NGH2 (talk • contribs) 00:09, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The article is a disgrace. Apparently, the editors who have worked on the article have decided that Dell'Olio is a somewhat comical figure, and so the article can also be comical. I've done some work cleaning it up, but it needs a lot more, and I won't have time today to do it.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:01, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I refreshed it with some trimming for blp an npov. - It looks like it has been a single person with a dynamic talktalk account editing from london, there are multiple occasions of negative attacking SPI edit sessions from this user - if they return request semi protection. Sadly she is highish profile at the moment and one day last week there was 5600 views of that attack crap - shame on the project. Off2riorob (talk) 02:10, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking over after I logged off last night. I did a few more tidies this morning. It's still an odd article, but at least it's no longer an eyesore. Oh and thanks to NGH2 for bringing the article to our attention.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:14, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

- there was an attempt to re add the attack page tonight by Contributions/87.74.132.36 - to any watchers please keep an eye on the bio - semi protection is the next step. Off2riorob (talk) 19:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Leon Bright

You have Leon listed as a Running Back with the CFL BC Lions. Leon was actually a Wide Receiver. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bcsportsfan (talk • contribs) 00:25, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Per the newspaper article "B.C. Can’t Find Bright", Leader-Post (March 18, 1981): "Bright came to the Lions as a running back from Florida State in 1977 and led them to the Western Conference playoffs with a 10-6 record. He also has played wide receiver and defensive back in B.C., besides returning punts and kickoffs."

Per the newspaper article "Move to Big Apple Pays off For Bright", Star-Phoenix (December 19, 1981): "Playing with the Lions, I matured a lot as a person and as a football player. It made me a much better player because it made me that much more versatile. I played a little running back, wide receiver, tried defensive back, and ran back kicks".

I've updated the Wikipedia article accordingly.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Jonathan Morris (priest)

Subject was brought into the priesthood by the Legion of Christ organization, and appears to have held a position of some authority within it. A defender of the subject keeps removing that information from the article, since the association with the now-discredited Marcial Maciel does not reflect well upon Morris. I tried to find a good NPOV way of putting the information in, but was reverted by the defender/"owner". --Orange Mike | Talk 13:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

1) Can anyone explain how an organisation becomes discredited because of the actions of one of its members, and how it is that that discredit taints the rest of the membership? 2) Can any one explain why it is important to document this guys association with said organisation in the first place? John lilburne (talk) 14:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The Legion seems to have operated more or less as a cult, with Maciel in the L.Ron Hubbard role; and Morris' defenders are desperate to disassociate him from his background as an active particpant therein, given the revelations about Maciel. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Rachel Blanchard

Resolved

– Unreliably sourced material removed and many editors watching.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

This article is persistently altered by a stalker who claims that she is married with two children, when this is not the case in any way. The most recent alteration can be seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rachel_Blanchard&action=historysubmit&diff=452371471&oldid=447935989 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.85.84 (talk) 04:03, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the report - if it happens again I will request a few months WP:semi protection, I added it to my watchlist. Off2riorob (talk) 11:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm watching it as well - if it happens again I'll semi-protect it (or ping me Off2riorob if you see it happen). --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 14:24, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I reverted the changes yesterday. Her supposed marriage is all over the web, but I couldn't find any reliable sources in support of it.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Angus & Julia Stone

Resolved

– Unsupported maintenance tag removed.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

This article relies on references to primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject, rather than references from independent authors and third-party publications. Please add citations from reliable sources. (June 2008)

Hi there, I've been trying to "clean up" the citations and sources for this article since last week. I do not think the comment tagged at the top of the article is still current or relevant to the case. So far all the sources I've reviewed seem reliable and it would help if you could please give examples of specific sources you do not think are credible. I'm a big fan of Angus & Julia Stone and would love to have an accurate account of their life/biography, but also recognise the fact that a banner such as this reflects upon the article in a negative light.

Thanks very much for any help/advice, Su-Yin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suyinchan (talk • contribs) 10:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Back in June 2008, an additional sources needed tag was added to the article. Then, without explanation, on September 11, 2010, an editor changed the tag to the current primary sources tag here. I see no support for it now, so I will remove it.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Mutiny (band)

I'm concerned about the names of individuals stated in this article, which are unreferenced - and without appropriate verification - in terms of "presumption in favor of privacy", the NPF policy and other aspects of BLP. However, it is only a list of names - I'm not saying that there is anything that might adversely affect a person's reputation. In such cases, when individuals are named on an article with no supporting references - should they be removed pending a reference? Or, would that be too heavy-handed? Chzz ► 20:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

It's a matter of judgment. I tagged the members section. After waiting say a month (just my view as to how long to wait), remove any unreferenced names.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Animal X

Article 'animal x (band) is about a music band from the country of romania. Please consider it is not a living person. It got me confused expression wikipedia:biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons.. should it not tagg articles for living characters in the band?

I don't see any BLP issues in the article.Jarhed (talk) 18:00, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Gudrun Schyman

I'm Swedish, and thus have a lot more sources availible than the average wikipedian with regards to the subject. Still, this was (is) a mess of such proportions that I don't think I can fix it. Maybe crowdsourcing it here can make it less headache-inducing. Good grief.

I don't see any obvious BLP issues in the article and there is no recent talk page discussion. I have removed the dispute tag. If there are still BLP issues, please open a fresh talk page section that details the issue.Jarhed (talk) 18:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Kent DesOrmeaux

I changed the subject's last name to reflect spelling according to his own website, but the user Materialscientist is claiming - in contradiction to Wikipedia's own rules - that this is not considered a reliable source.

cur | prev) 23:45, 23 September 2011 Materialscientist (talk | contribs) (10,586 bytes) (rvt: see your talk page; (i) keep reference names; (ii) provide reliable sources (his webpage is not) - all other sources don't capitalize O) (undo) (cur | prev) 23:28, 23 September 2011 72.179.5.17 (talk) (10,586 bytes) (I have capitalized the "O" in DesOrmeaux's last name to accurately reflect the French spelling as it is used on Kent's own website: http://www.kentdesormeaux.com/) (undo) (Tag: possible BLP issue or vandalism) (cur | prev) 08:55, 23 September 2011 Materialscientist (talk | contribs) m (10,586 bytes) (Filling in 3 references using Reflinks | fixed dashes using a script) (undo) (cur | prev) 08:49, 23 September 2011 Materialscientist (talk | contribs) m (10,270 bytes) (Reverted edits by 72.179.5.17 (talk) to last version by 69.204.185.42) (undo) (cur | prev) 08:09, 23 September 2011 72.179.5.17 (talk) (10,270 bytes) (undo) (Tag: possible BLP issue or vandalism) (cur | prev) 08:00, 23 September 2011 72.179.5.17 (talk) (10,270 bytes) (→Brief biography) (undo)

Unfortunately, such cases are not that easy. Even if your changes were 100% correct, the references must keep the name of the sources, that is mass substitution is not a solution We go by reliable sources, and do not consider the subject (Kent DesOrmeaux himself and his website) as such, and this is the real problem. In other words, we do not support the idea that anyone can suddenly decide how he/she wants to be called - we look at how most of the (English-speaking, as this is English wiki) world calls him/her. Countering a mistake, which was propagated by multiple reliable sources, is a difficult task. Surely, providing government sources can do that. Otherwise, we can say that he is called both DesOrmeaux and Desormeaux (without saying what is "correct"), but we need reliable sources for DesOrmeaux. Materialscientist (talk) 23:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you asserting that wikipedia is a reliable source from which to learn how "DesOrmeaux" is properly punctuated, but asking an individual with that surname how it is punctuated is NOT a reliable source? Kent DesOrmeaux did not suddenly decide how he wants to be called. If the individual's website is not reliable, then what might be considered reliable so that I can prove to you that the correct spelling of this man's name is "DesOrmeaux" and help to improve the accuracy of wikipedia and diminish this website's reputation for propagating false information. Would a phone book be a reliable source? I could also provide a birth certificate; most people consider birth certificates to be valid. I hope you will deem it as valid as wikipedia! If not, then it is disappointing, to say the least, that a wikipedia patroller will accept the propagation of false information acceptable because overcoming the "red tape" that you describe makes presenting accurate information a "difficult task."

Please try to understand the problem. I didn't say it is easy. We trust reliable sources, that they checked the spelling before publishing it. There is no easy way around (to sort out rumors/hype/etc., which is what we mostly get from such situations). We are not supposed to analyze the sources, but sometimes (in such cases, for example) we get into it. We need alternative reliable sources to start doing that (at least to present alternative spellings). We can't analyze ID, birth certificates, and such - a third party can, and they can publish information based on such sources, which we can use then. Note, that generally, what a person says about himself/herself is not a reliable source, unless verified by reliable third parties - there could be dozens of reasons for tweaking personal bio details, obvious and non-obvious. Materialscientist (talk) 03:47, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

You are quite plainly asserting that an individual does not determine his or her name, but that journalists are the entities responsible for naming an individual. This is ludicrous to anyone who cares about the accuracy of knowledge, and this is exactly why Wikipedia is never trusted as a reliable source for any level of scholarly paper, from the college freshmen level and beyond. If consistency to the source is of primary importance, then why is the “O” not capitalized in the link to Kent’s own website? “Note, that generally, what a person says about himself/herself is not a reliable source, unless verified by reliable third parties.” What is your own reliable source for this statement? I made changes to reflect biographical accuracy in accordance with an individual’s website, and then you changed my corrections based solely on your own opinion that this is “unreliable.” Can you site the peer-reviewed journal article that proved that what people say about themselves is unreliable? Wikipedia approves Kent DesOrmeaux's website as a reliable source of information about him: "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject (see below). This is from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.179.5.17 (talk) 19:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

All this because of a disagreement about whether to call him "Desormeaux" or "DesOrmeaux"? His website capitalizes the O whereas secondary sources do not. Right? According to WP:SPS, the website can be used as a reliable source for information about the subject as long as five criteria are met. The only one that might not be met here is Materialscientist has some doubt as to the authenticity of the website? I'm guessing. It looks like the other four have been met.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:09, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

We've got a situation that all sources of the article (and basically all web sources) use Desormeaux, whereas the subject calls himself DesOrmeaux on his website, and the IP was mass substituting Desormeaux by DesOrmeaux in the article (including the references). This might well be a propagated error, and we can, and perhaps should mention both spellings. All I asked was do some research and provide as many reliable sources on DesOrmeaux as possible, so that we could consider changing the name. So far I only saw his webpage. (PS I might have been wrong that his web page can not be used as a reliable source, but this is not really the issue here) Materialscientist (talk) 00:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The little bit of research I did shows only the subject spelling his name that way, no secondary sources. Obviously, titles and references can't be changed. The only question is whether the subject's spelling trumps the other sources. My reaction is it does, but I also think it's much ado about very little. The difference is innocuous, and the subject should know better than the secondary sources. It's not like his age or some other statistic where the subject might have reason to misrepresent the statistic. The only thing I can think of that might be at play here is that the subject's last name was spelled one way at birth, but he has since discovered that the capital O spelling is more authentic. I have no idea, for example, what spelling he uses on official documents, and I'm not sure it matters. However the issue is resolved, there should be an explanatory note in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:37, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I know nothing about this particular case, but I agree with Materialscientist as Wikipedia should not be used to correct a bunch of reliable sources. There are three issues: What is the subject's legal name? What name is used by reliable sources? What name would the subject prefer? The subject's preference may be worth noting (if a reliable source has commented on it), but it should not be used to rewrite an article. What would we do if, say, an entertainer decided to add "!" to their name on their website? Answer: we would follow sources. Johnuniq (talk) 02:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

It is generally a fiction (in the U.S. at least) that there is such a thing as a "legal name", just as it's a fiction that there is such a thing as a "legal signature". You can call yourself whatever you like and you can even use different names if you wish, as long as you are not doing so for some illegal purpose. In Wikipedia, we sometimes get around this issue if, for example, we know the subject's birth name, but he uses a different name professionally (cited by reliable sources), or if the person actually uses multiple names, in which case we can list aliases (again if cited by reliable sources). This case presents a more unusual problem, and I've proposed my preference as to how to resolve it below.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:40, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Many people with the surname "DesOrmeaux" capitalize the "O." This is nothing like adding an exclamation point in one's name. The reason the "O" is capitalized is because these are two different French words combined into one surname. ("des" means "from" - "orme" means "elm") There are other French surnames used in the United States that capitalize letters in the center of the name. A few example are LeBlanc, LeFleur, and LeDoux. Here are a few reliable sources which demonstrate that many individuals with this surname capitalize the "O," including Kent DesOrmeaux, according to his own website. ESPN: http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/columns/story?columnist=hays_graham&id=4433796 Louisiana State University: http://etd.lsu.edu/docs/available/etd-04112007-094810/ The DesOrmeaux Foundation: http://desormeauxfoundation.com/ The Roman Catholic Church: http://www.stmarymagdalenparish.org/parish-staff And though I don't consider wikipedia reliable, perhaps in this case it will consider itself reliable: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wade_DesArmo (It seems to me Wade probably got pretty exhausted with explaining his name to people.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.179.5.17 (talk) 02:46, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Some of you describe this as overreacting. I feel like I'm banging my head against a brick wall to try to convince you that the "O" is capitalized even though a quick google search does not confirm what I'm trying to teach you. I'm sure Kent also became exhausted with correcting people, which perhaps began the propagation of spelling his name "Desormeaux" in the mass media. 72.179.5.17 (talk) 02:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Please understand that we have many hundreds (if not more) edits per day changing someone's name, nickname, birthday, birthplace, etc., against reliable sources. They may be good-faith attempts to correct errors, or bad-faith attempts to introduce them. We can't easily tell, and go by reliable third party sources. There is no use "banging one's head against a brick wall" here. We don't create sources, we follow them. Materialscientist (talk) 03:12, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I actually have some sympathy for the OP here. IMO we it comes to a person's name, we should always use personal preference except in cases of stage names and the like. When the preference is clearly expressed, even if it's a SPS (but there's no doubt the subject is behind the sourced) I would follow this. However this comes in to conflict with WP:Common name. We do have guidelines like Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Tibetan), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese) which tend towards this but not any overall guideline. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Proper names does suggest we should use someone's preference (in a related area) if it has regular and established use in RS. Nil Einne (talk) 06:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I thought about this some more after logging off yesterday, and I think the best solution is to leave the name spelled as is but to put a footnote in the article that he spells his name as DesOrmeaux on his website. It might be different if he explained the discrepancy between the two spellings and why he currently spells it differently from the newspapers, the Hall of Fame, etc., but without more, or even a complaint by the subject, that would be my proposal.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Looking in to this more carefully, it seems I misunderstood the details. I thought the OP was claiming they were the subject and wanted the spelling changed. I should clarify then that the usage on his website without any explaination wasn't really what I was thinking of when I said the preference should be clearly expressed. I was more thinking of something like Bbb23 mentions when there is some explaination in a SPS where the person mentions they prefer their name spelled/capitalised/whatever in a certain way. In a case like this, I'd learn to the RS anyway (but Bbb23's proposal seems okay). It's worth remembering a website is sometimes maintained by a publicist or someone of that sort so it may not always be the case the subject really has that preference (they may not care for example). Also in case there is any confusion, I'm solely referring to someone's name. Factual details like birth dates etc are more difficult since it's not simply a matter of preference. Nil Einne (talk) 19:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I would like to point out that this person is hardly a unique case. There are many famous people who capitalize their own names in a non-standard way. Just because they do so does not mean that reliable sources can follow their non-standard practice, but for the sake of balance in a BLP the person's preference and practice should be describe. My favorite example is E. E. Cummings, and I think this article handles the issue perfectly.Jarhed (talk) 18:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the Cummings article is analogous, nor do I think DesOrmeaux's capitalization of his last name is necessarily "non-standard". I certainly don't think that we need the kind of extended discussion that's in the Cummings article in the DesOrmeaux article. As I believe I've already stated, we stick with the spelling by the reliable sources and footnote his website's spelling. However, because the IP has apparently lost interest and because I don't think any of this is a big deal, I haven't made that change.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Mem Fox

There is an unresolved problem with the article for Mem Fox. Mem Fox is an Australian children's author whose husband has been convicted this year for underage homosexual sex with one of his school students. This case has had notoriety and has been followed closely on Australian television and in national papers. Mem is a very well known children's author who published her last book in April 2011. She is most notable for writing Possum Magic. She is also a public persona - a few years ago she was all across the Australian media for equating child care for young children with child abuse.

The article in question is well established and includes plenty of other biographical detail. I feel there is no bias in including the fact of her husband's conviction. However there has been a small number of editors who feel it should not be referred too at all. Their argument, as I understand it, is that 1) Mem played no direct role in his crime, and therefore it is not relevant to her biography 2) if it were to be included on Wikipedia it should be on a Malcolm Fox page (ie husband’s own page – though clearly he is not notable for anything other than his being married to Mem and the above crime).

The issue is her husband is convicted and it is a notable feature of her personal life. Mem has stood by her husband, with many photos and TV footage published of her attending his court appointments. Unsavoury, yes, but it is worth a line in her biography. I think it is Wikipedia should not be about “tasteful” censorship, or exclusion of public, third party reported information.

I'd be grateful for wise heads to consider the discussion above and give some guidance. The editors involved have fairly fixed positions and I think we agree resolution is unlikely despite polite talk-page discussion for some weeks.ROxBo 10:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

This was previously discussed on this noticeboard here. Nothing significant has changed - Mem Fox is a children's author who's husband was recently given a suspended sentence. Mem Fox has made no personal statements on this, there have been no suggestions that she was aware of her husband's actions, and her only action has been to accompany him to and from court hearings. There was some suggestions on the talk page that her husband's actions reflect on her, as a children's author, and thus it should be included, but there is no evidence of this anywhere. According to WP:BLP, with people who are relatively unknown, we need to keep the article focused on issues related to their notability. Malcolm Fox is notable, in so far as he is, as the wife of Mem Fox and in regard to his actions. Mem Fox is not notable because of her husband's actions, especially where were not related to her. - Bilby (talk) 11:06, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I am afraid that Bilby is the main opposition to adding in the fact to Mem Fox. I welcome Bilby's comment to fill out the posting here, but I think it it clear the arguments are entrenched on both side. I am however surprised to see this addition 27 minutes after my post.ROxBo 12:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed: if the issue is notable, write an article about it; if the husband is notable, write an article about him. Neither of those is going to happen, so piling stuff into the wife's bio is not an acceptable substitute. I just had a quick look at Mem Fox where I found "Fox attracted controversy in 2008 after claiming entrusting very young children to childcare is child abuse" with this News Limited article as the ref. I wonder if Fox really did say that. Yes, the article has the text in quotes, but the article is much more nuanced: Fox said that a childcare worker had told her "...wonder how we have allowed that child abuse to happen". Johnuniq (talk) 11:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Please see discussion page to further quotes.

Can no one add an independent comment?ROxBo 10:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Dennis Ross

Dennis Ross. This article could use some looking at. A lot of it goes on and on about negotiations that he took part in, so that that material overwhelms any personal information about the man himself. BigJim707 (talk) 20:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any BLP issues in the article. Great author, BTW, I've read several of his books.Jarhed (talk) 07:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Chelsea Field (singer)

This person is only notable for one thing. As of today, this person is likely to remain a low-profile individual. According to rule BLP1E, this person does not qualify for a Wikipedia entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.136.193.214 (talk) 05:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Chelsea Field (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I don't see a problem in the article. Is there something wrong or undue? Or, are you just suggesting that the subject does not satisfy notability? This page is not the right place to suggest that; try WP:HELPDESK for advice). Johnuniq (talk) 07:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

She does look quite low notability - but she has charted at 56 and that would likely make her a keep - firefox is telling me there is a untrusted location in one of the citations - careful if you investigate it. Here is some links for her - http://www.celebrity2day.com/chelsea-field/videos/ - Off2riorob (talk) 07:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The security warning is benign as the only problem is that the peoplecmg.com link is using https (why!?) and it has a certificate which expired today (however, I doubt if the reference verifies the assertion). However, the chelseafield.com link is a problem because it shows that the subject no longer has a website (the domain is now controlled by one of the scammers who grab expired domains and try to sell them). However, I'm happy to hear that #56 is sufficient for notability, and I do not think anything further is needed here. Johnuniq (talk) 08:28, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks much for the details Johnuniq - Round here if your a country music singer you don't even need to have charted to get a fair bit of support, nominate for deletion at your peril. Yes, I think this is resolved. - Off2riorob (talk) 08:34, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Paula Poundstone

Resolved

Re: Talk:Paula_Poundstone#Arrest, as I have stated on the page's talk page, I reverted a part of this section because I believe it to be libellous to the subject of this article - mud sticks, and I believe that accusations of paedophilia should not be included in a BLP article unless there is some proof that the person is indeed a paedophile. The brief CNN article used as a reference in this article was about a charge which was not upheld and about which there is no specific information in the article. I am bringing this matter here so that it can be resolved properly, so I would like to hear from others on this matter. Additionally, I dare not do another undo as it appears that thos is starting to turn into an edit war, so I very regrettably leave what I strongly believe to be (at the very least potentially) libellous material in place, but I believe it should rightly be removed now, until this matter is resolved officially. --Violet Fae (talk) 05:18, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Repeated insertion now reverted, and I've added it to my watchlist. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:18, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I said this on the article talk page to Violet Fae and I'll say it here. From what I have observed, Violet Fae is editing with an asexuality bias because of the way this makes Poundstone look, claiming to hate sex when she has possibly performed a lewd act on someone under the age of 14 just to experience it. Violet Fae and others should learn more about pedophilia. Pedophilia is the sexual preference for prepubescent children. Now unless these girls were prepubescent and Poundstone has a sexual preference for this age group, anyone claiming that she is a pedophile is wrong. The article was not claiming that she is a pedophile. Child molesters and pedophiles are not necessarily the same thing, something the Pedophilia article emphasizes. The article wasn't even saying "Yep, she's a child molester." The article was reporting on what she was charged with. It's not a BLP violation to say that Poundstone "was arrested on a felony warrant for three counts of committing a lewd act on an unidentified girl under age 14," stated by The Los Angeles County District Attorney's office. And that in exchange for pleading "no contest" to felony child endangerment and a misdemeanor charge of inflicting injury on a child, the three charges of lewd conduct were dropped by prosecutors. It appears to me that Violet Fae wants to hide the full extent of what she was charged with, only reporting half of it. Which is silly.

She also thinks I am the same editor she has been in a dispute with about this. I am not. I edit Wikipedia as a changing IP address, and often check the edit histories before reading an article to see how vandalized it is. That is when I spotted the edit war between Violet Fae and CutOffTies. I decided to leave Violet Fae an edit war note because it appeared to me that she was not willing to discuss any further or take this matter to some sort of dispute resolution. It was just "I'll keep reverting and claiming that it is a BLP violation."

Nomoskedasticity, you reverted me without even offering an opinion on whether this is a BLP violation or not. If you are going to revert, then at least give a valid reason for doing so. 50.56.119.215 (talk) 13:39, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I have responded at length on the Paula Poundstone talk page. I have no interest in hiding someone's paedophilia, and I have no interest in discussing the definition of paedophilia with you other than to say that I am using the general definition of paedophilia, which refers to sex or sexual acts commited against children (paedo = child). That's not even the issue here, it is using Wikipedia to axe-grind and/or libel public figures. I don't know the subject of the article, and I have no interest in protecting any paedophile from being known as such. Please remember that as per Wikipedia policy, accusations likely to cause offence to living people must be supported by reliable sources, and if not they should be removed immediately. As I wrote on the PP Talk page (quoting from the Wikipedia BLP policy), "the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to BLPs, including any living person mentioned in a BLP even if not the subject of the article, and to material about living persons on other pages"... "The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material" - and I don't consider brief "gossip" news stories to be particularly reliable or good sources of information. If you can find information that prooves that the subject of this article is a paedophile, then not only will I not have a problem with the offending section being included again, but I will happily revert it back myself". Violet Fae (talk) 11:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll repeat part of what I stated there. There is nothing that says "pedophilia" by reporting that Poundstone "was arrested on a felony warrant for three counts of committing a lewd act on an unidentified girl under age 14" and that "in exchange for pleading 'no contest' to felony child endangerment and a misdemeanor charge of inflicting injury on a child, the three charges of lewd conduct were dropped by prosecutors." There is no pedophilia accusation. So stop asserting that there is. You're one of the people who not only uses the word "pedophilia" inaccurately, but claims sources are saying things that they are not. And to me you are indeed trying to cover up the fact that Poundstone possibly performed a lewd act on someone under the age of 14, in order to help preserve Poundstone's asexual identity, and the validity of an asexual identity as a whole. Because what Poundstone was charged with reinforces negative stereotypes about asexuals, such as claims that some asexuals are truly closeted homosexuals who cannot face being open about their sexual identity and/or are sexually repressed. In my opinion, you have not rightly stated that including Poundstone's charges is a BLP violation. If you had, there would be a swarm of people already agreeing with you at this noticeboard about it. Or at least one or two. But the editors here haven't even rushed in on this, when they usually rush in on any BLP violation. So this obviously isn't as clear-cut as you think it is. No where on Wikipedia is it ever a BLP violation to report charges brought against a person by the law/legal enforcement. I don't have a grudge against Poundstone whatosever. I have a grudge against half-assed, censored reporting such as yours. There is no burden in this case. You don't get to remove what you don't like and say "the burden is on you to restore it." 50.56.119.215 (talk) 21:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Yea, contentious and disputed content about living people can be removed and it is up to the user/s that object to make a case through discussion regarding related WP:Policy and guidelines to make a case for re-inclusion. Off2riorob (talk) 21:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

So, I can go to the Michael Jackson article and remove the information about his child sexual abuse charges/cases, asserting that sexual abuse was never proven and that it is up to others to make a case for re-inclusion? I don't see Wikipedia working that way at all, for every type of disputed material. Plenty of things are disputed on Wikipedia, which is why we so often have edit wars. It doesn't mean people can go around removing whatever they want and saying "It can't be readded unless you prove your case." Nothing would get solved that way either, since neither side usually agrees. This is why people go to dispute resolution. That is where we are now. I have made my case for inclusion. I don't see any editors, except one, making a case for exclusion. How is this matter going to get solved if you and others don't give your opinions on it? 50.56.119.215 (talk) 22:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Please, one article at a time. I have made what imo is a neutral, encyclopedic , long term , write to the article Off2riorob (talk) 22:23, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay. But I still disagree with not including the full report (meaning the addition of the lewd act charges). The article is currently telling a selective portion of the story that leaves out significantly relevant detail, as well as a relevant CNN source.[15] I am not too hell-bent on having this information re-included. But I did (and still do) feel that it was unjustly removed. We really shouldn't include this information because the charges were dropped? That, I disagree with. The Entertainment Weekly source tells us why the charges were dropped -- it was "in exchange for pleading 'no contest' to felony child endangerment and a misdemeanor charge of inflicting injury on a child." Anyway, time for me to move on. Especially since CutOffTies has yet to comment here, having left me hanging instead. This was their fight, not mine. 50.56.119.215 (talk) 22:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I thought you were him, User:CutOffTies , are you him? - I see you are dropping this issue and have gone to editing the Pegging (sexual practice) article - crikey you like this controversial content. - all related to our old gay activist again, Savage ... anyway - bye. Off2riorob (talk) 23:24, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

No, as already stated, I am not CutOffTies. I wouldn't say and imply that I'm not if I were. Talking in the third person is not a habit of mine. The only benefit I can see in CutOffTies logging out and editing as an IP is if he wanted to appear as two different people. Coming on to a relatively low-profile article as an IP and reverting what he reverted doesn't exactly make someone look like a different person, as evidenced by your and Violet Fae's assumptions. I find it odd that he hasn't edited for a few days since I showed up, too (though he did stop editing a day before I popped on the scene), but that is exactly what happened. If he's watching now, still not bothering to weigh in, then I'm pretty sure that means he's letting it go. I'm only moving on because we aren't getting any opinions on whether this information is a BLP violation or not, which just tells me that it isn't, and because I've had enough of Violet Fae's interpretations/rhetoric on this. 50.56.119.215 (talk) 00:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

It was very likely a BLP violation, yes. If someone has not been convicted of something, and the only evidence that they were charged is in a gossip rag or entertainment tabloid etc., then by preference we don't include it. WP:BLP says all sorts of things about writing conservatively about living persons. That just about covers it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Saying it was "very likely a BLP violation" doesn't tell us whether it was one or not. And the lewd act charges were backed to a CNN source, as shown above, not just Entertainment Weekly. The lewd act charges actually happened; they were dropped due to a plea deal. 50.56.119.215 (talk) 00:41, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not a BLP violation to report an arrest or criminal charges. However, in this particular case it seems legitimate to leave the material out, since the activity which led to the charge was never explained and it was dropped as part of plea agreement. Prosecutors are well known for over-charging people in order to gain leverage in negotiations. Given the relatively short length of the article, devoting space to it and to a proper explanation would probably be excessive weight. So I suggest leaving it out based on general editing considerations, not on pure BLP grounds. Will Beback talk 01:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Will. I knew it wasn't a BLP violation. And your reasoning for excluding the material is better than Violet Fae's. Violet Fae also brought up the fact that the lewd charges were dropped and there isn't much explanation of what happened in the CNN source, but the way she (I assume Violet Fae is a she) argued for why the material should be excluded, such as saying it is a BLP violation, did not hold up. 50.56.119.215 (talk) 14:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

(Untabbed for ease of reading here)Thank you, Demiurge1000, Off2riorob and Will Beback for your contributions. As 50.56.119.215 has no history on Wikipedia before now he/she certainly appears to be the same user (surely there must be a way to check this?), but the whole sock puppet issue isn't the real issue here, so I don't want to get bogged down in that.

The real issue is the BLP violation and the quite frankly uncivil and abusive tone, trying to win an argument by accusing me of covering up paedophilia (sexual acts with children - someone "younger than 14", as the user himself/herself says. As I have stated, it appears that this user is axe=grinding against this celebrity due to her sexual orientation, which for some inexplicable reason the user has a problem with, as well as with asexuality as a whole/doesn't believe they even exist, as per his/her offensive suggestion that I am "trying to cover up the fact that Poundstone possibly performed a lewd act on someone under the age of 14, in order to help preserve Poundstone's asexual identity, and the validity of an asexual identity as a whole. Because what Poundstone was charged with reinforces negative stereotypes about asexuals, such as claims that some asexuals are truly closeted homosexuals who cannot face being open about their sexual identity and/or are sexually repressed" (personally, I haven't even hear this before, and it seems rather ridiculous IMHO).

Getting back the the real issue here, I shall restate the Wikipedia BLP policy again:

"Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion (this is what I did)... Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy (this is what CutOffTies/50.56.119.215 did)may be blocked from editing"

... "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to BLPs, including any living person mentioned in a BLP even if not the subject of the article, and to material about living persons on other pages.[3] The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material"

... "To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first, and wherever possible disputed deletions should be discussed first with the administrator who deleted the article". Violet Fae (talk) 09:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

For crying out loud, I am not CutOffTies. And, as an IP, I do have a history of editing Wikipedia before now. Are you not aware that some editors of Wikipedia remain IPs and/or decide not to get an account, or that editors' IPs can change? Read about dynamic IPs, for goodness sakes. There is indeed a way to check if I am CutOffTies. It's called WP:Check user. But checking IPs without a cover of an account to say "This IP belongs to this user" is usually not done. Only when it's two registered accounts that are suspected of being the same person who is using the accounts abusively, do they run a check user to tie an IP with an acoount. They compare IPs and editing habits that way, secretly, without ever revealing the user's IP address(es) to the public, per policy (read it).

There was no BLP violation here, per the statements above. Only in your mind, is there one. I did not accuse you of covering up pedophilia. But fine, be ignorant and continue to use the word incorrectly. Whatever. I, however, am not axe-grinding anything. I don't have a problem with Poundstone's asexual orientation. Never said that asexuality doesn't exist. I said you want this information excluded because it implies to many that Poundstone is not asexual/isn't as repulsed by sex as she claims and because it "reinforces negative stereotypes about asexuals, such as claims that some asexuals are truly closeted homosexuals who cannot face being open about their sexual identity and/or are sexually repressed." You never heard that claim about asexuals before? Well, it appears that you aren't as knowledgeable on asexuality as you pretend to be. Here are some sources that talk about this claim (neither of them count as WP:Reliable sources, although the first one points to a seemingly reliable PDF reference about this, but the point is that they show this belief exists): [16][17]

You can restate Wikipedia's BLP policy until you're blue in the face, but you're wrong in how you have used it in this case. 50.56.119.215 (talk) 16:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

According to the talk page discussion, this issue is resolved. If it is not, please update the talk page.Jarhed (talk) 13:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Thank you. 50.56.119.215 (talk) 16:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

50.56.119.215 is the only person saying that the issue is resolved, and as the other posters state, it is a Biography of Living Persons' violation. But 50.56.119.215 would rather hijack the conversation to talk about specific types of paedo?????? (PS this is Violet Fae logging into a public computer) 146.196.4.62 (talk) 23:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Take note from the above discussion that I am not the only one saying the matter is resolved, and that Violet Fae removed the Resolved template that was placed by one of the BLP editors here.[18] I'm not sure how Violet Fae considers this matter unresolved, but like I said on the talk page: I am not the only one saying it's resolved! One editor considered it resolved when it became apparent that I was moving on after his comments and edits to [the] article. Another editor declared the matter resolved after you recently commented [h]ere. Some time later, the discussion was even tagged as "Resolved." Exactly how is it not resolved when you got your way and I am no longer pressing the issue? What, just because no one [h]ere agreed with you that it is a BLP violation? That's right, no one. Go ahead and read the discussion again. One editor said "It was very likely a BLP violation," and it seems he only said that because he incorrectly assumed that this information was only being reported by gossip/entertainment sites. No one [h]ere said it was a BLP violation. [And what you perceived to be a BLP violation has stayed removed.] Case closed!

P.S. No, I didn't hijack anything to talk about "specific types of pedos." I corrected you in your definition of what a pedo is and pointed out that there were no pedophilia accusations being made. The text didn't even say "she sexually abused a child." It spoke of what she was charged with , which was "three counts of committing a lewd act on an unidentified girl under age 14."

Will one of the BLP editors restore the templates Violet Fae removed, and explain to her about not removing such templates? It's apparent that she just wants to WP:SOAPBOX and leave this discussion open until she gets at least one or most editors agreeing with her that this was a BLP violation. 119.167.225.1 (talk) 00:20, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

First, I'm just an editor here like you. Second, I don't revert other editors very often, certainly not for something like this. Third, my last comment on this section was to ask you to please update the talk page of the article with the current status of the BLP dispute. I ask again that you do that.Jarhed (talk)

I have updated the talk page each time. You tagged this discussion as Resolved because it is obvious that it's resolved. That is why I asked you to restore the Resolved template. Not just that tag, but this template as well. I also displayed to you this edit, showing another editor agreeing that the matter is resolved and me thanking him for that. I could see if there was still something to debate about this matter. But there is not, except Violet Fae's confusion over what pedophilia is and apparently wanting editors to call the debated text a BLP violation. How at all does it makes sense for her to claim that this issue is not resolved? That is what I was getting at. The issue is resolved. Plain and simple. 119.167.225.1 (talk) 02:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

There's abviously no getting through to you, as you clearly don't listen to reasoned argument, you just repeat your argument like a broken record and ignore the clear evidence you are presented with (while presenting no evidence yourself despite the fact that the onus was on you all along to prove your case for re-insertion), while making insulting implications and disbaraging remarks and stating that every other editor agrees with you, ignoring the various posters who agreed that it was indeed a BLP/NPOV violation, so there is no point continuing with this. I'm glad the article has been fixed, though it has certainly been a very unpleasant experience interacting with you. I hope you can grow up a little and show more respect to the next person you conflict with. Have a nice life. 146.196.4.62 (talk) 05:04, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

There's obviously no getting to you. I repeat my argument like a broken record? Errm, no, mam, that is you. If I keep repeating anything, it is because you keep repeating the same thing over and over again without listening. You keep saying it was a BLP violation as though that is fact and was proven as fact, when the noticeboard did not say it was a BLP violation. Seriously, the discussion is right there above for you to see! For everyone to see! Your tendency to act like the discussion is saying something different than it is just shows your unwillingness to admit when you are wrong. You say I provided no evidence? So unbelievably funny!! What evidence am I supposed to provide to show that it's not a BLP violation, aside from what editors at the BLP noticeboard have said? You provided no evidence that there was a BLP violation and no one agreed with you that it was one. At the risk of sounding "like a broken record" like you, I repeat that just one editor said "It was very likely a BLP violation," which seems to have only been "because he incorrectly assumed that this information was only being reported by gossip/entertainment sites." So I don't know what the hell you are talking about when you say "various posters who agreed that it was indeed a BLP/NPOV violation." No one did. Thus, I ask, "Where! WHERE DID THESE VARIOUS POSTERS AGREE WITH YOU THAT IT WAS A BLP VIOLATION!?" The noticeboard discussion does not show that at all!! Only two editors commented on whether or not it was BLP violation. One mentioned above. And the other stated, "It's not a BLP violation to report an arrest or criminal charges. However, in this particular case it seems legitimate to leave the material out, since the activity which led to the charge was never explained and it was dropped as part of plea agreement."[19] He (Will) agreed with me that it is not a BLP violation, but agreed with you to leave the material out. But you ignore this and continue to assert that they agreed with you. This is what I mean about your denial. You lie and deny. You even lied when it comes to this edit summary. I'm supposed to believe that it was just a "happy coincidence" that you removed the Resolved tag while asserting that I was the only one who concluded that this issue was resolved? Get out of here!! And contrary to your claim, I did provide evidence to back up my arguments; I have backed up what actually happened at the BLP noticeboard (by simply pointing above or with links), what pedophilia actually is, and even a myth about asexuality. All the while you ignored this, ignored just how wrong you were/continue to be, and kept using the "this article was calling Poundstone a pedophile" claim, when anyone with eyes (just one eye even) can see the article was not doing that. So in summary, you're one of those people who wants to be right no matter what. And if anyone needs to grow up a little, A LOT rather, it's you. You aren't fit to edit Wikipedia if you are going to blatantly lie like this about what editors said at a noticeboard, despite the evidence above showing just the opposite of what you claim. 82.196.84.50 (talk) 17:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

- noye - I archived this by hand at its resolved and the discussion is being unduly continued by a disrupting proxy account now blocked. Off2riorob (talk) 17:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Paul Krugman (2)

As I understand the policy on avoiding self-published sources this should be removed from the article on Paul Krugman because it is based on personal self-published blog. However, one administrator reverted me twice claiming that blog post "is acceptable as a source of the expert's professional opinions regarding the issue" [20] even though WP:SELFPUBLISH explicitly says that we should "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert". Can somebody please clarify this issue? -- Vision Thing -- 20:35, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

content:- However, economic historian Brad Delong defended Krugman as intellectually honest, and stated that Crook failed to understand the economic argument that Krugman was making.

source:- http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2009/02/in-which-clive-crook-succumbs-to-the-high-broderism-i-think.html

Brad DeLong is a recognized expert and more than acceptable as an RS. Here he is being used as a source not for factual information on Krugman, but for a source for DeLong's opinions about a published article. I fail to see what is wrong here. The alternative is for the published attack to remain in a BLP unchallenged, which violates BLP more than including a self-published defense of Krugman by an expert, which is only prohibited by stretching the policy and interpreting it in the most myopic of ways. I should note that the same editor complaining about including this defense of the BLP also supports including a broadly-worded negative statement about the BLP in the lede of the article sourced only to a few negative opinion pieces. Gamaliel (talk) 21:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

What my alleged argument about another issue has to do with this? -- Vision Thing -- 21:15, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I think editors editing patterns on a biography are relevant on this noticeboard. All editors should edit from a WP:NPOV point of view - a recent arbitration case noted that editing from a one sided position is an example/violation of a WP:COI - Off2riorob (talk) 21:22, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Then I should note that Gamaliel is showing much greater tolerance for sources that praise Krugman (in this case he is willing to allow use of self-published blog on BLP) than for those sources and interpretations that are critical of him. -- Vision Thing -- 21:28, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I know you are, but what am I? Seriously, this is nuts. The only way using this would be in any way equivalent to what you want in the lede would be if I was using DeLong to make a statement like "Krugman is widely seen by everyone as awesome and studly." Gamaliel (talk) 21:32, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

It has everything to do with is, as you are advocating including negative material on much flimsier grounds than the ones used to justify the inclusion of this particular defense of Krugman. So it appears that the obvious explanation for this is that you are either pushing negative material or removing positive material in a retaliatory manner. Gamaliel (talk) 21:25, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

If you claim that self-published blogs written by experts are a reliable source for BLP than there is no limit on claims that can be included in this article on Krugman. -- Vision Thing -- 21:47, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Your comment seems ot mis portray the comments posted here. Of course such a position of an article full of self published comments of experts would not be correct. Occasionally such additions may be acceptable. Off2riorob (talk) 22:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I had a bit of a look and in this case is seems to be more or less acceptable - a fair rebuttal to the opinion of Crook that precedes it, which is Crooks own opinion published in his column - Delong's comments are not really claiming anything about Krugman , as in Krugman did this or krugman did that, just the opinion of an expert, seems to qualify as acceptable. Policy/guidelines are usually written to allow some degree of interpretation and editorial inspection. Off2riorob (talk) 21:09, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Same criteria should be used for both criticism and praise. DeLong is claiming that Krugman is "intellectually honest". If he was claiming that Krugman is intellectually dishonest would you still find use of it acceptable? -- Vision Thing -- 21:19, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Different criteria for different things. The BLP policy treats negative material more harshly. That's just the way it works. And these are very different matters you are treating as the same. You advocate in the lede a broad, sweeping negative statement based on a few negative opinion columns. I advocate including a single defense of Krugman based on a single column and make no broad, sweeping claims about Krugman. Gamaliel (talk) 21:25, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) - I will reserve my opinion on that hypothetical case. In this case looking at both the sources I feel the one you have been removing is almost required as a rebuttal - he is after all a very respected expert on the subject. - Without out imo, it is a bit one sided - feel free to perhaps find another rebuttal in a stronger source and discuss replacing it Off2riorob (talk) 21:27, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, BLP treats criticisms and praise equally. [21] -- Vision Thing -- 21:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; - thats the point really - the rebuttal of Crooks negative opinion of the subject is almost required. Off2riorob (talk) 21:36, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Rebuttal is welcomed if it is based on a reliable source. However, per our policy that deals with reliable sources, this is not a reliable source for BLP. -- Vision Thing -- 21:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I and Gamaliel disagree with you on that interpretation of policy in this case. Lets wait for any other users to comment. Regards. Off2riorob (talk) 21:58, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

That policy explicitly permits the uses of sources like DeLong: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert" Gamaliel (talk) 22:02, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

In fairness, Vision is right on what the policy page says on this. The language about using SPS on living people is clearly intended to qualify the sentence which says SPS may be considered reliable; meaning, SPS may be considered reliable on subjects other than living people, and on themselves. At the same time, presenting only the criticism and not the rebuttal presents an obvious NPOV problem. The only unobjectionable proposals I've seen are to either improve the sourcing for the rebuttal or to remove both. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 23:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm inclined to just remove both. It seems unreasonable to include criticism from an opinion piece in a WP:BLP and then fight the rebuttal for policy reasons. Policy would indicate that we shouldn't be putting opinion pieces in BLPs in the first place. --Loonymonkey (talk) 15:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Isn't violation of policy good enough reason to remove something? Only issue here is source of rebbutal, especially now that I've added secondary source for criticism. -- Vision Thing -- 18:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. And it's a violation of policy to just arbitrarily add criticism to a BLP. Some random pundit's opinion of Krugman is not notable enough for a biographical understanding of Krugman. It would need some reason to be included, not just that his name is mentioned. --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Gamaliel, did you read the last sentence of that section? -- Vision Thing -- 18:42, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Basically I agree with Off2riorob here - though it should be clearly noted that there's several BLP issues here, not just regarding Paul Krugman; both Clive Crook and Brad DeLong are alive and well AFAICT. Anyway. This is what you get for opening the can of worms which is using an opinion piece (by Crook) in the first place. If that is acceptable then so are DeLong's comment on it. Of course, you could just not include Crook and there'd be no need to include DeLong (my preferred option).

Also, DeLong isn't just an "economic historian", he's an "economist" who's done some work in economic history. But his work has been far broader than just EH. Let's at least get that part right. Volunteer Marek 22:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I had also thought that the best solution was to remove both opinionated comments. Off2riorob (talk) 22:22, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. really, neither side of it is up to the standards of a BLP, but certainly not one side only. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:51, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with O2RR. Vision Thing appears to be denigrating a living person by removing reliable sources that support that living person and overstating the case against that person. This is highly problematic behavior, and Vision Thing needs to knock it off, post-haste. Hipocrite (talk) 17:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

David Colquhoun

Resolved

– article edited to prior position and content moved to talkpage for discussion

I've added more details of my scientific career myself. Please check, and, if satisfied, remove the warning that has appeared at the top of page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Colquhoun (talk • contribs) 23:36, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Please stop editing your article. Please read WP:COI Open discussion on the talkpage if you want to suggest additions - your expansion seems to have a lot of primary citations and asserts a notability perhaps beyond a WP:NPOV - The COI template will likely remain for some time as editors look the article over. Off2riorob (talk) 23:53, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I am in the process of educating Dr. Colquhoun about our way of doing things. I have moved his additions to the talk page where they can be worked on by other editors, hopefully with his input. We should end up with a better article, and with an NPOV angle to it. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I've also welcomed the new editor and cautioned him against autobiographical editing.Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:42, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Excellent. We have biographies here, not autobiographies. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:24, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Can we please try to avoid alienating this person. He does excellent work -- his own scientific research, and his contribution to public debates about scientific issues. The COI concerns are fine, but it would be nice if these can be dealt with without alienating him. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Anthony Bologna

Was merged into the "pepper spray article" mentioned above - and now repeatedly re-created as a stand-alone article. Opinions thereon are solicited. Most of the worst source violations are gone, but it appears to me that this article is not proper in any case. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Could you please indicate a link to the discussion that produced consensus for the merge? thanks, Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I since restored that article again - I don't know how many times it must be up to now. Simple fact is that Anthony Bologna (as I see it now) is about more than a pepper spraying. I don't know what kind of BLP interpretation makes people think we have to replace an article about the person with a redirect to one moment of bad press about him. Wnt (talk) 14:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe the article should be deleted and have just said so on the discussion page. However, I also believe the original article should not have been redirected.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Ina Garten

Several editors (including myself) are attempting to include information from a recent news story about Ina Garten, where she repeatedly declined requests from the Make-A-Wish Foundation before ultimately being rejected after she reached out to the family in question. This content dispute has been active since March 2011, but recently resurfaced due to an appaearance on the Crackle.com home page. The story has been reported by the following sources: ABC News, Business Insider, Salon, TMZ, Mediaite, Slate, AOL, The Los Angeles Times, The Daily Mail, Yahoo!, E!, Huffington Post, and OK! Magaine.

Citing previous consensus, several editors have repeatedly reverted any mention of this controversy in the Ina Garten article. The reasoning behind the reverts have been violations of WP:BLPGOSSIP, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:NPOV, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, and WP:UNDUE. The editors have questioned the reliability of the sources, and pointed out that the incident is a minor event that is not relevant to Ms. Garten's biography or career.

Arguments for inclusion cite the uncontested verifiability of the claims, as well as the reliability of the sources (LA Times, ABC News, Slate, Salon) and the well-documented coverage of the issue (including both secondary and primary sources, from Make-A-Wish and Garten's PR team). The subject of the article is well known, meaning that if the write-up of the incident is modest, and written in a disinterested tone, it would not contravene WP:BLP or WP:UNDUE.

Note: a prior posting to the BLP Noticeboard went "unresolved" here: [22], and talk page discussions have not been productive. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 23:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks like it is time for an RFC. Bring in more editors, have a straw poll, see where things stand. Gamaliel (talk) 23:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

It just seems to be complete trivial low quality attack trash, add my vote to keep it out of the article completely. The distorted weight given to such titillating crap in wikipedia biographies is disgusting. Off2riorob (talk) 23:55, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Junk, plain and simple. Frankly, I fail to understand why anyone would devote so much effort to trying to get trivial nonsense like this into Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Off and Andy. --BweeB (talk) 00:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree as well. --J N 466 11:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

- Its a WP:featured article from five years ago , (one of wikipedia very best articles) looking at it I don't think its of that quality now. It looks ready for a review. - Wikipedia:Featured article review - Off2riorob (talk) 00:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree with the above, I don't see a reason to include this information. Yes, it happened. That doesn't mean it deserves a place in a BLP. Dayewalker (talk) 00:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I opposed adding this gossipy stuff back in June, both here and on the article's talk page. This faux, whipped up controversy consists of the fact Ina Garten (a person famous enough to receive far more requests from charities than she can possibly honor) didn't respond to a specific charitable request. Some editors are claiming that we should report what she didn't do, somehow implying that she is heartless. I thought consensus was clear against this in June, but a few tenacious folks have made it their personal campaign to add this "information". I will put the article on my watch list and encourage others to do so as well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

A posting on Crackle.com has given this issue new life -- the "tenacious" editors lobbying for the inclusion of this material in March have already been properly stymied and shooed away. I was under the impression that the criteria for inclusion was verifiability, not fairness, or even truth. Ina Garten is a public figure, outspoken in her philanthropy efforts. Whether this story is trashy, disgusting, whipped-up, junk, or totally unfair...it's reliably sourced, verifiable, and relevant (though "relevance" is admittedly a debatable aspect). It's rare for a celebrity to be criticized for failure to participate in philanthropy, but it's not entirely unheard of -- Lady Gaga came under criticism for not recording a charity song for the 2010 Haiti Earthquake (the snub has a one sentence mention in her article). But I can see how editors would interpret this story as irrelevant gossip, so I will happily abide by consensus. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 05:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

This is the Cracked Mag link ColorOfSuffering is referring to. --04:33, 25 September 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

She is an old lady with a cooking show, not a philanthropist. ColorOfSuffering, She was not outspoken about her granting a Make-a-Wish request. I sure never heard about it before the kerfuffle over one weekend in late March. Did you know because she made a big deal about it? Her spokesman gave a fuller accounting of her charitable activities because she was attacked without that context. --Javaweb (talk) 15:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

Garten works extensively for a variety of causes, including battered women, cancer patients, AIDS awareness and animal rights. She supports them both financially as well as in person. Garten gets about an hundred new charity requests each month. Like most people in her position she has had to hire a PR person(s) to sort through her correspondence, field press questions, and respond to those requests. There are a lot of worthy requests she has to decline and those requests are filtered through that person(s). ^[5]. One of the charities she supported was the Make-A-Wish foundation:

The Make-A-Wish Foundation has a very strong working relationship with Ina Garten, a celebrity wish granter who has generously made herself available to grant a wish in the past. Ina is a good friend of the Foundation and we are grateful to her for her support of our mission.[Our charity] regards the planning of wishes as a private process among the parties involved.” From time to time, planning for wishes doesn't turn out as originally envisioned, despite people’s best intentions and efforts. In such cases, the Foundation is committed to working with the wish child and family to grant another wish.
Each wish we grant requires extensive support from many people, and we respect that no individual has an unlimited capacity to grant children’s wishes on demand.
We regard the planning of wishes as a private process among the parties involved.
— Make-A-Wish

^[6]

Additionally, she is not a one-man-band. To fulfill a wish and reproduce what she does on TV, she needs to coordinate with the others that work behind the scenes.

A seriously ill 6-year old boy enjoyed watching Garten’s show with his Mom and asked to have her cook a meal for him. Garten's PR representative declined the request for the second time. The little boy, once he understood he did not need to know how to swim, decided to swim with the dolphins instead. According to the mom he was thrilled with his new choice. She saw Garten as snubbing the family rather than her having work commitments and being asked 1200 times a year asking for her involvement making it impossible to fulfill all the demands. The gossip site TMZ then posted their story The reaction to that event was described in CBS’s Chow website, under the title “The High-Tech Smearing of Ina Garten” as an online lynching. TMZ did not report

how Make-A-Wish works nor
find out that “The Make-A-Wish Foundation has a very strong working relationship with Ina Garten, a celebrity wish granter who has generously made herself available to grant a wish in the past. Ina is a good friend of the Foundation and we are grateful to her for her support of our mission.”
report how many requests a celebrity normally gets
that an employee filters charity and correspondence for her as well as most celebrities
the impossibility of fulfilling all worthy requests or
give a reasonable report of her other charity efforts

All these distortions would have made anyone look bad.

At the start of the weekend, an LA Times gossip blog entry echoed the TMZ story but warned readers there was another side to the story still to be told. Sure enough, she did respond on Monday. On March 29th, that same gossip blog issued a more balanced entry, titled “Barefoot Contessa Ina Garten was unaware of request, but will now host her young fan”. It reported that Ina Garten had finally heard of the request that her PR person had turned down. By that time, the mother had published on her blog an entry titled “PLEASE STOP THE MADNESS” (the title was in all-caps). The parents were still angry at Garten.

You need to ask yourself why this cyber-lynching was beneath Fox News, CNN, network news such as NBC, CBS, Fox, ABC. It was beneath the New York Times, Wall Street Journal --even People Magazine. It was covered by a mostly-unseen ABC property called “ABC News Now “ for 36 seconds. In my highly-populated area, Comcast doesn’t carry it in my area. Time-Warner in NYC doesn’t show it. Has any editor seen “The Buzz” before a Google search uncovered it. It is the equivalent of the minor leagues in baseball. It recycles ABC broadcasts already seen on TV and some additional 36 second hamburger-helper to fill a 24-hour news hole. Not worth a second of time even though the morning shows need to fill 3,000 hours on the 4 morning shows alone.

Here is Ms. Marikar's article from http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/barefoot-contessa-turns-make-kid/story?id=13238578

SHEILA MARIKAR (@SheilaYM) March 28, 2011 “ABC News Now” “The Buzz”

The "Barefoot Contessa" has time to star in her Food Network show, pen cookbooks, and cook at charity luncheons for her well-to-do fans. But apparently, her schedule was too packed to meet a 6-year-old boy stricken with leukemia who requested a cooking session with her through the Make-A-Wish Foundation. She turned him down, twice.

Just In this introduction, she is actually giving reasons why Garten really is so busy and twists them into reasons she should have plenty of time. Even a charity event that raised money to preserve America’s early history(including a farm dating from 1640) becomes framed as a way to hang out with richy-rich friends. She downplays her making time for a stricken kid before so she did make time to meet with a stricken child. She neglects to mention her other charitable activities. If “ABC World News” is the major leagues (New York Yankees) and the middle-of-the-night “World News Now” is the minor league , “ABC News Now” is in whatever league goes beneath that one. “ABC News Now” is not the same as “World News Now” (which is broadcast). How many editors have seen “The Buzz” on “ABC News Now” before it being brought to your attention by an editor here? How did he discover it?

In my years on the net, this is the first time I have ever seen a comment from a journalist appear after an article: Ms. Marikar, the highly-biased angle you took in this article made it hard for me to read as a fellow journalist. It's completely understandable that a celebrity chef of Garten's magnitude would not be able to grant every appearance and favor asked of her. Now—of course she's dealing with a PR crisis, but only because it was created for her by journalists like you who are looking for the next juicy celebrity scoop. “Charmingsnob”, March 28th It is a manufactured event. Why do you prefer her judgment over the rest of ABC News that did not publish the gossip? Re: Salon link you provided, they said

Hey, what do facts matter when there's an opportunity for a good old-fashioned character thrashing? Who cares, even, if it's at the expense of the alleged victim? Haven't been angry enough yet today, Internet? Take it out on Ina, let the facts and Enzo's family's feelings be damned.

I guess they agree with me.

Other blogs also see this as a cyber-lynching: http://www.etiquettehell.com/smf/index.php?PHPSESSID=4717276e164989b9a47f4f4479f6580b&topic=92605.0

http://ifrymineinbutter.com/2011/03/26/this-is-why-we-cant-have-nice-things-the-people-vs-barefoot-contessa/

Why do you prefer OK magazine over People? And OK magazine publishes lies on its front cover such as OK Rob Pattinson marries Kristen Stewart. Never saw People do that.

--Javaweb (talk) 00:25, 22 September 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

Except it was reported by Fox News, as well as The Washington Post. It was also reported on by The Philadelphia Inquirer and The Hollywood Reporter -- two more news organizations with well-established editorial oversight. In fact, per WP:NEWSBLOG, even the gossipy Los Angeles Times blog qualifies as a reliable source. The New York Times did mention it obliquely, but not in a dedicated article: [23] so that doesn't really count. So I agree; the story was not picked up by every news organization.

However, this was a newsworthy event that received a good amount of news coverage -- maybe not complete saturation, but that's not a requirement for inclusion, per WP:V or WP:BLP. Celebrities ignore charity requests all the time; no one is disputing that. The thing that makes this newsworthy is the fact that the family of the child cancer patient went public with the rejections. "Fair" or not, it was widely covered by reliable sources.

Her philanthropic efforts are great; if those philanthropic efforts can be sourced, I think they should be added to the article, since plenty of other well known figures have entire philanthropy sections; Lady Gaga, Brad Pitt, Rachel Rey, Bill Gates, Heidi Klum, et cetera. I am not interested in giving her a "cyber thrashing." I have no interest in her reputation one way or the other, and my opinion (or any Wikipedia editor's opinion) of Ina Garten is totally irrelevant. Here are the three core content policies:

Is the information verifiable? Yes.
Is the information original research? No.
Can the information be presented in a neutral tone? Debatable.

I would argue that simply mentioning the controversy does not, in itself, violate WP:UNDUE. It is possible to include this information in a neutral, dispassionate, balanced, responsible, and conservative way that addresses the controversy without explicitly condemning Ms. Garten. The Salon article is a perfect example of that, because it acknowledges that there was "firestorm," but it put the media coverage, Ms. Garten's response, and the child's condition in perspective. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 07:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

No. Just wrong. There is nothing remotely 'neutral' about discussing a bogus 'controversy' drummed up by sections of the media on a slack-news day. Ina Garten's notability has nothing whatsoever to do with her philanthropy (or alleged lack of it). In any case, there is very little 'information' to include - she was asked to do something, and declined. Everything else is hype, speculation, and spin. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:43, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you citing policy of some kind? WP:BOGUS, perhaps? WP:SLOWNEWSDAY? I feel like a broken record here but I'll repeat: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." You believe the story is bogus, hype, speculation, and spin -- that is all irrelevant. We are not, and should not be discussing the merits of the controversy. Our obligation is to determine whether or not the information is verifiable, reported on by reliable sources, and portrayed in a neutral manner in the article space. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 22:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for all of your posts on this topic ColorOfSuffering. Agree with everything you have said 100%. So far the only reasons I have seen people give for not including is 1) undue weight (so make it a sentence); 2) it is a bogus controversy (irrelevant, as you addressed, can even include material calling it as much); and 3) sources are somehow not good enough, which they clearly are. This information is verifiable, widely-reported and noteworthy. Include it already. Some people seem to have an agenda here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.90.176.20 (talk) 21:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I believe we are talking about text similar to this edit regarding a "Make-A-Wish Foundation Controversy". The text is pathetic gossip that belongs nowhere on Wikipedia, and particularly nowhere near a BLP—the subject declined to do something, and Wikipedia should not be used to make a smear out of the non-incident. Johnuniq (talk) 11:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree, this edit is incredibly unweighty. I would propose a more modest, balanced approach to including the content. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 22:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

John Fleming (U.S. politician)

Resolved

– Editors collaborated on an edit

Requesting eyes on this article. It appears to be devolving into some ugliness. Thank you. - Philippe 13:59, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Not an easy issue. Fleming made some controversial remarks, which are correctly reported in the article. The aftermath is messy because we have to draw lines on what's reportable and what isn't. I've backed out some of the latest changes to that section, done by two single purpose accounts with a history of poor editing of the article. However, it still leaves the article reporting on what all the blogs say about what Fleming said, not to mention some remarks by Jon Stewart on The Daily Show. I would favor citing to the reliable sources that themselves report on the blog controversy (there are some of those) rather than citing to the blogs. I'd also leave out the quotes from the blogs (one of the SPAs added block quotes).--Bbb23 (talk) 14:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

(I'm not sure whether I should be posting this here or on the article's Talk page.) When I came to the article a few days after Fleming's remarks, it appeared to me that a single editor was responsible for keeping all mention of the remarks out of the article despite several people attempting to add the info, and two editors (besides myself) saying on the Talk page that it should be included. I have since been engaged in a very long and repetitive discussion (on the Talk page), between myself and the one objecting editor, about the significance of the comments. My view is that Fleming seems to have received more significant and widespread media coverage for this incident than for anything else he's done, so it should be mentioned. I added the info, making it as brief as seemed reasonable, and since then have been trying to balance the goals of allowing others to edit it (I don't want to seem like I'm owning it) while excluding stuff with blatant POV overtones, which seems to include the majority of attempted edits to the section. I would very much welcome the input of neutral editors. The objective that Bbb23 suggested above, of including only third-party sources reporting ON the controversy, sounds fine to me (and if those sources didn't exist, I wouldn't be trying to include the info). Theoldsparkle (talk) 15:44, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with posting here, thanks. These kinds of incidents always make a big splash in the media at the time and then for a while after. I agree it should be in the article but kept to a minimum. Report the comments. Report a little of the reaction. That's it. I'll wait and see if anyone comments on the Talk page (I opened a new section) or here before making those edits myself (unless someone beats me to it). I wouldn't worry about ownership when your goal is to maintain the integrity of the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:49, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I have already stated my position on this in the talk page. An interview that received some coverage for one day does not automatically mean this was significant in his bio. I believe there is no long-term significance to suggest mentioning of it. Truthsort (talk) 18:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

It does warrant a bit of coverage on his article, but the current version seems to give it excessive coverage -- it's almost half the article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:24, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

You have not explained why it deserves mention, but at least you recognize that Theoldsparkle has just made things worse by adding as much undue weight as possible and refuses to acknowledge that. Truthsort (talk) 20:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

There is an inappropriate emphasis on the idea or "implication" that the Congressman intended to say that he spends $200,000 on food. His comment obviously meant the aggregate of supporting his family. Yet, much of the notations surround this. Jon Stewart's treatment of this is not serious. How is this a notable or long term concept? Also, there is a statement that Stewart criticized O'Reilly, but it does not mention that O'Reilly had just as much criticism for Stewart but in a serious way. I don't see the importance of or notability of distortions by the bloggers who have an obvious POV. Theoldsparkle seems to continue to want to thrust this POV and uses bloggers and a political satire program to support his apparent POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Politics555 (talk • contribs) 21:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC) With respect to Theoldsparkle's argument about the most noteworthy event for Fleming, this is incorrect. Fleming is best known for his leadership against the Patient Protection and Affordability Act. He introduced H. Res. 615 which called out supporters of this bill for wanting for Americans what they (members of Congress) would not subject themselves to in terms of being covered by this act. The issue went "viral" and was in the news and discussed on the internet for months and remains highly cited on the internet today. Ultimately, Congress relented and added an amendment to the bill to cover Congress under the act as well. And it was an added discussion on Snopes. Yet, there was never an article added to Fleming's bio on this subject. I don't think Theoldsparkle is necessarily acting in bad faith. I think that he/she has a strong bias on this subject and is unable to be objective. The Jon Stewart content is intended for satire, not instruction. The "$200,000 spent on food" comment is inaccurately characterized and intentionally distorted for political effect. Again, I don't think this article is worthy as a part of an encyclopedia for the reasons stated already and the fact that it was essentially a one or two day news cycle. The interview was on 19 Sept. and "The Daily Show" ran on 21 Sept. O'Reilly defended Fleming and attacked Stewart the following evening. That was the extent of significant news events. Jon Stewart never made an attempt but to satirize Fleming's statement for humor. How does this become a historical event?Politics555 (talk) 03:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

How does this statement merit any citation on Fleming's bio? "Fleming's comments were widely reported and criticized, including by bloggers who portrayed him as out of touch with the difficulties of lower-income Americans." Is it noteworthy how bloggers portrayed Fleming? They could have portrayed Fleming to be a bunny rabbit, but that would not make him one. Fleming's comments were in the context of the impact of higher taxes on jobs produced by his companies, not a complaint that he would not have money to feed his family as portrayed by bloggers. Again, there is no reason for this rubbish to be posted as fact.Politics555 (talk) 04:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Pepper spraying of the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators

Resolved

– Merged after AFD discussion

This article is about a New York City police deputy inspector who has gained notoriety for pepper-spraying demonstrators. Does this meet the criteria for attack page? I lean in that direction. Experienced BLP hands should take a look at this one. It is proposed for merger, but I wonder if deletion is warranted. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:26, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

To me, this seems like a pretty clear case of BLP1E. It should be merged with Occupy Wall Street should there be enough room there; if not then this should be perhaps reworked into an article called Anthony Bologna pepper spray incident. Gamaliel (talk) 17:42, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

If it wasn't for the merger proposal I'd have probably proposed it for deletion. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:43, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I would say - nominate it at AFD anyway - it clearly shouldn't be existing as a biography. There is looking like no consensus in the merge discussion Off2riorob (talk) 20:19, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be considered forum-shopping? I'm a little worried about that. But I would certainly support an AfD if someone else starts one. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Forum shopping is not good - but I don't think this action would be Fshopping really - you think an article should not stand alone and you suggest a merge and the merge is rejected on a local basis by interested editors - then you are in your right to bump it up to AFD to get outside opinions. I edited the content away from the biography to the event and boldly moved it to - Pepper spraying at the Occupy Wall Street demonstration - Off2riorob (talk) 20:59, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

(ec) The renaming may rectify matters, if it's allowed to stand. Let's see. Meanwhile the sourcing of both the pepper spraying article and the Occupy Wall Street articles both could use some scrutiny. I've removed sourcing to Gawker and Indymedia for inflammatory negative text on Bologna. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I saw you were looking deeper - I just skimmed the top off , so to speak - I have not had an in depth look at the sourcing. Off2riorob (talk) 21:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, one little quibble. The pepper spraying actually took place away from the demonstration site on Wall Street. It took place at a march from Union Square to Wall Street, a couple of blocks from Union Square. To be precise, I thnk it would have to be Pepper spraying of the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators. Or am I being too anal? ScottyBerg (talk) 21:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

This is the BLP noticeboard. You can never be too anal here. ;) Gamaliel (talk) 21:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

moved as per ScottyBerg's comment. Off2riorob (talk) 21:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

No matter how you look at it, the article is a mess, using videos and obvious non-RS sources to make attacks on a police officer, who is not even named in some of the sources. A good broom would reduce the article to under a hndred words max. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I am edit warring with a single A single purpose account User:PromiseOfNY - about this - I am in danger of getting blocked. I am not going to edit it again in the nest couple of days. Off2riorob (talk) 22:26, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the article a bit, just to make it clearer what we actually have before we decide what we think should be done with it. It was silly to have a lead, so now it's just a short article. It essentially says that Bologna is being investigated for the pepper-spraying (the pepper-spraying is not "alleged" - even the police admit it happened - the issues are whether it was appropriate and whether the videos were doctored and/or misleading). It also has the accusation against him from the 2004 convention. In my view, the 2004 convention shouldn't be there. It's an accusation that hasn't been adjudicated yet. Police officers get accused of all sorts of things all the time - we can't create articles for that. The current media blitz is just that, current, and it too consists of accusations and an investigation. There's no doubt in my view that it's WP:BLP1E - the only question is whether there is sufficient coverage to warrant an article.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:41, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with your assessment. I'm glad more eyes are on the article. There is definitely major SPA interest in the entire subject area. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:05, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we now have an editor (and not an IP or single purpose account) adding unacceptable original research and WP:SYNTHESIS to the article, despite a discussion on the Talk page pointing that out. After being pushed for a reliable source in support of calling a New York Police Department spokesperson a liar, he is now citing to this, hardly what I would use as a reliable source for such an assertion. It's all based on various organizations analyzing the videos and coming to various conclusions. And the source that the editor cites in turn cites to a blog. The whole thing is unacceptable for Wikipedia. The editor is even putting the word "lie" in his edit summary. I will revert one more time and then I will stop because of edit-warring issues.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:34, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, everyone. No notice of this secret discussion was posted to the article itself or mentioned on the article's talk page, where the overwhelming consensus was not to delete or redirect the article. Accordingly, this unilateral redirection of the web page, and the deletion of the majority of the biographical data about its subject, a high-ranking government official who has been widely noted in the media for his participation in multiple events, would appear to have been done in willful disregard of the established consensus of people who participated in discussions that were actually linked to on the page for that page's readers and editors to actually see and have a reasonable likelihood of participating in. Accordingly, I respectfully request that we agree to restore the page, and to post notice of this discussion on the talk page before moving it in violation of the consensus that was established in the multiple discussions that were actually linked to by that page. Obviously, if, subsequent to that, a consensus emerges that the subject is not worthy of his own Wikipedia page, a redirect would, of course, be appropriate. PromiseOfNY (talk) 00:47, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I asked Promise to come here because he was discussing these issues on an editor's Talk page. I appreciate the fact that he responded to my request, but I must take issue with the phrase "secret discussion". Apparently, Promise seems to think that if an editor comes to BLPN, he has an obligation to notify other editors on the article's Talk page. Although it's true that sometimes that happens, there is no such obligation, and this discussion is NOT secret. As for the renaming of the article, I have no comment on that at the moment as in my view there are bigger issues with the article than what it's called.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:54, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

He probably should have been told. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:37, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not just that I should have been notified, but also the dozens of editors who already publicly commented on this on the discussion pages associated with this article and, subsequent to a posted suggestion to merge the article with the the Occupy Wall Street article, on that discussion page, as well. Those posted comments were overwhelmingly in favor of maintaining a page with the title Anthony Bologna, and disagreeing with the suggestions that it be merged with a discussion of the Occupy Wall Street events, and overwhelmingly disagreeing with the assertion that the article violated BLP1E. This consensus was where it belonged, on the talk pages of those articles, and where the link posted with the public notice on the Anthony Bologna page suggesting merging those articles indicated that the discussion of the question would be held, and linked people to go to. This consensus was either willfully ignored, or ignored out of negligence if the editor making this decision did not even consult the posted notice regarding the merger suggestion nor the talk page of the article he deleted. Again, I ask, is there any opposition to restoring the entry to the Anthony Bologna page and merging these two discussions and proceeding based on the consensus of that combined discussion? PromiseOfNY (talk) 02:23, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

The article is going to go away. The support for a merge is overwhelming. Bologna is not obviously notable in his own right, so an article on him will never pass muster.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:56, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

- now under discussion at - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pepper spraying of the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I don't disagree with the proposition that this article should be deleted, and this was the inevitable result of the decision to change the article about Officer Bologna into an article focused solely on his involvement in the pepper spraying incident, which willfully ignored the consensus on the discussion pages of both the Anthony Bologna article and the Occupy Wall Street article. The deletion of that article, it seems to me, ought, ultimately, to be read as a rejection of the decision to remove the original Anthony Bologna article and redirect it to this one.

Look, I know that I come off as having strong feelings about this, but that isn't the same thing as having a bias, unless you want to say that I have bias against nonviolent protesters being maced without provocation. And, while I'd never put a statement that blunt in an article, I have seen these videos, and I do have an opinion about what they show, and that's what I think they show, and that's what a lot of people, all over the world, think those videos show, including some major news publications. The UK Guardian published this description beneath a still from the video "A still frame from video posted online shows Anthony Bologna, a New York police officer, firing pepper spray at retreating protesters on Saturday" (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/sep/28/occupy-wall-street-anthony-bologna?newsfeed=true). The New York Times describes the events pictured in the video this way, "In one video, Inspector Bologna walks up to a group of women standing on the sidewalk behind some orange netting, squirts pepper spray at them and walks away. In interviews, two of those women said that they had received no warning before being sprayed and that its use was unprovoked." (http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/28/police-department-to-examine-pepper-spray-incident/) The Atlantic Monthly published this description of the video: "He walks up; unprovoked he shoots Mace or pepper spray straight into the eyes of women held inside a police enclosure; he turns and walks away quickly (as they scream, wail, and fall to the ground clawing at their eyes) in a way familiar from hitmen in crime movies; and he discreetly reholsters his spray can." (http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/09/an-important-video-to-watch-pepper-spray-by-a-cruel-and-cowardly-nyc-cop/245629/). I have yet to hear any kind of credible explanation to the contrary. Can anyone of you look at these videos and suggest a contrary interpretation of what the videos show?

I'd think it was a pretty big deal if it happened in China or Pakistan or Iran or Cuba. The fact that it happened in the United States, in New York City (where I happen to live), is, quite frankly, astonishing, and, to make an understatement, it is newsworthy and historically significant. And, as it turns out, Bologna was an extremely high-ranking official, who was frequently in the news prior to this event, and had been repeatedly profiled in the local media even before this event, and was previously absent from Wikipedia only because of Wikipedia's institutional bias to focus on entertainment and academic figures, while neglecting local political officials, even in places like New York City.

Is this an unacceptable bias of mine, that I think that it's a bad thing for the police to pepper spray young women in the face when they are demonstrating peacefully on a public sidewalk? Did the article not give enough space to the point of view of people who think that it's a good thing for police to do that, and that police officers should be able to pepper spray whoever they want to without being held accountable? Is that what this debate is, between Wikipedia editors who think nonviolent protesters shouldn't be sprayed in the eyes with pepper spray, and others who think they should be?

I, and virtually all of the other editors to work on the piece bent over backwards to be more than fair to Bologna, including the justifications offered by the police (no matter how absurd they might have seemed to me), praise for Bologna unrelated to this incident, and a thorough recounting of his government service. I don't know how anyone can call this a hit job. In light of the press attention lately given to his role in allegedly committing civil rights violations during the 2004 Republican National Convention, in addition to the positive profiles he has previously received in the local press, it is simply not plausible to say that he is famous only for his participation in a single event.

I don't want to accuse any editor here of anything. But given my experience in dealing with the many arbitrary edits I have seen to this article, there is a real bias out there in favor of NOT holding public officials accountable for their actions and trying to prevent the public from learning truthful, significant, and newsworthy information about high-ranking public officials. I don't know any other way to look at the situation. Rules that were put in place to prevent libel and to prevent people from being attacked unfairly are, in my opinion, being misused, and turned upside-down to cover up truthful reporting and protect public officials from public scrutiny. I see objectors skittering from one excuse to another to prevent people from learning more about this very famous man, claiming (in discussions that were held in places actually announced on the article, where people might actually see them) that Bologna was famous for only one event, that he wasn't famous enough, and that the page was an attack piece. Claims were made that the article had duplicative sources, and those sources were removed; then claims followed that the article was unreliable because it didn't have enough credible sources. And when each one of these claims, one after the next, was rebutted and almost unanimously rejected, one editor comes along and ignores those discussions entirely, and unilaterally deletes the page, creating a mockery of it that is so obviously not a proper subject for a Wikipedia page that it is naturally doomed to be destroyed.

Something is very wrong with the way this was done. And I hope the irony is not lost on all of you that the protesters this man pepper-sprayed were marching to bring attention to the fact that those in power are not held accountable.

Since the present discussion is about the new page that this editor created, and not about the Anthony Bologna bio page, and since no one here has objected to my recreating the Anthony Bologna page, I'm going to go ahead and recreate the Anthony Bologna page in a way that I'm sure you will all find acceptable, which won't mention this incident, except to link to another Wikipedia page discussing it. If you have any objections to this, kindly either post them on the discussion page, or post a notice to where your discussion is being held on the main article page.

PromiseOfNY (talk) 18:04, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I and others object, I rather suspect. The solution to a problem is not to deliberately exarcerbate it, by the way. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:33, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Count me as one of the others. I see nothing notable about an article on Bologna.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:10, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Me three. NYC is a notable city, but not everything that happens there is notable. This public functionary is chump change, frankly, and not notable outside the five boroughs.Jarhed (talk) 18:22, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

That is simply an absurd position to take, in light of the nearly 40,000 web pages that discuss Anthony Bologna, and the more than 1.6 million that include the phrases "occupy wall street" and "pepper spray" (in quotes), with of the top google results for both searches all coming from major media outlets. Regardless, it is in willful violation of the clear consensus on the only talk pages that readers and editors of that page were actually notified about. If you do object, then kindly take your objections to that page. Your position--correct me if I'm wrong--seems to be that there should be no Anthony Bologna page, and there should also be no discussion of whether that page should exist with notice of that discussion posted on the page itself, and that you will willfully ignore the consensus established in discussions that readers and editors have actually posted on the talk page and other forums actually linked-to from the article, because you're entitled to make these decisions unilaterally. Is that a correct summary of your position? I hope not, because, if so, your position is in violation of Wikipedia's policies. PromiseOfNY (talk) 21:01, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

You sound like you are accusing me of doing something wrong by participating in this discussion here on the BLP noticeboard. As if it needed to be pointed out, I am a volunteer and I participate in discussions wherever I please and frankly, this is the only one I care about at the moment. Since you claim expertise on WP policies, then you should also be aware that mere hit count proves nothing WRT notability. I don't have an opinion at present on the notability of the pepper spray article, but I certainly do have an opinion about the BLP compliance of the Bolongna title and it is this: hit piece.Jarhed (talk) 18:22, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Jean-Philippe de Lespinay

Resolved

– Article deleted as non-notable

We have French opponents very agressive. Each day, or almost, they are vandalizing our page and attack us. They are French computer scientists and the Jean-Philippe de Lespinay invention is a technique that allows to program without computer scientists... That's why they want to remove the article. They are well placed to know that this invention is real and indisputable, with sources real and indisputable, so they never criticize them. They do not propose improvement of the text, they act to achieve the suppression. They use a method that succeeded with WP fr (for now, because we will request arbitration): denigration by a group of boyfriends. As we are only four contributors, fight is unequal. We are accused of bad faith, bias and forbidden to defend ourselves.

These people are fully aware of the inner workings of Wikipedia, not us. They install various kinds of banners, without explaination, restoring them when we delete. They remove half of a section of our article and seven references. They attack members who defend us : "The [Sockpuppet investigation] could now be completed with User:Pat Grenier (why Pat Grenier AND Pat grenier ?), User:90.54.117.217 and User:Chris project --Rigoureux (talk) 10:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)". They continually refuse constructive discussion, never expose ONE argument against the contents of our article and never explain why our work is assumed not to obey the WP rules. In WP fr, they asked for "a few" references proving Lespinay's notoriety. We provided a list of 80 references, most were photocopies of newspaper articles, the others were links to independent websites. Then they are lying in the discussion page of our WP eng article: "39 "page cannot be found", 3 other access errors, 11 written by Lespinay, 6, including an ad, have a passing mention of either Lespinay or his business, 12 have one to three sentences about Lespinay and/or his business, but were not considered convincing for some reason, 2 press articles mention maïeutique, in its common sense but not as a formal method, in the context of Lespinay and his business". It is a risky approach because it is enough that we give you this list and you'll realize they are trying to mislead the reader WP.

Between 1986 and 2010, there were several hundreds of newspaper articles and Tv or Radio emissions referring to JP de Lespinay, his inventions and his reasoning expert systems installations in big companies. It is easy to check. The 80 references list is only what JP de Lespinay found himself and saved.

In conclusion, Pgr94, the "Administrator specialist of intervention against vandalism", doesn't intervene against vandalism of our article. And we suffer... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pat grenier (talk • contribs) 00:16, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Without going into this in too much detail, a few obvious points need to be made. Firstly, the French-language and English-language Wikipedias operate independently: we have no control over them, and vice-versa. Secondly, the article leaves much to be desired in terms of grammar, and of general language - it needs substantial work from a more fluent English-speaker. And finally, this isn't 'your page' - Wikipedia articles are open to all to edit (subject to adhering to policy etc) - if you have actual evidence of deliberate vandalism, by all means raise this in the appropriate place - but a content dispute doesn't constitute vandalism. And allegations of a conspiracy to suppress knowledge tend not to go down well, unless backed up with very strong evidence. Frankly, I'd concentrate on improving the article (particularly with regards to evidence from third-party sources to back up the claims made), rather than making vague complaints about the behaviour of others. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I have never been involved with the Jean-Philippe de Lespinay article, so why Pat Grenier is calling for my intervention on this article is a mystery. (Also, I'm not an administrator). On the expert systems article I have patiently tried to explain WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:V [24][25][26] but he just continues to disregard them and I have given up. I have reached the conclusion that he is a highly disruptive editor and the French seem to think so too.[27] [28] Some administrator involvement would be very welcome. pgr94 (talk) 02:36, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Pat grenier said exactly the same in the fr:Discussion:Maïeutique (intelligence artificielle)/Suppression, and give the list of 80 references (in reality 75).

You can find it here, and then our analysis. French unterstanding people can see who is lying.

long list of related references for investigation

Voilà la liste des articles, conférences et publications à son sujet. Après cela, cherchez d'autres arguments, merci :

Liste des articles, conférences et publications

http://www.admiroutes.asso.fr/larevue/2008/93/lespinay.htm
http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/Syst%C3%A8mes%20Experts,%20Moca%20et%20raisonnement%20surlign%C3%A9.pdf
http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/01%20Hebdo%20et%20Ma%C3%AFeutique.pdf
http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/Ma%C3%AFeutica%20par%20CXP%20%2893%29.jpg
http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/L&S%2096.pdf
http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/Bancatique,%20la%20Maieutique%20%2892%29.pdf
http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/IX-Magazine%2095%20Programmation%20pour%20tous.pdf
http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/Les%20Echos%2086.jpg
http://www.tree-logic.com/scienceetvie.htm
http://www.automatesintelligents.com/interviews/2009/lespinay.html
http://www.admiroutes.asso.fr/larevue/2009/95/robotjpl.htm
http://www.robot-maker.com/index.php?/page/index.html/_/tribunes/la-vraie-ia-a-ne-pas-confondre-avec-la-fauss-r193
http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/TIARA%20en%20Anglais.pdf
http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/01%20Hebdo%20et%20Jos%C3%A9phine%20et%20Avignon%2087%20surlign%C3%A9%20Maieutique.pdf
http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/Le%20Point%20&%20Nouvel%20Economiste.jpg
http://www.sudoc.abes.fr/xslt/DB=2.1/SRCH?IKT=12&TRM=021351031
http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/Jos%C3%A9phine%20fera%20date.jpg
http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/Ma%C3%AFeutica%20par%20CXP%20(93).jpg
http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/Createst%20SVM%20avec%20%C3%A9cran%20IS.JPG
http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/ALOES-par-Univers-Cite-93.JPG
http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/Exportest%20en%20anglais%20et%20fran%C3%A7ais%20par%20FTS%20en%2090.jpg
http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/Miao%20par%20Industries%20et%20Techniques%20(91).jpg
http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/Miao,%20Ouest%20France.jpg
http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/Produktion%201991%20Miao.jpg
http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/Maintenance%20&%20Entreprise%20interview%20Merlin%20G%C3%A9rin%20(93).pdf
http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/Avec%20Arcane%20le%20march%C3%A9%20devrait%20red%C3%A9marrer.pdf
http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/Bancatique,%20la%20Maieutique%20(92).pdf
http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/L&S%2096.pdf
http://www.larousse.fr/encyclopedie/auteur/Jean-Philippe de Lespinay/43645
http://www.larousse.ch/encyclopedie/article/LE SYSTEME EXPERT/11003055
http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/Les 8 défauts du procédural.pdf
http://www.dornat2.com/t12607-http-wwwtree-logiccom
http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/Decidis 95.pdf
http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/LMI 2001 cf Maieutique.jpg
http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/FCPI.BMP
http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/Systèmes Experts cf Moca.pdf et http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/Systèmes Experts, Moca et raisonnement surligné.pdf
http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/Séminaire CESTA cf Maieutique.jpg
http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/Cesta conf%C3%A9rence 87.jpg
http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/Séminaire Apria.jpg
http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/Semaine du Marketing Direct.jpg
http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/Journées JIIA 87.jpg
http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/Cesta conférence 87.jpg
http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/Séminaire CESTA cf Maieutique.jpg
http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/Seminaire-CCI-payant-anime-par-Arcane.jpg
http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/Cesta conf%C3%A9rence 87.jpg
http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/SEE conference.pdf
http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/Salon IA Londres par MOCI (90).JPG
http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/Euroforum cf Miao 94.pdf
http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/Euroforum 1996 conference.pdf
http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/Joséphine : Echos Industrie - Bilan Joséphine.jpg
http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/Maïeutica par FTS (91).jpg
http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/Miao, Ouest France.jpg
http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/Miao par Mines et Carrières (91).jpg
http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/Euroforum cf Miao 94.pdf
http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/La Revue Polytechnique (Suisse) cf Miao 1991.pdf
http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/La Revue Polytechnique (Suisse) cf marché et Miao 1991.pdf
http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/Maintenance compte rendu salon 90.pdf
http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/Createst les Echos.JPG
http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/Test Createst par Le Point.htm
http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/Createst pub ANCE.jpg
http://www.01net.com/telecharger/windows/Utilitaire/manipulation_de_fichier/fiches/50373.html
http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/Voice 2001.pdf
http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/T.Rex Call Center et HOO par Meito (2002).jpg
http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/Test GSE.htm
http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/Soft Computing 94.pdf
http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/Les déboires des banques face à l'IA.htm
http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/L'automaticien 92 sur Arcane 1ère sté d'IA.pdf
http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/France Info-Anvar émission nov 1993.pdf
http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/Systèmes Experts cf Miao2 et Maieutica 92 surligné.pdf
http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/Avec Arcane le marché devrait redémarrer.pdf
http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/Serveur MeilleurTaux par Centres-Appels.jpg
http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/Revue%20IA%20jury%201.pdf
http://www.espace-sciences.org/jsp/fiche_article.jsp?STNAV=&RUBNAV=&CODE=1150442334619&LANGUE=0&RH=MAGAZINE
http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/JPL Technicien de Recherche IA surligné.pdf

(Pat grenier (d) 21 septembre 2011 à 15:44)

-----------------------------------------

Je me suis permis de vérifier et de remettre en ordre les 75 références fournies ci-dessus (dont au moins 8 doubles) :

Liste vérifiée, classée et analysée des articles, conférences et publications

The page cannot be found (39, dont au moins 3 doubles) :

(par ordre alphabétique du lien)

http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/Avec Arcane le marché devrait redémarrer.pdf
http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/Cesta conférence 87.jpg
http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/Cesta conf%C3%A9rence 87.jpg
(double) http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/Cesta conf%C3%A9rence 87.jpg
http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/Createst les Echos.JPG
http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/Createst pub ANCE.jpg
http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/Decidis 95.pdf
http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/Euroforum 1996 conference.pdf
http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/Euroforum cf Miao 94.pdf
(double) http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/Euroforum cf Miao 94.pdf
http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/France Info-Anvar émission nov 1993.pdf
http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/Joséphine : Echos Industrie - Bilan Joséphine.jpg
http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/Journées JIIA 87.jpg
http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/JPL Technicien de Recherche IA surligné.pdf
http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/L'automaticien 92 sur Arcane 1ère sté d'IA.pdf
http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/La Revue Polytechnique (Suisse) cf Miao 1991.pdf
http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/La Revue Polytechnique (Suisse) cf marché et Miao 1991.pdf
http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/Les 8 défauts du procédural.pdf
http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/Les déboires des banques face à l'IA.htm
http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/LMI 2001 cf Maieutique.jpg
http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/Maïeutica par FTS (91).jpg
http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/Maintenance compte rendu salon 90.pdf
http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/Miao par Mines et Carrières (91).jpg
http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/Miao, Ouest France.jpg
http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/Salon IA Londres par MOCI (90).JPG
http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/SEE conference.pdf
http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/Semaine du Marketing Direct.jpg
http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/Séminaire Apria.jpg
http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/Séminaire CESTA cf Maieutique.jpg
(double) http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/Séminaire CESTA cf Maieutique.jpg
http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/Serveur MeilleurTaux par Centres-Appels.jpg
http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/Soft Computing 94.pdf
http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/Systèmes Experts cf Miao2 et Maieutica 92 surligné.pdf
http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/Systèmes Experts cf Moca.pdf
http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/Systèmes Experts, Moca et raisonnement surligné.pdf
http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/T.Rex Call Center et HOO par Meito (2002).jpg
http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/Test Createst par Le Point.htm
http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/Test GSE.htm
http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/Voice 2001.pdf

autres messages d'erreurs (3) :

http://www.dornat2.com/t12607-http-wwwtree-logiccom
http://www.larousse.ch/encyclopedie/article/LE SYSTEME EXPERT/11003055
http://www.larousse.fr/encyclopedie/auteur/Jean-Philippe de Lespinay/43645

??? (1)

http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/ALOES-par-Univers-Cite-93.JPG

(les autres catégories sont classées par ordre chronologique de parution)

articles de JPhi de Lespinay (11, dont 2 doubles) :

documents divers (6) :

http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/Seminaire-CCI-payant-anime-par-Arcane.jpg (programme d'un séminaire) L'intelligence artificielle, une révolution dans l'aide à la décision
http://www.sudoc.abes.fr/xslt/DB=2.1/SRCH?IKT=12&TRM=021351031 (notice d'un livre) Développer un système expert : méthodes et exemples / Michel Le Seac'h
http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/FCPI.BMP (qualification d'entreprise innovante) je reconnais (...) le caractère innovant des produits, procédés et techniques présntés (...) par la société Tree.Logic
http://www.01net.com/telecharger/windows/Utilitaire/manipulation_de_fichier/fiches/50373.html (logiciel à télécharger) Interface pratique pour les PC sous Windows, principalement destinée aux utilisateurs non-informaticiens, visant à remplacer l'Explorateur Windows
http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/TIARA%20en%20Anglais.pdf (Tiara) Thanks to this offer, computing is now accessible by the entire world population. Those who were afraid of computers will feel reassured. They may finally decide to buy one. This offer opens a huge new market
http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/Revue%20IA%20jury%201.pdf (Fiche de lecture) La présentation de cet article est surprenante, (...) il a parfois l'aspect d'une publicité pour les produits des sociétés de l'auteur. (...) L'auteur a l'impression que ses travaux ont été mai appréciés (...) mais il n'est pas nécessaire d'être aussi négatif pour d'autres travaux, ni surtout d'attaquer certaines personnes comme il le fait.(...) Enfin la bibliographie contient uniquement des textes de l'auteur. (...) L'article contient des discours sur les difficultés qu'il a rencontrées pour faire accepter ses idées, mais cela n'est pas étonnant car il ne présente pas ses idées sous une forme que ses interlocuteurs puissent comprendre

coupures de presse ne parlant pas de maïeutique (12, dont 1 double) :

http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/Le%20Point%20&%20Nouvel%20Economiste.jpg (Le Point, 2/2/87) conseiller financier électronique, le premier du genre au plan moudial, mis à la disposition immédiate du client dans un guichet de banque (...) il s'agit d'un petit chef-d'œuvre de cette « intelligence artificielle » qui commence à faire fureur, écrit par Arcane
(Le nouvel économiste, 6/2/87) Xavier-Henry de Villeneuve, (...) président de la Banque de Bretagne (...) choisit le service (en) développant avec la société nantaise Arcane un programme d'intelligence artificielle de placement financier. (...) A la différence des programmes classiques, il permet de modifier en permanence les solutions proposées, ou de simuler des situations nouvelles
http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/Jos%C3%A9phine%20fera%20date.jpg (01 Informatique, 30/5/88) Joséphine a maintenant un an. Cette application (...) a été saluée comme l'une des premières réalisations opérationnelles dans le domaine bancaire. Pourtant, le déploiement (...) a pris du retard, la version Minitel de l'application a été abandonnée et l'on reconnaît (...) que l'utilisation (...) s'accompagne d'erreurs et demande une grande vigilance. (...) Erreur dès la conception ou simple problème interne de mise à jour et de circulation de différentes versions ? Nous pencherions pour la première éventualité car, malgré un discours très vendeur de la société Arcane, il ne nous a pas semblé qu'il était si facile de manier la base de faits. Malgré ces restrictions de taille, Joséphine fera date.(...) Il va maintenant falloir se sortir de l'amateurisme, laisser de côté les démarches inspirées par la curiosité
http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/Createst%20SVM%20avec%20%C3%A9cran%20IS.JPG (Science et Vie Micro, septembre 89) Créatest, conçu par l'ANCE en collaboration avec la société Arcane, établit, c'est sérieux, le diagnostic de votre personnalité en fonction de votre projet d'entreprise
http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/Miao,%20Ouest%20France.jpg (Ouest-France, 15/2/90) MIAO est un générateur de systèmes experts de diagnostics de panne mis au point par Arcane, une société française spécialisée dans l'intelligence artificielle
http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/Exportest%20en%20anglais%20et%20fran%C3%A7ais%20par%20FTS%20en%2090.jpg (French Technology Survey, juillet 90) La société Arcane vient de réaliser un système expert de diagnostic et d'incitation à l'export, appelé EXPORTEST
http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/Miao%20par%20Industries%20et%20Techniques%20(91).jpg (Industries et Techniques, 14/6/91) Le système MIAO conçu par la société Arcane est destiné à traiter un nombre illimité de composants d'une machine
http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/Produktion%201991%20Miao.jpg (Produktion, 27/6/91) Der DV-Dienstleister Jean-Philippe de Lespinay hat sich auf solche KI-Anwendungen spezialisiert. Sein Unternehmen hat einen Expertensystemgenerator der zweiten Generation für den Einsatz im Rahmen des Störungdiagnose entwickelt
http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/Avec%20Arcane%20le%20march%C3%A9%20devrait%20red%C3%A9marrer.pdf (Systèmes experts, 10/12/92) C'est la troisième année qu'Arcane, une société nantaise spécialisée sur les applications d'intelligence artificielle et présidée par Jean-Philippe de Lespinay, est présente sur le salon Maintenance (...) Après 7 ans pendant lesquels le chiffre d'affaires, réalisé sur cette seule activité systèmes experts, a stagné à quelque 700 KF par an, 1993 pourrait générer un CA de l'ordre de 1,5MF estime le président d'Arcane. La petite société va-t-elle enfin connaître le développement auquel elle était promise il y a deux ans ?
(le même, surligné différemment) http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/Syst%C3%A8mes%20Experts,%20Moca%20et%20raisonnement%20surlign%C3%A9.pdf
http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/Maintenance%20&%20Entreprise%20interview%20Merlin%20G%C3%A9rin%20(93).pdf (Maintenance & entreprise, novembre 93) c'est un peu le hasard qui a guidé les pas de Merlin Gerin vers le seuil d'une toute petite entrepdse provinciale : Arcane. Son système expert Miao, pris en test pendant trois mois, s'est avéré facile à mettre en oeuvre. Il possède d'énormes qualltés, s'exclame Michel Micheneau
http://www.espace-sciences.org/jsp/fiche_article.jsp?STNAV=&RUBNAV=&CODE=1150442334619&LANGUE=0&RH=MAGAZINE (Sciences-Ouest, mai 2006) Un atelier sur la reconnaissance vocale et l'écriture a été organisé par la Meito le 13 avril dernier. Une trentaine de personnes étaient présentes (...) pour assister à la prestation des cinq intervenants : France Télécom R&D y a présenté le développement de nouveaux services de renseignements en langage naturel (...) et JP de Lespinay ses deux logiciels permettant le pilotage du PC par la voix

coupures de presse parlant de maïeutique (2 références, toutes deux en double) :

http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/L&S%2096.pdf (Logiciels & systèmes, juillet-août 1996) Conçu en 1986 par la société nantaise Arcane, Maïeutica est un générateur d'applications basé sur un concept original : la Maïeutique, inspirée de la méthode inventée par Socrate vers 400 ans avant J-C, et qui consistait à faire découvrir à I'interlocuteur, par une série de questions, les vérités qu'il porte en lui. Ici, ce concept démontre que toute applicarion informatique peut facilement s'écrire et s'exploiter sous la forme d'un système expert de 2e génération. Le développement devient ainsi quasi automatique et I'application accorde une large part au dialogue, augmentant ainsi le pouvoir de décision de I'utilisateur. (...) "Depuis 10 ans qu'Arcane utilise l'analyse guidée par arbres de décision, le résultat a toujours étë un succès (...)" explique Jean-Philippe de Lespinay. PDG d'Arcane. (...) On aboutit ainsi, selon Arcane à un système expert de 2ë génération, qui rend théoriquement inutile la programmation algorithmique et donc le recours à une compétence informatique
(double) http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/L&S%2096.pdf
http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/01%20Hebdo%20et%20Ma%C3%AFeutique.pdf (01 Informatique, 21/4/87) la Banque de Bretagne a créé pour ses clients le premier système expert de conseil en placements qui vient d'être implanté dans quatre agences. C'est la société Arcane, une SSII nantaise spécialisée en intelligence artificielle, dirigée par Jean-Philippe de Lespinay, qui a été chargée de mettre au point le système. (...) Son concept est la maïeutique, une méthodologie de recueil de la connaissance inspirée des conceptions de Socrate. Il s'agit de trouver, grâce à une suite de questions logiques, les vérités les plus sophistiquées enfouies dans le cerveau de l'expert. Une approche à ne pas confondre avec l'analyse fonctionnelle utilisée en informatique classique
(le même, surligné différemment) http://www.tree-logic.com/Articles/01%20Hebdo%20et%20Jos%C3%A9phine%20et%20Avignon%2087%20surlign%C3%A9%20Maieutique.pdf

(Rigoureux (d) 22 septembre 2011 à 11:56)

--Rigoureux (talk) 09:34, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jean-Philippe de Lespinay. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

^ Larry, Walker. wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiorello_H._LaGuardia_High_School. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
^ Walker, Larry. http://mocaga.blogspot.com/2010/04/20072008-wap-winner-larry-walker.html. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
^ Walker, Larry. Art21 http://blog.art21.org/2009/04/06/atlanta-artists-to-watch/. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
^ Walker, Kara. Walker Art Center http://learn.walkerart.org/karawalker/Main/Biography. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
^ Rene Lynch (March 28, 2011). "Barefoot Contessa Ina Garten was unaware of request, but will now host her young fan".
^ "Make-A-Wish Foundation® of America Ina Garten Statement". Make-A-Wish.

[1] Larry, Walker. wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiorello_H._LaGuardia_High_School. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[2] Walker, Larry. http://mocaga.blogspot.com/2010/04/20072008-wap-winner-larry-walker.html. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[3] Walker, Larry. Art21 http://blog.art21.org/2009/04/06/atlanta-artists-to-watch/. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[4] Walker, Kara. Walker Art Center http://learn.walkerart.org/karawalker/Main/Biography. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[”LAT”-5] Rene Lynch (March 28, 2011). "Barefoot Contessa Ina Garten was unaware of request, but will now host her young fan".

[”Wish”-6] "Make-A-Wish Foundation® of America Ina Garten Statement". Make-A-Wish.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]