Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive7

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

196.15.168.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I’m having a similar dispute on the biography of another living person, so I’d like to raise my questions here.

The first is that the transcripts from a criminal trial were published by a prominent local newspaper. Am I within Wikipedia’s rules in using those transcripts as sources, or is that considered original research?

My second question is illustrated by the following. One media report said the unidentified girl shown on the TV monitor in the courtroom was 11; a second report said she was 7. A third source said the monitor was positioned such that reporters couldn’t easily see it. There shouldn’t be any problem in including those three facts in the Wikipedia article as just stated (together with the sources). But I want to go one step further - just a small step - and point out that the third fact could EXPLAIN the discrepancy between the first two. (If the reporters couldn’t see the monitor clearly, then they couldn’t accurately estimate her age.) Now the third source doesn’t itself make this suggestion, so one COULD say that my suggestion is “original research”. But I would respond that it is merely PART of “collecting and organizing information” (see WP:NOR) - it’s a logical consequence of organizing the information - and is therefore permitted. 196.15.168.40 04:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The main purpose behind the "no original research" policy is that you are not presenting your own theories or interpretations. In the first case, linking to the transcripts or citing them as a source is perfectly legitimate. In the second question, my opinion is that your new synthesis of the facts - the new conclusion that you draw - would constitute original research and would be inappropriate. BigDT 04:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BigDT I think you forgot to mention that primary sources, such as court transcripts - must also have a secondary source in order to interpret them. Otherwise, it's very easy to misuse them. But please permit me to explain to you user 196.15.168.40. The article he is referring to is the David Westerfield article. He is a convicted child-killer. 196 has been trolling that article since March of 2006. 196 believes Westerfield was wrongfully convicted. At first, he stated he was here to correct the article and make it neutral. Well, all of that was done and yet he is still around. Thanks to him the article became the nicest article about a child-killer in all of wikipedia. 196 claims to "know a lot" yet he has never contributed to any article except the Westerfield one. When I bring that up to him, he claims that he doesn't have the time to contribute to other articles. However when he first came to wikipedia, to edit the Westerfield article, he was adding something new to it EVERY single day. So much so that an administrator was brought in to protect the article. Strange how he doesn't have the time now. Back then he had the time to contribute his bias and original research to the article. When he found out other users would thwart his efforts he toned down. 196 has made ALL efforts to make the article reflect Westerfield is innocent. Personally, I believe 196 is Westerfield's lawyers or knows somebody who knows the lawyers or are a relative of David Westerfield. A casual observer would not go through the lengths that he has made. For example, he is able to recite dates of testimony and who made them. Clearly the case is very close to his heart. So BigDT be careful what you tell this individual for he will surely find a way to abuse it. He has expressed contempt for the victims parents and blames them. If that's not enough he said deragotory things about the victim and her brothers. The victim is a 7 year old girl. To understand his bias go to the articles external link and go to link 8. Read the section he titled as "Guilty?"; he wrote the entire section. An administrator tagged the section as biased, but 196 conveniently saves the section without the tag. He cares nothing about wikipedia and has only remained here because wikipedia is available to anyone. Fighting for Justice 05:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to “Fighting for Justice”:

I posed two simple technical questions, and in reply you subject me to a long personal attack, only two sentences of which address those questions, and even that is wrong (just like the rest of your response). This shows the difference between you and other editors, like BigDT. Where does Wikipedia say that “primary sources ... must also have a secondary source in order to interpret them”? You removed important information from the Westerfield article even when I used secondary sources in addition to or instead of primary sources, so you are clearly just using this as an excuse.

You complain that, in the beginning, I added something new to the article “EVERY single day”. Those are the exact same words used by your predecessor, TripleH1976 - and it was he who asked an administrator to protect the article (something else you’ve got in common with him).

You speak as though it is BAD that I am “able to recite dates of testimony and who made them”. I’m not alone. This case generated considerable interest, resulting in vigorous debates including on internet discussion forums, which continued even long after the trial was over. Probably because the transcripts were published, MANY people were “able to recite dates of testimony and who made them”, even though they were not related to Westerfield or his lawyer. You - and Wikipedia - should be grateful that you have someone here who is actually KNOWLEDGEABLE about the case.

You believe the article is neutral. Let’s look at one current example. Westerfield was convicted of possessing child pornography. In fact, there is a WEALTH of evidence - most of it from law enforcement themselves - that he did NOT have any child porn. I added that evidence to the article, but you REMOVED it all (as did TripleH1976 before you). Yet you accuse ME of being biased! (So did he.) Quite apart from the Westerfield case, don’t you think the public would like to know what could happen to THEM, too? A zealous prosecutor could again override his own experts in his determination to obtain THEIR conviction.

I have been thoroughly disenchanted by this, my first experience of Wikipedia. I can see why it has a bad reputation. Just ONE determined vandal can effectively sabotage attempts to improve an article, and there’s NO guarantee that the administrators will intervene.196.15.168.40 05:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

A series of anonymous IPs, which all resolve to the Asia Pacific Network Information Centre in Queensland, Australia, has repeatedly inserted unsourced allegations that DiNovo, a Canadian politician, was involved in a bank fraud scam in 1992, was saved from prison only by agreeing to act as an RCMP informant, and has misrepresented other elements of her biography. Edit summaries have included inflammatory allegations that a "legion of NDP attack queers" is conspiring to protect DiNovo by burying this information; one of them, charmingly, directly addressed me as "Bearcunt". In the most recent edit, this mythical legion of NDP attack queers even found its way into the article itself.

This has happened six times now. I have tried addressing the matter of BLP policy on several prior occasions, but each time the allegations simply resurface again, posted by a different IP number that still resolves to the same institution. I expect that since they're posting anonymously, the person in question isn't even seeing comments posted to prior IP talk pages. I even tried at one point deleting and recreating the article to remove this claim from the edit history entirely, but as the matter has resurfaced again I've restored the deleted edits so they can be reviewed here. I've even tried searching both Google and the Toronto Star news database to investigate the verifiability of the claims, but whodathunkit? Not a single verifiable source to be had.

Since this happens at completely unpredictable intervals, I'd like a few people to keep it watchlisted just in case this happens again at a time when neither myself nor CJCurrie (the other user who's done reverts on this) are online. And if anybody has any other advice on how we can make this stop, I'm all ears. Bearcat 19:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: the article has now been sprotected; instead, the anon IP has taken to removing administrator comments about the non-negotiability of BLP from the talk page, usually replacing them with a personal attack against whichever Wikipedia user reverted the previous attempt to do this. They have also vandalized the user pages of several Wikipedia users involved in the dispute, including mine and User:Blue520's. It's really time for this nonsense to stop — what other recourse is there besides continually reverting? Bearcat 18:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further update: The anon user's latest tactic has been to deliberately insert false links into other articles asserting DiNovo's involvement with other things that she has not been associated with, such as The New Yorker and the band Earth, Wind & Fire, and then to falsely allege that other editors (e.g. User:Durin) placed those links and therefore have a credibility problem. This really, really has to stop, but short of permanently blacklisting all of APNIC, what else can we do? Bearcat 03:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article seems to have acquired the protection which was sought. — Athænara ✉ 12:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

An anon is adding disgusting libel to this article. I've blocked them for 24 hours, but be on the lookout. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed uncited material about ethical violations in Texas. CyberAnth 07:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

On the article's talk page, we're looking to get consensus on whether or not putting statements about anal sex into his personal information section is relevant or not. To sum it up quickly, John Cena is a professional wrestler. Apparently in October, he made a statement on the Howard Stern radio show that he isn't into anal sex. It's been added, reverted, added, and reverted off and on in the past month or so. We'd like some outside views on this as to its relevance within the confines of the article (does the fact that the section is all about personal information open it up to something like this?) and whether this is an issue at all in terms of the guidelines for BLP. Thanks, Metros232 06:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is completely irrelevant, particularly since it's a denial. You may as well list all the arenas he hasn't wrestled in.Momento 21:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's been added back again with no consensus to do so yet. So I'm not sure how to handle this situation. There are about 2 users who want it in and 2 or 3 who don't. I'd appreciate more input on the talk page. Metros232 13:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is an author whose article is on the radar of several POV pushers who want to highlight the dubiousness of some elements of the subject's history and current activities. The main reason I'm posting here is because some of the sources for references (like quackwatch) are out of my experience as to whether or not they are acceptable. POV creeps into the article on a regular basis also. Anchoress 10:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steven E. Jones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Although I believe his research is nonsense, the talk page Talk:Steven E. Jones#Controlled Demolitions and Common Sense slanders him. I don't feel it's my place to remove the section, because both theories are WP:BOLLOCKS, but could some 9/11 conspiracy theorist comment? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 07:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Kennealy-Morrison (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

My concern about this article is that the subject's own book is used to source the subject's own claims, with no independant verification of the subject's claims being used. I would politely request that the section in question is removed. The section which is poorly sourced is in relation to Ms. Kennealy-Morrison's claims to have married Jim Morrison. There are no sources cited, other than Ms. Kennealy-Morrison's book, 'Strange Days: My Life With And Without Jim Morrison.' I was under the impression that proper sourcing needed to be in place in order to allow publication of claims within Wikipedia. I would remove the offending material myself; however, a tendentious editor accused myself and others of vandalism when reasonable changes were made to the article. Maybe an editor is available to take a look at this (but please, not an editor who is already assigned as the 'regular' editor?). This is a high-profile article, when one considers that the claims centre around Jim Morrison, who is to put it mildly, rather well known on a worldwide basis.

BLP applies to unsourced material. This is sourced, and doesn't fall under BLP. The reliable sources guideline is broken, but even it allows the book to be used as a source. Books published by major publishing houses are not considered self-published. Moreover, the claim is very high profile, and I'd think that if there was anything false about it we'd have heard by now. Ken Arromdee 14:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There have been other sources which have commented on her claims. They could be included to discuss her book's reliability. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Zsero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is repeatedly using a hatchet-job article from the National Review to claim Shinseki was close to insubordination. His/Her edit says that "According to one source, Shinseki came close to insubordination." The cited article is clearly politically biased. It merely quotes "According to an Army source". Does this qualify as the kind of "fact" worthy of Wikipedia? The article makes predictions that proved incorrect about Shinseki, namely that he had political ambitions: "Shinseki's retirement two months ago coincides nicely with the planned — but yet unannounced — retirement of Inouye at the end of his current term in 2004. Shinseki will run for that seat, and most likely will win." Inouye did not retire in 2004, and is still Hawaii's Senator. The article goes on to state "any general like Shinseki, whose political ambitions interfere with his willingness to carry out civilian orders, must go".

Frankly, I've looked at this case and I think it's pretty cut-and-dried. Zsero's claim that Shinseki 'came close to insubordination' is found nowhere in the opinion piece used as a source. The word "insubordination" does not even appear in the piece. Zsero calls his claim of insubordination "a perfectly obvious one-phrase summary of what the article says" but I believe any fair Wikipedian looking at it would have to call it original research. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I request that others come and examine the situation as well, as Zsero is very insistent upon this point. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Biophys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have created an article about Boris Stomakhin, a journalist who was recently imprisoned in Russia for exercising his free speech rights. User Vlad fedorov repeatedly inserts citation from an allegedly Stomakhin's article, taken out of context, to defame this imprisoned journalist as a fool and extremist (see last "Further political activity" chapter in the article about him - I will delete it again). Not only such citation is biased, but the cited paper may not actually belong to Stomakhin. The original source of the text is basically a blog run by several young people. Moreover, there are already claims in media that Stomakhin was convicted for articles he actually did not write. I summarized my arguments in Talk:Boris Stomakhin, "Wikipedia policy on biographies of living persons".Biophys 21:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC) Would it be possible to have an advice from a neutral person who is familiar with Wikipedia policies? Whatever such person decide, I would accept. My only concern is to have an objective article that provide information rather than propaganda from any side. Biophys 01:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to resolve the situation, but apparently it did not work. My arguments can be found in Talk:Boris Stomakhin, but I would like to repeat them here:

"Let's assume that RKO website is a reliable source (which is not). Then, the cited fragment of the text has been selected to demonstrate that Stomakhin is a facist who wants to exterminate all Russians. However this is not true, which is clear after reading this and his his other alleged writings on RKO web site. He only means that military resistance to Russian occupation is legimate (including sabotage or what we call terrorism), because Russians are conducting genocide in Chechnya. He believes that it is as legimate as the resistance against Nazi occupation. That is what he means. No more, no less. He is strongly anti-Russian (you could call him a Russophob), because he wants to protect an ethnic minority (Chechens and others) from an oppression of the kind he believes Nazi did with respect to Jews. So, he is actually an anti-facist, not the facist. Everything is turned upside-down in this article."

You wanted to write that decision of administrator Alex Bakharev who found this source to be reliable and rewrote that passage doesn't suit you. He also found my translation to be correct.Vlad fedorov 19:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also keep in mind that the segment of the text allegedly written by Stomaknin was impecisely translated to English. There is nothing else I can do. I will never again write any articles about "controversial" persons, because there is no way to protect their views and even facts of their life from crude falsification in Wikipedia. Biophys 18:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it not strange that Biophys who is russian by nationality living in USA, could do nothing with "wrong" translation? He could suggest better translation, which he didn't. Instead he claims that 'there is nothing else I could do" which is weird.Vlad fedorov 07:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

O'K, I added some statements of ARTICLE 19, Committee to Protect Journalists, Union of Councils for Soviet Jews, etc. in Boris Stomakhin article to show that I am not alone in this opinion. So, we need an objective article about him.Biophys 23:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please, look at the article "Boris Stomakhin", talk page and its archive. Statement from Committee to Protect Journalists is taken by user Biophys from Blog, and the statement from Union of Councils for Soviet Jews contains false and libelous statements. For more details and facts of user Biophys abusing and violationg Wikipedia policies and guidelines, please, look at the article "Boris Stomakhin" and its talk page.Vlad fedorov 17:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A proposal. The situation with Boris Stomakhin article is getting worse and worse. Obviously, we can not have a Wikipedia article dedicated to defamation of a journalist who is sitting in prison cell for free speech being "practically paralyzed". This article became an object of vandalism (see talk page), editing war between several partisan editors, and the Russian language sources are even more unreliable than I thought. For example, the texts of the most contentious alleged Stomakhin's paper "Death to Russia" are obviously different when cited by different sources (see talk page). The problem: Stomakin's writings are considered offensive by many Russians. I suggest the following way out of the trouble.

1. Find an arbiter who is not Russian. 2. Exclude any Russian language sources as difficult to verify by third parties. 3. Make an NPOV version of the article and lock it from any further editing. Me (as an original creator of this article) or anyone else can prepare a new version of this article based exclusively on English sources. The arbiter can make any necessary editing and lock it. Another option is to remove the entire paper.Biophys 17:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the user Biophys in his 'proposal' uncovered his real motives. Boris Stomakhin is a russian politician and talks only on Russian. Biophys wants actually to prevent non-russian users of Wikipedia from learning new information from reliable russian sources, beacuse russian sources are not in support of user Biophys views. The incident was already resolved twice by administrator Alex Bakharev and twice he found user Biophys to be wrong.Vlad fedorov 17:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please, pay attention at the request by Biophys, he's currently asking to find 'an arbiter who is not Russian', next time he would ask to find 'an arbiter who will rule in his favor'.Vlad fedorov 19:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If this proposal about using only reliable English language sources and locking the article is accepted, I would not mind if Alex Bakharev was an arbiter and edited new version of the article that I could prepare. All links to unreliable Russian language sources can be also provided, but they should be marked as "articles allegedly written by Stomakhin", and so on. Biophys 00:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Biophys, please state here all your reasons of unreliability of Stomakhin's articles "Death to Russia". And why there are 'allegedly wriiten by Stomakhin'? For I could critisize any of your sources as 'allegedly written by the their authors' then. I complied with all Wikipedia policies by citing Stomakhin's article. May I bring to your attention that according to Wikipedia policy I could cite even a blog, but only in case it is written by the subject, e.g. Stomakhin? Vlad fedorov 04:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to pay attention of all people reading this section that Biophys consistently mentions that he could write NPOV article about Stomakhin. Is it not strange that this person consistently asks for such weird things like to remove all sources on Russian, to select non-Russian arbiter, to rewrite himself the article about Stomakhin which is the cause of the dispute?Vlad fedorov 07:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

O'K. I just edited Boris Stomakhin article using Russian language sources and included citation of "Death to Russia" by Sokolov (although I feel this is violation of LP). If Alex Bakharev or any neutral 3-rd party editor (I suggested non-Russians to avoid nationalistic feelings) verified this text now for consistency with LP policy and corrected it as needed, that would solve the problem I hope. Biophys 04:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not Ok. The version created by user Biophys lacks important facts, it cites third-party blogs (unreliable sources), it contains original research in citations of Stomakhin from court sentence. Biophys also deleted the most serious statements by Stomakhin, leaving his most moderate citations. He also excluded without any grounds the fact that Stomakhin political view is to exterminate all Russians. Excluded many facts such as false facts contained in Statement of Union of Councils of fU Jews. This perversions of the facts and personal edits of Stomakhin's citations by Biophys are intolerable.Vlad fedorov 05:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The user Biophys right now reverts my additions to the article which add citations of Stomakhin which are contained in the official court sentence for Boris Stomakhin. He deletes my additions without any explanation by telling me that he complies "LP policy". Is it LP policy to delete additions which are supported with reliable sources?Vlad fedorov 06:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anna_Politkovskaya#Death_.26_Putin.27s_birthday and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anna_Politkovskaya#Unsourced_speculation to see that I am not alone who are fed up with Biophys political propaganda. Even non-Russians complain that Biophys publishes propaganda in Wikipedia.Vlad fedorov 08:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to User:Mikkalai, the Boris Stomakhin article is better now. Still, the article is even more biased than the court sentence used for conviction of Boris Stomakhin. This is very easy to fix. Can I do it? I do not want to be involved in the editing war again. Biophys 20:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want you, Biophys, making any edits, since you have already made some. User:Mikkalai deleted the most extreme citations of Stomakhin, as he had written in talk page. The court sentence is never biased, with the same, your own personal logic you may dispute the legality of any court sentence and sanity of any person including me. The thing you must remember is that you ain't the only sane person in the world, and other people have their own opinion too and you must live with that opinion. The article must be balanced. You couldn't write that Stomakhin is innocent having an official court sentence that established he's guilty. The only edits you make is to make readers feel that Stomakhin is really innocent dissident and not a criminal, which contradicts to the facts and reality. These human rights activists (Novodvorskaya, Gannushkina) you cite have acknowledged that they never support 'extreme' opinions of Stomakhin, they ackonwledged that writing of Stomakhin were indeed "extreme" they also acknowledged that they do not share views of Stomakhin - which is not written in the Wiki article. You already have distorted the real meaning of their opinions, and I won't allow you to distort the article further.Vlad fedorov 12:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not only this court sentence is biased; the entire case was fabricated. This is not my opinion. That was argued by journalist Vladimir Abarinov [1], ARTICLE 19, Elena Bonner, Vladimir Bukovsky and other notable people and organizations. Yes, Stomakhin was convicted for his "extreme" opinions and nothing else. But this Wkipideia article paints him as a fascist who was rightly convicted. This is done using citation out of context and unreliable sources. This is wrong. Biophys 19:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC) Would it be appropriate if we include in the article about Vladimir Putin everything that is written about him at the RKO web site you are using for Stomakhin? Biophys 21:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your personal opinion that 'Stomakhin case was fabricated' is already presented in the article. So I would like to cite again administrator Mikka's question for you: "What's your problem?". Should we include in all the Wikipedia articles your personal garbage and conspiracy theories? Look at George W. Bush article, isn't it pretty good article for a man who triggered 600 000 Iraqi civilian deaths? If you acknowledged that Stomakhin published 'extreme' opinions why had you deleted them regularly from the article? Why had you edited them thereby making original research? Let us assume that I believe that Western Civilization is barbaric. Should I write in corresponding Wiki article citations of Osama Bin Laden and Co.? Should I edit opinions of the Westerners like you did in Stomakhin article? I have established clearly that your sources are blog entries and contain false facts and accusations which contradict to prevailing majority (90 %) of sources. You also was caught writing your personal opinions referencing them to Novodvorskaya and Gannushkina. The problem with you is that you are bad faith conspiracy theories writer. Other people have told the same. Think over it.Vlad fedorov 09:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, you believe it is appropriate to cite unreliable blogs by extremist groups (like RKO web site) or "yellow press" (like Sokolov) in the articles about living people like Vladimir Putin and others. This is great. Biophys 15:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC) I left my answer to Mikka in Stomakhin talk page and can repeat my main point here. The texts of citations of alleged Stomakhin paper "Death to Russia" by Sokolov and extremist RKO web site are clearly inconsistent with each other (two first phrases in the continuous citation by Sokolov can not be found in the "complete" text of RKO site). Therefore, I believe both sources are unreliable and this citation should be excluded from the text of this article, although the link to "alleged" Stomakhin writings can remain. Another important point: the context of citations from the court sentence must be explained, as I did. Otherwise, this is misrepresentation (which in my field would be equivalent of scientific misconduct) Biophys 15:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biophys are you psycho? You could read my thoughts? Explanation of citation from the court sentence which is reliable is a matter of original reseach. I find citations of Stomakhin from his articles at rko.marsho.net reliable. They include all that is cited by Izvestia. You intentionally trying to advance violently the idea of necessary comparison of every sources to establish their reliablity. If you will compare texts written at rko.marsho.net and zaborisa.narod.ru, zaborisa.marsho.net of course you will find discrepancies. Since the latter two sites were created when Stomakhin was arrested and it's clearly not Stomakhin who wrote (or edited) the articles (material) on them. So what you whine about? About your "inability" to find citations in Stomakhin articles. It's your personal problem. By the way, you cite Bonner and Litvinenko and Bukovsky from these same sites and you seem pretty well contented with the source. You cite statements of HRO from blogs and you find it pretty good.Vlad fedorov 04:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I cited Bonner and others from "zaborisa.narod.ru" which is not RKO web site. You took the text of court sentence from zaborisa.narod.ru.Biophys 23:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC) We must stop this discussion. So far, you have made several hundreds of edits in Wikipedia. Almost all of them are about defamation of Stomakhin or Jewish organizations. Biophys 00:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you chief here to order me to stop discussion? If you want to stop discussion, then you are about to leave Wikipedia, if you can't discuss, but to harass then quit. Your only contribution in Wikipedia except miserable copied articles on Biophysics - are directed against Russia and they consist of conspiracy theories unsupported with any evidence. Isn't that you who deleted citations from Guardian on Politkovskaya which said she was widely critizised? You don't like truth? Zaborisa.narod.ru and zaborisa.marsho.net - are copies of one and the same site. You even unable to study sources you write from in Wikipedia. I haven't been defaming jewish organizations never. If I wrote that the statement of a jewish organization contains false facts, then it was not defamation, clearly. By the way, applying the same criteria, you have defamed Russian Federation, Russian Courts, Serbsky Institute, Boris Stomakhin, Novodvorskaya, Gannushkina - because you attributed false citations of them. I have counted 6 persons which you defamed with one breath. By the way there are some jews among them and jewish organizations. Let's look at the talk page for Boris Stomakhin - I think it's no comment and everything is clear. How much times you've been falsifying ('summarizing') citations from these sources? The only thing you have against me is citing from what you personally consider "unreliable" source. Two Wikipedia administrators have found my source to be reliable. So, I repeat once more, what's your problem, boy?Vlad fedorov 04:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way you have just started edit war with administrator Mikka. I would ask him either to lock the article or to ban you from editing it.Vlad fedorov 04:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since my editing has been reverted by Mikka (no edit wars!), I included "totally disputed" tag in the article.Biophys 20:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have to provide why you dispute the article as a whole and provide the evidence in support of arguments right here. All your arguments above were already decided by two Wiki administrators and they had found them to be wrong. The opinions you wish to be included in the article were included although some of them were taken from blogs which is in violation of Wikipedia policy. Don't freak out your loss in the Wikipedia dispute. If you will persist in vandalizing the page I would report it at vandalism noticeboard.Vlad fedorov 07:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Please see my arguments in Talk:Boris_Stomakhin#Article_development.Biophys 17:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen no one valid argument. All your presented arguments were already reviewed by two wiki admins and were found to be wrong. So you told nothing new and edited the article again. Your uninvited and ungrounded edits were reverted. I warn, I report you as vandal.Vlad fedorov 08:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then I can only copy and paste my arguments here, exactly as they appear at the talk page. This is typical case of defamation of LP using controversial sources. "Yes, no problems with correcting wrong citations. But the citation itself was actually correct ("Jesus Christ was crucified not by the Jews, but by Chechens"). That was deliberate disinformation. Let's take a look at another possible disinformation in this article. The text cited by Maksim Sokolov includes the following continuous text (Russian): "Чеченские шахиды взрывают это тупое и бессмысленное российское население не зря... Все равно только зря землю бременят... Убивать, убивать, убивать! Залить кровью всю Россию...". Two first sentences cited by Maksim Sokolov can not be found in article "Death to Russia" allegedly written by Stomakhin. This also looks suspicious for the following reasons. First, RKO web site obviously has no any editorial oversight; they can post absolutely anything. Second, the "articles" in RKO site are not dated. This is serious. Any written production must be dated, even personal letter. Otherwise, it is not admissible. Third, Maksim Sokolov did not say what he had actually cited. He did not tell this is "Death to Russia" or anything else. We compare two dubious texts and can see that, yes, they are different! The citation by Sokolov without any reference to the source is also not admissible. Fourth, journalist Vladimir Abarinov claimed that some texts allegedly written by Stomakhin and used for his conviction actually were not written by him (!). Fifth, article "Death to Russia" was not cited in the court sentence, although they tried to find the most incriminating "evidence". I am not doing any original research here. This is simply an examination of sources. My position is very simple and clear: Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. (and these are are not simply "controversial" materials; these are mutually contradictory and controversial materials). This is not POV issue. If you think the article is POV, one can cite the Stomakhin's court sentence as many times as necessary (but not out of the context). It is also O'K to represent Sokolov opinion (but without his contradictory citation). It is O'K to provide a link to RKO site, because we are not responsible for content of other sites. None of the administrators told me these arguments are wrong

Biophys 17:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biophys you have failed to cite specific rule from Wikipedia which you thought I violated. It's pathetic and laughable to see that you just write empty words. I could copy-paste too. "Biophys are you psycho? You could read my thoughts? Explanation of citation from the court sentence which is reliable is a matter of original reseach. I find citations of Stomakhin from his articles at rko.marsho.net reliable. They include all that is cited by Izvestia. You intentionally trying to advance violently the idea of necessary comparison of every sources to establish their reliablity. If you will compare texts written at rko.marsho.net and zaborisa.narod.ru, zaborisa.marsho.net of course you will find discrepancies. Since the latter two sites were created when Stomakhin was arrested and it's clearly not Stomakhin who wrote (or edited) the articles (material) on them. So what you whine about? About your "inability" to find citations in Stomakhin articles. It's your personal problem. By the way, you cite Bonner and Litvinenko and Bukovsky from these same sites and you seem pretty well contented with the source. You cite statements of HRO from blogs and you find it pretty good".

"The references at the end of each citation clearly show source from which they were taken. They are contained in the article of Stomakhin (all two citations) and Sokolov's article (the first citation). Citation in Sokolov's article and Stomakhin's article completely corresopond to each other. Moreover, citation in Sokolov's article evidences that the article of Stomakhin 'Death to Russia' published at http://rko.marsho.net/articl/mashadov.htm is an authentic text. Therefore, in addition to citation of Maksim Sokolv we could also cite the passages from Stomakhin's article 'Death to Russia' published at [2]. The user Biophys maliciously lies when tells that the article by Maksim Sokolov implies continuos citation from the same article. Here is the whole relevant passage from Sokolov's article:

Стомахин же избрал ясную манеру - "Чеченские шахиды взрывают это тупое и бессмысленное российское население не зря... Все равно только зря землю бременят... Убивать, убивать, убивать! Залить кровью всю Россию, не давать ни малейшей пощады никому, постараться непременно устроить хотя бы один ядерный взрыв на территории РФ... Эта страшная и зловонная Россия должна быть уничтожена навеки". На этом фоне "Майн кампф" - учебник гуманизма. Если сажать по ст. 282 и 280 ("Публичные призывы к осуществлению экстремистской деятельности"), то начинать посадки, очевидно, следует с абсолютного чемпиона. В противном случае статью следовало бы совсем отменить. [3]

Biophys, you have falsified already the article Human rights in Russia, and I've caught you falsifying data. Now you are trying to falsify the present article. Changes reverted. I invite anyone who could read in Russian to the followoing address to judge whether Biophys is falsifying the link and the source. http://www.izvestia.ru/sokolov/article3098675/ http://rko.marsho.net/articl/mashadov.htm I would like to pay attention that the user Biophys is systematically falsyfying the information in the articles Boris Stomakhin and Human Rights in Russia - which are the articles written by him personally. He constantly rewrites, changes, delets the reliable information he doesn't like personally and abuses other contributors of Wikipedia. Please read the whole discussion page for the detailed explanation of cases where Biophys maliciosly falsified the information."Vlad fedorov 04:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply: Talk:Boris_Stomakhin#Violations_of_LP_policy.Biophys 17:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The bottom line is:

• Biophys disputes the phrases not contained in the article on Boris Stomakhin, and namely the phrases about Shahids and about stinky Russia.
• Biophys disputes these phrases by comparing them to the source he claims to be unreliable (RKO website).
• one disputed phrase (about Shahids) is contained also at RKO website and match perfectly to that cited by Journalist.
• Some words from the second disputed phrase (stinky Russia) are contained in both the Official court sentence and conviction.
• Biophys disputes here only RKO website, which is not relevant to the dispute right now, because we discuss only Izvestia article.
• Biophys disputes these phrases based on the logic that 'they were probably taken by Maksim Sokolov' from RKO website. But he couldn't know actually.
• Biophys logic is that all Stomakhin citations should be contained on the RKO website, although we know that there are newspaper 'Radikalnaya Politika' edited by Boris Stomakhin and there are publications of other radicals which could have published citation of Stomakhin in question. I don't understand why Biophys think that all Stomakhin citations should be contained only at RKO website.
• Biophys failed to show that there are contradictory phrases. Out of three citation by Maksim Sokolov, two are found at the RKO website1 citation at RKO website2 citation at RKO website and they perfectly match those of the Journalist and one (about 'Stinky Russia') is not found, because Journalist haven't provided sources. The impossibility to found right now missing citation is not contradiction to Izvestia article. The fact that this citation couldn't be found does not mean contradiction.
• The phrase 'worse than blog' is absolutely incorrect in regard of RKO website, since Biophys doesn't have evidence that this site has no any review, Biophys has no information on who runs the website.
• Journalists have the privilege not to disclose their sources, in order to provide the freedom of speech.

And now the basic question: where is the controversy? If Biophys claims RKO website is unreliable, then how he uses this website in order to validate Journalist citations? Vlad fedorov 03:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was established in discussion that Biophys claims about contradictions in the sources are false. And there are no contradictions between citations of Izvestia journalist Maksim Sokolov and articles written by Stomakhin at http://rko.marsho.net/articl/mashadov.htm and http://rko.marsho.net/articl/tushino.htm. They match perfectly to those which are cited by journalist Maksim Sokolov. Anyone interested may look here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Boris_Stomakhin#Points_to_answer_for_Biophys and here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Boris_Stomakhin#quote_.22Death_to_Russia.22Vlad fedorov 07:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to notice that currently Biophys claims that these sources: 1) Unreliable; 2) not neutral; 3) Non-encyclopedic style. Given the history of Biophys contributions and namely insertion of Putin into 'Phallus' article and creation of the deleted latter article on blog "La Russophobe" I suggest anyone to think one more time about User:Biophys good faith. He contributes only to biophysics and anti-Russian materials. He failed to prove the contradiction - which was the main point of his argumentation. He lied intentionally about contradictions. And he deleted the material which he called "contradictory". Biophys believes that there is a plot (conspiracy) by Russian government against extremist Stomakhin sentenced for extremism]. And Biophys tries to delete from the article on Stomakhin all information that could doubt this thought. My citations prove that Stomakhin actually wasn't dissident since he called for violence, called terrorist attacks legitimate and called Chechen terrorists heroes. He wants now to delete these supported by sources phrases from the article on Stomakhin by claiming they are unreliable. But these phrases are supported not only by the official court sentence.Vlad fedorov 07:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Byron Allen interviewed Ronnie Lott on his syndicated interview show. During the interview Lott says that he and Marcus Allen would not have graduated if Byron Allen had not helped them cheat in an Anthropology class. Should this be included in the Marcus Allen article? --Gbleem 14:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible Lott was joking? If so, it definitely shouldn't be included in Marcus Allen. And even if Lott was completely serious, that doesn't make him an authoritative source as to what Marcus Allen's grades in the anthropology class were. So I would say, no, it does not belong in the Marcus Allen article. --Metropolitan90 23:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a long time since I put it in the article. I don't think I would have put it in if I thought Lott was joking. They did laugh about it but I think that is just because they thought it was funny in retrospect and not because he was making a joke. Assuming I can get a copy of the video what criteria should I use to determine if he is joking? I suppose someone could interview him again and he could say he was joking. --Gbleem 07:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point on the grades. If I remove the statement about grades could Lott be considered a reliable source on the issue of cheating? --Gbleem 07:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an editor of this article, but the subject of the article has reverted edits to make his entry more favorable. I flagged this for NPOV and expert attention. The Talk page has nothing on it, but these reversion and edit wars seem to be ongoing. I'm mentioning this article here because this may need attention, mediation, etc. I'm not sure if there are guidelines for subject reversions. Experienced mediation help would be great. JazzyGroove 00:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

I recently added some material to the biography of Vladimir Putin that relates to the press censorship and other undemocratic actions of the Putin government. The material has been repeatedly removed by Alex Bakharev with the explanation that minor violations of civil rights should not be included in the biography. I have mentioned in my additions, the widely reported accusations of murder by the former KGB agent in London who died recently of Polonium poisoning. No one can deny that this event is a major news event and has strained relations between Russian and Britain. It should be included in the biography as long as it is carefully noted that it is only an allegation at this point. I call upon the editors of Wikipedia to carefully consider the possibility that these deletions in Wikipedia may have been instigated by the Russian government itself, a government that is extremely sensitive to criticism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.13.136.170 (talk • contribs).

I don't think this is a issue of BLP concern. Nil Einne 16:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking over Putin's article it seems like it is very much slanted in his favor.Steve Dufour 17:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Slanted in his favor' by users inserting unsupported allegations from mass media like Putin has killed Litvinenko, Politkovskaya and so on? You would like to mention he was behind murders of Kennedy, Mahatma Ghandi and Ceasar too, right? You have to look at "George W. Bush" article definitely.Vlad fedorov 08:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cardinal Mar Nasrallah Boutros Sfeir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Someone has vandalized the biography of His Beatitude Cardinal Mar Nasrallah Boutros Sfeir by having questions included in the sub-article of his involvement in politics and the removal of information from this article to slander his work as an anti-Syrian nationalist..

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

• Users hornplease and TwoHorned have been persistently editing some material into "Koenraad Elst" over the course of several months that are violations of WP:BLP. The following statements:

[4] "He has also been accused of connections to the Vlaams Blok by Sanjay Subrahmanyam (a professor at University of California, Los Angeles) in the Times of India"

is based on one source and a newspaper op/ed to boot. It is an unsupported statements and has the connotations of an opprobrium, making it a BLP violation unles it is sourced more reliably.

[5] "has contributed with other interventions described by Prof. R. Zydenbos on his homepage as emanating from right-wing circles in Belgium"

is based on the following linke: [6]

It is a geocities site. It's authenticity cannot be verified. We do not know if it really belongs to Zydebos, who is not notable enough to have his criticism mentioned. Also, BLP#Reliable Sources clearly states:

"Information found in self-published books, newspapers, or websites/blogs should never be used, unless written by the subject"

This is clearly a diatribe written against Elst by this Zydebos chap who has not published it anywhere other than his "website" so BLP mandates that it be removed

These points have been raised, but hornplease and TwoHorned keep adding them in and mass revert-warring with a clear intent to defame Elst on wikipedia (as their talk page posts indicate) based on political biases and various degrees of ethno-religious bigotry expressed by hornplease.// अमेय आर्यन DaBrood^© 16:54, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ConcurBakaman 03:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. TwoHorned's BLP violations were also discussed at an WP:RfAr, but we assumed good faith and didn't take any action then. User:Hornplease is a member of the BLP project, and regularly and often deletes "pov" from other BLP articles, so he should know better than supporting WP:BLP violations, and should also treat articles about people he dislikes the same way. (Though to his credit he recently removed OR from the article.) --Bondego 14:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article shows rampant POV, seemingly looking to paint her as a one-dimensional mad leftist radical. The writer knows nothing about her or her views or the work she did in prison, or her dedication to peaceful change in the current time.

Note: The articles on her husband, as well as the Weather Underground as they are on the same touchy subject show the same bias. Fair treatment of individuals does not mean an indictment of their beliefs, no matter how radical they may be. Winnebagan 01:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Martin (professor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This biographical article falls considerably short of the standards of Wikipedia; it is full of unsourced claims and it is completely biased in its presentation of a controversial, if obscure, individual. Tony Martin is "considered by many to be the foremost scholar on the life of Marcus Garvey"? Really: by whom, exactly? What is the rating system for evaluating scholars of Marcus Garvey? The article also claims that Martin's work, "The Jewish Onslaught"--one of the most patently and ludicrously anti-Semitic diatribes to have been published in America in recent years--was written in response to efforts by the Anti-Defamation League and other Jewish groups to repress Martin's scholarship. Is this claim documented? Is it even credible? It is further worth asking why this article stops its narration of Martin around the year 1993: has he done anything of merit since then? Has he published a book since "The Jewish Onslaught"? Or have "the Jews" succeeded in their efforts to "silence" him?

Far from being a first-rate scholar of Marcus Garvey, Martin since the mid-nineties has been nothing better than a second-rate Leonard Jeffries. His Wikipedia article, to the extent that he merits an article at all, should reflect this.

I have attempted to clean up that article as much as possible to make it compliant with our content policies. It still needs the attention of an editor knowledgeable on the subject, though. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The information contained in the Criticisms of this living person's biography is POV and potentially libelous, and therefore should be deleted. POV criticism of the critics has also been removed demonstrating a bias. The habitual replacement of libelous material seemingly indicates a vendetta against Viera Scheibner.

Agreed that this needs watching, but not with the reason. This is about a content dispute between mainstream/skeptical editors (who view Scheibner as a quack) and supporters of her medically unqualified anti-vaccination activities. The article is under major sockpuppet attach from the latter. 82.25.234.106 15:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

He was a Scientology leader but has dropped out and seemingly become a non-person. About half of his article is taken up by conspiracy theories about him by another ex-Scientology leader, Barbara Schwarz. She seems to be saying that he is a bigamist. I tried taking this part of the article out but it was put back by the group of people who handle the Scientology-related articles here. Steve Dufour 16:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

She never wrote that Mr. Rathbun is a bigamist. The problem is that people pick data from her life story and twist it to cause her and Mr. Rathbun harm. These articles on all living persons should be deleted as these kind of reportings on Mark Rathbun, Barbara Schwarz, or others, destroy lives. Wikipedia editors are living in the delusion that they have a right to exploit and destroy private lives with rumors and lies and come away with it. There a thousand rumors about these two individuals but also others, and it comes down to that Wikipedia editors really do not know these people. My advice to Wikipedia contributors/editors/admins: go for quality and not quantity, and stop hurting people and harassing people on Wikipedia. - Watchdog2007

If the material is sourced, I don't see a good reason to remove it. I put in some {{fact}} tags, because sources are needed. It seems that he's notable for two things: becoming a Scientology Unperson, and being the subject of Barbara Schwarz's delusions. Because he's notable on his own, it's worth including the stuff about Schwarz. If he were otherwise not notable, that material would be better merged to her article. Argyriou (talk) 19:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara's theories are already well covered in her own article. Steve Dufour 23:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Dufour's claims are ill-founded. He is improperly combining what he believes to be true (i.e., that during the period in question, Mark Rathbun was married to Anne Rathbun) with what Barbara Schwarz believes to be true (that during the period in question, Mark Rathbun was married to her, Barbara Schwarz.) Mr. Dufour has not presented any evidence whatsoever to support the theory that Barbara Schwarz shares his beliefs about Mark Rathbun being married to anyone else. Only if one holds both beliefs would bigamy be implied, and Mr. Dufour has not presented any evidence whatsoever to indicate there is anyone out there holding both beliefs.

For Mr. Dufour to file this report (with no mention of it made on the relevant talk page, I might add) falsely presenting his conclusions, drawn from combining Barbara Schwarz's beliefs with his own, as what Barbara Schwarz "seems to be saying", is manifestly irresponsible. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If Barbara's theories are patently false then I don't think so much space, about half of the article, should be devoted to them. If her theories might be true then the article shouldn't present his marriage with Anne as a fact, as it does. Steve Dufour 06:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The last time I read WP:NPOV I didn't get the impression that it said "you must either describe what the vast majority of the world accepts as the truth as only something possibly true, or you must abstain from discussing the fact that anyone else has ever believed anything else." If you don't think that "about half of the article" should discuss Barbara Schwarz's claims regarding Rathbun, then please find us more information from reliable sources about Mark Rathbun and then the single paragraph discussing Schwarz won't be as large a part of the whole. -- Antaeus Feldspar 06:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should half of Queen Elizabeth's article talk about the theory that she is really an alien lizard from outer space? Steve Dufour 07:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for removing that parenthetical claim "(which quite a few believe)". It's good to avoid straw man arguments. -- Antaeus Feldspar 07:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At least a million more people believe the queen is an alien lizard than believe Mark and Barbara are married. :-) Steve Dufour 16:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And so far not even one person has been presented who believes that Mark was married to Barbara and to Anne -- certainly not Barbara, which makes it an irresponsible misrepresentation for you to bring this here claiming that she "seems to be" making claims of bigamy. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In that case maybe Barbara's theories should be removed from Mark's article. Steve Dufour 00:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, Mr. Dufour. Please read carefully. The fact that no one believes your original research combination of Schwarz's beliefs and the general beliefs contradicted by Schwarz does not say a single thing about what should or should not be in the article. One might as well say that because no one believes that the Apollo moon landings were both real and faked, it means that Wikipedia should never discuss anyone believing that they were faked. Frankly, it seems you are trying to game the system -- first, filing a completely false report that Schwarz "seems to be saying" Rathbun is a bigamist to get the article onto this noticeboard, and then continuing to argue what you think should be done with the article even after it's been clearly shown that your excuse for bringing it here is purely your own misrepresentation. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong with having the article mentioned on the notice board? Do you not want people to notice it? Steve Dufour 06:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)p.s. If only one person believed the moon landings were fake I don't think it would be mentioned in the WP article on them.[reply]

What is wrong with sticking with the truth, Mr. Dufour? What makes you think that you are entitled to manufacture an issue to try and make things go your way? What you are doing is the Wikipedia article namespace equivalent of POV forking, and just like any determined POV-pusher called out on his misdeeds, you are trying to pretend the issue is whether you get your way, not the fact that you already made all the same arguments and when you didn't convince consensus, you did an illegal end-run to try and dodge consensus. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that the consensus of opinion of Wikipedia editors is that a conspiracy theory believed in by only one person, as far as I know that is, should be allowed to take up half the space in an article? Steve Dufour 20:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that if you had a concern about the article which was actually based on the facts and which had not already been rejected by consensus, you would have had no reason to resort to submitting this false report. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and edited the article so that it was clear that bigamy was not implied. I hope this is a fair representation of Barbara's views. Steve Dufour 20:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My edit lasted about a day until someone reverted it so that it still looks as if Mark is accused of bigamy. Hopefully a new version will be writen which is acceptable to all. Steve Dufour 16:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and added the words "the real" in front of Mark's name the first time it was mentioned in Barbara's theory. I hope this is ok with both Antaeus and Tilman as being a fair representation of Barbara's views. Steve Dufour 14:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Taylor (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is an edit war going on at this page between at least 2 people concerning the name of his wife and child/children! Neither person quotes sources or signs themselves, nor do they seem to read the talk page asking them to do this. Hyperman 42 17:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

143.81.252.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has added defamatory information about subject, and was reverted. He re-added the material, but included a {{fact}} tag, and was reverted. The second reverter (who beat me by seconds) also placed a warning on user's talk page; I added a note with further explanation. Hopefully, that will take care of the issue, but 143.81.252.12 may come back, and the material is a rumor which has been floating around a while; if he doesn't bring it back, someone else might. Argyriou (talk) 19:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

There is an edit war concerning this actor's date of birth. In particular, various sources I have found provide two different years (including the actor's website and IMDb). There is a small discussion as to the what the correct birth date is on the talk page, but the article is generally unstable due to the rate at which the birth date is change. We have also seen in increase in vandalism lately, but that is easy enough to remove on a per-case basis. // Todayisdifferent 21:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is a dispute concerning a edit I made to the biographical section of the article on Norman Finkelstein, a political scientist and professor at DePaul University. Dr. Finkelstein is well known for works challenging certain facts about the Holocaust and the State of Israel.

In all of his publications and public appearances, Dr. Finkelstein makes the point that his parents were survivors of the Holocaust. He has stated that his mother and father were both survivors of the Warsaw Ghetto, as well as concentration camps and labor camps.

Whether of not Finkelstein's parents were indeed Holocaust survivors is important because it lends his positions a degree of credibility that would otherwise be absent.

My edits changed the categorical statement that Finkelstein's parents were survivors to statements that these accounts were due to Finkelstein himself.

My changes were removed by another editor who made no attempt to contact me and characterized my changes using extremely disparaging language. I engaged him on the discussion page of the article, and offered to soften the language while preserving the fact that the status of Finkelstein's parents as Holocaust survivors is due to Finkelstein himself and has no independent, third-party verification. I have not been able to resolve this matter in that context.

I have read the guidelines on biographies of living persons and feel that my edit can be worded within those guidelines and that it adds important information about Dr. Finkelstein.

I would like assistance in resolving this dispute. The record of it can be found in the section on "claiming" in the discussion page of the Norman Finkelstein article.

Thanks for your assistance.

Robert E. Rubin Roberterubin 22:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)roberterubin[reply]

The question here does not seem to be so much a matter of WP:BLP as of original research, as I assume the parents are no longer living. Have any critics of Norman Finkelstein cast doubt on whether his parents were Holocaust survivors? If the answer is no, then there is no real issue. If the answer is yes, then the dispute can be described. I would avoid writing "the only source is Finkelstein himself" or some such wording, because it implies "I think he's wrong but cannot prove it". Sam Blacketer 13:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a serious problem protecting the BLP of anyone who has criticised Israel, even if they have credentials as good as Norman Finkelstein. It's very, very wearing to take out, over and over again, these unsubstantiated and utterly pointless edits.

Meanwhile, of course, it's impossible to insert any evidence against Zionist politicians, no matter how well referenced and indeed proud they may be of their murderous racism. PalestineRemembered 20:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Itche Goldberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Two days ago an anon listed this person as having died. I can find nothing in news.google.com which even mentions him, let alone his death. I have reverted pending a source. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • His death has been reported again, with the only reference being alt.obituaries. Still zero refs at news.google.com. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Finally found a reliable source for his death - [7]. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Prem Rawat (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Prem Rawat|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Dispute between Momento (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Andries (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) about repeated removal by Momento of sourced information from the talk page that Momento considers poorly sourced. diff

This dispute deals with more or less the same material as the Criticism of Prem Rawat dispute that is also listed on this noticeboard in another section hereabove.

Andries 08:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

There are a number of problems with the addition of a "Critical" section under "External Links". This article is about the religious belief that calls saints in Heaven "Ascended Masters" and is not exclusive to any one organization or church. It is not about a political party position or a scientific theory; it is simply a religious belief.

Having these "Critical" links does not fit the external links guideline because it is not relevant to the article, rather these links are related to the Church Universal and Triumphant and / or Elizabeth Clare Prophet. Therefore these links could be on the Church Universal and Triumphant or Elizabeth Clare_Prophet pages if desired by other editors.

Another issue, is from the Wikipedia: Three Revert Rule WP:3RR: Reverting potentially libelous material: "All users are encouraged to remove unsourced or poorly sourced blatantly defamatory, potentially libelous information about living persons, whether within a biography of a living person or elsewhere, including associated talk pages. As with vandalism, the repeated addition of such material is best dealt with by blocking and page protection, and repeated reversion should be used only as a last resort. Reverts made to enforce this provision are generally not considered contentious, because they are necessary."

>>> The repeated adding of blatantly defamatory, potentially libelous external web site links attacking any person or organization on a page describing the belief in Ascended Masters, a religious belief held by a number of organizations both in the past and present, is totally out of place - and a violation of the Wikipedia policy quoted above (Elizabeth Clare Prophet is still living). This type of behavior interferes with the possibility of Wikipedia becoming an objective, neutral, and useful academic reference resource. At the very least, it should be obvious that under no circumstances should "External Links" to defamatory personal attack web sites directed against any individual or church be on an encyclopedia article that is NOT about that individual or church organization. Aburesz 01:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently mediating a dispute on Ascended master, and I would like some opinions regarding whether the links in the critical section of the external links would violate the living persons biography rules or not. Aburesz feels that they are because he believes that they are either unsourced or not sourced properly. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 02:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify a bit more, do external links fall into the living person's rules, and if yes, would these links violate it. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 02:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Baker (chef) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I would be grateful for some guidance on editing this article. User Sparkzilla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is repeatedly reverting back potentially libelous material on this BLP. His cited sources are of an unreliable nature as the contentious material only appears in two self-published articles contrary to WP:V#SELF. Sparkzilla cannot show that the author is a well-known professional journalist with articles appearing in reliable third-party publications. Now he is trying to invoke the WP:BLP "Using the subject as a source" section to justify it's inclusion. However I believe this to be irrelevant to the case. An authoritative interpretation would be much appreciated. David Lyons 03:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The user David Lyons is attempting to remove any criticism of the Baker case on the grounds that the criticism comes mainly from an editorial written by Mark Devlin, the publisher of Japan's largest English magazine, and a follow-up article in the same magazine. David Lyons want this removed as self-published material.

Contrary to Mr Lyons opinion, NONE of the information in the section comes from articles published by Mr Devlin. I have shown in the talk section, by going through each part of the disputed content, that Mr Devlin's criticism of Mr Baker's support group has at least one third-party confirmation (Swindon Advertiser article) and that in fact, most of the items in the criticism section come from the support group themselves, or directly from comments by Iris Baker, Nick Baker's mother.

Even so, if there were no third-party confirmation I believe that Mr Devlin's reversal of opinion is sufficiently notable, even if self-published.

I have also argued that when a person who is mentioned in an article has made a definitive statement about the case on their personal websites (as both Mr Devlin and Iris Baker have), that their comments should be seen as authoritative as per "the Subject as a source" section of BLP. I would be very grateful for comments and advice. Sparkzilla 13:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I won't bore the authoritative editors here, except to say that my response to Sparkzilla appears on Nick Baker's talk page. David Lyons 17:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I commented in that article's talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Salah Choudhury (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Bangladeshi editor. Uncited negative content is being added. One solution would be to block the person adding negative content, but that editor probably won't be the last, given the level of dislike against him. Andjam 09:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Graham Coutts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - currently lacks sources, which given that we're talking about a man convicted of murder is totally unacceptable. I haven't deleted anything because (a) it should be easy to find sources for most of it, but I don't have time right now, and (b) I think the article is important as it documents a key part of an ongoing political debate in the UK. JulesH 15:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Blatantly, blatantly, violates BLP. This article is about a person best known through an online avatar, and it seems like all her online enemies have added unsourced negative material to the point where the largest part of the article is the "Controversy" section, almost all unsourced, accusing her of various things. Someone else helpfully added citation needed tags, but didn't delete the negative material. I'm going to delete it, but it'll probably get restored; someone please keep a watch on this. Ken Arromdee 03:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

We're having trouble on Rush Limbaugh with some editors consistantly reverting additions quoting Rush Limbaugh on his views of appropriate punishment for drug crimes in the section about his personal drug debacle, claiming that the placement of the quote is POV and libelous per WP:BLP. There seems to be a consensus against this view and in favour of inclusion of the quote, if one can consider collaboration in phrasing the quote to be consensus for inclusion. Could someone please come by and offer us a fresh pair of eyes? GertrudeTheTramp 05:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a content dispute, not a BLP issue, as the statement is sourced. Please consider making a request for comment at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics to ask for an outside view, if desired. --BigDT 05:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

I along with another editor are having a dispute with Julia Allison. The subject of the article (an "opportunist") is constantly reverting (violation of 3RR) here, here, and here facts and is claiming via e-mail to "report" me for editing "her" article, as well as other threats. I removed her last name, because she was stalked in college, and is afraid of her last name being revealed, because she doesn't want to be stalked in New York City, since she is a sex columnist (Note: Sex is not included because this will harm her "image"). So, I have agreed. But, she wants to upload pictures that I don't feel is necessary to be involved in the article. I pointed to WP:AUTO, but I don't she is understanding or ignoring the policy all together. Would someone please comment on this, because I really am too nervous to sleep over this because I am afraid that she might sue Wikipedia over some bull. She has also been a part of controversies as well (i.e. plagiarizing an article in college...I didn't source this because of legal threats) and wants to re-write history. Bearly541 11:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a somewhat lengthy comment at Talk:Julia Allison. I hope it leads to a constructive conversation. · j e r s y k o talk · 16:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reports Bearly. First, please assume good faith and be civil in your comments here: 1. Calling her an opportunist is not necessary; 2. The diffs you posted do not show a violation of 3RR; 3. She followed WP:AUTO and commented on the article talk page about it and hasn't edited the article since; 4. Saying she is part of controversy and has plagiarized is also unnecessary; 5. What legal threats?; 6. Re-write history?? --ElectricEye (talk) 14:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She took out information after I e-mailed her about WP:AUTO. I am being civil on my comments here. What I mean by threats is: that she was going to report me to Wikipedia because I edited her "article" and she is the only person to edit her article. And, she wants certain facts to be said about her...etc. Bearly541 01:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think she is currently editing the article via IP address. If she is currently editing her biography, I think this should fall into WP:AUTO. Real96 17:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]