Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:08, 9 October 2013

• WP:BLPN
• WP:BLP/N
• WP:BLPNB
• WP:BLP/NB

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

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

Additional notes:

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

• Refining the administrator elections process
• AI-generated images depicting living people
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

Narendra Modi

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

In the article about Narendra Modi, There is a section "Uttarakhand Controversy". This section has neither any verifiable authentic primary source nor citation about any authentic claim by the party concerned. It clearly violates the policy about BLP.

Policies about what articles should say Three main policies cover content:

1) neutral point of view (all articles must take a fair, balanced and neutral stance), 2) verifiability (facts in articles must be verifiable from reliable sources), and 3) original research (users' and editors' opinions and "popular knowledge" are not suitable for encyclopedia articles). A fourth core content policy on biographies of living persons states that biographical articles must be written to the highest standard using only high-quality sources, and provides for more drastic handling of errors or problems in such articles.

The Uttarakhand controversy is poorly sourced, includes unverified statements (unreliable sources of Times of India which mentions as "sources in BJP"; name of no big leader/ press statement cited), without any original reserach/investigation. This was even clarified by the newspaper later.

Hence this section needs to be deleted as it is in clear violation of Misplaced Pages policies(policy no 2, 3 and fourth core content policy) stated above.

The section is purely an act of vandalism.

And since the article is protected, one cannot edit it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.212.144.141 (talk • contribs)

Privacy of youths personal info

I guess this would have been better posted here.. sorry for any confusion pls see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Privacy of personal information -- Moxy (talk)

Craig Titus

I semi-protected Craig Titus earlier. Just wanted to get a few more eyes on the article. It seems to have several editors who are claiming to be in contact with the subject. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 07:50, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Looks like a borderline BLP1E. Probably a good candidate for AFD. That conviction section is seriously undue weight. §FreeRangeFrog 05:35, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• He was a professional athlete. That is his primary notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:11, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Melissa Russell

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

I have stripped and stubbed the Melissa Russell article, based on BLP concerns. The primary source for the article was an unacceptable self-published blog from DigitalJournal and the other source links provided were either dead/unreachable or inconclusive as to whether they actually mentioned the subject. A cursory Google search has not turned up much of anything relevant, but it's a fairly common name so I might be missing some that are out there. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:26, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Good job but "is a person"? . Take it to AFD as a BLP1E? §FreeRangeFrog 16:45, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I think you should try AfDing it. I can't really see anything that would make this not a WP:BLP1E. Taylor Trescott - + _{my edits} 17:05, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Raul Julia-Levy

76.172.80.18 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (the subject of the article in question) has expressed concern on my talk page about some of the content in the article. He insists that it should be removed because the claims are legally false (or at least he has some problems with how the newspapers have reported them). He has deleted the reliably-sourced information several times, so I wanted to get a wider opinion on what should be done, if anything. ... discospinster _talk 15:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

See also ticket:2013100110005299. §FreeRangeFrog 18:38, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The part about the "scandal" seemed badly sourced and in breach of WP:BLPCRIME at least, so I removed it. I reverted User:Chuy33's other removals as they probably have a COI and the information that was deleted was at first glance not BLP-critical but rather criticism or negative information that was correctly sourced. I did invite the user to comment here, or in the article's talk page. IMO the IP should have been blocked for legal threats as well. §FreeRangeFrog 18:51, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

This is a terrible biography, it reads like it was written by a PR firm. It's mostly about his famous father and famous friends, what a great guy he is, the charities he participates in, parties he was invited to (and the other celebrities who attended). Most of his acting credits are to films that are not notable enough to have an article on Misplaced Pages. Controversy aside (whether he is, in fact, Raul Julia's son), he doesn't seem to be notable in what he has achieved in life and a person doesn't gain notability by being associated with famous people. Liz 21:59, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Additionally, the sentence where it was claimed that Levy was Raul Julia's son was removed from Julia's article in 2006. According to the Talk Page, Levy is not mentioned in Julia's biographies. I don't know whether he is or is not, just that this biographic fact doesn't seem to have a proper reference with a reliable source and Levy's article is centered on the fact that he is Julia's son. Liz 22:56, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Unsimulated sex

Unsimulated sex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This page is a terrible magnet for BLP violations, due to personal "research", blogs, and fetishism over celebrity nudity. I am not an active Wikipedian anymore, so wanted to bring this to the attention of this noticeboard so hopefully others can watchlist this and monitor the situation. In August, User:Mamj16 added a number of entries to the article, claiming living people engaged in certain controversial activities. Some of the entries were not notable (redlinked films, redlinked actors). All of the sources were subpar, mostly from pornography blogs, where non-notable individuals were making claims about what they saw in movies. And some didn't even make the claims that Mamj16 made in the article. I reverted those changes, as this sort of thing happens frequently. However, today that bad content was restored by User:Lostinlodos. I am not an active Wikipedian, but was tempted to be drawn into an edit war over this, as this is a 100% clear cut case of negative information being said about living people, and being sourced to some random blogs on the internet. But instead, I am here. Thank you for your time and consideration.-Andrew c  00:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

The page is a list; and that a list of mainstream films. Every film on that list has received wide distribution and fully integrates into the intention of the list. I see no reason so short out any film currently (or in the future) simply because one or more of the actors/actresses are still alive. Per Andrew C; As if that was the case, the entire list should be tossed. There is equally no case of BLP violations as no part of this list is directly a biography. Just a statement of fact that a specific mainstream film contains unsimulated sex.Lostinlodos (talk) 01:48, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I will however state that that the "notes" column may need to be edited down on the entire list. There's no reason to explicitly describe the sex acts beyond the statement of fact that they occurred. Lostinlodos (talk) 01:51, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Because you said the page isn't a biography, I feel you don't fully understand WP:BLP, so I will quote the nutshell. "Material about living persons added to any Misplaced Pages page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research." As is, the content you added is not verifiable, per Wikpedia guidelines, and is clearly consists of original research on the part of those adding it, and the unreliable blogs you continue to cite. The issue here is one of sourcing. You wanted a compromise. If these movies belong on the list, then you should be able to easily find reliable sources to back up the claims. Thank you for taking the time to respond. And I apologize if I won't be around to reply much longer. Hopefully others can chime in. -Andrew c  02:25, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Andrews c's comments about WP:BLP being applicable here. By my understanding, BLP is a Misplaced Pages policy that applies to any information about living people which attributes specific acts or assigns specific characteristics to them, as well as basic "biographical" information, regardless of the type of Misplaced Pages article in which it appears. Lists of criminals or lists of movies that claim that certain people engaged in unsimulated sex on-screen are both examples of potential containers of libelous/defamatory assertions if not properly sourced, which is one reason for the policy. Dwpaul (talk) 02:46, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

P.S. - If the article was "just a statement of fact that unsimulated sex," WP:BLP would not apply. It is not. The article goes further and identifies specific people who allegedly directed those films and/or appeared in those scenes, thus attributing an act to them and bringing it within the scope of WP:BLP. Dwpaul (talk) 02:53, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

In regard to Dwpaul. As per my second note; i agree.in part. the issue here is not the potential violations of policy regarding the article, rather that the article is over-detailed with extraneous information that brings this policy into issue. Rather than simply dump the factual information ill edit the article this evening to bring the list within the accepted confines of the related policy. i request apx 24 hours in order to complete the edits and welcome a review of them. thank you for the input and patience. Lostinlodos (talk) 17:59, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

On further reflection I will also note that i recognize the potential for issues arising out of the common use in film of body doubles and on some cases, both with and without authorization, the insertion of clips from other pornographic films,into these films. stating a specific cast member did specific acts.without references violates blp. equally the existence of such acts being shown in the film allow the use of that film as the principal reference to the acts taking place regardless of who performed them. If we are in agreement on that much that will be my primary starting point for the edits.Lostinlodos (talk) 18:10, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd agree with your latest analysis. Thanks. Dwpaul (talk) 18:26, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm all for improving the article, and encourage Lostinlodos to do that. I just want to be clear about one more thing. While outside of the scope of BLP, I hope you also address the sourcing issue, and we can all agree that it is never appropriate to cite as a source self-published blogs whose purpose is to allow unauthorized (pirated) downloads of pornographic (or celebrity nudity fetishist) content. Even if we remove the actors' names, it still wouldn't be appropriate to claim there is unsimulated X in film Y based solely on a screen cap, or what some random dude on the internet thinks (or based on what a poll of page visitors think). -Andrew c  00:02, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Finished. If there's further issue please use my user talk page under the Unsimulated Sex header. Thankyou for the time to do this. Sorry it took so long. Lostinlodos (talk) 15:38, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Rowan Atkinson

Rowan Atkinson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Rowan_Atkinson&diff=575401387&oldid=575400629

Really? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.165.10.84 (talk) 07:07, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Already deleted, but this is probably why. We'll see if it gets added again. Dougweller (talk) 07:22, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

One of the (non-RS) sources originally cited here (actually the same site linked in the previous comment) about Atkinson's supposed conversion is now issuing a retraction. which includes an email ostensibly from Atkinson's agent denying the rumor. Still can't cite, as still not RS. Dwpaul (talk) 00:37, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I submitted a request for semi-protection. Dwpaul (talk) 00:39, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

But if I'm reading the page log correctly, it's already semi-protected? Not sure why tons of IPs are able to edit if so:

• 16:49, 13 June 2013 Favonian configured pending changes settings for Rowan Atkinson (Violations of the biographies of living persons policy)

- Dwpaul (talk) 00:45, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

And is done:

• 21:08, 2 October 2013 Mark Arsten changed protection level of Rowan Atkinson‎ ‎ (expires 01:08, 6 October 2013 (UTC))‎ (indefinite) (disruptive editing)

- Dwpaul (talk) 01:22, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Jeffrey Sachs

There are concerns regarding the neutrality of the Criticisms section of the Jeffrey Sachs article. These concerns have been brought up in the talk page. Should the section remain or be removed until it can be improved? Ajax F¡ore_talk 03:40, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

The first paragraph of criticism is cited to a book written by the subject. In other words it's unsourced editorializing. Second paragraph is cited to a review of Sach's book. Such poor sourcing should not be allowed to stand after its been tagged as POV since 2012. I'll take a hatchet to the section and pare it down to reliably sourced criticism per WP:BLP.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:24, 3 October 2013 (UTC)-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:36, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Its now concise and well sourced.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:47, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

That was quick. Thanks. Ajax F¡ore_talk 02:09, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:59, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Cosplay

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

I've asked twice in the article above to cite sources for each cosplayer in the list. I've had one editor be abit uncivil when I asked the first time around. I put a note in talk to avert a 3RR situation with me, and kinda forgot about it for several days (unintended cooling off period). Seeing that the only person to reply to me was the uncivil editor, I decided to go and ask again. Then this edit happened, citing "linked articles." I've reverted and disagree with one editors assessment that BLP doesn't apply. Citations are needed, seeing some of them actually do rely on cosplay as an aspect of their work/income and one false statement could be a legal problem. I dunno what else to do, seeing that all this is gonna turn into is an edit war/3RR, and whatnot.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 08:35, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

The section I think you're discussing is "Cosplayers", a list of individuals who are well-known for their participation in cosplay. Since all of the people on the list have their own Misplaced Pages article, I encourage you to go to their articles, see the relevant citation, and place it on the main article. That is, instead of asking others to cite sources, take it on yourself to locate the sources. It looks like the BLP articles are well-sourced so it shouldn't be a problem to find one that verifies their participation in cosplay. For example, Meg Turney is on the list and on her bio, there are four citations about her notoriety as a cosplayer. Liz 12:19, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Would it make sense for List of notable cosplayers to be its own article, distinct from Cosplay, so that any future WP:BLP issues can be handled distinctly from the concept page? Just a thought. Dwpaul (talk) 16:05, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Maybe, Dwpaul. Why don't you suggest this on the Cosplay Talk Page? I'm sure Editors involved this subject might volunteer or offer their opinion on that. Liz 17:33, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't break it off as is. It would be a very small stand alone list. My personal preference is to break away an imbedded list after it reaches 20 entries. However, a tabulated list with everyone's picture in costume might add depth to the subject and make a great stand alone list. Hmmm, I might be getting motivated Dkriegls (talk to me!) 00:44, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Dkriegls, sometimes, small photos work well in a table format. The images end up pretty small but when the images are regular-size, there isn't enough text to make formatting appealing. Liz 01:39, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I know, I do a lot of lists. I was thinking something like this this Dkriegls (talk to me!) 03:02, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

That would work. I'm sure there are a lot of photos out there of the people on the list, it's a matter of finding free images but it looks like you're experienced in that. I'd still run it by the Cosplay Talk Page...it's a whole different look having a list in the confines of a table rather than on a simple bulleted list. Liz 11:00, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

This has been brought to my attention via the cosplay talk page. I like the list (and have said so) but I'll also point out that the editor 293 is referring to wasn't being uncivil to him per se, but making a harsh - albeit justified - comment about the removal of a well referenced and pictured cosplayer.

Also, I'd like clarification - does the list meet BLP criteria, or can it stand alone? My understanding of the section that I refer to is that the list need not be sourced and referenced itself, so long as it is linked to articles that are. Non-linked, or redlinked names are a different matter, but the Cosplayer list has been maintained, and doesn't contain any. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:57, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

PS: I also responded to the OP on the talk page. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:59, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Per your question about should the list be referenced. Yes. We get this question a lot at the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Lists. If you need a specific reference for this, see WP:BURDEN, specifically: "Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation". Inline citation was specifically chosen there. It means in the article at the place of the information presented. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 20:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Chaheel Riens, the OP was talking about having a reference for every name on the list but I don't think that is common practice on Misplaced Pages, especially when everyone on the list have their own article. I know they do have references on the Deaths in 2013 page but that is to confirmation of a person's death. But I'd also consider Dkriegls's advice.

There was a suggestion of separating off the list into its own article (above). Right now, it's just a suggestion so, please, weigh in. Liz 00:22, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

If you are going to include living people on the list, WP:BLP policy requires a properly-cited in-line source for each of them. In the list, not elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:07, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Ya, if you are making a list that associates someone with the subject of said list, you need an inline citation for that assertion. It may not be common practice on all of Misplaced Pages, but it is over at WP:Featured Lists and is BLP policy. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 05:53, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, as I think is mentioned above, every person on the list has their own WP article which have references of their own, indicating the individual's notability. The references are right there. Liz 20:31, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Ross William Ulbricht

Article does not have one source.

Article presumes guilt and could be libelous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jestcause (talk • contribs) 11:02, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Please be very careful when using terms like "libel" - see WP:No legal threats. GiantSnowman 11:17, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

First, the article has 33 reference sources and for that section in question, the sources are Reuters and The Guardian. That section lays out the criminal complaint against Ulbricht, it doesn't say he is guilty. When his representatives present a defense, those statements will be included as well.

But Editors more experienced with BLPs and crime accusations should weigh in. Liz 12:11, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

@Liz:, Jestcause was actually referring to this article. GiantSnowman 12:46, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I see POV, UNDUE, COATRACK and BLP problems at Silk Road but I'm too burnt out from other articles to jump in there. Maybe other, fresher souls, would like to enter the discussion on the talk page. Please keep in mind WP:BLPCRIME says: A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured......... -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:07, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Note that the wikilink for Ross William Ulbricht has been redirected to the Seizure and Arrest section of the Silk Road article. Seems like someone is on a character assassination crusade here and RWU is the helpless WP victim.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:13, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, GiantSnowman, I was looking at Ross William Ulbricht#Seizure and arrest which is where the page redirects the reader to, as Keithbob says. Liz 17:29, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I removed the subsection redirect so it goes directly to the article. There's other mentions of Ulbricht in the article, so I think directing the redirect to the arrest section doesn't mesh with WP:BLPCRIME. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 00:56, 4 October 2013 (UTC) I also deleted alleged information about Ulbricht in the Seizure and arrest section and left only the single reference to his arrest. I did leave the alleged pseudonym but that should probably go too. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 01:14, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Antireligion

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

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.17.174 (talk) 11:57, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

This is a noticeboard to discuss biographies of living persons, 88.104.17.174, I think you need to raise qustions on the Antireligions talk page. Liz 12:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Pls see article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.17.174 (talk) 13:01, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I did -- and still don't see any Biographies of living persons issue to be dealt with here. The editor makes a comment about the nature of a belief system and supports it with citation of a reliable source. Nothing about a specific person or persons. Dwpaul (talk) 13:09, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Please quote the part of the Zuckerman paper that supports the notion that antireligion is "a form of religion" on the Talk:Antireligion page. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:46, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't. Accordingly, I've removed the assertion that 'antireligion is a form of religion', along with the citation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:50, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Randy Neugebauer

Randy Neugebauer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• A WP:SPA IP editor has been making edits that are POV to the point of becoming a BLP problem. A minor incident is being made to sound like a major ordeal. Even the title of the section (currently "scolding A National Park Service Ranger") is POV. I've already got 2 reverts in the article and not looking for a third. I opened a discussion in the talk page but thus far, it's been mainly bad faith and "there is a reliable source" and little else in the way of discussion. Because I see a BLP implication, I'm here. Perhaps an uninvolved set of eyes would be helpful. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:21, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I've been bold and I attempted a compromise edit with a neutral section title that is vastly smaller than the original section. I hope this will satisfy the feuding parties, or at least start us down a more reasonable path. Gamaliel (talk) 20:29, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

• While your edit is less POV than the previous ones and somewhat of an improvement, wouldn't actually discussing whether or not it even belongs be the first route? This whole things reeks of recentism and something that 6 months from now, there won't be a word about. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:50, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

• Given your description of the talk page discussion, I didn't think much would be accomplished there. Gamaliel (talk) 22:19, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

• The question of whether or not it belongs is the most important one. If it doesn't belong, it really doesn't matter if it is NPOV enough. When the IP editor makes an edit like this one at the article of the son of the subject, it's hard to take his claims seriously. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:23, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

• The story got pretty massive media coverage and deserves at least a sentence or two in the article.GabrielF (talk) 03:44, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

• Nobody disputes that it got coverage, but we're not a newspaper. The question here is whether or not it's a notable enough occurrence in the overall of his biography. I doubt that in 6 months, anyone will care. And what's being added is much more than a sentence or two. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:55, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

• The situation clearly belongs. It has been widely commented upon in national news media ( and there's lots more), and is at least as important/notable as a piece of legislation he sponsored which gets a paragraph. The question is due weight, and I would agree that it should not have more than a solid paragraph - any more than that would be undue weight. What the IP editor did elsewhere is a matter to be dealt with at those sites, and I agree it's wholly out of order and improper to put anything on the subject's son's biography. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:46, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

• What he did shows a lot about his true motive here. And I'd be more inclined to remove that section about some legislation than to let this in. I can't see this getting any play a year from now. As I said on the talk page: I agree he did it for attention. I agree he acted poorly. But that doesn't mean it belongs in the article. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:55, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
• As I said on the talk page: The Act does look minor, but a year later, it was still law. A year from now, the media you are enamored with will have long forgotten this. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:02, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

• If it hadn't gone viral, it probably wouldn't. But it did, and it does. We can't ignore the wide array of reliable sources which condemned his tirade and used the incident to illustrate their opinions and views on the government shutdown. It became a national news incident.
• Now, perhaps the main body of that section belongs in the United States federal government shutdown of 2013, because it is so closely related to that broader topic. That would mean a short mention and a link in his biography - it would not mean deleting all mention of the incident. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:07, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

• It may be appropriate for the shutdown article. It isn't for this article. What you personally have put in is much more than a brief mention. And "going viral" isn't the standard. Show me a single policy or guideline that uses "going viral" as a standard. Or really, one that says being national news is the standard. On the contrary, I have cited the policy that points out that many newsworthy things don't belong in the encyclopedia. Newsworthy and notable aren't interchangeable. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:18, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

• And many newsworthy things do belong in the encyclopedia. What does and doesn't belong is determined by an editorial consensus, and you are the only person involved in this debate who is arguing that there should be no mention of this incident in the biography. You came to BLPN to ask for more input on this issue, and you're getting it: that input is more or less saying that the IP editor was indeed overzealous (the title was indeed wholly out of order) but that the incident as a whole is noteworthy and encyclopedic. There are now three separate, previously-uninvolved editors (Gamaliel, GabrielF and myself) who have reviewed this situation starting from the BLPN and believe that some mention of the incident is warranted. That you don't agree with the input you're getting is neither here nor there. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:24, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

• Why are you repeating yourself in two locations? This is getting tedious. I'm unimpressed by an IP using multiple accounts. He is still one person. Aside from that, you're the only one who has actually discussed it to any degree. One (Gamaliel) refused to discuss, a second never tried either. Gabriel talked about a sentence or two. You have quite a bit more than that. A sentence or two might be marginally more acceptable, but you keep forcing back in a large paragraph. Even your latest "trim" was 160 words. Much more than the "sentence or two" suggested by the editor you cite as supporting your version. The fact that a few people has just reverted without a reason beyond 'look at all the numbers' really isn't that compelling. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:35, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Slightly confused here. What do you mean by 'an IP using multiple accounts'? Someone editing 'anonymously' is by definition not using an account. I didn't see any suggestion here that the IP represented multiple people. And for better or worse, we don't require registration even for editing BLPs and there's no penalty for an IP being dynamic. If someone is intentionally changing IPs or otherwise using multiple ones in violation of WP:SOCK such as evading blocks than we will take action including semi protecting the article if necessary but an editor using multiple IPs isn't automatically doing something wrong. They only 'count' as one editor and may find given the uncertainty over their experience people may give less weight to their views but of course we should be trying to achieve consensus rather than simply counting supporters. I presume you aren't suggesting that Gamaliel is a sock of GabrieldF as I haven't seen any evidence for that, nor that the IP is one of these editors. Nil Einne (talk) 16:19, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

• What on earth sounded like I said Gamaliel was a sock or was operating a sock? As for your pedantic difference about account v IP...whatever. Once this got trimmed to a reasonable entry, I dropped opposing it. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:00, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Would love to see your evidence of one IP using multiple accounts. As others have posted, numerous editors from different IP's have contributed factual information to the article. The "edit war" was widely discussed and posted on his FB page, as others, as evident in the massive spike in page views to the congressman's Wikipage over the last 2 days. You have repeatedly deleted the entire topic, where numerous editors, some obnoxious, some following Wiki guidelines, have repeatedly contributed. Seems like you have an agenda that has nothing to do with the appropriateness of the content. tpcolson (talk) 18:43, 5 October 2013 (UTC) This template must be substituted.

• Says the account that was revived after 3 years just to comment here. Before this, the only edits you had were to shove your own name into an article .......Whether or not something was factual was never in dispute. At least try to understand the dispute if you're going to comment. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:00, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Niteshift36 (talk) has a bit of history with warning for edit wars and reverts. Just feeding the troll here.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.131.133.245 (talk) 19:18, 5 October 2013 (UTC) This template must be substituted.

• And you have a history of being a SPA and of vandalism. A proven vandal calling me a troll is pretty ironic. Once again: After the entry was trimmed from the bloated, agenda-driven drama-fest you insisted on to something reasonable and neutral, I stopped opposing it. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:00, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Monique Lamoureux

Monique Lamoureux-Kolls (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This person does not go by Lamoureux-Kolls, nor is it the legal name of this individual. The full name is Monique Lamoureux. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leroy3anderson (talk • contribs) 03:59, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

This was discussed last month when the same editor brought it up here.. Reliable sources could not be found to justify the move the editor seems to be requesting, as RS are split between the subject's married, hyphenated name and her maiden name. Suggest now (as then) that the article's Talk page be used to propose and discuss a page move. Dwpaul (talk) 12:14, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Maarja-Liis Ilus

In the article on the Estonian singer Maarja-Liis Ilus there are two supposed links to her song 'Homme', but they in fact take you to a place in Norway by the same name! I've no idea how to edit this, but it clearly needs to be changed. No sources, but click on the links and you can see for yourself - the only disambiguation is to the French word 'homme', which again is obviously incorrect).188.203.49.105 (talk) 13:32, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done GiantSnowman 13:39, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Kenneth Tse

Kenneth Tse IS NOT the first classical saxophonist to receive the Artist Diploma. James Cunningham is the first classical saxophonist to receive the Artist Diploma and did so in 1980 from the Peabody Conservatory of Music of the Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore. At the time Cunningham was studying with Vito Cuscuna, Milton Babbitt, and Karel Husa. Cunningham studied at the Peabody Conservatory from 1979 to 1980; receiving the diploma in May 1980. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.207.213 (talk) 14:20, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Kenneth Tse IS NOT the first classical saxophonist to be awarded the Artist Diploma. Classical Saxophonist James Cunningham was awarded the Artist Diploma in 1980 from the Peabody Conservatory of the Johns Hopkins University, and was the first classical saxophonist to be awarded the venerable artist diploma. Reference the Saxophone Journal Vol. 15, No. 5-May/April 1991. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newsrider1690 (talk • contribs) 14:56, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done I've removed the information because the sources didn't support the claim. Do you have a source that supports your claim? --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 06:25, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Raymond W. Godwin

Raymond W. Godwin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article has been brought to the attention of the OTRS team. More eyes and keyboards on it would be appreciated. Thanks.--ukexpat (talk) 15:59, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Any particular issues that need to be addressed? GregJackP Boomer! 16:23, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes: the purpose of this article is to slander a living person (an attorney). The article appears to have been written by a rival attorney or group arguing for a position contra this attorney. Example: the article has a heading of "call for investigation" and then lists a tribal attorney as the source. That is not unbiased. I'm sure the attorney who is the subject of this article could call for an investigation as well, but that doesn't make it newsworthy. Second example: the article says the subject's book offers advice for how to avoid paying for a baby directly. I have read the entire book, and that (of course) does not appear in the book Third example: the only evidence offered in the article is that of opposing lawyers (see section on baby Deseray). Fourth: just look at the general content and purpose of the article. An unbiased reader will see that this subject does not meet the notability guidelines of Misplaced Pages...the article was written as retaliation for losing a supreme court case. Keithg2002 (talk) 19:20, 4 October 2013 (UTC)KeithGKeithg2002 (talk) 19:20, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, addressing your concerns point by point.

• "The article appears to have been written by a rival attorney or group arguing for a position contra this attorney."

The article has been written by me, who is not an attorney or otherwise involved in any matters with this attorney.

• "the article has a heading of "call for investigation" and then lists a tribal attorney as the source."

Actually, the source listed is the Daily Mail, a general circulation newspaper in the United Kingdom. The source is reliable, verifiable, and independent of the subject of the article. Additionally, the same information appears in numerous other newspapers that could be cited to support it. It clearly identifies that Tripp (the other attorney) is the one calling for the investigation and it is obviously newsworthy, since it has been reported in multiple sources.

• "the article says the subject's book offers advice for how to avoid paying for a baby directly"

The book may not, but the cited source states: "The Godwins write that adoptive parents should not pay birth mothers a fee for the baby itself....", which supports the statement in the article.

• "the only evidence offered in the article is that of opposing lawyers"

Do you have any information that has been published by a reliable source for the other side? I have not found anything on the Bixler's side of the issue.

• "An unbiased reader will see that this subject does not meet the notability guidelines of Misplaced Pages"

Godwin clearly meets WP:GNG.

I'm open to adding positive information to the article, but I haven't found a whole lot that has been published by reliable sources. For example, I look for the Angels award info for Godwin, but the only one I could find was a self-published source and not reliable. GregJackP Boomer! 19:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

"The Godwins write that adoptive parents should not pay birth mothers a fee for the baby itself...." cannot be supported by a reference which just says not to pay for the baby. Phrasing it that way implies that he says they should do things that are technically not paying for the baby, but amount to basically the same thing. Ken Arromdee (talk) 20:09, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

You've got it backwards. The source is what says "The Godwins write that adoptive parents should not pay birth mothers a fee for the baby itself...." That definitely supports a statement in the article not to pay for the baby. GregJackP Boomer! 00:06, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

This article does not adhere to the Misplaced Pages notability standard: "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded."Catiedid2 (talk) 06:52, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Pierre Thomas (American football)

Information is poorly formatted, largely unsourced, shows clear bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:D:4980:94D:380E:1E77:F081:C861 (talk) 16:37, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done - most of the info was copied directly from here so I have removed it. GiantSnowman 16:43, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

La Luz del Mundo

La Luz del Mundo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article on La Luz del Mundo Church centered mostly on its two leaders, including a short biography for each and a controversy section surrounding the current leader. A lot has changed since then, but the article still includes a short biography of the current leader and a lengthy controversy section dealing mostly with the current leader. The article currently has the template BLP others, but since it contains so much information and controversy about a living person, I think the BLP template might be more appropriate. Also, please look at the Controversy section to make sure there are no violations of BLP. Ajax F¡ore_talk 02:26, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I added the template myself. Ajax F¡ore_talk 20:22, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

BBB information

I believe if you are going to mention the BBB as an F grade, you should probably fairly state the BBB has accredited and reviewed the business and gives it an A+ rating.

http://www.bbb.org/chicago/business-reviews/vitamins-and-food-supplements/mercola-health-resources-in-hoffman-estates-il-22002555 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.84.70 (talk) 18:39, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Can you clarify which Misplaced Pages article is the issue? Better Business Bureau seems not to be it? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:56, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Ah wait, I found it... one moment... --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:58, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the disputed material from Joseph Mercola as being now out of date and not particularly relevant to his biography anyway. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:01, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Patrick Califia

Could someone please look at this , I think it accuses Califia of promoting some rather unorthodox sexual activities and may be trolling. Sportfan5000 (talk) 20:16, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Is that an accurate portrayal of the subject's writings? If it is then I wouldn't want to remove the comment under the guise of a BLP vio. If the characterization of the work is correct then the IP has a point, even if it's in a "OMG think of the children" way. §FreeRangeFrog 20:41, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I see no evidence that Califia endorses, promotes or writes about the sexual molesting of children and bestiality, et al. FWIW these are the traditional rhetoric of the Right-wing church to disparage LGBT people so thise seems like just a different form of the same argument - "see, they are recruiting and molesting children and want to have sex with dogs!" Sportfan5000 (talk) 20:51, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I searched and found nothing suggesting anything but Califia's BDSM writings which do not tend to focus on anything but rather mainstream adult sexual activity. Sportfan5000 (talk) 22:20, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, I don't think calling it a "relentless promotion" is a personal attack, it's the characterization (perhaps mistaken) the IP makes of the subject's work. It's not trying to insert that into the article as a personal opinion. But I'll let other editors chime in here. §FreeRangeFrog 22:29, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Suggesting anyone is promoting sex with children and animals is a huge problem. If sources are presented that state there is something to this then the ideas can be entertained, otherwise it feels like trolling. I've removed the statement but I'm also open to other viewpoints. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:09, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

A simple search will yield a sfgate article suggesting Califia supports NAMBLA, so I think the ip may be onto something.Two kinds of pork (talk) 02:05, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

That article (seen here) makes it plain that like others, Califia endorsed Nambla's right to exist and have free speech, but not that he endorses their views on lowering or eliminating age of consent laws. This seems to be conflating BDSM with child molestation and bestiality. BDSM is a central focus of Califia's writing and the article already states that, child molestation and bestiality are not therefore have no place on this BLP. If he were known for these things I would support including well-sourced content that laid that out. Instead we have a source that in 1980 Califia supported Nambla and other groups on a free speech basis right to exist. Sportfan5000 (talk) 03:26, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I haven't explored all the articles, but this doesn't give you the right to delete those comments. They were reasonable questions to raise, and on topic. Instead of getting in a pissing match with you, as seems to be your wont, I reported you and will let an admin deal with your deletions.Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:12, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

The reasonable question might have been "I have found source A which states this BLP subject promotes sexual assault and bestiality, can we now add that to the article?" But no sources were presented and it's unlikely any exist. I'm glad the comments were removed again. Sportfan5000 (talk) 17:54, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• Whoa. Sure there is a right to delete those comments if they are deemed unacceptable. There was no reasonable question (though a reasonable question could conceivably be asked), there was an accusation, one that blurred fiction and real life. Now, as it happens, I own a copy of Macho Sluts (unless Mrs. Drmies has thrown it out), and I don't remember stuff involving children; but mind you, the charge was that the author promoted actions by writing about them, and that's an entirely different matter. Well. Take that particular matter up with Mark Twain, with Anne Rice, with Nabokov, and a million other writers. I find that the claim that certain books by a certain author contained certain content and that therefore the author "relentlessly promoted" such actions as were described to be a BLP violation, and I will remove it from the history of the talk page.

  In other matters, the article as such is on the promotional side, and I will apply what I consider common sense: the trimming of book titles if such entries are not verified and the books not proven to be notable one way or another, since, in my opinion, such extended listings turn articles into resumes. Drmies (talk) 05:17, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Ya, BLP calls for "wicked mad caution" (not a direct quote) when it comes to really dirty claims. Deletion from history is acceptable until solid sourcing can be presented and consensus built for adding it. No one is shutting down discussion. The source for the deleted claim did not support said claim. Does it support a variation of the claim? That can be debated, but delete it until there is consensus. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 05:41, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! Sportfan5000 (talk) 17:54, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Christine Bersola-Babao

A bit of edit warring here (courtesy of ChristineBabao, now blocked) over the "controversy" section in the article (and the lack of "positive" stuff). Perhaps some of you can have a look; I trimmed that section considerably already (it really was written terribly POVy), and maybe some of you can find it in your heart and in your Google searches to improve the article--perhaps even making it look better for the subject, properly verified and all that of course. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 05:02, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I've cut it back and removed the NPOV tag. A lot of attacking going on there over a somewhat minor incident ie social media backlash over a single article she wrote and apologized for. Also many of the sources cited to support this event are poor with several dead links. I almost question the notability of the subject.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:11, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

avm farooq umar

Farooq Umar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

History given regarding education is and other positions held is fictitious. No such qualification exists for the said person. FYI — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.136.106.42 (talk) 11:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Krishna Athal

There is a mild edit war over this text

• In September 2013, officials at the University of Mauritius accused Athal of falsifying his university degree."Allégations de falsification contre Krishna Athal : l'UoM porte plainte". Le Defi Media Group. Retrieved 3 October 2013.

The source is in French (I believe) but a Google translated version says:

• Management of the University of Mauritius has complained to the police against the former president of the National Youth Council, Krisha Athal. He is accused of falsifying his degree.

WP:BLPCRIME says:

• A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured.

NOTE: the subject has not yet been accused of any crime or been arrested. So the question is: should the above text be in the BLP?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:08, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Generally, accusations by outside parties aren't included until there is a legal charge. However, these accusations are made by the governing body that issues such degrees. I would encourage caution about inclusion. However, I could see an argument for a single sentence simply stating the accusation, who made it, and that no charges have been brought (don't say "yet" because that would imply assumption they will). But, I'm restating my opinion that it should not be included.--Dkriegls (talk to me!) 19:49, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

If the subject of the article hasn't been charged and this is just accusations, then I don't think it should be in the article. The problem here was that an IP editor was removing the info but giving no reason to explain the removal. Had the IP explained the edit the first time content was removed, maybe this would have been avoided, but the IP didn't do this, he/she just kept removing the info over-and-over again with not as much as an edit summary. Also, the possible conflict of interest with one of the editors didn't help, because it gave the appearance that the subject was just removing content that was negative, which probably was not the case here, but it still took that editor two reverts for removing content without explaination before an edit summary was finally left explaining the removal. For future reference, if an editor truly believes sourced content is bias, please take your argument to talk page, or at the least, leave an edit summary explaining this. If you don't tell us why you're removing content, how are other editors going to know the reason? The answer is that we won't know, and if the content appears to be sourced, will likely be restored because of this. As stated above, I believe it would be best to leave this statement out of the article and that it should be removed if re-added. Cmr08 (talk) 02:20, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm also OK with leaving it out of the article. Thanks everyone for giving your views and contributing to this consensus.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Carole Feuerman

Carole Feuerman poorly sourced, overstatement directly from the subject's website, pretentious material — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.3.141.195 (talk) 01:53, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Anthony Hopkins

Re: Anthony Hopkins

Biography

Anthony Hopkins has been classed as a 'composer' by many - including Dutch Chef d'Orchestre André Rieu and his Johann Strauss Orchestra - among countless others.

The waltz composed by Hopkins, entitled, 'And The Waltz Goes On' was performed by this orchestra in Maastricht, Netherlands in 2012 in their performance 'Under the Stars. Live in Maastricht 5.'

The edit I made - adding 'Composer' to the infobox was deleted by Binksternet stating that, 'of course he is a COMPOSER, but he is not famous as one.' So, WHY delete the FACT he IS a COMPOSER? - tell me!

Hopkins as an actor is already famous - yet, as a composer he is making his mark as well and his music is being played by full orchestras on world tours. To be a good composer, you do NOT need a slew of musical scores - you need only ONE. Any music aficionado can list you plenty of composers who are known for a SINGLE work.

I happen to be a music critique in Canada and have been heard on the radio - promoting careers all the way to Carnegie Hall. Hopkin's composition of 'And the Waltz Goes On' has been sold world-wide on a CD by André Rieu and this particular composition has been deemed worthy of Strauss himself! While his music is being applauded by thousands, Misplaced Pages is 'deaf.'

I know UTube is among the banned sites of Misplaced Pages - but PLEASE take a moment to go LISTEN to the performance of this composition by Hopkins by doing a search for:

André Rieu - And The Waltz Goes On (composed by: Anthony Hopkins)

...and then have the nerve to tell me Hopkins should not be labelled a 'Composer'!

Now, do I need to go on the radio and make my point for my voice to be heard on this world-wide and Misplaced Pages have some serious 'pie in the face' over this issue!?

I think that deleting the label 'Composer' out of the infobox for Anthony Hopkins is not doing justice to the enormous musical talent of the man as a composer and when he leaves this mortal world it will be a great shame not to have listed him here as such!

While Misplaced Pages lists composers on some period listings where many are 'little-known' and have only one piece, can you explain WHY Hopkins would be left out as a 'composer' even on his OWN biography page on this premise alone?! The work of Hopkins as a composer will likely surpass his work as an actor over time - it will be played for generations to come and many recognize this NOW!

I do not do edits on Misplaced Pages unless I am absolutely CERTAIN of what I am doing and this is one I am not ready to let go.

Three of my very good friends are multi-millionaires who have DONATED a lot of money to Misplaced Pages via MY encouragement. If Misplaced Pages is too stupid to see the light on issues like this and closes a 'blind eye' to what is appropriate here it is NOT PROMOTING KNOWLEDGE as it SHOULD and is 'censoring' things only based on the very personal 'bias' of its editors which is totally wrong and fails to enter FACTS when they should - it IS inappropriate to do in a case like this and I WILL tell them to STOP funding you - and trust me, on the basis of ETHICS, they WILL!

Please allow the word 'Composer' in the infobox to do justice to Hopkins! How could the world even put this man to rest someday without doing justice to his MERIT as a composer even during his lifetime! Good grief! What a SHAME!

Add to this: the fact that:

Prince Charles Philip Arthur George of Wales (born 1948)

...was also REMOVED off the list of British painters as well (which had been added by me). He IS FAMOUS for his watercolors and the massive amounts of money his art raises for charity! This one as well should have NOT been removed!

And I should NOT have been THREATENED to be removed as an editor for these two items!

I have good reason to be upset here! Important FACTS are NOT being allowed and this is TOTALLY ridiculous!

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoyalSnowbird (talk • contribs) 03:23, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I am pleased to learn that you have found employment as a "music critique" on the radio - where your evident lack of skills in written English are presumably not a problem. Sadly though, if you wish to bring about your proposed changes in the relevant articles, you will have to employ such skills as you have on the relevant article talk pages, rather than here - and please note that Misplaced Pages does not base decisions on supposed 'donations' from friends of "critiques", or on the number of exclamation marks used in a discussion, or indeed on the amount of text written in CAPITALS! Instead, Misplaced Pages requires evidence from published sources - I suggest that you find such evidence, and (perhaps with the assistance of a dictionary) present it for others to see. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Our prickly friend Andy is correct in that you should find published sources discussing Hopkins as a composer of some importance rather than as a composer of one work which is not widely known, or as an actor who dabbles in composition. The infobox is for the most important points, not for minor points. Misplaced Pages is written for the existing situation rather than for a notional future situation such as Hopkins being as famous or even more famous for his musical compositions than for his acting. Binksternet (talk) 03:45, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

While I am not familiar with all the response method here - my reply to you is this: This post is not meant to be 'letter perfect' as it serves to deal with complaints and issues among editors. I recognize my posting here was not perfect - it was not meant to be. However, there was no need to personally attack me and your manner in dealing with this speaks VOLUMES about you. I happen to be a published author, translator and copy editor and have earned my main living out from this for over 30 years now. This request to edit a single word is likely the one which will have cost you the most in Misplaced Pages lost funding history. All three of my friends have scrapped their Misplaced Pages budget and have decided to donate elsewhere based on: your biased attitude; lack of professionalism; failure to address the issue properly; failure to promote knowledge appropriately in dealing with facts; and, refraining to personally insult someone trying to contribute to your site. One of them happens to be a great admirer of Hopkins and a world-class philanthropist. He made a lot of money this year and was going to increase his donation to Misplaced Pages; however, the picture has now changed. . . He values my opinion and trusts my word and is now taking his money elsewhere to the tune of over 14 million dollars. Be proud of what you do - your biased ways are closing the door to great facts of knowledge based on your distorted opinions! In terms of 'references' - oft it is said a picture is worth a thousand words ...in today's cyber world, a video can act much the same. You failed to go watch the video of the performance I indicated to you where Anthony Hopkins was himself in attendance. Common knowledge and videography should have clearly suffices in this case - but again you are so blind and so imbued with the love of attacking someone and not addressing the issue fully and completely - properly - that you completely miss the boat! Great job! This 'attitude' of your speaks VOLUMES about you and how Misplaced Pages works. A piece of advice: do not go around insulting people - especially, when you know nothing about them nor whom you are dealing with - it may end up costing you some very REAL problems in the future (funding issue here). When Misplaced Pages goes on its funding campaigns to 'beg' the world for money, don't come stopping upon our doorstep because it is going elsewhere! André Rieu is Dutch and he knows all too well the history of my family as I am a descendant of the Princes of Gavere (Gavre) and the Counts van Egmont who are well-known in the Netherlands - and - my word will have more respect with him when I raise this sad issue - you can count on it! Your public relations skills are more than dismal and your ethics are even worse!

Good day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoyalSnowbird (talk • contribs) 05:09, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages doesn't need lessons in 'ethics' from people who think that they can bribe us into making decisions regarding content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:17, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

RoyalSnowbird, please try to understand that there is an appropriate editorial process which requires evidence (e.g. "is this person or painter or composer?") and then consensus ("but are they a NOTABLE painter or composer?"). Do not confuse somebody being well-known with somebody being well-known for that particular activity. For example, Prince Charles is very well-known especially for his charitable work and substantial business interests. But are those listed in the infobox? No, because he is primarily well-known for being heir to the British throne, and everything else is secondary. Even an impressively long infobox such as that for Winston Churchill only makes a passing reference to him being a painter, author and historian. Specific fields (such as the arts, for example) have specific criteria for what makes them notable. I suggest that you review these and then construct your argument within that framework supported by evidence. Shritwod (talk) 07:14, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

NO one bribed ANYONE here! Money is not going to be donated - that is not a bribe but a decision any financial contributor can make of their own volition if they deem it so - that is FINAL! There is a HUGE difference ...just in case stupid people like you cannot understand. . . You do not even know what ethics are - just take a look at how you reply to a pure stranger in response to my original request! You lack social savvy and discernment in spades! How stupid can anyone get?! If this is the manner in which you act as a 'representative contributor' to Misplaced Pages, I have some serious concerns as to your mental stability. I am GLAD this money was withdrawn - you are proving more and more that the decision was a good one! I shall relay the message to them! Your attitude is childish. I am not engaging in a 'tit for tat' communication. Ohhhhh silence is indeed golden!

Shritwod - you complete FAIL to see my point. Now, you have Hildegard of Bingen (another distant relative of mine) in the list of Medieval composers when she did not compose much music. So why could Hopkins not be indicated as a composer in his infobox . My view is you are all being 'pig headed' about this and could not see a gift horse if it hit you in the face! — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoyalSnowbird (talk • contribs) 07:31, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Please stop shouting, and please bear in mind WP:TLDR. GiantSnowman 11:10, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

• Royal Snowbird is presumed to be an inexperienced user, so perhaps I shouldn't say this, but are you having a little joke with us, Royal Snowbird? Your multi-millionaire friends have stopped donating and it's all Andy's fault — he has already cost us, what, 14 million dollars? We should stop contradicting you because a picture is worth more than a thousand words and you're the descendant of princes and counts and related to Hildegard of Bingen? You have concerns about Shritwood's mental stability? Yes… yes… Well, if you're kidding, it's getting repetitious; if you're serious, you really need to stop now, because you're violating some of Misplaced Pages's core policies and hitting people in the face with a gift horse. To be serious: if you keep it up I'll block you from editing for making personal attacks. Bishonen | talk 12:24, 7 October 2013 (UTC).

Ignoring the somewhat implausible claims of mystery benefactors waving cheques for $14 million, I've been searching online for anything resembling a credible review of Hopkin's waltz - but found nothing of any substance beyond the usual hyperbole that Amazon etc use to flog their wares. In reporting that André Rieu's orchestra premièred the piece, the BBC sadly omitted to give us any opinion as to its merits. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:50, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Postscript: evidently, I didn't search far enough - there are reviews of Hopkin's compositional work out there. Paul Kilbey, in a UK Huffpost Culture blog, under a headline that reads "Anthony Hopkins: Significantly Better at Acting Than Composing" opines that "There are definitely some worse composers out there than Anthony Hopkins. I mean, you probably could have guessed this even before listening to his new album Composer. It's statistically very probable, after all. But now I think it's basically fact: there are some worse composers out there than Anthony Hopkins. Some. Maybe about 20" . AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:10, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Claim to Alice y. Ting's wiki

• Alice Y. Ting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I found this last part of biography of Dr. Ting is totally wrong. The only true thing is she retracted only one paper which was published at Cell, not a sereis of paper's'. This retraction part can be clarified when the sentence get this link:http://cen.acs.org/articles/91/i8/MIT-Probe-Finds-Former-Postdoc.html. From MIT investigation, the falsification was proved to be done by one former postdoc.

Except this one retracted Cell paper, none of her papers are not questionable at all and not retracted. Please provide any authentic link or references for this. If not, this last part may not be included in Dr. Ting's biography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.150.32.22 (talk) 19:44, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I've removed that section for now. It's borderline WP:COATRACK as the paper was from one of her post-docs but she requested retraction of the paper from Cell as the PI so a short mention is probably warranted, along with a mention that the postdoc did not agree with the retraction. Any more details beyond that probably belong on Amar Thyagarajan as they have contested the retraction. The CEN source linked above mentions a second investigation - anyone have a way to check on that before any of this gets added back in? Ravensfire (talk) 20:52, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Added it back in with what seems to be supported by source. Not totally happy so if someone wouldn't mind reviewing, I'd appreciate it. I didn't add anything about that second investigation so might still be worthwhile. Ravensfire (talk) 21:16, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Monica Germino

• Monica Germino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This has just been turned into a puff piece. Any help will be appreciated. Thanks, JNW (talk) 21:39, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

 DoneI've cleaned it up and made it into a well sourced stub/starter article. I've also left a note on the talk page of the SPA who has been adding unsourced content. He/She seems to be cooperative so hopefully things will be smooth going forward.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:47, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Well done. Thank you, JNW (talk) 02:26, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Quinsy Gario

Quinsy Gario (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Dear all,

I hereby request the removal of this article since it is nothing more than propaganda and thus in violation with one of Misplaced Pages's core values: Neutral point of view (NPOV). More so, the information given in the article is false. Sources of citation are the words of this person himself and thus an opinion and not facts.

Thank you for your time and attention

Massimo Catarinella (talk) 22:05, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you nominate it for deletion if the concern is notability. §FreeRangeFrog 21:15, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Shannon Bohle

Possibly notable, unsure what the criteria is for archivits, but the article is sourced (and probably put together) by Bohle herself. Unwilling to get involved as had previous run in with this person several years ago. However thought the quality and necessary meat of the puff piece probably requires looking at. Obvious copying of text wholesale from for instance. Koncorde (talk) 22:39, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

seeking more eyes at Talk:Alex Jones

Alex Jones is a controversial conspiracy theorist. There are one or more IPs who have suggested that I have crossed bounds in attempting to apply BLP and WP:TPG against their rants on the talk page (if anything, I think the conversation on the talk page has been given too free reign) but I would welcome additional voices familiar with BLP policies.

Thanks!-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 09:38, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Rakesh Jhaveri

This is in reference to the Talk page on Rakesh Jhaveri. The section in question is "Controversy regarding Mr Jhaveri's actions". I believe this section violates all the three core policies (Neutral Point of View, Verifiability and No Original Research). The BLP has been written in a negative tone and is basically an attack page on Rakesh Jhaveri.

I would request removing this section from the Talk Page immediately, and if possible disallow such content from being posted to either the original article or to the talk page again.

- Vishal Shah. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vishalrshah (talk • contribs) 10:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Blanking the talk page was fine. I've left a warning on the IPs talk page as well. §FreeRangeFrog 21:20, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

The Washington Post

A new editor is adding long poorly-sourced allegations of illegal behavior against Bezos recent purchase of the Washington Post. It's based on OR using letters from a losing bidder. Rjensen (talk) 12:01, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Koch Brothers Exposed

I am away for a bit (Wikistrike), but for some reason this article struck me as likely violative of WP:BLP presenting allegations about living persons, and WP:NPOV as it seems to present one and only one version of the truth. I pov-tagged it, but think it likely that the BLP violations are of importance -- even if this "article" has been around a while. The "film" appears mainly to be YouTube stuff -- I found no indication that it was released other than on the Internet and on free DVDs (gift for donations). Collect (talk) 14:03, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Here's a link to the article, for convenience: Koch Brothers Exposed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I'm not entirely clear on your specific concern - more detail might be helpful. The film appears to me to be clearly notable, given coverage in the New York Times, Rolling Stone, The Nation, etc., and would be almost certain to survive an AfD. The article content suffers the same problems we encounter any time we write about an inherently polemical film - we need to convey the film's themes without endorsing them.

Regarding WP:BLP, it would be most helpful if you could identify the specific content which you feel violates policy. It's obviously not a BLP violation to discuss the view that the Koch brothers play an outsize role in the U.S. political process by virtue of their extraordinary wealth and lax campaign-finance laws. That view is covered extensively by independent, reliable sources. I'm assuming you have specific BLP concerns beyond the simple existence of this article, but unless you articulate them I'm not sure how they can be addressed. MastCell  15:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

First -- the article refers to criminal activity as "allegations." Second, there is not a single balancing word for the material given from the "film." In fact the article refers to the brothers with "corruption" which, as near as I can tell, is a contentious claim per se about living persons. It states that their wealth came from their father "working for Joseph Stalin" which is a contentious claim. It says in Misplaced Pages/s voice that they wish to destroy social security, that they support home foreclosures (and) pollution. That they seek to destroy the public school system. That they bust trade unions. That they actually intended to disenfranchise African American, Latino, elderly, young and disabled voters. And so on. With not a single disclaimer or rebuttal in the entire article. Pray tell, does it sound like BLP and NPOV are remotely being followed there? Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:18, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

An article on the film should represent the film. A rebuttal of specific claims in the film should only be included if a source is discussing the film, otherwise it is original research synthesis. Gamaliel (talk) 18:30, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I've never heard of this film before but it appears to be an anti-Koch propaganda film. What did you expect it to say? If you want some balance, you need to find reliable sources that provide that balance. Here's one: Fact-checkers and Kochs' 'Big Oil'. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:33, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm a little confused by the synopsis section. They appear to reference some YouTube videos. Are these excerpts from the film? If not, this content should probably be removed from the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:43, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

The "film" appears itself to be a YouTube video (sigh). Other polemic films tend to have some balancing of views presented in the article - this one has absolutely not a word against the film at all. And the "Stalin's money" allegation affects living persons, to be sure. Collect (talk) 19:03, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

The film is either notable or it's not. Its distribution on YouTube is irrelevant here, so there's no need to perseverate about it or continually apply scare quotes. We get it. And you do, of course, know that there is some substance to the mention of Joseph Stalin, since the Koch brothers' father did an extensive business with the Soviet Union under Stalin in the 1930s (or, as the New Yorker put it: "Oddly enough, the fiercely capitalist Koch family owes part of its fortune to Joseph Stalin."). Thus, I don't see a BLP issue here, since the material about Stalin is a) clearly attributed as a claim made by the film, and b) true. MastCell  21:12, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I suppose you could use this source: Fringe Video Maker Upset That Koch Defends Itself by Revealing the Serial Dishonesty in his Latest Attacks on the Company. Apparently, that's Koch's official response to the film. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:49, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

That looks like an excellent source to me, assuming proper attribution in the body of the Misplaced Pages article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:38, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• For a 60 min. film, it has a summary as long as most feature films. The "plot summary" if you will, seems to be littered with "references" that are Youtube videos posted by this film company. In that regard, we might be looking at WP:SPS. At the very least, it's using a primary source in a situation where some fairly ugly allegations are being made. The film does deserve an artile, as it easily passes GNG. But there BLP issues should be addressed. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:28, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
  • No question the article needs to be heavily revised. I agree the synopsis section is way too long, and there are too many links to the film itself (as opposed to reliable independent sources about the film). Most critically, the article needs a "Reception" or "Critical Response" section (per WP:MOSFILM), which should convey what reliable independent sources have said about it. None of these are exactly BLP issues, though. MastCell  21:07, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
    • I've removed the embedded links to YouTube videos which violate WP:EL and are WP:OR since they don't directly comment on the subject of the article. The synopsis is also problematic as it cherry picks specifics rather than giving the reader a disinterested summary of the film. Also since the topic of the film and WP article are living people who are impacted by the content on that WP article, I think there are clearly BLP issues at play here and this noticeboard is an appropriate venue for community discussion about it.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 02:16, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Byambajav Ulambayar

SOMEONE, please help! We have managed three-time World Sumo Champion Byambajav Ulambayar for 7 years, but someone has incorrectly "changed" his name! Please note:

THIS page: http://en.wikipedia.org/Ulambayaryn_Byambajav has "mostly" correct information about him, but the name of the entry, "Ulambayaryn Byambajav", is completely wrong. There is no one by that name, and we have no idea who added "yn" to the end of his family name.

THIS page: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Byambajav_Ulambayar&redirect=no includes his CORRECT name. Can someone please close the OTHER page (above), and transfer all info to this page (Byambajav Ulambayar)? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.160.145.217 (talk) 17:35, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Jasna Omejec

The article on the current president of the Croatian Constitutional Court states: "Croatian Constitution was changed in 1999 so that she can become judge of Constitutional Court." However, this claim is not substantiated in any form or fashion and does not as such conform to the standards of Misplaced Pages. It should therefore be removed or supported by reliable sources, which will be difficult to find as the sentence itself places the constitutional amendments in 1999 when in fact they occurred a year after that. Therefore, not only is the claim on Mrs Omejec unsupported, it is also incorrect as to the most basic facts. Indeed, the way it was added into the stub article suggests that the addition was made with the sole purpose of smearing the character of Mrs Omejec. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.137.56.104 (talk) 20:14, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

J. J. JACKSON

J.J. Jackson (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

J. J. JACKSON IS CREDITED AS THE SONG WRITER ON THE SHANGILAS "IT'S EASIER TO CRY." ACTUALLY, THE SONG WAS WRITTEN BY J.J. JACKSON, ROBERT STEINBERG & JOE DE ANGELIS WHO WERE THEN STAFF WRITERS AT KAMA SUTRA RECORDS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CCEF:8660:184D:30A4:9946:37F8 (talk) 20:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Please cite one or more published, reliable sources for this information. See WP:Reliable sources for information about what constitutes a reliable source. We cannot edit information in Misplaced Pages articles based purely on suggestions by an anonymous user. Dwpaul (talk) 02:03, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Also please note that the information that Mr. Jackson was a writer of "It's Easier to Cry" comes from a cited source, which does not appear unreliable. The source does not say that Mr. Jackson was the only writer of the song, only that his "songwriting credits ... include songs such as the Shangrilas' 'It's Easier To Cry' ...". The Misplaced Pages article says "he wrote" -- but we cannot revise this, since it does not contradict the cited source, without a reliable source that says there were other writers of that specific song (except perhaps to mirror the ambiguous language of the source by saying he received songwriting credit for it). Dwpaul (talk) 02:13, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Gary North Quotes

Discussion going on at Talk:Gary_North_(economist)#BLP_sources Please respond there to avoid forum splitting.

The article includes several highly controversial statements attributed to North. The claims have sources, but the sources themselves do not provide any provenance for the quotes. For example says "So when Exodus 21:15-17 prescribes that cursing or striking a parent is to be punished by execution, that's fine with Gary North. "When people curse their parents, it unquestionably is a capital crime," he writes. "The integrity of the family must be maintained by the threat of death." Likewise with blasphemy, dealt with summarily in Leviticus 24:16: "And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him."

but has no information about WHERE North purportedly wrote this statement. Is a source like this claiming statements/writings by another person sufficiently reliable to state as a matter of fact in wikipedias voice that North did make those statements? Gaijin42 (talk) 20:50, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Dianna agron

On the source 28 the information is base on a rumour. It's not an accurate fact, just a note of gossip. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.14.69.174 (talk) 00:49, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I've removed it, as I think WP:BLPGOSSIP applies here. It's from gossip website Radar Online quoting an "anonymous source". Paul Erik 01:35, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Joyce Karlin

Joyce Karlin has a Controversy section that is long and undersourced. The shooting case that sparked this controversy is explained in excessive detail within this section. I think most of it should be merged with the Los Angeles Riots of 1992 article. Since I'm pretty new here, I want to hear other editors' opinions on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calculated Optimism (talk • contribs) 07:43, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

MD Rabbi Alam

MD Rabbi Alam (born November 30, 1971) is a Muslim, an American Army veteran, a Democrat, an Activist, and the organizer of Million Muslim March on September 11, 2013 . On 9/11/2013 Dr. Cornel West joined with Alam at the National Mall in Washington DC for the rally of Million Muslim March & "Marching Against Drones". Alam is the founding Chairman of the Missouri Democratic Party Asian American Caucus (MDPAAC), established in 2007 with the stated aim of "Stimulate an active interest in Asian Americans relating to Political and Governmental affairs to facilate Asian American participation in the Democratic Party & Asian Communities living in USA and exercising our Rights in the Political Process. He is the founder of American Muslim Political Action Committee (AMPAC) and co-host AMPAC Radio Community Talk-Show with Dr. Kevin Barrett. for Million American March against fear on 9/11/13 which is called MAMAF.. In 2010 Alam lost a bid for Missouri State Representative from MO House District 50. In 2012 Alam ran a unsuccessful campaign for "Missouri Secretary of State" race and defeated by Missouri's current Secretary of State Jason Kander on August 7 and gained 13.1% votes.

On August 15, 2013 Alam appeared at the Fox National News on Sean Hannity show to defend the Million Muslim March event scheduled on 9/11/2013 . On August 15, 2013 the Huffington Post reported that "'Million Muslim March' Planned On 9/11 Anniversary Prompts Conservative Freakout" . Alam and his organization AMPAC faced media attacked and Fox News reported that "Muslim group blasted for planning mass demonstration on Sept. 11, which was Published August 17, 2013. . On August 17, 2013 Alam went on the National Fox news with Judge Jeanine Pirro to protest the media attack, this time Alam's chief of Operations Isa Hodge joins with him. On August 19, 2013 Alam sends Chris Phillips one of the DC area March Organizer to the Sean Hannity show on National Fox News for the final debate on Million Muslim March and it Turns To Heated Anti-Semite Debate, with Hannity, Chris Phillips and Dr. Juhdi Jasser .

On February 19, 2009, Alam made controversial comments on 9/11 such as possible Israeli involvement in the 9/11 attack, no Jewish died on 9/11, the planes are not solely reasons for the World Trade Center collapsed. Was 9/11 a conspiracy? - an online discussion forum where Alam wrote possibly 9/11 was a conspiracy . Alam's anti-Zionist comments made headlines and got national attention. On July 10, 2012 Alam was labeled as "Secretary of Truth" and as truth movement activist. The Washington Free Beacon reported that "Alam, who was born in Bangladesh, served as a “satellite campaign manager” for then-candidate Barack Obama and the Democratic Party during the 2008 elections, and has since been invited to the White House. Alam has speculated about Jewish involvement in the September 11th terrorist attacks and participated in an event with a Muslim cleric who has accused Israel of terrorism and alleged that the U.S. invented the HIV disease. . On July 11, 2012, St. Louis post Dispatch reported about Alam that "Mo. Democrat makes headlines questioning 9/11" . Alam is a pro-life Democrat & the Missouri Right to Life endorsed him during his Missouri Secretary of State Race, even after his Anti-Zionist statements . On August 19, 2013 Canada Free Press reported Alam as Jew hating Dem Behind the Million Muslim March

Early life

Alam was born in Khulna, Bangladesh in 1971 in the Rajapur Village. His father Late Dr. MD Rawshon Azam and Rahima Begum during the Liberation war in Bangladesh

In the early 1990s, Barrett received master's degrees in both English literature and French from San Francisco State University and married a Moroccan-born Muslim woman. He converted to Islam in 1992, having formerly been a Unitarian.

Barrett returned to the University of Wisconsin–Madison in 1995. The United States State Department gave him a Fulbright Scholarship in 1999 to study a year in Morocco. He received a Ph.D. in African languages and literature with a minor in folklore from the University of Wisconsin–Madison in 2004, focusing his dissertation on the topic of Moroccan legend. He has taught English, French, Arabic, American Civilization, Humanities, African Literature, Folklore, and Islam at colleges and universities in the San Francisco Bay area, Paris, and Madison, Wisconsin.

Million Muslim March

On September 11, 2013 Alam Chairs at the Million American March Against Fear, previously called the Million Muslim March organized by the American Muslim Political Action Committee. The Million Muslim March was reported as provocative and it was heavily protested by Christians, Conservatives and 2 Million Bikers. Several hundred participants joined with Alam along with Dr. ] at the National Mall in Washington DC . The March draws handful numbers of National and international media coverage such as Washington DC NBC Action News , Fox News , US News - World News Reports , Huffington Post , Voice of Russia , Voice of America . Critiques says, Million Muslim March draws more media than the actual participants.

Recent history

On September 15, 2013 Alam spoke at the National Convention of Architectures & Engineers (A&E) for 9/11 Truth Movement at the Sheraton Pentagon City, in Washington DC. Alam spoke about the American Muslims and 9/11 consequences  

Radio Bangla USA

Alam hosts special political talk-show "Today's Nation & Future Generations" on internet base radio. Alam is the co-host with Dr. Kevin Barrett for 60 months conference call for a project of American Muslim Political Action Committee - AMPAC .

Educating Muslim American & AMPAC Radio

Alam host an internet based live broadcasting and working to educating Muslim Americans and pushing AMPAC forward . Alam is the founder of AMPAC Radio as well as the AMPAC .

Alam continues to run an Internet radio show, interviewing such well-known anti-Semitic fringe figures as Webster Tarpley, Kevin Barrett, Merlin Miller, Khalid Yeasin, and Richard Gage who accuse 9/11 as controlled demolition as well as an inside job.

On Dec 11, 2012 Alam send a provocative message through his Radio Talk-Show to Sheikh Hasina, the Prime Minister of Bangladesh regarding the Political radicalization in Bangladesh . On March 1, 2013 Alam send "Special message to Bangladeshi Politicians and government to stop killing in Bangladesh" .

Fighting Against Media and Politics of Fear

Alam quoted "Today in America, our biggest problem is 'Media Propaganda', Media takes an Apple & produces Orange Juice, Contrary, Media takes an Orange & produces Apple Juices, indeed, Media takes an Apple & an Orange and produces 'Banana Juice'. We Americans are drinking too much 'Banana Juice' and I am MD Rabbi Alam, fighting against Corporate Medias' Banana Juices". Alam claimed as "Pro-America, Pro-Peace and Pro-Islam" at the event on 9/11/2013 in the National Mall in Washington DC during his speech at the Rally. Million Muslim March was protested by Bikers and Christians group, however, Alam invited the opposition's leader 'Ruben Israel' to speak and Ruben spoke exactly against Islam at Alam's Rally .

9/11 conspiracy theories

Alam first drew attention to his views by publishing "in the Washington Free Beacon" - calling him as Secretary of Truth and his controversial comments on 9/11 attack. Alam said "No Jew died on 9/11", later on he apologize, yet he believes the planes are not solely responsible for the World Trade Center collapsed . In addition to that, Alam also believed that 9/11 was a Jewish holiday and he is cleric to Sheik Khalid Yasin who is a U.S born convert Radical Muslim who's idea is to implantation of world-wide Sharia Law . Alam's official website for his organization AMPAC published that 9/11 is a hoax and Al-Quada is a Joke . Daniel Pipe started a forum calling "MD Rabbi Alam: A Democrat to watch?" . Alam believes that Muslims had nothing to do with the attacks: "As a Muslim American I really like to say this, "Muslim Americans are peace loving, Law abiding and good tax payers, they are loyal to this nation and we are not the problem for American Society, the biggest problem is fear against Muslim"

Jews and Zionism

Alam claimed himself as Anti-Zionist and he believes anti-Zionism is not Antisemitism. Alam says "I am pro-Islam, it does not make me anti-Jew or anti-Christianity.

State-wide campaign

In 2012 Alam ran for "Missouri Secretary of State" and lost the election on August 7. He was defeated by current Missouri Secretary of State Jason Kander. Alam gained 13.1% votes in the Missouri Democratic Primary. In 2010 Alam ran for Missouri House of Representative from MO House District 50 and lost the primary to Michael Brown on August 2.

Alam received the endorsements of Missouri Pro-Life, the National Right to Life and National gun association.

Domestic abuse

References

1. MD Alam: Academic Background
2. MD Rabbi Alam: Special Political Talk-Show Host
3. MD Rabbi Alam: Political Talk-Show Host - Today's Nation & Future Generations
5. MD Alam - Washington Free Beacon titled MD Rabbi Alam as Secretary of Truth, dated July 10, 2012 @ 5:00 am, by Adam Kredo
6. Afroza Tuli - Spouse of MD Rabbi Alam
7. Late Dr. MD. Rawshown Azam: Father of MD Rabbi Alam
8. Rahima Begum: Mother of MD Rabbi Alam
9. MD Rabbi Alam served in Baghdad, Iraq in 2003, according to the Star and Stripes: 28 servicemembers become U.S. citizens in ceremony at Vogelweh, By Marni McEntee, Stars and Stripes, Published: October 7, 2004
10. ^ Cite error: The named reference mujca american muslim was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
11. MD Rabbi Alam Goes on Hannity to Defend Million Muslim March: Group to Hold 'Million Muslim March' on Anniversary of 9/11
12. MD Rabbi Alam - 'Million Muslim March' Planned for 9/11 - Brigitte Gabriel vs. MD Rabbi Alam
13. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOIVUytlT0E MD Rabbi Alam on Fox National News: Published on Aug 17, 2013 HEATED DEBATE - 'Million Muslim March' Planned for 9/11 - Judge Jeanine Pirro vs MD Rabbi Alamand Guests - Fox News - 8/17/2013 ]
14. http://www.MDPAAC.org - MD Alam, Founder of MDPAAC
15. American Muslim Political Action Committee (AMPAC)
16. AMPAC: Founded by MD Alam, Reported by Adam Credo on August 15, 2012, Reported as a Truther PAC
17. AMPAC Radio Community Talk-Show
18. MD Alam
19. Million American March Against Fear on 9/11/13 - MAMAF
20. MD Alam lost in MO SOS Election on August 7, 2013
21. St. Louis Post Dispatch: MD Rabbi Alam - Candidate, MO SOS 2012 Election
22. News | Government, MD Rabbi Alam, Candidate for Secretary of State, MD Rabbi Alam has previously served as a Jackson County Democratic Committeeman. Posted by Tamara Duncan (Editor) , July 30, 2012 at 12:48 PM
23. MD Alam in Ballotpedia, Last modified Sep 19, 2013
24. Fox National News Insiders Reports that "MD Rabbi Alam goes on Sean Hannity to Defend Million Muslim March"
25. 'Million Muslim March' Planned On 9/11 Anniversary Prompts Conservative Freakout The Huffington Post | By Nick Wing, Posted: 08/15/2013 4:20 pm EDT
27. Youtube Video: Published on Aug 17, 2013 HEATED DEBATE - 'Million Muslim March' Planned for 9/11 - Judge Jeanine Pirro vs MD Rabbi Alamand Guests - Fox News - 8/17/2013
28. AMPAC March Organizer Chris Phillips on Fox News, Defends Million Muslim March, Published on Aug 19, 2013, 8/19/13 - Million Muslim March Debate Turns To Heated Anti-Semite Debate, Hannity, Chris Phillips - Sean Hannity Show
29. Alam's 9/11 Controversial Comments posted on online discussion on Topix
30. Alam's Anti-Zionist Comments reported by Washington Free Beacon on July 10, 2012
31. MD Alam: Mo. Democrat makes headlines questioning 9/11
32. Missouri Right to Life Stands By Endorsement of Islamist 9/11 Truther, by RYAN MAURO July 16, 2012, Read more: Family Security Matters http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/missouri-right-to-life-stands-by-endorsement-of-islamist-911-truther#ixzz2hCPu019O, Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
34. Alam's Family comes from Village Rajapur, in Khulna, Bangladesh
35. MD Rabbi Alam's Family details from Kansas City Star Project Votes
36. ^ What Makes Kevin Barrett Tick? The Capital Times, July 22, 2006.
37. 911 Truth Jihad: My epic struggle against the 9/11 big lie
38. University of Wisconsin–Madison Fulbright Scholar (students), 1998-2005 (PDF File)
39. Cite error: The named reference provost clears was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
40. The sacred and profane fantastic: Fantasy, reality and Islamic narratives Thesis (M.A.) University of Wisconsin. OCLC 608696393
41. Bikers are in DC protesting Million Muslim March on 9/11/13
42. NBC Action News Reports Million American March Against Fear on 9/11/13
43. DC Fox News Reports Million Muslim March on 9/11/13
44. US News World Report Reports Million Muslim March on 9/11/13
45. Huffington Post Reports Million Muslim March on 9/11/13
46. Voice of Russia Reports Million American March Against Fear on 9/11/13
47. VOR Reports Million Muslim March on 9/11/13
48. Voice of America Reporting Million American March Against Fear on 9/11/13
49. http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/12/cornel-west-came-out-as-supporting-911-truthers-at-million-muslim-march/
50. http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Million-Muslim-March-Christian-Protesters-White-House-Sept-11-2013-223315411.html "Million Muslim March" Attendees Confronted by Christian Protesters on National Mall
51. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/11/million-muslim-march_n_3906303.html 'Million Muslim March' Shaping Up To Be More Like A Few Hundred People Walking Down The Street
52. http://www.voanews.com/content/small-911-protests-highlight-anti-war-and-anti-obama-sentiment/1748121.html Small 9/11 Protests Highlight Anti-War and Anti-Obama Sentiment
53. http://voiceofrussia.com/us/2013_09_12/Million-Muslim-March-wilts-5045/ By Rob Sachs WASHINGTON (VOR)— The "Million American March Against Fear: Peace, Harmony & Justice, A Civil Rights Movement for Humanity" gathered to Washington Tuesday, but attendance was only a shadow of expectations
54. MD Rabbi Alam: Guest Speaker at the DC 911 Truth Conference on September 15, 2013
55. MD Alam and Dr. Kevin Barrett - 60 Months Conference Call
56. AMPAC Conference Call for 60 Months, Host MD Alam & Dr. Kevin Barrett
57. AMPAC 60 Months Conference Call Reported by Washington Free Beacon
58. AMPAC on USTREAM
60. American Muslim Political Action Committee - AMPAC founded by MD Alam
61. A Special Message to Sheikh Hasina Bangladeshi Prime Minister by MD Rabbi Alam
62. Alam send special message to Bangladesh to stop killing
63. On 9/11 Million Muslim March in the national Mall in Washington DC
64. Alam Invited the Ruben Leader of Bikers & Christian group to the Rally and Ruben spoke against Islam at Million Muslim March Poldium
65. MD Rabbi Alam, Obama Ally and Democrat Candidate for Missouri Secretary of State, Claims No Jews Died on 9/11
66. Radical Muslim Group behind Million Muslim March
67. 9/11 is a Hoax: AMPAC websites describes
68. AMPAC Q&A Describes that Al Quada is a Joke and 9/11 is a Hoax
69. MD rabbi Alam - A Democrat to watch, by Daniel Pipe

External links

• AMPAC Official website
• MD Alam official website
• MD Alam: Radio Bangla USA
• Million American March Against Fear
• Blog: Million American March Against Fear on 9/11/13
• MAMAF: Official website

v t e 9/11 conspiracy theories
Key topics	Advance-knowledge conspiracy theories Opinion polls 9/11 truth movement World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories
Groups	Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth Million Muslim March
Film and TV	911: In Plane Site A Few Days in September Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura Loose Change "Mystery of the Urinal Deuce" Zeitgeist
Books	9/11: The Big Lie American Conspiracies Among the Truthers Debunking 9/11 Myths The CIA and September 11 The New Pearl Harbor The Terror Timeline
Category

Template:Persondata

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution
• Living people
• 1971 births
• Anti-Zionism
• American Democrats
• American Muslims
• American political writers
• American radio personalities
• Conspiracy theorists
• Islam
• University of Missouri-Kansas City
• People from Kansas City, Missouri
• Missouri Democrats
• University of Phoenix
• Bangladesh National University