The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention: Talk:Leib Tropper - I have proposed adding the following to the final paragraph:
- The woman whom Tropper was helping to convert has acknowledged recording calls between her and Tropper. Paul Berger, "Sex Tapes Rock the Orthodox", The Jewish Chronicle, 23 December 2009.
- Two other editors have objected, immediately above -- one with an unfounded conspiracy theory, the other with what in my view is an excessively restrictive reading of BLP. For background: this business started with blog posts, and a discussion at BLPN, here, properly took the view that the blog was unacceptable as a source. However, the story in question has now been picked up in numerous reliable sources, including the NY Post, the Jewish Chronicle, Haaretz, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, etc. I think some editors are having a hard time moving beyond an approach that was initially properly cautious but which has been overtaken by the cascading coverage.
- The particular problem with the current version -- what my proposed addition is meant to remedy -- is that it is couched in terms of allegations, suggesting that nothing has been confirmed. This isn't true: the NY Post story, here, identifies everyone in no uncertain terms. Even so, I don't propose to having Wikipedia asserting that it is all true; I merely want to indicate that the woman in question has acknowledged recording calls between her and Tropper. The main objection above is that this has "no value" -- not exactly a good policy-based argument, given the quality of the sources and the restraint of my sentence. BLP-based caution is one thing, but there is also such a thing as excessive soft-pedalling of a story confirmed by multiple reliable sources.
- Additional sources: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. Any comments appreciated. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:18, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Talk:Michelle Rhee - Should the article about Michelle Rhee give an alternate name in Korean and Hangul?
- The article about Michelle Rhee contains a Korean alternate name in Hangul which - according to a Korean newspaper - is another name she has. However, she is American, born in the U.S., and to my knowledge, there is no indication that she actually uses this name. I have had an interesting discussion with another editor on the article's talkpage about this, and now find myself at a loss as to whether or not there is a convention/policy concerning such cases. What say ye? Any thoughts on this?
- This is a minor issue, and in my mind not about "winning or losing". I am simply interested in more input here. Thank you. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 09:25, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Talk:Chris Moneymaker -
- [A 2009 article in Bet Us says Moneymaker has had his fair share of critics as a result of his tournament record after his 2003 World Series of Poker win. [1]According to an article in Poker Listings, Moneymaker is regarded by many critics as a "one-hit wonder" in spite of his success in 2003.[2] However, an article in Blind Bet Poker says that Moneymaker has shown he is not a one-hit wonder by making strong showings at some of the biggest tournaments in the industry.[3] These tournaments include 2nd place at the Bay 101 Shooting Stars World Poker Tour Tournament, 3rd place at the Fourth Annual Jack Binion Poker Classic in Tunica and another 3rd place at the APPT in Sydney, Australia. [4]]
- The above text, [in brackets] which I believe to be current, reliably sourced, well attributed, neutrally worded and balanced in weight, has been deleted twice (the first version was just one sentence). Discussion has not yielded any common ground so rather than edit war I would like to have the opinion of other editors. Additional citations and quotes from articles that support the above paragraph, can be seen in this sandbox here.[6]Thank you.-- — Kbob • Talk • 03:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Template talk:Infobox officeholder - Recent discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Tim Kaine questions whether the adding signatures to office-holder iboxes is a good idea for various reasons: WP:BLP/privacy; possible ID theft; no encyclopedic value etc.
- Proposal: that the signature parameter be deleted from this and all related iboxes. – ukexpat (talk) 03:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Talk:Gerry Adams - I have to wonder if it entirely appropriate for the article to refer to Adams's claims that his father was emotionally, sexually and physically abusive of several family members over many years. Firstly, his father is dead and so can't defend himself. Comments irrelevant to improving the article redacted per WP:BLP Irvine22 (talk) 17:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Talk:Jennifer Garner - The majority of this section is unenyclopedic and was tagged as such but naturally, the tag was removed. Some of the content could possibly stay (ie Garner's somewhat strict upbringing), but I fail to see why it is relevant to mention that Garner got her ears pierced twice. Is there some reason this event is notable in Garner's career? I'm also failing to see why we should discuss what she wore to award ceremonies. I think the section should be cut down dramatically and pruned of unneeded trivia. Instead of getting into an edit war, I'd like other opinions on the matter first. 70.241.26.184 (talk) 18:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Talk:Émile Durkheim - == Comments on RfC ==
- Quickly looking through the literature, it seems that the term "egoistic suicide" is used quite prevalently, whereas "egotistical suicide" is used hardly at all. On the other hand, some of his books have been translated so that "egotistical" has been used throughout instead of "egoistic." I think that a parenthetical remark along the lines of (sometimes translated as 'egotistical suicide') might be of aid for people looking into that subject. It might give someone another term to search for, or help them connect the dots to know that the two terms refer to the same thing. Yes, the words are synonyms, but terms used in specialty fields aren't always well-behaved in that respect. MarkNau (talk) 17:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom - Should one specific role of the queen be singled out for mention in the lead, or should the lead stick to her main role? DrKiernan (talk) 09:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Talk:Negroni - Is there any WP:V source that links Pascal Olivier Count de Negroni to the Negroni cocktail? All online sources with Pascal Negroni are very recent (2008-09), are typically blogs and forum postings, and I believe may stem from spamming by an editor claiming that his ancestor originated the drink. The refs given here are only a couple months old. While the origins of the drink are definitely cloudy, a quick search shows mention of the Camillo Negroni story at least as far back as 1999 on the internet. http://groups.google.com/group/it.hobby.cucina/browse_thread/thread/44dbfdcdf2a23688/91b067cb7b3de999?hl=en&q=%22camillo+negroni%22#91b067cb7b3de999 I'm just concerned that through ubiquitous spamming of the internet, people are rewriting history.
- Is there any reference to Pascal and the cocktail drink even older than 3 years? - Chromatikoma (talk) 20:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Talk:Ramakrishna - This is Request for Comments from other editors, regarding dispute over emphasis on sexuality, usage of book reviews in this article. I would like to mention that earlier a outside opinion ( archived here ) was sought and subsequently a consensus was reached to avoid overemphasis on sexuality, this being a Biography article and avoid book reviews. However, User:Goethean still believes that "we should be focusing on the serious problems with this article, namely, the suppression of the fact that most scholars of Bengali literature believe that Ramakrishna's sexuality was eccentric", while other editors (including the third opinion) like me believe that overemphasis of sexuality is out of place in the article and there is already a section dedicated to it and also a main article Views on Ramakrishna which discusses several contrasting views in detail. Also I have argued that, several scholars like Peter Heehs, Gayatri Spivak, Alan Rolland, Kelly Ann Raab, Amiya Sen, James Gerald Larson, Somnath Bhattacharyya, John Stratton Hawley, Dr. Jean Openshaw to name a few do not agree with "eccentric sexuality". ( for ex see : Talk:Ramakrishna#Other_quotes )
- Also editors like myself, User:Priyanath, User:RegentsPark, User:Ludwigs2 to name a few believe that book reviews are not as reliable as the book itself and the book itself should be used. I have also argued that selectively cherry picking quotes for book reviews ( while ignoring the negative elements ) is prone to give a wrong impression, for ex, see Talk:Ramakrishna#Book_review_RSN_examples, Talk:Ramakrishna#Other_quotes .
- Interested editors can have a look at an example of how confusing inclusion of book reviews can be
-
- |-
- ! style="background-color: #CFC;" | Example
- |-
- | style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white; " |
- Before the text was :
- In 1995, Kripal argued that argued that the Ramakrishna Movement has manipulated Ramakrishna's biographical documents, that the Movement has published them in incomplete and bowdlerized editions, that the Movement has suppressed Ram Chandra Datta's Srisriramakrsna Paramahamsadever Jivanavrttanta.[122] These views were disputed by Swami Atmajnanananda, who wrote that Jivanavrttanta has been reprinted nine times as of 1995.[123] In 1998, Kripal wrote that he had "overplayed" the suppression of Jivanavrttanta and "the Ramakrishna Order reprinted Datta's text the very same summer Kali's Child appeared, rendering my original claims of a conscious concealment untenable."[124]
- In 1997, Malcolm McLean of Otago University[125] argued that the Ramakrishna Movement has manipulated Ramakrishna's biographical documents, that the Movement has published them in incomplete and bowdlerized editions, that the Movement has "virtually suppressed" Ram Chandra Datta's Srisriramakrsna Paramahamsadever Jivanavrttanta, which he says "presents an altogether different picture of Ramakrishna," and that the Movement has "present[ed] a particular kind of explanation of Ramakrishna, that he was some kind of neo-Vedantist who taught that all religions are the same..."[126]
- (Note that this part gives a wrong impression that Atmajnanananda's comments do not apply to McLean's and McLean's comments are undisputed, while it is actually not so. Also the book review applies to 1995 ed, the same arguments were altered in 1998. I argue that using book reviews, it can be projected as if the same material is professed by "most scholars of Bengali" as Goethean argues above ( while there is one scholar + book reviews ). for ex : Similar RSN discussion )
- After :
- In 1995 in the first editon of Kali's Child Kripal and in the book review of this edition (1997) by Malcolm McLean of Otago University, both argued that that the Ramakrishna Movement has manipulated Ramakrishna's biographical documents, that the Movement has published them in incomplete and bowdlerized editions, that the Movement has "virtually suppressed" Ram Chandra Datta's Srisriramakrsna Paramahamsadever Jivanavrttanta, which McLean says "presents an altogether different picture of Ramakrishna," and that the Movement has "present[ed] a particular kind of explanation of Ramakrishna, that he was some kind of neo-Vedantist who taught that all religions are the same...". These views were disputed by Swami Atmajnanananda, who wrote that Jivanavrttanta has been reprinted nine times as of 1995 and the translation of Kathamrita were not "bowlderized" and considered western decorum into consideration. In Kali's Child (2 ed) 1998, Kripal wrote that he had "overplayed" the suppression of Jivanavrttanta and "the Ramakrishna Order reprinted Datta's text the very same summer Kali's Child appeared, rendering my original claims of a conscious concealment untenable." Amiya Sen wrote that the projection of Ramakrishna as a Vedantin by the Movement is "testified" by "no less than Ramakrishna himself" and the Kathamrita.
- |}
- I would like to request for comments on the following:
- Overemphasis on sexuality in this biography article.
- Usage of book reviews ( especially when more critical reviews exist ).
- --TheMandarin (talk) 07:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Talk:Bill Maher - Would the above discussed "Pasteur quote" be a constructive improvement to the Maher article? (Sorry for the massive previous verbiage!!) Valerius Tygart (talk) 01:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Talk:Andrej Grubacic - I have doubts about the subject of the article's notability and whether the cited references really support this and I have failed to raise these in the right way having upset an editor. Can someone help? Msrasnw (talk) 21:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Talk:Lucas Neill - Does the selection of the referee, Cantalejo, to officiate in the Quarter Finals of FIFA 2006 warrant inclusion in the article, given the full description of the controversy surrounding his officiating in the Round of 16 which is included in the article?
- Tapered (talk) 16:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Talk:Lester Coleman - There appears to be a strong disagreement over printing facts regarding Lester Coleman unless those facts are both directly related to his notability and have been reported widely. See the discussion begun under the subheading "Fraud"[7], then carried over to the Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard[8], and then returned to the subheading "Fraud case discussion"[9]. I am strongly opposed to the removal of the offending paragraph, have offered my opinion ad naseum, and welcome a concensus of Wikipedia opinions. Please offer an opinion.—Merry Yellow (talk) 19:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Manually added requests - This is a human-edited list of requests for comment in this category. To add an entry, go to that page.
To add a discussion to this list:
|
