User talk:Valenciano

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


OK, you are an experienced editor, so no arguments from me Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Valenciano. You have new messages at AKS.9955's talk page.
Message added 11:55, 17 February 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 11:55, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

P. J. Kurien[edit]

Hi Valenciano. I understand what you said about WP:BLPCRIME. But in this case, since the suspect is acquitted, WP:BLPCRIME doesn't apply here because it applies to those who are accused but not convicted. Also, WP:CRIME states that as a politician being charged for such a crime, and the fact that such information is obtainable from verifiable sources, the inclusion of such information is notable and the fact that he is acquitted does not reduce the notability of his charge. Optakeover(Talk) 15:38, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Moreover, the article on the person was not created in response to his charge, and was already there as a encyclopedic article on him, all the more showing that there isn't a clear WP:BLP problem with this information. Optakeover(Talk) 15:40, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
I just re-read WP:BLPCRIME, and I admit that what I said in my first comment was incorrect. However, as quoted from WP:CRIME, I don't think that the acquittal means that the information is non-notable for its inclusion. Also, WP:BLPCRIME states refraining from adding information suggesting that the person committed a crime. Since the information is obtainable from verifiable sources, I do believe that such information is definitely notable. Optakeover(Talk) 15:45, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Optakeover I only noticed it through patrolling recent changes and had never heard of the subject before to be honest. However, I found the inclusion somewhat problematic since it meant that over half the article was devoted to an alleged crime which the subject of the article was cleared of, not just once, but twice. Digging deeper I found that, rather than giving all the facts (the source in question also stated that the main person who accused him "told a sessions court in Kerala that he had implicated Mr Kurien on the suggestions of a local journalist. In court, Dharamarajan claimed he was drunk at the time of the interview and was financially not doing well."), it provided a rather slanted view of the situation. The inclusion of gossip ("speculation was that he only got off because of his political position") based on one news report is very questionable in a WP:BLP. In this case, given that he was acquitted, at most the accusations against him should be stated briefly with the fact of his acquittals and more detail provided in the article on the rape case and in a more neutral way. Valenciano (talk) 22:06, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Valenciano, Putting it that way, I can agree with you. If the 'rape case' is mentioned, just a passing mention (if at all), accused, found not guilty, very shaky source etc. If the apparent SPAs had bothered to communicate on the talk page/s, rather than instant reverts or casting aspersions on editors via edit summaries, they may have been taken more seriously. As it is, at least 4 different editors (including me Smiley emoticons doh.gif) 'automatically' reverted the 'unexplained' removal of sourced content on Kuriens' BLP. And I avoid biting newbies – IPs especially as I had a a rather good 2+ years as an IP editor – though patience wears thin after a few reverts or self promotional articles pass under ones gaze. 220 of Borg 00:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
220 of Borg, I understand that. When SPAs appear and seem determined just to blank sections and refuse to discuss on talk it is frustrating, especially since they're often connected to the subject of the article and simply out to polish their friend/relative/boss' bios. In this case, they have inadvertently highlighted a problem. I think a brief mention of it would be fine, however, the detail, claims and counter-claims are better dealt with in more detail in the article about the rape case. Valenciano (talk) 22:22, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Concur. Just now editing down the section on Kurien at the rape case page, where it is second in the contents. I may move it to a less conspicuous position after c/e. 220 of Borg 02:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
@Optakeover: and Valenciano. Lots of WP:SPA account activity on that page, and it's been going on for a while over exactly this issue. (i.e. 20 August 2013) See Talk:P. J. Kurien#Single purpose accounts where I have listed the SPAs. 220 of Borg 16:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
220 of Borg, looking through the history I see what you mean. It's probably time for a sockpuppetry case and a request for page protection would probably put this SPA off. Valenciano (talk) 22:06, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Meatpuppets I think actually, though Rosejacob and Rosejacob1 look 'socky', no? Face-wink.svg A balanced coverage of what exactly happened in relation to 'Kurien' and his 'connection' to the 'rape case' is, as you said earlier, what WP requires, supported by reliable sources. It did start off looking just like a whitewash, and the time span it's happened over and multiple accounts that have only edited on these two pages on this exact issue, makes it look more like that. 'Streisand effect' anyone? 220 of Borg 00:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Just noting that Ramlal123 (talk · contribs), the most active of the SPAs involved, has been indeffed. 220 of Borg 02:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


I think you hit the wrong one on How a skateboard works - it should have been A10 duplicate not A11 made up. I deleted it A10. Peridon (talk) 16:46, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Peridon, it was the "written by (article's editor)" that made me tag it A11 instead, but yeah A10 covers it just as well. Valenciano (talk) 16:53, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Ah, right... A11 is a very useful thing, but there are limits to it. It was created to deal with things like obviously not popularly used neologisms (whose value and point is fairly obviously zilch), new student drinking games (Beer Pong re-invented two days ago - or was it three or maybe last week?), or new sports (bearing strong resemblance to existing ones) that are sweeping the nation (but so far haven't swept past St Toothfroth's High School, Little Twittering). It's the stuff that that probably has been invented, but who other than the inventors gives a damn? Assumed good faith. Hoax, on the other hand is deliberate misinformation that is there to make us look silly. This one wasn't made-up - skateboards have been around a long time - so A10 was the only option. Peridon (talk) 17:06, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Peridon, thanks, you're right, I should have tagged as A10. A fairly studid mistake for such a long termer as me to make after so long here but I'm claiming an off day due to family issues. Forgiveness requested? :) Valenciano (talk) 01:59, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Not needed - CSD and notability were designed by the same secret committee that designed the camel - rumoured to consist of equal numbers of Jesuits and rabbis, and who have to approve all software manuals before release <8-( Peridon (talk) 11:26, 22 March 2015 (UTC)