Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to the biographies of living persons noticeboard
This page is for reporting issues regarding biographies of living persons. Generally this means cases where editors are repeatedly adding defamatory or libelous material to articles about living people over an extended period.
  • This page is not for simple vandalism or material which can easily be removed without argument. If you can, simply remove the offending material.
  • Familiarize yourself with the biographies of living persons policy before reporting issues here.
  • You can request a revision deletion on IRC using #wikipedia-en-revdel connect, where only administrators will be able to see your concerns.
  • Important: Do not copy and paste any defamatory or libelous information to this noticeboard. Link to a diff showing the dispute, but do not paste the information here.
Sections older than 5 days archived by ClueBot III.
Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
Shortcuts:

Search this noticeboard & archives

Additional notes:

To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:


Nick Griffin[edit]

this seems to be settled for now on a compromise basis Metamagician3000 (talk) 10:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

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.

There is a consensus that the two UK tabloid sources (Hastings and MacKenzie) can be used in the article. However, Ritchie333's proposal regarding using secondary sources has also garnered consensus over using those two UK tabloid sources. I'll remove the full protection as this should solve the edit war. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 07:27, 13 December 2014 (UTC)}}

a few opinionated comments does not overide policy wp:blp - Govindaharihari (talk) 01:42, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

User:John claims that as they're generally considered unreliable, we are not allowed to cite two UK tabloid sources for a BLP. This is a position I would normally agree with. But the citations are to editorials from notable authors (Max Hastings and Kelvin MacKenzie), writing for those tabloids, offering their opinion on a controversial television appearance the article's subject made the night before. It's impossible to find a better source for these quotes - they exist nowhere else. I think John does not understand the policy and I would appreciate it if someone could confirm that I'm correct. Since he has not removed similar opinions on the same topic from more reliable newspapers, his actions are, in effect, censoring editorials written in tabloid newspapers. I do not see how this can be considered neutral. Parrot of Doom 21:12, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

By "tabloid" here we're talking about the Daily Mail (Hastings) and The Sun (MacKenzie). The Mail is an awkward one: it's a disgusting rag for its editorial bias. However, like all newspapers working under the UK's onerous libel laws, it's far better on simple accuracy of facts (it can't afford not to be!) than most US papers. The whole term "tabloid" is skunked for use on WP. In the UK that's an accusation that a paper is trivia and celebrity-obsessed but usually still trying to have some grasp on reality (even the Sun). In the US though, "tabloid" means a thing sold in supermarkets for amusement value only.
The particular statements here are two highly subjective judgements on Griffin's character, made by both Hastings and MacKenzie. Both are presented straightforwardly as opinion pieces by named writers of some stature. Such writers are allowed to be subjective, and we're allowed to record what they said. There is no credible case that either Hastings or MacKenzie are being misreported here (even in the Sun). Similarly there is no case that Griffin is being treated unfairly by WP cherry-picking obscure comments upon him by biased commentators: neither Hastings or MacKenzie are left wing ideologues with a prejudicial grudge against Griffin.
Both of these statements, as recently included, should be restored to the article. Andy Dingley (talk) 03:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
The Mail and the Sun are disgusting rags with a proven reputation for making up lies and challenging the victim to sue. Kelvin McKenzie is not a "named writer of some stature" but (to quote from our article on him) ..."was responsible for the "Freddie Starr Ate My Hamster" front-page headline. The claims made in the accompanying article, that the comedian Freddie Starr had placed his girlfriend's hamster on a sandwich and proceeded to eat it, turned out to be entirely untrue and an invention of the publicist Max Clifford. The headline is often held up as the prime example of The Sun's supposedly celebrity-obsessed, sensationalist and often inaccurate journalism.[1]" Nick Griffin is a right-wing ideologue but that does not mean we should repeat the claims of a proven liar and purveyor of tabloid trash regarding him. Max Hastings is a writer of some stature but even there, if this opinion is of any weight, it will have been repeated, covered or quoted in more serious publications (Hastings has written many books; has he included this material in any of them? If not, why not?). BLPSOURCES as written prohibits us from using material sourced in this way, and it contains no get-out clause that allows us to rubbish living people because we don't like their politics. On a separate note, the behaviour of the complainant may well be considered blockworthy; having a strong opinion about Nick Griffin or misunderstanding BLPSOURCES are both forgivable but edit-warring to restore contentious material to a BLP is pushing it. --John (talk) 07:16, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
I couldn't care less what those newspapers have done or are doing, the quotes are opinions not statements of fact. You are misconstruing policy and need to stop, right now. There is absolutely nothing unreliable or contentious about the material quoted. Parrot of Doom 10:30, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
To paraphrase you John, "Kelvin MacKenzie is of no stature and here's a quote from WP, where he has implicitly passed WP:N, to prove it".
Hastings and MacKenzie can find themselves a seat on Paxman, Question Time and their like, a role that is not open to you or I. Neither of us may like their politics or opinions, but these two men of letters have a stature within the media that is demonstrated by the willingness of editors to pay them substantial money for their words. They are not merely bloggers or twitterers. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:05, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
disputed detail is just attacking opinionated against the person (griffin) - if you want to attack him add it - if you want to write a wp:npov bio then remove it - Govindaharihari (talk) 08:01, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Did you read the remaining quotes in that section? Parrot of Doom 10:50, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

The two sources are WP:RS but for contentious claims about living persons they may be challenged, but so may any source making contentious claims. They are "tabloid" in format, but it is well-established that "tabloid journalism" is not the same as "tabloid format." When it comes to opinions of notable persons writing in those journals, however, they are fully reliable. Collect (talk) 11:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Actually, I'd dispute most of that - The Mail and The Sun are generally not RS for most of their content because they've both got long histories of making things up and then challenging their victims to sue. When they do, they usually win and a groveling apology from the paper appears in a tiny hidden corner of Page 39 (when the lies about their victim were on the front page). However, I'd prepared to agree with Collect's last sentence, I'd have to agree; the opinions of their own columnists, especially if notable as here, can happily be quoted as long as it is made clear they are op-eds. Black Kite (talk) 11:55, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Oh? From what I can tell, the claims are that opinions are held by people who expressly wrote those opinions for the papers. Unless you mean to suggest the papers are not reliable sources for material expressly written for them, then the sources are RS as long as the opinions are presented as opinions. Collect (talk) 12:10, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
      • Yes, that's what I said. There is no evidence that op-eds in those papers are unreliable, regardless of how problematic those papers' news content has traditionally proved to be. Black Kite (talk) 12:28, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth, Kelvin Mackenzie is a known liar. No judgment on the content. Sceptre (talk) 13:16, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
    • I seem to be missing the part which proves he's a liar instead of a misled journalist. This 'is' the BLP noticeboard, right? --Onorem (talk) 17:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • So there are people saying that even though Kelvin Mackenzie is a proven liar, and even though he was writing in a publication known for printing lies, it is ok to publish his opinion on a BLP on Wikipedia because it was an op-ed? That doesn't make sense. Nick Griffin is a living person, and however much we may dislike his political views he deserves the same protection that any other living person does here. --John (talk) 16:39, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
John is deliberately misleading here. His original deletion of content was simply marked BLPSOURCES with no attempt to suggest why, either in his deletion rationale or in more detail on the talk page. His second removal had no reason given whatsoever. His third said "WP:BLPSOURCES worth a read at this point", as if I hadn't. His fourth and fifth deletions simply say "BLPSOURCES". At no time has he attempted to instigate a discussion on the article's talk page - I did to avoid a 3RR situation - and gave proper reasons for reinstating the material. Another editor, Parrot of Doom, took up the issue and also gave reasoned justifications for reinstating the material. Both of us have received what amount to threats on our talk pages. This is not acceptable. John has still not addressed the issue and, indeed, has compounded it, by seeking justification in this discussion.
The issue is a really simple one: The section of text at issue is prefaced with the words "The programme dominated the following day's newspapers." Now there a number of daily newspapers in Britain. John wants only The Guardian to be quoted. That is not "dominated" and giving a single example does not demonstrate "dominated"; a selection is required. The selection we had includes the leading left leaning broadsheet (Guardian), the leading right wing paper (Mail) and the best selling tabloid, also right leaning (The Sun). None of these is quoted for evidence of Griffin's nature, activities, views or life. They are quoted as evidence of "The programme dominated the following day's newspapers." No matter that the authors in the papers' articles are highly experienced commentators (who, as it happens, I would rarely find myself in agreement with) the question of reliable sources is totally irrelevant. Where are you going to find evidence that the Mail said this? Well, in the Mail. Where are you going to find evidence that the Sun said this? Well, in the Sun. It's really a no-brainer. And it's not as if the two papers are inherently non-reliable - they're not, as countless other Wikipedia discussions have shown. "Use with care" is the best description, and in this case that is how they have been used.
It seems to me that this discussion is only taking place because John has happened to come up against two editors who have stood up to his bullying attitude and refusal to so much as consider reasoned comments. Emeraude (talk) 17:12, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Quick point of order, it was I who started this thread. I should have made a note on the article's talk page but I was tired and not thinking straight. Parrot of Doom 17:17, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • John, of course we should observe BLP in relation to Griffin. We should accurately report whatever dreadful words Hastings and MacKenzie used against him. There seems no solid challenge on that basis. Now are they relevant in this case? That would seem to be the only good grounds for removing these quotes: do they form a worthwhile part of encyclopedic biography of Griffin?. As part of reporting mass media reaction to Griffin's highly notable appearance on QT, they surely are and so are justified for their appearance here. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:26, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Allow them. I really don't see what all the fuss is about. There are only four (maybe five) vital questions that should be asked to satisfy Wikipedia policies in a BLP regarding adding op-ed quotes: (1) Are the quotes Parrot of Doom produced veriable per WP:V and not the product of original research? Yes, they are verifiable. Parrot of Doom didn't make them up. (2) Are they accurate, yet brief, quotations that satisfy both WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE? Yes, Parrot of Doom didn't attempt long citations that placed undue weight on these two opinions regarding Nick Griffin published in the Sun and in the Daily Mail. Parrot of Doom did the right thing; he made them brief and to the point. (3) Are they the product of a WP:COATRACK? No, they're not. Parrot of Doom placed the brief opinions of the two authors in exactly the right place in the article to offset the opinion of the Guardian regarding the event. (4) Are the newspapers reliable in the Wikipedia sense that they have editorial control and oversight and are not self-published internet pieces discussing third-parties? Yes, they are reliable. The argument (which strikes me as original research and a little tendentious) that these two newspapers are inherently unreliable because of their perceived rightwing political bent by a few Wikipedia contributors strikes me as irrelevent. Equally irrelevent is the argument that because a Wikipedia editor personally dislikes Kelvin Mackenzie (i.e., "He's a proven liar") that his opinion published in a newspaper directly related to the subject cannot be neutrally cited. It's the reader's responsibility to weigh the various opinions of the event that are published in reliable sources. It's not our place to decide because Wikipedia is not censored. I agree with Parrot of Doom, Andy Dingley, Emeraude, Black Kite, and User talk:Collect. Oddexit (talk) 18:46, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  1. ^ Lars Weber (1 May 2006). "Voyeurising the voyeurs: inside the celebrity business". Café Babel. Archived from the original on 27 September 2007. Retrieved 4 May 2007. 
  • Yes, allow them. For all the reasons Oddexit stated. -- WV 22:18, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Ok. Let's say someone wants to add to our article on Russell Brand that Richard Littlejohn called him a "disgusting hypocrite" in his column in the Daily Mail. Here is the reference. Would those defending the tabloid sources defend this? All the same conditions are met. No, it's still not working for me. --John (talk) 21:54, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes. Absolutely. Firstly, no one is, as you put it, "defending the tabloid sources". But, without reading Wikipedia's article on Brand or Littlejohn's article, the answer is quite simple. If there has been a media reaction to Brand's speeches/writings that needs to be covered, then it would be perfectly acceptable to write something like: "Several media sources were highly critical, including Richard Littlejohn in The Daily Mail who wrote that Brand was a "disgusting hypocrite", Fred Bloggs in the Gleaner who said he ought to know better and Fanny Adams in the Daily Post who thought he was deluded." (With referenced sources.) And, no doubt, similar from those commentators/papers that were sympathetic. Emeraude (talk) 13:18, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, I'm sorry but I cannot square that with the BLP policy that I know and help enforce. Let alone with ethics. Why does the vile drivel of the tabloid press "need... to be covered", when it concerns negative material about a living person? Oddexit, thank you for at least thinking about this rather than making a "me too" response. I fundamentally disagree with several of your premises. The material contravenes NPOV, UNDUE and COATRACK, but more importantly it contravenes BLP as currently written. It would need special reason for us to bend this important rule and I am not seeing it. It is not a personal dislike of the two sources we are discussing nor of the one particular journalist that rules this material out, but the well-established mendacity and unreliability of the sources and this journalist in particular. To follow up the Brand example, I would be less uneasy about including this material in Littlejohn's article, but I think it could not be used on Brand's unless it were covered in better sources. I feel the same way about this. Finally NOTCENSORED is a dreadful argument when we are discussing BLP, which we are. --John (talk) 00:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
John, it's unfortunate that you're using language like "disgusting rags", "dreadful shit," and "trash" to describe the newspapers and cited columns for the article. Not because you're using profanity on Wikipedia (I'm not offended), but because it signals to other Wikipedia contributors that you've made very clear normative judgements about the newspapers and authors. As contributors, we're supposed to be neutral when editing. How much of your refusal to abide by WP:CONSENSUS is the result of your (mis?)reading of Wikipedia policy and how much of it is your desire to keep the specific citations out of the article for personal reasons? Yes, it's certainly true (you're right) that part of WP:BLPSOURCES reads "Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism." But the material to which they're referring are alleged facts appearing in supposed tabloids which cannot be found elsewhere. The intention was to avoid Wikipedia contributors adding specious claims from (say) the National Enquirer alleging that Elvis Presely is alive and well, or alleging that actress Sandra Bullock just had given birth to her ex-terrestrial love child. That policy was never intended to be used as a weapon to exclude political opinions from columnists published in newspapers with third-party editorial control. Had the intention of the Wikipedia Community been to include op-eds in that clause, they would have most definitely revised WP:BIASED which reads: "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective (emphasis added). Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. While a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context (emphasis added). When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking. Editors should also consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source, as in "Feminist Betty Friedan wrote that...", "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff...," or "Conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that...". Ultimately, what needs to happen is that quotation needs to make clear to the reader that so-and-so writing in such-and-such newspaper argued/opined/stated that [fill-in-the-blank-briefly]. That's all. Oddexit (talk) 22:57, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • There are at least seven people who disagree with John. Despite this, he shows no sign of relenting. Can someone please unprotect the article and restore the quotes? Parrot of Doom 21:11, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
    • We're still discussing it. A discussion is not a vote. I need to see more replies to my question of 21:54 5 December. I have had one so far. I am sure you can wait a few days before you spoon this dreadful shit back into the article on a living person. Why would anyone want to do this ? Is it because you dislike his politics? --John (talk) 00:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
      • The discussion appears very much over to me, with several people explaining why you're wrong. You need to step away from this subject since it's clear you don't understand the BLP policy on sourcing. And frankly, for accusing me of being biased against Griffin, you can go to hell. For daring to improve an article on such a controversial figure I've already suffered people accusing me of supporting his politics. Parrot of Doom 08:52, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
        • If your idea of "improving" it is adding snippets from The Sun to it, perhaps it is you who need to step away from it. --John (talk) 15:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
          • This whole argument boils down to you not liking the opinions of two authors published by two tabloids. As I and everyone above has already told you, there is nothing unreliable about anything added. I will be taking further action to redress this situation. Parrot of Doom 19:48, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
            • It may say more about you than about me that you see it this way. I am an administrator on this project and I am entrusted with (among other things) enforcing user conduct. Among all the other rather vague behavioural guidelines, BLP is one of the few clear-cut policies we have. At present, the relevant section says: "Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources." There is no proviso saying "... unless it is an op-ed", "... unless the subject is an unpopular right-wing politician" or anything else. Perhaps there should be. In the meantime we are discussing how best to enforce the policy as it is written, and not as you would perhaps like it to be. I find it funny and sad that while those of us able to grasp the underlying principle of BLP are discussing this matter, you have run off to AN/I to complain about me. So be it. I am still requesting further replies to my post of 21:54, 5 December 2014. I have so far had one. --John (talk) 20:06, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:SOURCE: The word "source" in Wikipedia has three meanings:

  1. the type of the work (some examples include a document, an article, or a book)
  2. the creator of the work (for example, the writer)
  3. the publisher of the work (for example, Oxford University Press).

All three can affect reliability. (emphasis mine) Furthermore WP:NEWSORG explains "opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, " So, although publication in tabloid sources is reason to scrutinize them vary carefully, it doesn't necessarily preclude their use. In this case, excluding them results in the article ending up NPOV. NE Ent 20:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

  • I'm going to side with John on this one. The Daily Mail and the Sun have absolutely no place in a BLP, and I don't give a damn about what they're being used for. There is one exception; an official notice that they've hired the subject in question, or parted company with them. Tabloids are unreliable sources, and as such, we don't put the opinions of their journalists into BLPs - that's just flat-out wrong, especially when they're inflammatory statements about controversial figures. Likewise, we wouldn't put people's opinions from blogs into an article, would we? And yes, that would be exactly the same sort of thing. Yes, sources are not required to be neutral - but they sure as hell are required to be reliable. This is a clear violation of BLP in my eyes, and I'm disappointed that so many people think it is appropriate to include information from two of the very worst tabloids of all (and make no mistake about it, both truly are woeful) in a BLP. And there are plenty of people condemning Griffin in reliable sources; we don't need tabloid ones as well, and we don't need a comment from every Tom, Dick and Harry. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:24, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep Hastings quote, remove MacKenzie's. I'm trying a moderate position but overall John has a point. First question: why is this dispute on this page and no one here is asking for it (or a toned-down version) at Question Time British National Party controversy where it could be more relevant? Just a random aside. I think John's point is that we shouldn't allow attacks on him if the attacks aren't from reliable sources. That's a plausible interpretation of BLP to me but I agree in part and disagree in part. The opinion pieces are clearly written by the outside authors. No matter how much discredible the Mail or the Sun are, it's a primary source that they wrote them and that it's their views. John, are you saying that because the papers or because Hastings and MacKenzie are not reliable sources, then saying what they say isn't reliable? If the front page of the Sun said tomorrow "X" then saying "the front page of the Sun said X happened" isn't an issue of reliability. I think that's a matter of weight and I'd say it's an WP:UNDUE issue but not a source issue. We aren't arguing whether or not Griffin seemed slippery, repugnant or was a lying piece of work, we are arguing that those quotes from those individuals calling them those names isn't particularly relevant and is basically gossip. Looking over each of the points of WP:BLPSOURCES: (1) the fact that those two said those things about Griffin's appearance isn't likely to be challenged because it's clear they said their opinions in their op-eds; (2) this isn't conjecture of their opinions, it's verbatim quotes. If there is any dispute, it would be between Griffin and Hastinsg or MacKenzie on whether the op-eds pieces are themselves accurate but that's not Wikipedia's job to determine. (3) This may be an accurate point. It's not a feedback loop but it's gossip that is not "relevant to a disinterested article on the subject." The subject is Griffin's appearance. Hastings is discussing his appearance when he says the panel made Griffin "seem slippery and repugnant" (akin to the Guardian view that Griffin "looked just plain shifty" here). That's a criticism of how Griffin came off. It's like any television debate or interview: how the person came off is different than what people thought of the person overall. MacKenzie's attack that he "emerged as the lying piece of work" is equally a criticism of Griffin's appearance but is more of an attack in line with gossip than how Griffin's appearance within the show came out. Skipping ahead (4, 5, 6, 7): we aren't using the primary source of the television presentation itself, this isn't a self-published, this isn't Griffin's self-published source and this isn't related to the other sections. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm not going to say "Keep", "Delete" or something else, as I believe the solution that will hopefully gain consensus is a little more complex than that. What the quotations were doing is to show the ranges of opinion in British newspapers the day after the Question Time appearance. Perhaps, as a solution, we could instead produce a secondary source that sums those views up? The discussion upthread has discussed the reliability of the op-ed, and its suitability, but one thing I noticed that hasn't really been disagreed is that the opinions are all primary sources. The event was notable enough for its own article (and rightly so in my view) - why don't we use secondary sources that talk about the papers' response at arm's length instead. For example, we could use this New York Times piece that says "The early reading by many of Britain’s major newspapers was that Mr. Griffin lost heavily on points." Question Time British National Party controversy contains a number of other sources cited in the article like the NYT piece, but doesn't expand on them other than to say they exist. Perhaps that's the answer. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:57, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
With the following observations though: 1) There is consensus here that the two direct quotes would be permissible in Nick Griffin under the sourcing rules. I would remove them from here under UNDUE, as they can be covered in the QT-specific article. 2) Those two quotes are permissible, and I would encourage them, in that QT-specific article. 3) When the QT-specific article is deleted or merged back to Nick Griffin, the two quotes should follow it back here. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
That sounds fine to me, provided all the existing primary sources are replaced with secondary. At the moment, the article has a problem with WP:NPOV as the current quotations from primary sources that weren't removed give the impression together that Nick Griffin was misunderstood and the programme was bullying him. That's not neutral. So, can the article be unprotected to do this, or would an admin like to edit those changes first? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:07, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm happy with that, but I want it understood by all that in this context, such sources are absolutely fine in a BLP. We cannot censor views that we disagree with based on nothing more than the medium they're published in. The policy appears to be rather badly worded. Parrot of Doom 10:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

:::That's funny User:Andy Dingley. You don't get to make conditions like this. Being "permissible" does not mean we need to use them or should use them. On what basis would you want to make such a stipulation? Ritchie333 has a better point; in such cases we should always use reliable secondary sources over trashy primary ones, or we will be back here again constantly. Which I don't think anybody would want. --John (talk) 16:46, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

John, I would ask you for a little more respect than comments of "lol". Andy Dingley (talk) 17:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
OK, I see I have to make this even clearer. DO NOT accuse me of "blackmail" over this issue. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Lets be clear - these desired additions are only required to attack the person of the biography - here they are, sourced to opinionated blogs in low quality sources ... Max Hastings wrote "... the panel had little difficulty making Griffin seem slippery and indeed repugnant ..." in the Daily Mail, and The Sun columnist Kelvin MacKenzie said "He emerged as the lying piece of work you always suspected." - insulting opinionated comments - they are not notable positions, not opinions that have been commented on on in other reliable sources - Govindaharihari (talk) 10:45, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

They're interesting enough to be published by two newspapers with very large circulations (they're read by many more people than the Guardian, Times etc) and independently their authors are very notable. And is it really your contention that we should not include material that attacks living people? If so then that is possibly one of the more stupid things I've read of late, not including your misunderstanding of what a blog is btw. Parrot of Doom 10:57, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
There is nothing neutral about your edit warring this purely insulting opinionated content into a biography wp:blp- they are columnists, opinionatedly blogging in a tabloid - When there is a bad guy you don't need to attack them, you just write a neutral article well sourced and that will reflect the reality in a much better way. Govindaharihari (talk) 11:18, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[
I think PoD knows how to write a well sourced neutral article - you do know that he's the the biggest contributor to Nick Griffin, and helped improve it to GA status, right? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
That and his edit warring this disputed content into the biography only worries me more. Govindaharihari (talk) 11:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I think it's clear for all to see that you don't have the first clue what you're talking about. And please stop lying - it is John who was edit warring to remove content that had been there for years. If you have a problem with the article's neutrality then perhaps you should put your money where your mouth is and question it's GA status. Parrot of Doom 12:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
User talk:Parrot of Doom - it's not a good article at all - its an attack piece - - I won't take it for reassessment as looking at the historic it is a rubbish article supported by opinionated peeps supporting each other - Govindaharihari (talk) 10:06, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Yep, you definitely don't know your arse from your elbow. Thanks for confirming this. Parrot of Doom 18:34, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
I see the article has been full-protected for nearly five days. I can't recall a BLP being full protected for more than three or four in the past. We have at least a short term consensus to replace the primary news quotations with a secondary follow up, so what's keeping the article locked? Should I go to WP:RUP and explicitly request it? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi User:Ritchie333, you claim a "short term consensus to replace the primary news quotations with a secondary follow up,, "Please post your desired addition here so we can check it out - Govindaharihari (talk) 11:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
They are reliable sources. They get sued more than the broadsheets because they write about things the broadsheets ignore. For example, the Indescribablyboring probably would not have sent investigative reporters to find out if a certain writer was paying prostitutes. Nonetheless they make errors and omissions too,[1] just that they are less likely to be libelous. TFD (talk) 03:21, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
if or not reliable is not important - it is just that the content is just worthless attacking opinionated insults, so why is it so important? Govindaharihari (talk) 18:39, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.


America: Imagine the World Without Her[edit]

Is

Commenting on the reception, Breitbart editor [[Ben Shapiro]] said “It is absurd to have [leftist] movie critics critiquing the politics of documentaries professionally; they seem unable to separate their artistic sensibilities from their political ones.”<ref>{{cite web|last1=Shapiro|first1=Ben|title=7 Movies Critics Like Better Than D'Souza's 'America'|url=http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2014/07/15/7-movies-critics-America|website=Breitbart|accessdate=16 July 2014|date=July 15, 2014}}</ref>

"contentious claims about third parties from a questionable source which is against WP:QS, WP:Aboutself, and WP:BLP" or is it a proper use of a source using opinion properly cited as opinion about a large group not aimed at a small group of identifiable individuals? Talk:America:_Imagine_the_World_Without_Her#RFC_-_Is_Breitbart.com_a_reliable_source_for_its_own_film_review? is an RfC on the same source which has the closing statement Consensus is yes/acceptable/reliable in response to the question. Samsara 06:50, 29 October 2014 (UTC). Collect (talk) 12:31, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:FORUMSHOPPING. This is the same question asked at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Breitbart_again, which was a repeated thread as well. A claim about people who review movies is different than a movie review. Different context, different subject.__ E L A Q U E A T E 13:21, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Nope. This is about a specific cavil just raised in an edit summary, for which this is the proper and only noticeboard. The question about Breitbart being a "reliable source" was settled in the affirmative -- here the person is asserting that it is a BLP violation, which was not the issue at the RS/N noticeboard. Is this quote a BLP violation? Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:21, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Breitbart was not determined to be a reliable source for all claims. It's questionable for claims about living people. __ E L A Q U E A T E 14:35, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
It was specifically determined now several times to be a reliable source for opinions cited as opinions. Are you saying that an opinion about unnamed film critics cited as opinion is a violation of WP:BLP? That, indeed, is the question here. I would point out that opinions cited as opinions about groups of unnamed people has not, heretofore, ever been considered a BLP violation. Clearly your mileage differs in this. Collect (talk) 14:42, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
The citation of opinions from questionable sources about living people is still subject to BLP and RS. An opinion about a movie is simply a different thing than an opinion about people. If the source is questionable, then there is no difference between adding "Mr X eats children" and adding "It is the opinion of Questionable Weekly that Mr. X eats children." In context, that quote is referencing six named critics. __ E L A Q U E A T E 14:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
(The opinion piece goes on to imply that one of the reasons Transformers: Age of Extinction received widespread bad reviews because people don't like Kelsey Grammar's politics. Is this a self-referential use of "unable to separate their artistic sensibilities from their political ones "? This does not look like a high-quality source for article material. It's political invective from a minority source aimed at named people.)__ E L A Q U E A T E 15:11, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
You seem to aver Shapiro makes "contentious claims" about specific living persons. Pray tell, which specific living persons are he referring to? I suggest the group of "film critics" is so broad as to make the argument risible. And the "Mr. X eats children" example you proffer is a few thousand miles off the mark. Collect (talk) 15:22, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
The article names names. The "they" in that quote is not talking about anonymous critics; it's talking about the specific critics who reviewed this movie, and they are named immediately previous to the quote.__ E L A Q U E A T E 15:30, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Elaqueate, it appears that Ben Shapiro has provided extensive conservative commentary about film and television for National Review here. Reviewing WP:BLPGROUP, the "group" in question is not formal, meaning that Shapiro is collectively critical of film critics who are not colluding in any active sense. I think these separate opinions contribute to its largeness. I've delved into the issue more on the talk page, and I've added content to the article so that this political opinion is marginal among a large set of mainstream opinions. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:48, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
That could be a good approach, but it should be noted that the material is not about "all movie critics that review all movies". We are talking about a much smaller group, namely the smaller set of critics that Shapiro disagrees with, and names, in relation to specific reviews to a single movie. This is the article for the specific movie, not a general essay on movie critics. If the quote is offered as his general comments about all critics, then it's inappropriate as out-of-scope for a specific movie article; if it's offered as commentary on specific critics, then it is a small group of people. __ E L A Q U E A T E 15:59, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Shorter: If the quote is essentially a blanket "Liberal movie critics can't be trusted to review any political movie" then it's not appropriate or specific commentary regarding this film; it's a general belief.__ E L A Q U E A T E 16:04, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I feel like this is overly restrictive. It is common for there to be collective criticism of film reviews. Conservative outlets have criticized how critics receive films with political messages, and there has been a different kind of collective criticism toward film critics that speak favorably of jingostic films (Zero Dark Thirty comes to mind). Surely when the scope is wider, we summarize that politicians criticize those of other parties on both general and specific issues; do we avoid this kind of criticism in political articles? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:08, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, we avoid it if it's coat-racking a specific article about a much narrower topic. Opinions about critics in general could arguably be included in general topics, if from high-quality sources, but not as coat-racked commentary in a specific article. This is like saying "Transformers was a film with a budget. Budgets are often used by businesspeople......[long rant against capitalism in general]" This is an article about a specific film, it shouldn't be used as an opportunity to include quotes complaining of the biases of "liberal" movie critics in general (even setting aside that specific critics are named.)__ E L A Q U E A T E 16:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
WP:COATRACK only applies to coatrack articles, and this article is far from being a coatrack. "Coat-racked commentary" is just another term for biased/opinionated sources, and these are acceptable if the source is considered reliable in the specific context. Ben Shapiro is a noteworthy conservative voice, as evidenced by his commentary being scrutinized in mainstream media, as well as his pieces in National Review. As I've stated on the article's talk page, explicitly conservative and liberal opinions are appropriate as long as they do not overshadow the mainstream opinions. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:01, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
You linked the essay, not me. Coat-racking is a concept that applies beyond the bare existence of articles. It's about whether material is being included that is tangential to the topic of the article. Coatracking can be any bias (positive, negative or neutral), so it has nothing to do with whether a source has a bias, only whether it's using the article to stray from the article topic. It's similar to using an article about Ronald Reagan to include tangential opinionated complaints about Obama or Bush. If this is a comment about how liberal Breitbart thinks these named editors are generally, then it's not suitable material for an article about a specific movie. It's a tangential point.__ E L A Q U E A T E 19:01, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Proper use - For one thing the segment isn't a "Biography" of a living person. It's a very widespread (see noteworthy), subjective opinion about the state of a profession, particularly regarding explicitly political films. What's more, the BLP states that the policy doesn't even normally apply to specific legal "persons" like "corporations, companies," or other such entities. It adds that a harmful statement about "a small group or organization comes closer to being a BLP problem than a similar statement about a larger group." Even harmful statements about a very small group don't necessarily fall under BLP, and this is a very large group, plus the statement is an opinion, not libel or defamation. Certainly no one has tried to sue over it. The sleazy comments personally attacking D'Souza on legal issues (and marital ones in the sources) from partisan Huffington post bloggers currently in the same section come far closer to being a BLP problem. VictorD7 (talk) 06:41, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
This is an article about a specific movie, not a place to opine about "the state of a profession" generally, or adding material criticizing named movie critics because the questionable source, breitbart.com, doesn't like their politics. (And BLP applies everywhere, not just in specific biographies.).__ E L A Q U E A T E 19:01, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
What an absolutely absurd argument. By your logic, most of the negative reviews should be removed because they are BLB violations against D'Souza. Are you going to argue against the others as well? Arzel (talk) 19:19, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Those are reviews of the movie, not reviews of movie reviewers. The article's about the movie, not the state of movie reviewing.__ E L A Q U E A T E 20:27, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Not relevant to the argument you are making. A BLP violation is not dependent upon the topic being discussed. Furthermore you are basically saying that if a reviewer makes a BLP violation against a movie maker it is fine, but if a defender of that movie maker makes a BLP violation against those reviewers in their defense of the movie maker it is not fine. The tone of the reviewers is far worse than the tone of the defender, thus it is hard to take your argument at face value. Arzel (talk) 19:23, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
You say: A BLP violation is not dependent upon the topic being discussed. What does this even mean in this context? The article we're citing singles out Rafter Guzman, Martin Tsai, Peter Sobcynski and others. I think movie critics that write for RS are considered quotable in articles for the contents of their movie reviews. If they're not published by RS, then the same standard should apply to them as Breitbart. I just don't think Breitbart has a reputation for accurately reviewing the people who happen to be movie reviewers, or other people for that matter. If this was a source with a better reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, there would be no issue about using its published opinion about third parties. But everything I see in the archives makes me think this is widely considered a challenged source. __ E L A Q U E A T E 22:07, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
You say that those other editors cannot be making a BLP because they are simply reviewing the movie. That is an absurd argument. (FTR none of this is a BLP violation, just showing the absurdity of your argument). I think pretty much anyone can fact check an opinion. Yep, it is true, that is his opinion and the edit didn't single out anyone specifically either. Arzel (talk) 00:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
No, that's not what I said. Of course a BLP problem could theoretically come up in the context of a movie review. That's one of the reasons we try to cite material (especially opinion, and especially when it's about third parties, groups or people) from sources that have a good reputation for accuracy, or are somehow widely considered experts in the field, or represent a non-fringe view. You can verify that a movie review on Facebook is verifiably published by somebody, but it's better to source opinion from higher quality sources. I don't think breitbart.com is considered to be a great source for its opinions on the movie reviewing world, and especially not when the cited article is packed full of names of actual people. __ E L A Q U E A T E 01:26, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
As Arzel observed, your arguments are confused and off point. Your reply to me claimed that the article is about a specific movie and "not a place to opine about "the state of a profession" generally". That would be a topical debate, not a BLP one. Shapiro's comments don't violate BLP in any article, whatever the other merits of inclusion might be. A general political opinion about the state of a profession doesn't violate BLP, nor does taking issue with a film review. For the record, you're also incorrect about the topic being inappropriate for that page. Shapiro's article is entirely about the reaction to the "particular movie" in question, and therefore important for us to cover if we're covering political commentary, which the section in question is explicitly dedicated to. VictorD7 (talk) 21:50, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
When the question at hand is how well this quote aligns with BLP policy, I've, on the one hand, been assured that the "they" in question is about movie critics in a wide and general way. When the question is how it relates to the specific article it is proposed for, then it's suggested it's about those critics who gave this specific movie a bad review (especially those critics prominently named in the article). Whichever case it is, there are policy reasons that would discourage using a contentious, highly challenged questionable source like breitbart.com for the material. You can't simultaneously argue that it's general political commentary unconcerned with living people and relevant to the article by being about the specific critics linked by their movie reviews. Both interpretations fail WP:QS, while one of the proposed rationales for inclusion (not proposed by me) would still require better consensus that it agrees with WP:BLP. __ E L A Q U E A T E 01:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Disagreeing with film critics doesn't violate BLP, whether the quote is about a specific individual or the profession in general, any more than a critic commenting on specific people involved in the movie (like D'Souza) does (though the HuffPo bloggers attacking him over his legal issues come far closer than anything Shapiro said). Breitbart is no more a "highly challenged questionable source" than the other sources currently used in the section, and the "QS" argument has already been rejected by RFC.VictorD7 (talk) 03:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Elaqueate, I'm not sure there's much to be gained by repeating this and other arguments that have already been enunciated on various threads. The burden is on those who wish to include this bit, and there's clearly no consensus to do so. SPECIFICO talk 01:59, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
The last consensus was to include the Shapiro quote, so a new consensus is required to remove it. That consensus does not exist. VictorD7 (talk) 03:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't see a previous consensus to include the Shapiro quote on that talk page. There's a sprawling back-and-forth about whether to include it, but no clear and definite consensus was ever reached there. The RfC previous to that discussion doesn't mention Shapiro or a Shapiro quote at all. If there was no consensus, and there currently is no consensus, then it's still a matter of WP:ONUS. __ E L A Q U E A T E 04:27, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
No, a consensus was definitely established. The segment was restored in early Nov., reverted only by Gamaliel, and then put back in by Gamaliel on Nov. 6. It remained without removal until Dec. 3, when a couple of editors began edit warring to remove it. The only edit at all I noticed on the segment throughout that month was an IP address performing what appeared to be a good faith removal of a tiny parenthetical portion of the segment that he may have thought was POV paraphrasing, and that was reverted by another editor on the basis that it was actually part of the quote. That's it. Then Scoobydunk and Gamaliel edit warred to shove new material (the aforementioned Huffpo Blogger segments that we should be discussing on the BLP page if anything) in, and despite reverts by multiple editors, they continued to edit war without consensus until the new material was included. They also started an edit war to remove Shapiro, but have so far failed to gain a consensus for removal, and indeed are outnumbered by the editors who oppose removal.
The Shapiro quote wasn't even discussed on the Talk Page throughout the month after Gamaliel restored it, and certainly no other editors attempted to revert it. Gamaliel did add a neutrality tag to the section, but never started the talk page section editors are supposed to start when adding such tags. I actually started one for him, and when he finally replied his comments were focused on Toto's review, an entirely different segment. Shapiro wasn't mentioned at all.
WP:EDITCONSENSUS states that "Consensus is a normal and usually implicit and invisible process across Wikipedia. Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus." No one disputed, reverted, or even mentioned the segment for about a month as it stood in the article. That's the last consensus. VictorD7 (talk) 20:29, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
The RfC was closed with a consensus that was very specific and narrow - the Toto Review on Brietbart should be deemed as authentic Toto opinion/review. Period. There was no consensus about whether it should be used and particularly no consensus that it should/could be used to present opinions about living people. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
The consensus I'm referring to isn't the RFC, but the fact that the Shapiro quote stood for a month without challenge. That said, the RFC is also relevant to this discussion since it rejected the same sourcing policy arguments being used now, and found Breitbart RS (at least) because we are quoting its own, attributed opinions. Same as with Shapiro. I'll add that a film review is about living people, but posting opinions about living people doesn't mean such opinions violate BLP. VictorD7 (talk) 22:59, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
At best that's a local consensus, and there's no denying it's disputed now. I don't think a claim that movie reviewers shouldn't review documentaries because they're "leftists" is an ordinary claim about people. And again, this isn't an article about movie reviewers. __ E L A Q U E A T E 00:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
No, when there's a lack of consensus for a new change the status quo reigns. There's certainly no consensus for removing the segment, which would be the change in this case. In fact, a majority of editors oppose that alteration. VictorD7 (talk) 05:16, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
That claim, juxtaposed with the article's presentation of the opinions of specific named individual critics will be read by most WP users as a SYNTHED BLP-violating denigration of those individual critics. Even if it were made clear that Shapiro's statement somehow referred to others or to some other widespread unnamed group, it's off-topic for this film article and film criticism is not an area of Shapiro's expertise such that his opinion, of itself, is noteworthy. SPECIFICO talk 01:15, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
False. Most editors reject the BLP and other BS policy claims. WP:SYNTH is especially ludicrous, as that refers to combining different sources to say something neither source says, or editing a single source's material in a misleading way. The segment, a direct quote from a single source, does neither. The quote is straightforward and not taken out of context, so no SYNTH, and it does apply to negative reviews of the film in general, so, again, no SYNTH. Also, disagreeing with critics' reviews is no more a BLP violation than the critics themselves are guilty of. We're allowed to cover political opinions, even if you disagree with them. Shapiro is a professional political pundit (political scientist by training and multiple best selling author) and media analyst, so this is precisely his area of expertise, and a notable author writing an entire article about the reception to this movie definitely belongs in our coverage of the movie, especially since we have a "Political commentary" section created expressly for that purpose. VictorD7 (talk) 05:16, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, they are clearly contentious claims about third parties being made from a source that fits nearly every aspect of WP:QS. They are also claims that violate multiple aspects of WP:BLP.Scoobydunk (talk) 09:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Olga Holtz[edit]

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

No Proof of notability, article is poorly cited. Recommend that steps must be taken to prove or improve such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpruck (talkcontribs) 09:04, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

It looks well sourced to me. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:25, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
It seems somewhat reliant on WP:PRIMARY sources (the sites of the people that awarded her the awards), but assuming those awards are themselves notable in the field of mathamatics, notability does not appear to be an obvious issue. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:48, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Angelique Boyer[edit]

Myself and McVeigh are in a revert struggle over the "Partner(s)" section of the article subject's infobox. I am trying to remove a reference in the "Partner(s)" slot to the article subject's recently-ended three-year dating relationship. I don't think Wikipedia should be deciding and declaring that such non-committed relationships rise to the level of "Partnership" because of mere duration. If they'd gotten married or had some other strong indicia of lasting commitment, I'd think differently, but I haven't seen evidence of that. McVeigh obviously disagrees with me. He can state his own case here if he so chooses. But at this point I don't want to violate WP:3RR, so I respectfully request advice from this noticeboard. Thank you. Townlake (talk) 18:15, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

  • @Townlake: I would not characterize anyone's significant other, boyfriend, girlfriend, etc., as a "partner" unless one or both persons have publicly characterized the relationship as one of "partners." If the subject is married, fine, say so. If the subject is not married, we should be extremely careful how we as editors characterize relationship of an article subject per WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:RS and WP:OR. As I understand the term, "partner" is the equivalent of husband, wife or spouse -- or its very near equivalent of a person in a committed, long-term relationship. In the absence of reliable sources that use that term, or first-hand commentary from the subject using such term, I would avoid using it. It's not our job to define the relationships of article subjects, when they don't. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:03, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Thank you, Dirtlawyer1. Your understanding matches mine. (That said, I'll wait a bit longer to change the article in case anyone, including McVeigh, wants to contribute their thoughts.) Townlake (talk) 19:51, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree that it should be removed per Dirtlaywer1's remarks. I've always heard the term used to describe someone that is the equivalent of a spouse, not just a boyfriend or a long term lover. Unless she has repeatedly described him as a partner in this aspect, it shouldn't be in the spouse/partner section of the article. Length of a relationship isn't really a factor in this- it boils down to what Boyer has said about her ex-boyfriend and I can't see where she's ever called him a partner. Labeling him a partner because they dated is kind of the equivalent of saying that because they dated for a long time, he's her fiance or husband. It doesn't work that way. This is pretty much why we have personal life sections in articles, because the partner/spouse section is supposed to be reserved for the ones labeled spouse/partner and so on. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 22:35, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
      • According Townlake, it said its most notable couples should be added. In this case it was three years with José Alberto Castro. The problem is that every day comes from different ips add that has a relationship with Sebastián Rulli. I think that should be allowed to add their relationship with José Alberto and so far has been one of the longest relationships. in 2009 he had an affair with Sebastián Zurita, but that only lasted months, however hard years is. Then I ask myself; Why there is a parameter to add romantic relationships, if nothing else will be allowed to add, for those who are married ?. I wish I read more reviews. Because if you are not going to permiter these relationships, then the parameter "partner" should not exist. For now I can not answer quickly because I do not have internet.--McVeigh / talk 16:35, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Pardon my impoliteness for saying so, but it is evident that your first language is not English, McVeigh. In modern English usage, the word "partner" used in the connotation of a romantic relationship implies a great deal more than a simple dating relationship of significant other, boyfriend, or girlfriend. In LGBT relationships, it often implies a marriage-like relationship that does not have the sanction under law of being a legal marriage within the jurisdiction; in heterosexual relationships, "partners" are often the functional equivalent of husband and wife without the benefit of a marriage license, sometimes sharing property and children. Per WP:BLP, Wikipedia editors should not include material about a living person that cannot be verified by reliable sources -- and that includes classifying or characterizing the relationships of Wikipedia article subjects. If the subject is married, and that marriage has been verified by one or more reliable sources per WP:RS and WP:V, then it may be included in the article -- that's easy. We should not, however, and are arguably not permitted to, characterize a relationship for the subject, which the subject (or multiple, independent, reliable sources) has not characterized as that of "partners." That is unsupportable under WP:BLP and WP:V. Whether you do it, or some IP user does it, does not matter; it's not out job to put a label on a relationship that may or may not reflect the realities of that relationship. Use the generic word "relationship" -- if it is verified by reliable sources -- and leave it at that. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Ok, but in this case there are references that speak, that they have had three years of relationship. Why can not put that relationship ?. So far it has been the single most significant relationship Angelique Boyer.--McVeigh / talk 22:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • McVeigh, many articles have a section called "Personal life." Information about this relationship could be appropriate for a Personal Life section of the Angelique Boyer article; you can create that section if you want. But you can't keep ignoring people who are telling you that a "Partner" is something different from a regular dating relationship. At this point, you are simply being stubborn. It is OK for the Partner section to be blank. Townlake (talk) 06:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I have removed this item from the "Partner" section of the article based on the feedback obtained from the discussion here. Townlake (talk) 06:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Marianna Hill[edit]

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

Dear Wiki Volunteer editors,

At the behest of Mrs Marianna Hill, please remove the details about where she lives in the world. You have kensington London, - there is no reason that any fans need to know where she lives. As a famous actress she must be careful that she is not stalked by fans - such as those of startrek or the God Father II. Furthermore, Mrs Hill is still active as an actress and you are damaging her ability to be hired as you have posted her DoB. Please remove this, not only is it inaccurate according to her own birth records, she doesnt wish it to be posted on line.

Best regards,

Mr J.Rees, assistant to Mrs M. Hill. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.92.16 (talk) 11:19, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Done. Not necessary nor desirable to include such information, and it was unsourced. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:27, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • DOB and some extant personal information (such as birth name) also removed, as they were supported by primary sources. Once more the actress-doesn't-like-her-DOB-advertised situation, so I advised user that if a reliable secondary source is found for that, the removal would not be so simple. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 19:32, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Bart Sibrel[edit]

I think the section on the vandalism incident is inappropriate. We do not include information on minor crimes when it is unrelated to notability, with the exception of people who are major public figures where there is great public interest. That the person is notable only for fringe does not justify making an exception to his discredit. I'm bringing it here because on the basis of discussion on the article talk p., removal is sure to be resisted. DGG ( talk ) 00:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

criminal organisations and interwiki links[edit]

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

Propaganda Due was a criminal organisation and article as a list of 'Notable people on Gelli's list' (a list of probably members) implicating living people in said criminal organisation. There are many red links on that list, but many of those red links are to people who have articles on it.wiki. It is acceptable to inter-wiki link those names or do they have to be completely removed? Stuartyeates (talk) 08:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Man Haron Monis[edit]

Man Haron Monis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article has high interest due to an incident that has been reported internationally. Another name is mentioned in the lede and Infobox. The lede name has a [cite needed] tag, the existing source does not support the name given. (Sources may, in the future, do so). This has been raised on the Talk page and ANI [2]. Could the [cite needed] name be removed until a source is provided? Or a source provided for it? AnonNep (talk) 19:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Mariam Nour[edit]

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

Could someone with experience in BLP issues - ideally an Arabic speaker - take a look at Mariam Nour? I've stripped out a huge amount of probably-libellous anecdotes (ranging from an affair with Colonel Gadaffi to conspiring to poison her viewers), but in doing so have reduced it to a sub-stub. Could I get a second opinion as to whether I've reverted too far (or not far enough)? Mogism (talk) 20:08, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Most of what was deleted seemed to be unsourced or poorly sourced, so I see no issue with your intervention. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Shooting of Michael Brown[edit]

Shooting of Michael Brown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This article has disputed BLP issues, namely that the article has some heavy-handed criticism about how the investigation and grand jury proceedings were conducted. It also has a lot of opinion pieces that may also violate WP:NPOV. Outside suggestions or edits would be appreciated. --RAN1 (talk) 21:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

There's also a preceding entry on the topic at AN/I with some related information. GraniteSand (talk) 21:55, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Eugène Diomi Ndongala Nzomambu[edit]

It was suggested on the Humanities Reference Desk that Eugène Diomi Ndongala Nzomambu and Eugène Diomi Ndongala are the same person although two different dates of birth are shown. Note that both article link to the same article on French Wikipedia. If they are the same, the articles need to be merged (and details from the French one added). If they aren't, then the links to the French need to be corrected and a hatnote (like not-to-be-confused-with) added. --65.94.50.4 (talk) 04:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The French article is under fr:Eugène Diomi Ndongala, but gives the full name as Eugène Diomi Ndongala Nzomambu, further supporting the case that both articles refer to the same person. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:32, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Paula Poundstone article -- WP:COI and lewd acts upon a child[edit]

There is an editor -- Lilliebelle (talk · contribs) -- who is engaging in WP:COI editing at the Paula Poundstone article; see here for confirmation that this is the case. And see here (followup note here), here and here for where I have reverted the editor. Before the aforementioned confirmation, or rather acknowledgment, I commented on Lilliebelle's talk page about what appears to be Lilliebelle's fan editing (editing like a fan); see here. So that Lilliebelle has acknowledged the WP:COI connection is not surprising. My questions are: What should be done about this WP:COI editing, and how much, if any, WP:Weight should be given to the "lewd acts upon a child" aspect regarding Poundstone? Flyer22 (talk) 06:19, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, the editor in question must declare their COI, not in the context of claiming a special right to edit the article, but rather in the context of accepting limitations of their editing of the article. That being said, I think that we need to be very careful not to overemphasize this incident in her biography. We do not and cannot possibly know what actually happened many years ago. But if the offenses were as severe as the word "lewd" implies, then it seems likely that the courts would have taken far stronger action. Accordingly, I recommend erring on the side of de-emphasis rather than over-emphasis in this particular case. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:03, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree we don't need to overemphasise it. But we can't make editing decisions via speculation about what the courts would/should have done... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:25, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I've been bold and semi-protected this for a month. Please feel free to reduce the time, or change the protection level. Bearian (talk) 17:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure what impact this will have -- the editor Flyer22 posted about is surely auto-confirmed. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Bob Beckel[edit]

Bob Beckel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The 'Controversial comments' section in the Bob Beckel article seems to pull a lot from the Huffington Post and tilts the article more about his comments than about the person itself. The article contains a POV tag entered this year. Concerned about Coatracking and appropriateness of how the information is being used. Basileias (talk) 13:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Regina Calcaterra[edit]

There has been edit warring over some allegations. This is a BLP, and the subject has had, to say the least, a difficult life. I would like some eyes on this article. Please see this diff and the history of the article. I think the allegations are false. I'm staying out of editing this article as much as possible, because the subject and I were classmates in college. Bearian (talk) 17:22, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Shem von Schroeck[edit]

Shem von Schroeck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Dear Editor(s),

I am Shem von Schroeck.

The article written about me contains grave inaccuracies, falsehoods, and negative opinion without providing any source material. I never requested, nor desired, a Wikipedia page about myself at any time. I do not consider myself a public figure and request heartily that the Wikipedia article, Shem von Schroeck, be removed.

For example, I direct you to the paragraph which discusses the 2001 solo project, "Shem - Son of Arthur". In accordance with Wikipedia's BPL Policy, this highly subjective paragraph, lacking credible source material, reads like an opinionated review or blog (while containing false, albeit slanderous, information) and clearly does not function within the BPL guidelines.

While I appreciate the contributions of those attempting to inform the public of some of my accomplishments, as a "living person," attempting to live a desired private life, I believe it is my right to request that this page be removed.

My sincerest thanks,

Shem von Schroeck — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.225.205.65 (talk) 20:43, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Given your notability it is unlikely that the article will be deleted. I have removed the offending statement, as it was unsourced and in violation of our WP:BLP policy. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:59, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Continued[edit]

Dear Editor(s),

I request that the following be removed from the article, Shem von Schroeck:

… " but also betrayed his mostly "side man" status as the majority of the recordings were reviewed as sounding very much like his employer of many years, Kenny Loggins. The one refreshing cut on the record was the opening track, a cover of Jimmy Spurgin's (James Clay Garrison) "Feel It". The song remains the 2nd most popular and downloaded number on the recording behind Joe Pesci's "Tiffany"."

The preceding are statements of opinion and do not cite source available reviews nor statistics. They are not of a NPOV and lack the required verification. In all, they do not contribute necessary nor essential information to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.225.205.65 (talk) 00:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

That's not a problem, given the statement was unsourced. Thank you for going about this the right way and not attempting to make the changes yourself. If there's anything else contentious or problematic in the article, please let us know and we'll take a look. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 02:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Pending change protection for gamergate personalities[edit]

Some of the GamerGate personalities are still being vandalized especially due to arbcom and what not. Protections tend to expire without notice. Can we get year long or so pending change protection to: Brianna Wu Frank Wu Anita Sarkeesian Zoe Quinn and any other names that come up? Frank Wu must have recently expired and was vandalized today. It's semi-protected until tomorrow but no reason to let it troll back up. No reason we can't have a pending changes set for a really long time is there? --DHeyward (talk) 00:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Federal Way Public Academy[edit]

Over the past six weeks an individual has been adding a criticism section to the Federal Way Public Academy site. The content is based on a summary of student opinions from Rate My Teacher Website. The links clearly identify four individuals, and attribute inappropriate and possible illegal behavior. All the claims are based on unsubstantiated claims from an opinion website. Three different editors have removed material and shared reasons for removal. We have also used the talk page. The person posting has already been warned by Wikipedia about posting comments that do not take a Neutral Point of View. Since individual names are clearly mentioned in the links - it is a serious violation of the BLP policy. Even without the links, the posting are in appropriate.


Hallway monitor (talk) 06:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC) Hallway Monitor

  • Yeeks, looks like some obvious socking going on there- I'll open an SPI and semi-protect the page itself. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 07:54, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • On a side note... if you are involved with the school in any way, you need to state this up front somewhere per WP:COI. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 08:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC)