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)
It doesn't violate BLP any more than the critics' comments do, and your QS policy has already been rejected by community RFC. VictorD7 (talk) 19:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
It does violate BLP and I've quoted multiple parts of BLP that it violates and explained precisely why, which is a lot more than you can say about your baseless assertions. Furthermore, the RFC ignored WP:QS and didn't refute its relevance. You keep referring to this RFC of yours as if it overrides WP policy...it doesn't. For an RFC to override relevant policies, then the policies themselves must be changed, and that's directly from WP policy. Just because you and a few others want to ignore WP policies, doesn't mean they stop existing or are no longer applicable. If Breitbart.com is a questionable source, then its inclusion in articles is very limited and you've tried nearly everything you could to try and sidestep this fact.Scoobydunk (talk) 07:11, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Nope, your interpretation of policy is incorrect, was rejected by the RFC (the closer directly told you as much), and multiple editors here have quoted from policy and explained the various reasons why the Shapiro quote doesn't violate BLP. For one thing he's generally discussing a large group, not a single person, and for another he's merely disagreeing with reviews. Expressing broad political views and/or opinions about published works isn't a BLP violation. If it were, then the critics' opinions on this and every other film and book would also be BLP violations (even more so due to the specificity involved), a vital point you have yet to really address. BLP is supposed to protect individuals from potentially libelous or personally harmful comments, not to shield entire industries from subjective political criticism. WP:BLP even normally exempts specific "corporations, companies, or other entities regarded as legal persons" from policy protection. VictorD7 (talk) 22:40, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Nope, I'm not interpreting WP:QS, I'm quoting it explicitly and you're ignoring it. Also, you keep pretending that a closer decides WP policy and that's not true. You nor the closer of an RFC get to ignore WP policy. Also, no one refuted the multiple parts of BLP policy that I cited and explained exactly how Breitbart.com violates those policies or is, at least, not aligned with those policies. You and others have only made assertions. Shapiro is directly criticizing a group of people that he categorizes as "leftist movie critics" and BLP policy explicitly says that when there is doubt determining what qualifies as a group that you use high quality sources which Breitbart.com is clearly not. I quote "When in doubt, make sure you are using high-quality sources." This is yet another example of you and others ignoring policy to try and shoehorn in your unreliable source into articles it doesn't belong. Not to mention, WP:QS and WP:Aboutself state that questionable sources can't be used to make contentious claims about others or third parties. It's clear you're ignoring multiple policies and don't have leg to stand on.Scoobydunk (talk) 10:25, 20 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)

  • Not that I'm stubborn, but then so is that parameter ?, says clearly that if there is to add people with whom they are not married.--McVeigh / talk 21:10, 18 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]

Completed at PP --DHeyward (talk) 20:18, 19 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.

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 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Frank Wu (artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Anita Sarkeesian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Zoe Quinn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

and any other names that come up? Frank Wu must have recently expired and was vandalized requiring 10 oversights for IP BLP violation. Pending Changes lets IP editors add info but doesn't create massive oversight issue. 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? Request duplicated at PP board. Whoever is first. --DHeyward (talk) 00:37, 18 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.


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)

Graham W. J. Beal[edit]

Anyone familiar with fine art in Detroit might be helpful at Graham W. J. Beal (Director of the Detroit Institute of Arts), where the coverage of recent financial allegations has just been removed by an obvious COI IP, self-identifying as the subject. Incoming. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

It looks like that article was created as an attack page right from the start. The content removed by the IP may merit some mention, but I think it had WP:UNDUE weight. Ravensfire (talk) 21:01, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Sometimes a well-sourced cigar really is a cigar. As it stands now it's an unsourced (one SPS) BLP. However you read the article as it recently was, there is clearly an underlying issue here that has raised a lot of angry press in Detroit. WP is now allowing the subject to blank that and to ascribe deliberate malice to other editors. I know that is the way WP works, but it isn't the way WP should work. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Can't really disagree with your point - the version before the IP's edit seemed to have a fair number of edits. And the article now is, well, not exactly well sourced. And the main paragraph about his tenure at DIA has a slightly hagiographic feel to it. Secondary sources that cover his tenure would also allow a brief mention of the salary controversy. Given the issues Detroit has faced and some of the proposed options to deal with them, the apparent response is entirely reasonable. I just think the article history shows the attack elements and it just plain went too far as it was. Ravensfire (talk) 21:56, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Rebecca De Mornay[edit]

Some more watchers would be useful at this article, where for years at least five SPA accounts plus IPs have been trying to introduce material about two step-brothers. The first was blocked for legal threats, the most recent one has a short block for edit-warring, but they or another will probably be back. The information about the step-brothers is (a) unsourced, (b) apparently being added for promotional purposes (e.g. here) and (c) in my opinion irrelevant to an article about Ms De Mornay and her career.

The persistence of the attempts may be explained by this book extract. JohnCD (talk) 22:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

sayuki[edit]

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

DAJF removes any positive content at all from this page and has been doing so for nearly eight years. This affects the lives of Sayuki and of her apprentices and other geisha who work with her. He only edits a few pages on Wikipedia and is clearly obsessed with damaging Sayuki's reputation. What he doesn't understand is that he damages the opportunities and income of all the people who get work through Sayuki. Please have him banned from editing this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.24.62.233 (talk) 16:49, December 18, 2014‎

I had a look at the talk page in particular, and it looks like DAJF has been discussing edits with other users there and working toward consensus. I don't see any ulterior motive. —C.Fred (talk) 03:03, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Jonathan Romain -- repeated insertion of unsourced material[edit]

An anonymous user (or users) has repeatedly inserted unsourced and defamatory material in this article about a living person. I have reverted appropriately and with explanatory comment each time but it's leading to an edit war. Can administrators help, please?

Perhaps edits can be restricted to registered users only so that the culprit(s) can be deterred or identified. Or perhaps there are better ways of dealing with the problem.

Thanks! JoeMCMXLVII (talk) 04:58, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Article now sem-protected for three months. JoeMCMXLVII (talk) 14:25, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

categorization as Mormon[edit]

It appears a great many persons are categorized as Mormon (LDS) sans any actual reference for self-identification. Spot check shows this is true of about 50% of those in. I am not about to try removing the possibly as many as 1000 entries - but is this covered by WP:BLP? Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:08, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLPCAT more specifically - and yes you are to fine to remove unreferenced content about living people. GiantSnowman 13:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
I know I can -- but I am disinclined to undertake the entire project, thus the post here was a semi-solicitation for those with the same understanding of policy to weed some of the worst cases out. Thanks. Collect (talk) 17:25, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Raj Chowdhury[edit]

WP:NPF : Should be removed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.219.48.10 (talkcontribs)

Subject of blp racist?[edit]

Commentators continue to reference/allege Card's piece involving a fictional, future Obama's coup d'état by way of urban guirillas as racist (eg see here in Slate, 2013; here, HuffPo, 2013; here, Wired, 2014). Should our article mention this aspect of controversy with regard to the piece here: "Orson Scott Card#Politics"?

(Also see a 2013 blogpost by M Aspan citing this from Card in 2000 rgding allegedly non-racist use of nigga'.)

See discussion here: Talk:Orson Scott Card#RfC: Subject of blp racist?

--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:24, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

  • I'll reply on the page, but offhand I'll say that blog posts are not a good way to establish something because they are almost always self published and therefore unusable in most situations. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 11:20, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Sources used at Jeff Smisek[edit]

There's currently a dispute about the references used at Jeff Smisek. In particular:

  • Is it appropriate to use this HuffPo piece as a source for the claim that "one commentator named Smisek the worst CEO in the airline industry"?
  • Is this Crain's Chicago Business piece better summarized as "... one commentator concluded that Smisek has regained the trust of Wall Streeet analysts" or as "... Smisek had regained analysts' trust"?

Personally I think the HuffPo piece is a blog post by a musician with no apparent qualifications in either economics or journalism. Lauraface32 claimed that "many, many, MANY" reliable sources cited that HuffPo article, but upon request could not provide any such citations. It should be de-emphasized, possibly removed entirely. The claim Lauraface32 cites it for is not in fact supported by the source anyway, as has been pointed out before by MusikAnimal. The Crain's piece, on the other hand, is not just a personal commentary but a news report on the prevailing sentiment of analysts, written by an experienced journalist; by an equivalent of WP:RS/AC we can use it to make the regaining of trust a statement of fact, not just of the author's opinion. Huon (talk) 00:20, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

The Crains piece does not quote a single analyst. So saying "one commentator . . . " is the truth. No other article mentions this. And he does not provide sources. And it is clear that he is speaking of Wall Street analysts, not customer service analysts or psycho-analysts. So why not designate it as such? Just because someone writes something doesn't make it a fact. Rather, it makes it a claim. I have been careful to treat the negative reporting the same as the positive reporting the same on this point.
Your claim that "I could not provide additional sources" is complete hogwash. I'm at work. You can't demand this stuff and expect an instant response. I don't work for you. Give me till Monday. The HuffPo piece is very well written, as another commentator on the Talk Page who seems to have a lot more experience in this than you has pointed out.
I think this gets to the root of the situation. You say "cannot provide" when you really mean "I don't like it and since she hasn't responded fast enough (an hour or two) I am going to railroad her."Lauraface32 (talk) 01:16, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
I asked for the sources citing Fagin's HuffPo piece on December 18, 22:38 (UTC). Since then you made a dozen edits to the talk page and added sources that don't mention Smisek to the article. You had ample time to respond, you have responded at length, you presented sources and claimed those were the ones; they're not. What was I to conclude? I'll be happy to wait until Monday for those many legitimate outlets treating Fagin's piece as a serious critique. Huon (talk) 01:42, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I should say that I used to work as a corporate officer of a US airline. But I am retired now, and have never met Mr. Smisek. I don't think that should matter, but I thought I would disclose it anyway just to be safe. I have been following this debate for a while now from a distance.

Here are my two cents: I like how the page currently covers both the criticism and the rebuttal. I think it is probably best to keep these things in separate paragraphs.

I think the Huffington Post piece is well done. As a former corporate officer in the airline industry, I can tell you that just because someone knows a lot about music does not not mean that she can't hit a home run when it comes to criticizing a CEO. I do find it a little strange that we of all people would question his qualifications. Are any of us professionally trained to be encyclopedia authors and editors?

Huon is attacking Fagin's personal narrative rather than his published analysis. I do not think this is appropriate. This is a published article. As a former executive, I can say that I found it an interesting and persuasive read. It is not up to us to judge whether Fagin is smart or experienced enough to be allowed to write an article. It really just comes down to whether the article is well-reasoned. It seems to me that the best thing to do in this situation is keep things as they are. The Wikipedia entry simply says that this is a published claim. Which it is. What is wrong with that?

That being said, it is certainly an opinion piece. It is merely one person's well-reasoned analysis. But all financial reporting of corporate performance essentially boils down to mere opinion. For whatever it is worth, I like the way the current author represents it as coming from "one commentator." From my perspective, that is the best way to go.

It doesn't matter if other outlet's treated Fagin's piece as legit. Did any other outlets mention Crains' piece. The rules should be applied equally and fairly. If the standard is whether or not other outlet's cited the article, then we must delete BOTH Fagin AND Crains.

Topdog76 (talk) 01:48, 20 December 2014 (UTC)Topdog76 (talk) 01:46, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

After a quick read, I don't think the Huffington Post article is problematic. It seems find to me. The Wiki editor does not overemphasize it. It is fine.Adamduker (talk) 15:18, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

The HuffPo piece is fully unusable - it is an opinion piece entirely, written by a person not known as an expert on business, or on airlines in any way at all. Heck, it is based on a conversation with an anonymous person who works for United -- a really strong source - not. Joe Cahill's piece is also "opinion" and is not a "news article" as one normally uses the term. Cahill's opinion is usable as opinion cited to Cahill. Collect (talk) 15:53, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Having noted the opinion nature of both pieces, it makes no sense to say that one is usable and the other isn't. I'd almost guess that you agree with one opinion but not with the other... (unsigned)
An opinion from a person known in the field is usable. An opinion from a person with no known connection or reason to believe has a notable opinion - isn't. I have absolutely no opinions about the person whatsoever - own no airline sticks, and do not give a rat's ass - but the policies are clear. Opinions from a persons whose opinions on the topic would appear notable are usable. Opinoions from a person with no rational basis for holding opinions, and whose opinions are not notable, aren't. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:16, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree that an opinion from "a person with no rational basis for holding opinions" is unusable. So if you would like to remove the source, then please make that argument on the basis of the author's reasoning. If you feel it is about rationality, you must disprove his rationality. Instead, you have merely attacked his person and background. The article contains a lot of solid evidence . . . much more than the Crains' piece. I have served as a corporate officer in the airline industry for many years, and I found the piece to be well-reasoned and rational. If you have an issue with the article, argue for it on the merits of the argument . . . not on the fact that you don't like who wrote it. The wiki author didn't say "according to a world-renowned expert . . ." Instead, he said "according to one commentator . . . ." Commentary should be judged on the basis of the analysis itself, NOT on the basis of who is making it. Topdog76 (talk) 17:51, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
The HuffPo piece is based on a "conversation" with an anonymous person - and the person writing the opinion has apparently zero background either in the airline industry or in business in general. This rather limits any rational use of such anecdotal opinions - if I talk with a person who just got off a cruise ship, and extrapolated their anonymous experience into a condemnation of the CEO of the cruise line, that would also fail. Opinions held by people familiar with the field are the opinions which count. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:54, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry to point this out, Collect. But you are not being truthful when you say the "HuffPo piece is based on a conversation with an anonymous person." That simply isn't true. It is also based on an employee website on which complaints against Smisek are frequently voiced, a write-up in Businessweek, as well as other points of evidence. Besides, a commentator relying IN PART on an anonymous sources is completely acceptable. The Crains article does not mention the name of a single analyst who feels more positively about Smisek. His sources are also anonymous. Again, the opinion is what matters -- not the person itself. Crains has no experience flying airplanes or being a CEO. But that doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is whether his opinion is viable. So I agree with TopDog76 here -- if you have an argument to show that Fagin's analysis is illogical or irrational, I will be the first to jump on your side. Failing that, the citation should stay.128.90.88.249 (talk) 03:34, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

katerina ksenyeva[edit]

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

1. self published page
2. no credible sources
3. verifiably false information. for example "became a Grammy Pre Nominee"

  • I'm cleaning out the puffery and false claims as I write this. There's enough to where she may be able to squeak by notability guidelines, given her TV role and the film, though. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 04:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

A Rape on Campus‎ article[edit]

Looking at the contentious WP:BLP material at A Rape on Campus‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and the WP:Edit warring going on there, I think that more eyes are needed on that article. Flyer22 (talk) 01:38, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Kelli Finglass[edit]

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

Hi, this is Kelli Finglass

My biography was apparently changed on Nov 30, 2014 to include an arrest and assault charges in Atlanta. This is absolutely not true and harmful to my professional career.

Can you help me remove it? Can you help me with IP address of contributor. I will press legal charges

Thank you

  • Hi, Kelli. I will take a look a the article for you. In the mean time, I have struck your comment regarding "legal charges"; Wikipedia has a strict "no legal threats" policy, and blocking persons making any such threats per WP:NLT. Please refrain from making any further such references to possible legal action on-wiki -- many administrators will block on sight and without warning. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:15, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Kelli, I see that the offending reference has already been removed. Per our WP:BLP policy and guidelines, we will not include allegations of criminal or civil wrong-doing unless the charges/allegations are amply verified by significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources per WP:V and WP:RS. Even then, we may remove such allegations if no charges have been filed, the charges are minor, or they are deemed to give undue coverage to events that have limited relevance to the subject. The footnote included with the original offending edit did not substantiate the allegations in any event. I have watch-listed the article and will remove anything that violates Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Hope this helps. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:27, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Cairns child killings[edit]

There is a disagreement about whether Cairns child killings should be included in "murder" categories. A suspect in the case has been named and charged, but not convicted. Further opinions are requested in the discussion at Talk:Cairns child killings#Categories: murder. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:11, 21 December 2014 (UTC)