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)

Search this noticeboard & archives

Additional notes:

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

Investigative Project on Terrorism[edit]

This deceptively simple-seeming RfC concerns whether it is a "BLP violation" to include the Islamophobia template on the article Investigative Project on Terrorism. The phrase "BLP violation" is thrown about quite a lot in the discussion below, so it makes sense to begin by reviewing what it says. Our BLP policy was written at a time of concerns and embarrassment about defamation and libel on Wikipedia, and it enjoins us to remove unsourced negative information about living people. This is an article about the so-called Investigative Project on Terrorism, not a living person, so at first glance, our BLP policy does not seem to apply.

However, it emerges during the discussion that one paragraph in WP:BLP says that small groups may be indistinguishable from individuals. The consensus below is that the so-called "Investigative Project on Terrorism" is little more than a front for its big chief, Stephen Emerson. Editors agree that Mr Emerson as a living person is protected by BLP, and his project is so close to him that it can hide under the same umbrella. (It is suggested that the two articles should be merged, but this outcome is precluded by the recent AfD that led to a "keep" consensus. Whatever the solution to this dispute might be, it involves two separate articles.)

About 90% of this RfC by word-count is an argument between two editors who have completely lost patience with each other, neither of whom will let the other have the last word. In places, the veneer of civility wears rather thin, and as so often in these cases, a "summary of the arguments" is served up, as if the closer was too stupid or too inattentive to read them for himself. Gentlemen, for future reference, a summary that doubles the length of the argument is rather self-defeating. It's also virtually guaranteed to annoy the closer.

Upon reading the discussion, I conclude that the rough consensus is that the template should not appear in this article.—S Marshall T/C 12:44, 20 October 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.

This isn't really a BLP issue, and is best discussed through other means of dispute resolution. LHMask me a question 17:02, 10 October 2014 (UTC)}}Re-opening this, at the request of two participants in the discussion. I still believe it's not an actual BLP issue, but rather a content dispute, but I'll leave that call to another editor at a later date. LHMask me a question 00:38, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
A template for the topic Islamophobia is in this article. Does this represent a BLP violation?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Not sure about BLP, but it's a bit misleading. The article says this Emerson guy is against Islamic terrorism. That's hardly the same as being against Islam. I fixed the bit that implied he still thinks Muslims blew up the Oklahoma building. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:08, October 8, 2014 (UTC)
The Center for American Progress seems to think the organization is Islamophobic, but judging from their article, they're hardly objective observers. I've removed the box, as it seems to rely solely on that claim. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:12, October 8, 2014 (UTC)
There are other aspects of the article that also create potential BLP violations because of V and NOR issues, BLPGroup, undue weight, and Coatrack, all of which are magnified by the template. RS issues also plague this article because the sources that mention IPT point back to Steven Emerson, or involve trivial mention. IPT inherited Emerson's notability, and relies heavily on original sources published at the IPT website. With the exception of a few secondary sources considered to be biased, everything else relies on IPT's own press releases, Emerson's television interviews, and testimony at congressional hearings. There are not any reliable third party sources to my knowledge. From 1995 to mid 2006, Emerson worked as an independent television reporter, self-proclaimed terrorism expert, and documentary filmmaker for his own production company. He headed up his own think-tank called the Investigative Project. The website is called the Investigative Project on Terrorism, and claims to be a nonprofit organization founded by Steven Emerson in 1995 - unverifiable. However, what is verifiable is the fact that in mid-2006, Emerson founded The Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation, which is a legally organized charitable organization recognized by the IRS as a Sect 501(c)3 non-profit foundation. The Foundation purportedly funds Emerson's terrorism work, and staffs a managing director, and a couple of other individuals referred to as Shillman Fellows.
Following are a few excerpts from comments made by a collaborator when we tried to expand the article and correct the RS issues. (diffs follow comments):
  1. I've actually been surprised at how very little information there is about IPT itself in reliable sources. I'd expected there to be quite a bit more given how much it's mentioned. The sources are all about Emerson with passing mentions of IPT and people who work for IPT with passing mentions saying that they work for them. If this were a software company I'd be sorely tempted to send it to AfD, but obviously that's not going to end well. I guess we soldier on. [1]
  2. The more I look for sources the more I think this whole IPT thing is a front for Steven Emerson and ought to be redirected to him. Anyway, thoughts on the relative weight that this Boston marathon material ought to have in the article? [2]
  3. The trouble is that they don't do anything. Really, I've looked and looked for sources, but they're all about Emerson, not IPT. I agree that it needs to be summarized. Do you have a proposal?[3]
Two more excerpts from comments made by two editors at an ANI over the BLP issue: (diff follows both comments):
  1. Well the BLP violation may stem from more than merely saying that it was said. I can see a good argument that it violates WP:UNDUE to put the claim that the day after the Oklahoma City Bombing Emerson suggested that it might have been perpetrated by Muslim terrorists in the lead section of an article about a think tank Emerson founded. In which case it probably would also violate WP:BLP.
  2. As I recall, pretty much everyone jumped to the conclusion that it was foreign terrorists. It was a reasonable assumption at the time. It never occurred to most of us that someone like McVeigh would do something like that. Now we know better. Supposing the BLP in question actually did say it, why does it matter 19 years later? [4]
Final two excerpts from comments made by two other editors: (diffs follow both comments)
  1. I'm in favor of moving this article to Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation as you suggest, and having the Emerson biography corrected to reflect accurate secondary sources (rather than self-serving primary sources) but I'm not so hot on the idea that all of Emerson's former activities should be fully removed from this article. We should tell the reader what came before, and how it is related. [5]
  2. I'm able to find more hits when naming Emerson rather than IPT, since it seems to be sort of a one-man op. [6]

There is much more, but the above information should suffice to set the proper stage for discussion of something as important as a BLP violation. AtsmeConsult 04:25, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, the entire article is a bit problematic. I don't think Wikipedia would be lacking without it. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:29, October 8, 2014 (UTC)
I kind of feel like this thing needs to be stubbed and stripped, if not merge/redirected to Stephen Emerson. I don't see what's really notable about it, and with the exception of one Salon article, pretty much all the sources are polemic from either side — right-wing sources think the group is doing great work investigating alleged terrorism and left-wing sources think the group is peddling Islamophobic conspiracy theories. There's hardly any neutral sources here, which suggests it's not particularly notable from a mainstream perspective. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Well this a crazy request and all but could we stick to the subject of BLP? The subject of notability was taken on recently at AFD. Now Islamophobia template. While of course there of course is the matter of the template on the page, there is also the template itself. The template itself contains a link to Investigative project on terrorism. It is located on a section titled organizations. Does the presence of Investigative project on terrorism on this template represent a BLP violation?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 16:30, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
No, it doesn't, because the organization is not a living person. Organizations are not entitled to the same protections that we give to living people. Statements about Emerson personally might implicate BLP, but statements about an advocacy organization he works for would not. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:21, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Comment (out of chronological order) - it doesn't have to be a living person to be a BLP violation. See WP:BLPGROUPS: A harmful statement about a small group or organization comes closer to being a BLP problem than a similar statement about a larger group; and when the group is very small, it may be impossible to draw a distinction between the group and the individuals that make up the group. When in doubt, make sure you are using high-quality sources. IPT is a small group inextricably linked to Emerson, a legal person, which makes the template a BLP violation. Sorry for adding this 4 days later, (also included it below), but a noticeable unfamiliarity with the applicable section of BLP policy made it necessary as it also caused the hasty closure of this discussion which was later reversed. AtsmeConsult 21:13, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

So the template in the article does not present a BLP violation?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 19:30, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Read WP:BLPGROUPS - The extent to which the BLP policy applies to edits about groups is complex and must be judged on a case-by-case basis. A harmful statement about a small group or organization comes closer to being a BLP problem than a similar statement about a larger group; and when the group is very small, it may be impossible to draw a distinction between the group and the individuals that make up the group. When in doubt, make sure you are using high-quality sources. The template is without question a BLP violation under BLPGroups. The V and NOR issues add to it, but it's not just the template, although it is the worst violation. If anything, "IPT" might be considered a group when it was Emerson's think-tank prior to 2006, but it is not verifiable, and I hardly consider the IPT website as a "high-quality source." It's NOR. Common sense tells us the article is about Emerson. IPT inherited his notability - which not only raised the notability issue for IPT's existence, the fact that the notability is about Emerson makes it a BLP violation. The article relies heavily on information and actions by Emerson. User:Callanecc tried to explain to me the reasons behind the Gamergate controversy as follows: If you have a look at the wording of the discretionary sanctions and WP:BLP both apply to edits and articles which have biographical content which is what Gamergate controversy is about at it's base level. Diff here: [7] I'm not sure the BLP violations are comparable, but I would think the exclusivity of IPT to Emerson, and the V and NOR issues are what create the problems. Since there is no verifiability of IPT being anything but Emerson's own small group, if it can even be considered a group prior to 2006, the material contained in the article is definitely biographical, particularly the History and mission section. AtsmeConsult 22:17, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Investigative project on terrorism was founded in 1995. They state this themselves. Steven Emerson states this. CAIR states this. CAP states this. NEWMAX states this. The only sources that you have found that state otherwise suggest that it didn't exist at all until 2006. That was simply two sources. One of those source used the other as evidence. Drop that stick at any time or make a case that isn't solidly original research. IPT inherited it's notability? Isn't that the same argument that you used in the AFD? It wasn't compelling there so why now is it suddenly supposed to be compelling? Serialjoepsycho (talk) 23:24, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with all points made by Atsme with respect to the article and template, above. And it does seem that IPT is inextricably linked to the Emerson guy. DocumentError (talk) 01:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Please note that the merger/deletion debate has been recently and thoroughly discussed in other places, including Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Investigative Project on Terrorism (closed as "keep" on 30 September) and Talk:Steven Emerson#Merger proposal dated September 2014. Discuss here. (closed with a "clear consensus against the proposed merge" on 25 September). --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:37, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Whoa, please. You just provided incorrect information. The merge proposal was closed in July, not September, and the proposal was not "thoroughly" discussed. The reviewer, User:Sunrise, closed with the following comments: Note that this close does not evaluate whether the articles are compliant with policy (e.g. WP:NOR); it would be a good idea for the editors here to resolve these issues, but they would only have become relevant to the merger question if so much of the article was noncompliant that nearly all of it had to be deleted, and arguments to this effect have not been presented. [8] The arguments are being presented now, only this time we're discussing WP:BLP WP:BLPGROUPS violations which is probably what should have been addressed back in July along with the NOR issues.
Serialjoe just referred to Steven Emerson and the self-published IPT website as sources in his rebuttal to my comment above. I suggest reviewing WP:SPS. Where are the third-party reliable sources? Where are the reliable secondary sources? He listed CAIR and CAP - two biased sources. Read the headline in the January 2014 CAIR article: [9]. Whose name is in the headline? There's also the issue of WP:RSUW, and WP:SPS. Where are the "high-quality sources"? But wait - how about Newsweek? Clarke's secret work with private researcher Steven Emerson is among a number of revealing disclosures in the ex-White House aide's new book, [10]. Oh, my. Did that read "private researcher Steven Emerson"? Does being a private researcher make one a terrorism expert? And how exactly does Emerson being a private researcher, and investigative reporter fit in with the "group", or "organization" being founded in 1995? It certainly doesn't explain away the BLP issue, that's for sure. Also, if the template doesn't present a BLP issue, why isn't there one on Steven Emerson? What about the biographical material in the History and mission section of the IPT article, and the NOR and V issues which are two of the three core content requirements that must strictly be adhered to according to WP:BLP? And what about the statement under the Funding section of IPT: IPT is funded via the Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation, a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization established in 2006, and largely operated via SAE Productions, a Delaware-based company founded by Emerson in 1994. Tell me again about the "common name" argument, and how Serialjoe concluded that IPT, the Investigative Project, and the Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation are one in the same? Serialjoe even created the following redirects: The_Investigative_Project and The Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation. The BLP issues and noncompliance to NOR, RS, and V, are clear. How long are we supposed to let such blatant BLP violations remain? AtsmeConsult 02:23, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Responding to the question first posed, the template applied to that article does not appear apt, but rather an exercise of POV. Epeefleche (talk) 02:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Actually that was not incorrect at all. A merge proposal that was opened due to your actions was closed in September. There was also your merge proposal in July. Also there is the AFD where you mention the same stuff you are pushing here. The investigative project, the investigative project on terrorism foundation, and the investigative project on terrorism are the same thing. Have you read their website where they solicit funds? They themselves say that IPTF is its fund-raising arm. That common name argument? You mean the one where when you title an article you use the most common name? wp:common name <That one? It's not as much an argument as it is a wikipedia policy. When we read the CAIR blogs headline should we avoid reading the article? Where it talks about the investigative project on terrorism? Where it's made clear that this the blog is about an Article released by IPT? Do we just read the headline? You mention wp:sps but have you read it? And did you happen to read the policy just under it WP:SELFSOURCE? Serialjoepsycho (talk) 03:37, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Actually the statement about the merge is incorrect and misleading, not to mention irrelevant to this discussion, but for the sake of accuracy I've provided the diff showing how the same proposal materialized twice by mistake: [11]. I thought the 2nd proposal was made by another editor because my June proposal had already been discussed and closed in July, leaving issues unanswered as I accurately mentioned above. AtsmeConsult 14:18, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Just wanted to add - if the comments made above reference the delete proposal I requested on September 22nd, 2 days before you filed an ARB to topic ban me and diverted my attention away from the delete request, well sir, that is a horse of a different color. Attempting to combine the various requests to make it appear as one in the same is as misleading as your attempts to combine the various names Emerson used throughout his career as one article, and pretending it's an "organization". Then, when I was forced to switch my attention to your baseless ARB request, my delete request was closed after only 7 days of discussion. Great gaming strategy. AtsmeConsult 17:06, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
In addition to the many reasons stated above by other editors who recognize the BLP violations, following is my summary as a collaborating editor of IPT who contributed over 58% of the prose:
  1. The justification for "common name" is false and misleading, and lends more credence to the BLP violations because it establishes the exclusive connection to Steven Emerson as an independent researcher, investigative reporter, and terrorism expert.
  2. The IPT Foundation was founded in 2006 by Steven Emerson who also serves as its Executive Director. The IPT Foundation is the only recognized nonprofit charitable foundation designated as such by the IRS. Regardless, even if IPT is inaccurately recognized as a nonprofit organization founded by Steven Emerson in 1995, it has no notability of its own, and the BLP issues would still apply according to WP:BLPGROUPS. Research for reliable sources has consistently produced trivial mention of IPT with the primary focus on Steven Emerson, independent terrorism expert/investigative reporter. Newsweek, a high quality reliable source, established the identity of Steven Emerson as a private researcher in an article they published in March 2004. It substantiates the exclusivity of Emerson to IPT which is the norm, not the exception. It further establishes a reliably sourced basis for the template being a BLP violation. [12]
  3. The information provided in IPT is highly dependent on unreliable self-published sources, including IPT's own website, original research from documents presented at congressional hearings, Steven Emerson blogs, and IPT press releases. There are no reliable third-party sources cited. It also relies on information from biased political pressure groups such as CAIR, CAP, and the Heritage Foundation. The reason the "undue weight" tag was added to the CAP reference was explained well by an uninvolved editor, User:Vfrickey: [13]. That explanation also draws attention to a potential WP:Terrorist violation which would also involve the template.
  4. Serialjoepsycho's original protests to the template can be seen here: [14] [15] The reasons he stated then remain the same today: "Perhaps it should be changed regardless. Again as written it makes it seem as if this organization is Islamophobic. Is there anyway to change it? This is not a confirmed Islamophobic organization. From what I can tell in the article it is only alleged." Serialjoepsycho (talk) 02:32, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
  5. All of the violations that make IPT a BLP violation also apply to Steven Emerson. When I tried to correct the information, Serialjoe continuously reverted it. [16]
  6. I attempted to create a corrected article using accurate reliably sourced information in an attempt to eliminate the BLP violations. The draft can be seen here: [17] Unfortunately, I was met with further resistance. Serialjoepsycho quickly created redirects Investigative Project, The Investigative Project, and The Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation to derail my efforts in creating a corrected article. He further established his intent to move the template to the new article disregarding all input from other editors who kept informing him of the BLP violations. [18] AtsmeConsult 15:58, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • That's another really long rant. Do you have a BLP issue to discuss? BTW my comments that you are quoting as a protest are actually a question. A question that went unanswered. A question that has been answered actually outside of your rants, here. You've moved the goal post so many times that I wonder if you recall what the goal post was there in that RFC? NPOV. Oh and the AP Stylebook. That question got lost somewhere in that RFC between your rants, accusations of bad faith, and threats to take it elsewhere if you didn't get your way.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 18:00, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Ooops. Guess I hit a nerve. Ranting with important information is far better than rambling nonsense like you are accustomed to doing, but please, let's not get off topic. On point: the obvious BLP violations that you have chosen to ignore. AtsmeConsult 18:51, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Have you hit a nerve? No. Are you trolling or something? Could you stay on point? Do you have a BLP issue that you would like to discuss?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 19:08, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • This was brought here on the suggestion of Arbcom to ask if the Template:Islamophobia is a BLP when placed in the article. I had also hoped that any other BLP question could be raised. This this was not brought here to forumshop the issue of notability that was recently answered by AFD. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 03:00, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
    • You brought it here, but you don't want discussion on the issues that creates the BLP violations? It isn't about deleting the article because of inherited notability so please stop dredging up past AfDs. The notability discussion here relates directly to WP:BLPGROUPS: The extent to which the BLP policy applies to edits about groups is complex and must be judged on a case-by-case basis. A harmful statement about a small group or organization comes closer to being a BLP problem than a similar statement about a larger group; and when the group is very small, it may be impossible to draw a distinction between the group and the individuals that make up the group. When in doubt, make sure you are using high-quality sources. The individual is Steven Emerson, his notability, and not being able to draw a distinction between the so-called "group" and Steven Emerson. The fact remains...there is no distinction, and therein lies one of the biggest problems. I certainly hope editors who understand this issue will be more bold about confirming the BLP violation so we can close this section, and get on with editing. AtsmeConsult 15:20, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
This is the case you made in AFD. Prior you opened this issue in 2 of the 3 ANI's you've opened, a merge, delete and recreate proposal, a merge proposal opened on your behalf, and where ever else. AfD said it was notable. It doesn't need to be forumshopped here. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 21:48, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Following is my summary of this discussion using comments (and excerpts) from above, all of which clearly substantiates a WP:BLPGROUPS violation:

  • Not sure about BLP, but it's a bit misleading. The article says this Emerson guy is against Islamic terrorism. That's hardly the same as being against Islam. I fixed the bit that implied he still thinks Muslims blew up the Oklahoma building. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:08, October 8, 2014 (UTC)
  • The Center for American Progress seems to think the organization is Islamophobic, but judging from their article, they're hardly objective observers. I've removed the box, as it seems to rely solely on that claim. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:12, October 8, 2014 (UTC)
  • I kind of feel like this thing needs to be stubbed and stripped, if not merge/redirected to Stephen Emerson. I don't see what's really notable about it, and with the exception of one Salon article, pretty much all the sources are polemic from either side — right-wing sources think the group is doing great work investigating alleged terrorism and left-wing sources think the group is peddling Islamophobic conspiracy theories. There's hardly any neutral sources here, which suggests it's not particularly notable from a mainstream perspective. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree with all points made by Atsme with respect to the article and template, above. And it does seem that IPT is inextricably linked to the Emerson guy. DocumentError (talk) 01:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Responding to the question first posed, the template applied to that article does not appear apt, but rather an exercise of POV. Epeefleche (talk) 02:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
To further summarize the WP:BLPGROUPS argument, following are the comments I included above regarding a recent ANI BLP discussion:
Two more excerpts from comments made by two editors at an ANI over the BLP issue: (diff follows both comments):
  1. Well the BLP violation may stem from more than merely saying that it was said. I can see a good argument that it violates WP:UNDUE to put the claim that the day after the Oklahoma City Bombing Emerson suggested that it might have been perpetrated by Muslim terrorists in the lead section of an article about a think tank Emerson founded. In which case it probably would also violate WP:BLP.
  2. As I recall, pretty much everyone jumped to the conclusion that it was foreign terrorists. It was a reasonable assumption at the time. It never occurred to most of us that someone like McVeigh would do something like that. Now we know better. Supposing the BLP in question actually did say it, why does it matter 19 years later? [19]
My closing statement: There are no high-quality sources, secondary or third party, that separate IPT from Steven Emerson. Substantial evidence confirming unreliable sources, and Emerson's exclusivity to IPT has been well established in this discussion. The template and all the other poorly sourced criticisms and allegations that point to Steven Emerson with trivial mention of IPT, including the template, are violations of BLP (BLPGROUPS). AtsmeConsult 13:28, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Serialjoepsycho's closing statement: AfD has already and recently answered the question of notability. There's no reason to forum shop the issue of notability here. This noticeboard is for BLP issues and not a clearinghouse to shop issues that one has failed repeatedly to achieve a consensus on in other noticeboards and wikipedia processes. However the issue regarding the template is important. I do ask whomever closes this to determine if there is a consensus that the template in question does present a BLP violation.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 16:43, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
    • WP:BLPGROUPS defines this situation unambiguously as do the majority of comments in this discussion, particularly the unreliable sources used to justify placement of the template, and IPT being inextricably linked to Emerson. AtsmeConsult 17:21, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
That's very interesting indeed. Though the prior closer didn't find that. One of the issues they closed it on was the actual forum shopping. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 17:45, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Atsme has come to my talk page to ask me what I am talking about above. Ok so This [20] is a link to the response LHM gave to Atsme when questioning their prior close. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 18:13, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
To conclude that there's no BLP violation because IPT is not a living person demonstrates an unfamiliarity with a very important part of BLP policy. There was no mention of forum shopping. The BLP violations in IPT and the template are applicable according to WP:BLPGROUPS: The extent to which the BLP policy applies to edits about groups is complex and must be judged on a case-by-case basis. A harmful statement about a small group or organization comes closer to being a BLP problem than a similar statement about a larger group; and when the group is very small, it may be impossible to draw a distinction between the group and the individuals that make up the group. When in doubt, make sure you are using high-quality sources. IPT is a small group inextricably linked to Emerson, a legal person. Those facts have been noted in the comments above, and during the ANI (BLP discussion) which drew attention to the BLP violations as noted above. The NOR issues and unreliable sources also contribute to the BLP violations per WP:BLPGROUPS. Hopefully the next closer will not be so hasty in drawing a conclusion that is not properly based on the correct policy. AtsmeConsult 20:36, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── No LHM did not use the words forum shopping. They said, "The discussion had devolved into a rehashing of the merge and delete discussions." I used the words forum shopping.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 21:48, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Irrelevant and unrelated to the template's BLP violation per WP:BLPGROUPS. There's no ambiguity - it begins and ends with that policy. AtsmeConsult 22:05, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Your argument begins and ends with an inherent notability argument that you brought up in AfD. It's made up of points you made in AfD and elsewhere. Forum Shopping notability here.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 23:04, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────This BLPN is over because WP:BLPGROUPS has clearly proven the template is a BLP violation, and the comments here have confirmed it. The template has been removed by an uninvolved editor for valid reasons. It's time to move on to other issues. AtsmeConsult 11:27, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

It was removed yes, but if the close doesn't make it clear that the template is a BLP violation the template is going back in based on the prior consensus. And yes you can move on to another BLP issue. Do you have a BLP issue that you would like to discuss or are you going to continue trying to forum shop the already resolved issue of notability?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 17:40, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  • CLEAR AND INDISPUTABLE BLP VIOLATION PER WP:BLPGROUPS FOR THE REASONS STATED IN THE LIST OF COMMENTS ABOVE, ALL OF WHICH APPLY TO THE TEMPLATE AS A WP:BLPGROUPS VIOLATION. Read the policy and the comments if you're still confused, and stop being rude. AtsmeConsult 22:18, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
If it is clear and indisputable then the uninvolved editor that closes this will find that it is a BLP violation. In the event they do not, much like the prior closer did not, the template goes back in per the prior consensus. That's pretty much what I just said. Your rude display of posting in all caps does not change this. Now do you have another BLP issue that you would like to talk about or do you wish to continue trying to forum shop the notability issue here?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 00:14, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
You stated: I don't actually care one way or another what actually happens to the IPT article. I don't care if the Islamophobia template is eventually removed. [21] Why don't you act like it, and allow me (the primary writer of the IPT article) to do what needs to be done without further disruptions from you? It isn't my fault that you and the prior closer have a problem understanding WP:BLPGROUPS policy. The BLP violation is clearly against Emerson who is inextricably linked to IPT, and that is why it's a violation per WP:BLPGROUPS. What you're doing now is WP:IDHT, and your conduct is rude and taunting. This is the second time I am asking you to stop.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Atsme (talkcontribs)
I don't care. That of course being if there is a consensus that it's a blp violation or some other consensus that would override the current consensus to keep it. The Primary writer? You don't own the article. No actually you are doing the WP:IDHT trying to forumshop the issue of notability here because you did not get your way before.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 03:27, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Final Summary of why template is a BLP violation per WP:BLPGROUPS which refers to A SMALL GROUP OR LEGAL PERSON[edit]

  1. No reliable secondary or third party sources that confirm IPT and/or its legal person, Steven Emerson, are Islamophobic. Inclusion of the template on IPT would be the same as inclusion of the template on Steven Emerson because the two are inextricably linked; please read WP:BLPGROUPS which does not require the violation to be against a "living person";
  2. Comment from InedibleHulk who also confirms source used to justify the template is biased - The Center for American Progress seems to think the organization is Islamophobic, but judging from their article, they're hardly objective observers. I've removed the box, as it seems to rely solely on that claim. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:12, October 8, 2014 (UTC)
  3. Comment by NorthBySouthBaranof who draws attention to sources that are not reliable, NPOV, and how Emerson is inextricably linked to IPT (all BLP violations) when he suggested merging/redirecting to Emerson - I kind of feel like this thing needs to be stubbed and stripped, if not merge/redirected to Stephen Emerson. I don't see what's really notable about it, and with the exception of one Salon article, pretty much all the sources are polemic from either side — right-wing sources think the group is doing great work investigating alleged terrorism and left-wing sources think the group is peddling Islamophobic conspiracy theories. There's hardly any neutral sources here, which suggests it's not particularly notable from a mainstream perspective. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
  4. Comment by DocumentError who agreed with all of my points, and also confirmed inextricable link with respect to the BLP violation - I agree with all points made by Atsme with respect to the article and template, above. And it does seem that IPT is inextricably linked to the Emerson guy. DocumentError (talk) 01:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  5. Comment by Epeefleche who confirmed the template is an exercise of POV which violates WP:BLP - Responding to the question first posed, the template applied to that article does not appear apt, but rather an exercise of POV. Epeefleche (talk) 02:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  6. Comments in a recent ANI BLP about IPT also confirm BLP violations - Well the BLP violation may stem from more than merely saying that it was said. I can see a good argument that it violates WP:UNDUE to put the claim that the day after the Oklahoma City Bombing Emerson suggested that it might have been perpetrated by Muslim terrorists in the lead section of an article about a think tank Emerson founded. In which case it probably would also violate WP:BLP. [22]
  • In summary, the template is clearly a violation under WP:BLPGROUPS for all the reasons mentioned above, and because it lacks the required high-quality sources, relies heavily on its self-published website, violates NPOV, has no reliable secondary or third party sources that make a distinction between IPT and Steven Emerson. A BLP WP:BLPGROUPS violation does not require it to be against a "living person", rather the policy refers to a small group or legal person. AtsmeConsult 13:28, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

The TLDR here is that Atsme thinks the template presents a BLP violation and also they would like to forumshop the issue of notability here because they were unsuccessful at AFD.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 03:19, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

  • ^^^His only argument for why it is not a BLP violation. Sad. AtsmeConsult 03:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Interestingly enough I have only asked if the Template was a BLP violation. I've not claimed here that it is or isn't a BLP violation.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 03:30, 14 October 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.

The Federalist (website)[edit]

A revert occurred on The Federalist (website) claiming WP:BLP issues ([23]). I asked what the WP:BLP issues where on the users talk page (currently you can read them here but being moved to the main talk page:[24]), further discussion can be read on the articles talk page (Talk:The_Federalist_(website) under the section "BLP - ARBCOM").

I post this here as I believe this to be clearly supported statement by a WP:BLPSELFPUB, as to the last line (where the claim that it is true is made). And the first line to be a WP:SELFSOURCE as to the accusation (along with a WP:NEWSBLOG), it is properly attributed to the source of the accusation without saying it is true in the first line.

Normally I wouldn't go to a notice board like this, but I believe removal from the page for WP:BLP issues when there are clearly not WP:BLP problems is abusive of the normal extra safeguards given to WP:BLP concerns.

Is this the proper notice board for this? The article in question is not a WP:BLP.

--Obsidi (talk ) 04:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

  • I have restored the content, notwithstanding my respect for Gamaliel and others. This material is factual and well-sourced, and there is no valid BLP or NPOV basis for removing it. This controversy is part of the subject publication's public notoriety and contributes to the subject's notability for Wikipedia purposes. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:05, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't think that was wise, dirtlawyer. In any case, content similar to that included in the federalist article about Tyson was added to the Tyson and was withdrawn from the Tyson article under BLP (and has stayed out while discussion was ongoing, per BLP), and there is currently an RfC underway to determine whether the material should come into that article. I will note that the federalist (the subject of our article) is one of the blogs fanning the flames of the criticism of Tyson in the blogosphere. Because BLP applies everywhere a living person is discussed, the content should stay out of the federalist article (and others) until the RfC at the Tyson is complete, at least. If it comes in there, of course in comes in at the federalist (although content there may raise its own issues under BLP). If it doesn't come in there, the close might provide guidance as to what is reasonable to bring in to the federalist or other articles. But there is WP:NODEADLINE and there is no good reason not to wait for the RfC to close. WP is not part of the blogosphere and there is nothing urgent here. Jytdog (talk) 05:16, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
    • There is a RfC about inclusion at the page about Neil deGrasse Tyson. Notice the title of that RfC: "Request for Comment: WP:WEIGHT/WP:UNDUE". This is a RfC as to if it is important enough to include on the page (not if it is verified to have occurred or not). WP:WEIGHT issues apply to all pages and are not WP:BLP specific issues. (and it is at least possible that it is not important enough to the overall story of Neil Tyson, while also being important enough to the overall story of The Federalist (website) --Obsidi (talk ) 05:24, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  • As Obsidi observes above, the RfC is addressing the Tyson "quotegate" material in the context of WEIGHT/UNDUE is really a giant opinionfest, with little solid basis in the guidelines or policy for including or excluding it from the Tyson article. Opponents of including the content in the Tyson article have retreated from asserting a clear BLP violation (completely undermined by Tyson's recent public apology) to claiming that the material is not significant enough to include 250 bytes regarding this controversy in an article of 55,000+ bytes. There is no similar WEIGHT/UNDUE concern in this article, and no one has credibly asserted one. Ironically, this controversy may have contributed significantly to the notability of The Federalist website, thereby reinforcing the logic for including it in this article. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:39, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
WP:COATRACK applies as well. While any notability of the federalist may depend upon its bizarre fixation of this living person , it does not mean that the page can be allowed to be a site to carry on claims against a living person . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 07:11, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
COATRACK is exactly the issue. What's needed here is some admin cojones, to step in and start enforcing proper behaviour regarding the editing of BLPs. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:24, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  • There is a BLP aspect here for sure and it seems some editors are using this article as a coatrack for pov-pushing. It is of particular concern that Obsidi questions the relevance of this issue being raised at this noticeboard because the article is "not a BLP", as if that absolves editors from following policy. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 08:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, guys, but I just don't see it. Here are the facts of the controversy, and the on-Wiki controversy:
1. Well-loved public television host (and public figure), with known liberal political leanings, repeatedly misquotes (and quotes out of context) a former president of the United States on multiple occasions over a period of years;
2. Political columnist for online conservative news and opinion magazine describes public figure's repeated use of such misquotes;
3. Minor online controversy ensues as other conservative websites begin to repeat accusations of misquoting by public figure, and public figure denies misquoting former president;
4. Wikipedia editors add content to public figure's biographical article regarding his habit of misquoting the former president;
5. On-wiki controversy and edit-war ensue when regular editors of bio article deleted content on the basis of alleged violations of BLP, NPOV and RS, and when the material is supported by neutrally worded language and reliable sources -- including a public apology of the public figure -- the objections to the content morph into objections based on WEIGHT and UNDUE;
6. Factual nature of content is now undisputed following public figure's public apology;
7. Several editors who object to the content on various bases file an AfD for the Wikipedia article about the online conservative magazine that published the original allegations -- now factually corroborated -- in an attempt to delete the Wikipedia article on the basis that the online magazine is non-notable per WP:GNG and related notability guidelines;
8. The attempt to delete Wikipedia article at AfD are rebuffed when AfD is closed as "keep";
9. Editors who object to including content in public figure's Wikipedia bio have filed an RfC, no longer based expressly on primary BLP concerns (i.e., factual accuracy, reliable sources, etc.) -- but now based on WEIGHT and UNDUE -- to continue to block content regarding "quotegate" from bio article;
10. WP:BLP is now cited as a reason to remove factual content supported by reliable sources from the article about the online conservative magazine. A "good faith" BLP objection to the content in the article about the magazine is claimed, but no specific grounds for the BLP objection are described other than an RfC is pending on the talk page of the article about the public figure -- an RfC now explicitly based on whether the content should or should not be included based on WEIGHT and UNDUE because the factual nature of the content is no longer in dispute;
11. WP:Coatrack -- an essay, not a guideline, not policy -- is now cited to demand that factual, neutrally worded, reliably sourced content be removed the Wikipedia article about the online conservative magazine. "POV-pushing" is alleged above; in response, I state that I am no POV-pusher, and I have no history of POV-pushing in this article or elsewhere. I am an uninvolved editor who is appalled by how this on-Wiki controversy has been handled. From my perspective, it is difficult to discern what point of view is being pushed by factual, neutrally worded, reliably sourced content that is directly linked to the notability of the online conservative magazine;
Frankly, my fellow editors, rarely have I seen our policy and guidelines twisted in such a manner. I never get involved in Wikipedia political editing controversies, but someone needs to speak up. WP:BLP is not a censorship tool; it is supposed to be a policy and related guidelines that protect living bio subjects from false content, distorted out-of-context content, content unsupported by reliable sources, etc. Our BLP policy and guidelines are not supposed to provide a shield from all criticism or negative content about popular public figures; Wikipedia prides itself on being NOTCENSORED.
If a member of ArbCom or an uninvolved administrator tells me to remove the factual, neutrally worded, reliably sourced content from The Fedealist/ article, I will do so under protest, but I see no BLP violation here. I simply see policy and other guidelines stretched far beyond their intended purposes by opposing editors. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 10:39, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, because there's no problem with forcing off-topic content into this article sourced (for example) to a political blog post entitled "Neil deGrasse Tyson, serial fabulist". Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 10:48, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Alexbrn, as I just reminded another editor, please assume good faith, reduce your combative tone, and do your best to state your case without unnecessary rhetoric. I am no POV-pusher, and I have ZERO history of POV-pushing on Wikipedia, in political articles or otherwise; I am a previously uninvolved editor. It is undeniable that there are two sides to this "quotegate" controversy, and one of them is The Federalist. As such, the content is decidely not "off-topic," but has contributed greatly to the notoriety/notability of the online magazine. Furthermore, it is also now undeniable that Tyson repeatedly misquoted (and quoted out of context) George W. Bush, and did so in a manner that disparaged Bush. Tyson has now publicly apologized for quoting Bush out of context, removing all doubt as to the factual nature of the basic premises of this controversy. While the Neil deGrasse Tyson talk page RfC may or may not decide that a 250- to 500-byte mention of the "quotegate" controversy is somehow unworthy of inclusion in that article, it is difficult to comprehend how a similar argument can be made against the present content of The Federalist (website) article. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:14, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Not sure it's worth adding to this since minds are obviously made up. Just to be very clear, for when this inevitably gets escalated, both Dirtlawyer1 and Obsidi have made Wikipedia repeat the charge that Tyson has engaged in "fabricating quotes" (not made a mistake or anything like that), sourced to a partisan blog post. And they're cool with that even being aware of WP:BLP. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 11:42, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
This is not a true statement of what I said or did. He was ACCUSED of "fabricating quotes" by the federalist. He actually mistakenly dated it to 9/11 and in different context, and I source that to Neil Tyson himself when he said: "It appears in his speech after the Columbia Shuttle disaster, eighteen months after September 11th 2001. My bad. And I here publicly apologize to the President for casting his quote in the context of contrasting religions rather than as a poetic reference to the lost souls of Columbia" --Obsidi (talk ) 11:53, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
@Obsidi:—Are you really not aware of what you did? this edit you (yes) made Wikipedia repeat the accusation of fabrication, and sourced it (the source says "outright fabrication") to a partisan blog post. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 12:14, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
I know that is my edit (reinserting the removed content), I disagree with your original characterization of it as saying that he "engaged in 'fabricating quotes' (not made a mistake or anything like that)". --Obsidi (talk ) 12:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
I didn't mean to suggest that WP:BLP policy didn't apply to all pages in which WP:BLP is added, I just wanted to make sure I was in the right place. --Obsidi (talk ) 11:25, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Just so we can eliminate a potential bone of rhetorical contention: I agree 100% that BLP policy and related guidelines apply to all Wikipedia articles (and talk pages, for that matter), not just biographical articles. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
This information really belongs at the Tyson page, with a dablink/summary at this article. That BLP concerns have improperly but successfully kept the piece out of the NDT article seems to be the bigger problem here. It's a noteworthy criticism covered responsibly in reliable sources, and that seems to be the crux of things. Thargor Orlando (talk) 11:40, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Thargar, I have no objections to linking or transcluding this discussion, but I believe it should remain separate from the NDGT talk page RfC. The issues are obviously related, but not identical. In the case of the NDGT article, there is at least a colorable argument for excluding the "quotegate" controversy from the article based on WEIGHT and UNDUE; the controversy certainly is not among the primary reasons for NDGT's notability. I do not believe that any similar credible arguments based on WEIGHT and UNDUE exist for excluding the content from The Federalist article; in fact, the controversy has apparently contributed greatly to the notoriety/notability of the online magazine. Bottom line: we have two related, but different fact patterns, and two related, but different sets of issues under the our policy and guidelines. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:50, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Dirtlawer: As others have intimated, per WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE, this matter needs to be settled before you restore it to the article, so stop edit warring it in. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:08, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Alan, no one -- including yourself -- has yet made a credible statement of what the alleged BLP violation in The Federalist article actually is. Perhaps you would care to do so? Otherwise, in the absence of an actual statement of what the BLP violation is, I think it is perfectly reasonable for other editors to simply ignore such bald-faced and unsupported claims of violations. As for edit-warring, Alan, we have both reverted the deletion twice, and you reverted twice before I did -- are we both edit-warring in your estimation, or do the same 3RR/edit-warring rules not apply to all parties? Please feel free to explain your interpretation. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:22, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
You're wrong. People have stated a concern about the representation of a living person. You're just not listening. Even were you to "be right", you cannot circumvent the discussion that is ongoing, by editing on the basis of your personal dismissal. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:12, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  • This is a pretty clear case of editors abusing the BLP policy to cover what most likely is actually IDONTLIKEIT. I have yet to see anyone specify exactly how this particular content violates the BLP policy. It's merely being asserted as a magic word or a trump card. Kelly hi! 12:18, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Roger that. None of the pro-deletion editors has yet made a statement of what the alleged BLP violation is. I'm doing my best to assume good faith, but these circumstances easily lend themselves to another interpretation of gaming the system. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:22, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Untrue [25]. Try listening, first, to what they have said. (I am out of time and may return later.Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:27, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
@Alanscottwalker: I note that you responded after the fact. That having been said, you are simply asserting the same WEIGHT and UNDUE arguments that are being used in the RfC on the Neil deGrasse Tyson talk page. These are marginal BLP violations, assuming they are valid complaints at all, in the context of the NDGT article. Can you please explain how WEIGHT and UNDUE apply in the context of The Federalist article? The material you have deleted from The Federalist was factual, neutrally worded, and supported by reliable sources. Once again, I am doing my best to assume good faith, but I see elements of gamesmanship and abuse of policy and guidelines everywhere throughout this matter, and I find it very distressing that editors believe that it is acceptable to use BLP for purposes that were never intended. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:38, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Your edit warring against per WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE, is why you imagine it is after the fact, my comment is during the discussion that BLPREQUEST requires, and is restating what other editors have already stated to you - so you are in a BLP dispute, whether you like it or not. The issue of due weight regarding this BLP is currently an open discussion, so therefore you edit warred against BLP policy with your first revert. You claim they are "marginal BLP violations", so they are BLP violations -- stop violating BLP. You are repeatedly showing bad faith by your editing when there are those of differing opinions in an open discussion, whether you assume it or not. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:05, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Alan, you seem to have a problem with misquoting and quoting people out of context, which is somewhat ironic (and unintentionally humorous) given the discussion at hand. What I wrote, and what you clearly chose to ignore, is that minor BLP violations, if any ("assuming they are valid complaints at all"), in the NDGT article do not translate into BLP violations in The Federalist article. In fact, one can assert based on the current NDGT talk page discussion that no one is even making credible assertions of BLP violations, but only those based on WEIGHT and UNDUE, and those are hotly disputed. It's apparent to anyone who has followed this story (and the on-Wiki controversy) that the basic facts are no longer in dispute. Tyson misquoted Bush, and quoted him out of context, and did so in a disparaging manner; we can quibble about whether Tyson did it knowingly and intentionally, but I do not pretend to have a window into men's souls. So, let's just stick with the facts. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:24, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Dirtlawyer, you seem to have a problem with listening to what other people say to you and to misunderstand and misconstrue them (whether deliberate or not on your part, who knows). You have stated that there is a discussion ongoing about "marginal BLP violations", you therefore have violated policy by inserting the matter being discussed into the article. Stop violating policy. BLP requires that the matter not be undue -- in the article material concerning a living person, but your editing is so intent on putting the matter into article space, either regardless of whether it is undue, or regardless of whether the discussion on that is ongoing. Thus, you are breaching policy.Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Completely concur with Kelly on this. I have no tolerance for actual BLP violations, but more and more, I'm seeing WP:BLP being wielded as a hammer and anvil to simply keep any critical coverage of admired people out of Wikipedia. BLP policy was never intended to be misused in this way. And as much as I like NDGT, there's simply no valid BLP concerns with this material. LHMask me a question 13:48, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

FWIW - the issue may be one of content, but the issue is not one of WP:BLP as the claims appear to not be "contentious" as the subject clearly has said the basic claim was true, and there is ample reason to say the claim is thus "strongly sourced" per se. Inclusion is up to editorial discretion per WP:CONSENSUS, but claiming that WP:BLP precludes inclusion fails. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:37, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

But we are contending about it, dearest Collect. That makes it "contentious", no? You must have said so thousands of times, and/or acted in ways that rely on such logic. What makes it contentious is that there is significant disagreement about whether it should be included, no? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:40, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
@Nomoskedasticity: I have made no such assertions, Nomo. For my benefit, and for the benefit of others, please explain why you believe this factual, neutrally worded, and reliably sourced content should be excluded from The Federalist article?
1. Is the content factually untrue in The Federalist article?
2. Is the content not reliably sourced (including by NDGT's own apology) in The Federalist article?
3. Is the content not neutrally worded in The Federalist article?
4. Is the content taken out of context to reflect a living person in an unfairly negative light in The Federalist article?
5. Is there undue emphasis or weight given to the content in The Federalist article?
6. Or is there some new and novel problem with the content in The Federalist article which you care to assert?
Please answer. We are doing our best to assume good faith, but the failure to provide a credible statement of the alleged BLP violation in The Federalist article undermines your credibility and contributes to the perception of gamesmanship, wiki-lawyering and inappropriate manipulation of policy and guidelines. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:52, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
You seem to be imagining, incorrectly, that my post addressed you. But since you have pinged me, it would have been impolite not to reply. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
@Nomoskedasticity: No, sir, it was crystal clear that your previous post was addressed to User:Collect. That having been said, this is a public talk page, and the questions remain unanswered -- and my questions were addressed to you. Would you care to answer them, or are you also relying on the unsupported assertion of a BLP violation in The Federalist article. I am increasingly disappointed by the behavior and tone of otherwise rational and well-behaved editors in this matter, and I remain hopeful that you and others will reverse that trend. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
For those who are unclear what the BLP issue is, the content in the federalist article says "In September 2014, columnist Sean Davis wrote a series of articles for The Federalist accused astrophysicist and television science documentary host Neil deGrasse Tyson of fabricating quotes in a portion of his public speeches". fabricating. And as everyone here knows, this led to a feeding frenzy of similar accusations of fabricating material, attacks on him and his education, etc etc in the right wing blogosphere. Which the contested content in the federalist article also reports and sources. One big smearfest. BLP says "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives" Folks here have used Tyson's apology as an excuse to include the material. Tyson did not admit to fabricating anything. There is valid grounds to contest the material under BLP. Matters under BLP are' being discussed in the RfC regardless of the RfC's title. Per BLP the material should stay out of WP at least while the RfC is underway and should not be WP:COATRACKed into the federalist article in the meantime. For those disagreeing with this application of BLP, please speak to the point, namely the repeated accusations of fabrication and the other accusations made in light of the quote from BLP above.Jytdog (talk) 13:18, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
This sounds like a strawman argument. So far as I know, nobody wants to make an assertion of fact in any Wikipedia article that Tyson fabricated quotes. I think the closest anyone has come is to propose saying that The Federalist accused Tyson of fabricating quotes, which is neutral and true and documented in reliable sources. No BLP violation there. Kelly hi! 13:30, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
There have been problematic edits made. As WP:BLP puts it: "Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable". Repeating The Federalist's charge of fabrication with iffy sourcing is to repeat a problematic claim and show a cavalier disregard for policy rather than the "special care" which is required. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 13:42, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  • @Jytdog: Actually, The Federalist content, as it last existed before its deletion this morning, said that Tyson publicly apologized for quoting Bush out of context ("Tyson later apologized for mistakenly dating a quote of George W. Bush to September 11, 2001, when in fact the President said it on a different occasion and in a different context than that asserted by Tyson.") -- is that not factually accurate? Please answer the specific question, so we can begin to get to whether the deleted content constituted "one big smearfest," as asserted. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:37, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
not speaking to the point. fabrication =/= mistake. and please don't try to argue that "it depends what 'is' is" BLP calls us to be careful, not split hairs. Jytdog (talk) 15:33, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Jytodg, you still have not articulated what the alleged BLP violation in The Federalist article actually is. No credible BLP violation -- no BLP remedies. If you can't get a third-party administrator to agree with you, then you probably haven't done a very good job of identifying the problem, because there are an awful lot of editors who are just as smart as you, and just as knowledgeable as you, who disagree with your unsupported assertion of "BLP violation!" in The Federalist article. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:57, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. It's obvious where policy points us on this issue so I have gone ahead and restored the content in question, pending the possible future revelation of some hint that it might be inappropriate in some way. Fortunately, there is no deadline for folks to figure out what is wrong with it! Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 13:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
That is the exact opposite of what BLP says is done in these cases. Jytdog (talk) 15:33, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Since BLP is being used as a pretext to avoid NPOV, IAR tells me to ignore your insistence on rigid technical adherence to the precise protocol that is being gamed and abused. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:38, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Factchecker_atyourservice Please WP:AGF - there is no "pretext." It is my view that the content in the federalist article is a violation of BLP. People can have different perspectives and not be lying. I cannot respond to the rest because I don't what "IAR" refers to - what does it mean? Jytdog (talk) 18:08, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
If a rule prevents you from improving Wikipedia, ignore it. That's what IAR stands for. In this case, it's not really a rule, but stubborn failure to understand the rule, that is the obstacle. In any event: currently ignoring it. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:25, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Federalist: arbitrary break for convenience[edit]

  • @Mr swordfish: I also note that Mr Swordfish is strangely quiet on this talk page after deleting the factually accurate, neutrally worded, reliably sourced content from The Federalist article earlier this morning. This problem is not going away, guys. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:37, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

When in doubt, leave it out. Why fight over a contentious statement that won't be missed by readers, but leaving it in may be considered harmful to the named person? Dirtlawyer1 provided an excellent checklist which includes nearly all the elements that contribute to a BLP violation. If the reliability of a source is doubtful, that's an issue. If it's biased, that's an issue. Undue weight is an issue, but that can be corrected if the sources pass the reliability test. If both sides are being properly presented with RS, there is no issue. If only one side is being presented, there's an issue. Does inclusion of such a statement improve the article? Policy dictates: Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies: NPOV, V and NOR. We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. AtsmeConsult 14:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

  • At this point, Atsme, I have chosen to become involved because I believe that WP:BLP is being grossly misused to delete factually accurate, neutrally worded, reliably sourced content -- which is pertinent to the subject -- from The Federalist article, in a manner which far exceeds the intended reach of WP:BLP. And, yes, the inclusion of these three or four sentences in The Federalist article do improve the article; in fact, one can assert and easily support the proposition that this controversy -- whose basic facts are no longer in dispute as a result of NDGT's Facebook apology for quoting Bush out of context -- are among the principal reasons for The Federalist's present notoriety/notability. Speaking as a lawyer (for no one other than myself, of course), there is zero potential libel issue because (a) NDGT is a public figure within the meaning of New York Times v. Sullivan, and (b) most importantly, the basic facts are no longer in dispute. I see no violation of law or potential tort claim, but you're welcome to ask another alwyer with whom you are friendly for their opinion on point. I also see no violation of NPOV, V, RS, BLP, WEIGHT, UNDUE or any other Wikipedia policy or guideline that is relevant to this discussion, nor has anyone made any credible assertion of any BLP violation regarding the content of The Federalist article that would lead to the content being deleted absent an actual consensus to delete it. Atsme, you seem to be a reasonable editor, but others seem to have lost all perspective in this matter and are willing to twist policy and the guidelines to suit their desired outcome. That's not the purpose of WP:BLP, nor should it be an outcome with which anyone is happy. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:53, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
You misconstrue BLP -- at it's core, BLP pauses usual editing practice because "we must get it right" in the very first instance of it being in an article -- it's not and never has been enough that it passes law, it must be soundly established that it passes editorial judgement under all core policies. We "soundly establish" that in discussion and dispute resolution and in the meantime it does not go in. Your position on this especially makes little sense in light of BRD. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:52, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
I disagree, are you really trying to say that 30 days before an election, someone can come on to a politicians bio page, claim WP:BLP problems and then we got to wait for 30 days for the RfC to finish just because "we must get it right" and they are disputing it? That's silly and not policy, now Neil Tyson is not a politician, but can anyone dispute he is public figure? If there was any question as to the validity of the statements (or the source of that validity) or if the accusations were not attributed correctly, it should be removed (until any dispute over the blp issues are over). That is not the case here, what occurred is not contentious at all. This is similar to the second example in WP:WELLKNOWN: "A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He or she denies it, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should only state that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that he or she actually did. If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported." In this case replace affair with fabricated quotes. WP cannot say that he fabricated anything, as we don't know. What we can say is that the accusation was made, and that he gave a response. It is only a question of WP:WEIGHT as to if we include it or not.--Obsidi (talk ) 16:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
A parallel because "multiple major newspapers" have published the allegations? If that's so why is the article sourced to a blog? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 16:23, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Because it was the blog that made the allegation (we are linking to the allegation), it also has another reference as a source which is a WP:RS (one of many such WP:RS talking about the incident). --Obsidi (talk ) 16:26, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
The charge of fabrication you have sourced to a blog. There are not "multiple major newspapers" publishing this charge, so your comparison above is bogus. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 16:36, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
The Tampa Tribune (the source linked) is an over 100 year old daily published newspaper with a sunday circulation of 262,369 as of 2 years ago (it may be higher now). 3 years ago it was the 36th largest newspaper in the country. It maybe not be the largest of papers, but it isn't that small, its still a "major newspaper". There are other papers that talked about the charge as well. --Obsidi (talk ) 17:21, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
No. An opinion piece is not a reliable source per WP:NEWSORG. This is all the more true for a BLP, where opinion pieces shape facts to support their opinion, that's the purpose of persuasive writing. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:28, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Please redact this objectively false statement of WP policy. Opinion pieces may be used as reliable sources. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
You have not read NEWSORG I see. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:37, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Please go read NEWSORG, recognize your wrongness, redact the above wrong statement that I asked you to redact, and then I suppose I could accept an apology. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:44, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
What don't you get about opinion pieces not being general RS for facts, per NEWSORG. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:50, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Oh snap! I got you to read further! Any day now you might start actually understanding policies instead of merely shouting their names at the top of your lungs, over and over! Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Oh, what? It says that opinion pieces are not generally RS -- they only may be used for stating the author has an opinion, but that opinion would have to be due for it to matter. They are not general RS about the lives of third persons. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:20, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
We're making some progress. Baby steps, friend! Now, meditate on the fact that we're talking about opinions and opinion writers from a publication devoted to political opinion. Breathe a little. No, not too much! And when you've finished breathing, you could explain what you mean by "They are not general RS about the lives of third persons." Whatever that means, I don't think anyone was suggesting it. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 13:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I already explained that to you, not general RS per NEWSORG -- we don't write article content about people's lives from opinion. Your observation about opinion writers is bizarre, as there must be thousands of articles now by those opinion writers, and to single one out is a clear sign of undue. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:27, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I already explained to you that opinion pieces may be cited as sources of opinion. Notable opinions get cited and reflected in WP articles. I'm not even sure what you're trying to say regarding "undue". You seem to be conflating an argument about how prominently this material should be featured in NDGT's BLP with an argument about whether the notability guidelines are met. Could you please use complete sentences with verbs and avoid simplistic jargon so we can finally get to the heart of whatever your policy argument is? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:07, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
No. I'm not conflating anything. BLP requires strict compliance with multiple policies. If you do not know what undue means than there is nothing more to discuss. And no, opinion pieces are not used for neutral exposition of people's lives, opinion is not neutral exposition. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:58, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Yep you're conflating a million things. BLP does not require compliance with policies that don't exist. I know what undue means. And nobody suggested using an opinion piece for "neutral exposition of people's lives", nice collection of strawmen you've got there but could you trouble yourself to talk about things that other people are also talking about? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • A right-wing website publishes a number of attack pieces, with names such as (1) Bro, do you even science? Super scientist Neil deGrasse Tyson doesn’t understand statistics, (2)Did Neil deGrasse Tyson just try to justify blatant quote fabrication? If Neil deGrasse Tyson is an honest broker, why do the facts in his stories keep changing?, (3) Another day, another quote fabricated by Neil deGrasse Tyson, and (4) Why is Wikipedia deleting all references to Neil Tyson’s fabrication? Neil Tyson's Internet defenders sure are cultish and anti-science. For them this is a big deal because Tyson represents something they despise in many fronts. They have the right to publish these opinions on their website, but WP should not be an echo chamber for them. Let's look at this from the other side of the spectrum: Will people here advocating for inclusion of this material in the The Federalist article, be comfortable with including despising material about a conservative personality in the Daily Kos article? - Cwobeel (talk) 15:33, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. Looks to me more like The Federalist represents something Tyson despises, or is perhaps loosely affiliated with something he despises, thus causing him to have a painful series of critical brain farts. And now you're really mad about it. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:41, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  • You'd be absolutely correct if the issue was solely posted at The Federalist. It would be akin to posting meaningless content from Media Matters for America in a BLP when only MMfA is talking about it. The issue is no longer about just one group talking about it, however, as the issue has been posted in a variety of reliable sources and has been shown to have some legs. Thus, it deserves a short note in both places: the topic of the controversy and the Federalist article as the site has received attention because of it. Nothing overwhelming or significant, but a relevant mention of a noteworthy situation. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Really? A few conservative blogs and sites echoing the same attacks is not "attention", it is a political campaign and we should have nothing to do with it in WP. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:52, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  • You're assuming motive, and motive doesn't really matter much. It may be a political campaign, it may not, but it is notable and verifiable in reliable sources, and it has some legs. That's all that matters. For comparison, you've readded the Media Matters criticism, which is quite clearly and unequivocally a "political campaign," and you've arguably defended it as such. That criticism has no apparent notice outside of Media Matters, but you've opted to include it. What's the difference for you? Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:09, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  • The difference is obvious. The MMFA article describes a political stance by The Federalist as anti-LGBT (which BTW, is not disputed). OTOH, the attacks on Tyson are related to a living person. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:43, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I dispute it, but I also don't see it as noteworthy. The "attacks" on Tyson are reliably sourced and noted. You could argue the MMfA attacks are related to living people too, as they call out authors specifically. Should we remove based on BLP or remove because it's not noteworthy? Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I guess we will have to agree to disagree. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:52, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Thankfully, to paraphrase Tyson, the facts remain the same regardless of whether you agree or not. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:58, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. Last I saw, there was NOT an anti-LGBT stance being described, rather, it was being mentioned that an anti-LGBT group said nice things about the article subject. Looks like a smear campaign. Did you know that Hitler loved art? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:43, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Anybody weigh in, please? There was a claim above that this site took an anti-LGBT position, but this was never substantiated in any way. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:12, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • @Dirtlawyer1: I think I said what needed to be said in the edit comment. There's no consensus to include the material and my understanding of process is that the default is to omit material until consensus is reached. I'm not sure where you get the idea that the material must remain until there's " actual consensus to delete it." I'm hoping that there will be some resolution to the RFC over at his bio page and that we might be able to infer how to treat the material here at The_Federalist_(website) from that result. Until then, there is no deadline. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 16:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Mr. Swordfish, but I know the WP:BLP process and understand its purposes as well as you. No one has yet articulated a credible statement of what the alleged BLP violation in The Federalist article is. No BLP violation -- no BLP remedies. Someone who dislikes factually accurate, neutrally worded, reliably sourced content cannot simply scream "BLP!" and remove the content. In the absence of a self-apparent attack article, demonstrably incorrect information, or possibly libelous statements, the good faith objecting party needs to articulate a real and specific violation of the BLP policy and/or related guidelines; otherwise the claimed BLP violation lacks credibility. Common sense still applies. If there is a current BLP violation in The Federalist article, it is not self-evident for many of your reasonably intelligent fellow editors. As for consensus, I think there appears to be a stronger consensus to keep the content than remove it, especially when one considers the weak policy objections of the objecting editors. FYI, even though I don't see a problem with using of the word "fabrication" in the context of the quoted Federalist article, I have replaced it with the less inflammatory "misquoted" at your suggestion. There is a middle ground to be reached here, provided everyone will stop trying to game the system. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:52, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Now that I have more time, let me address Dirtlawyers (and similar) meta-argument. His argument appears to be that if it is true and sourced it must be permitted in. "It's true" has never been a basis alone for putting something in on a "living person". "It's sourced" is also alone insufficient. His due weight argument is that somehow what this website said about a living person made the website notable, but there are scores of articles about websites that talk about living people, and they are notable for it, but if we filled each ones' article with what they said about people, we would be in any given instance, as a matter of editorial judgement, raising undue weight on information about those living people, and giving undue weight to information about living people is against WP:BLP: Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies: Neutral point of view (NPOV)[including Undue] . . . We must get the article right. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:23, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Alan, and you still have not articulated a credible statement of what the alleged BLP violation in The Federalist article is. No BLP violation -- no BLP remedies. You might want to focus on convincing other editors in this discussion that there is an actual BLP violation, instead of shouting "BLP!" and demanding BLP remedies. You still haven't satisfied Step One. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:52, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
at this point Dirtlawyer1 your claim that a BLP objection has not been articulated is simply WP:IDHT. If you cannot state what the objection is under BLP, I suggest you actually read what people are writing, as it has been articulated several times. You may or may not agree with it, but for you to say that it hasn't been stated is just IDHD and a violation of the mandate to actually try to work toward WP:CONSENSUS - that is the fundamental principle of WP (this is not like a court where it is perfectly fine to ignore what other people are actually saying, which appears to be your strategy here) Jytdog (talk) 16:57, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Jytdog, it's clear that one of us does not have a grasp of what it means to articulate a statement of a violation with specificity. Let's assume I'm just not as smart as you. Why don't you explain the BLP violation right here, right now, in three to four sentences. Please tell me how the present language of The Federalist article constitutes a BLP violation. If you're relying on UNDUE and WEIGHT, please explain how the current presentation of facts in The Federalist article distorts reality to the detriment of Dr. Tyson. That's your burden; make your case if you can. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:02, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
you are not even trying. it is not a question of "smart" it is a question of listening and actually engaging with what others think, to work toward consensus. you don't have to agree or even find it well grounded, but it is a reflection on your behavior here, that at this advanced stage in the conversation you have no grasp on what the good-faith argument is of those who think differently. you are not operating within WP's norms. Again, the adversial approach is perfectly fine for court. It is not how we operate here. Jytdog (talk) 17:57, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, Dirtlawyer, people have articulated it over and over again, so you are either being tendentious or you just don't understand and there is nothing to be done about the later. But let me try, what is it about the following that you do not understand: "but there are scores of [Wikipedia] articles about websites . . . and they [the websites] are notable for [talking about living people], but if we filled each [websites'] article with what they said about people, we would be in any given instance, as a matter of editorial judgement, raising undue weight on information about those living people, and giving undue weight to information about living people is against WP:BLP: Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies: Neutral point of view (NPOV)[including Undue] . . . We must get the article right." It, of course, has to be against BLP, because tending to put someone in an unfair (ie. undue) light is a problem that would tend to harm living people. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:14, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Lol, could you try again in English? And maybe even a specific reference to allegedly problematic material? Are you trying to say that BLPs shouldn't say stuff about living individuals? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:22, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
"Lol"? Doing this for the Lulz? As for your question, it IS against policy for them to have undue facts. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
No, I am very serious — you're just making laughable arguments. In any event, one wonders, indeed, whether you have bothered to read the provision in BLP which makes it clear that says critical material goes in even if it is unflattering to the subject? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
No. I did not make that argument. This is an encyclopedia, so it requires standards. Your 'anything goes' does not appear to be serious. This, doesn't meet standards but do not take that personally. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:20, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Published material (including opinion) about this incident clearly meets the notability guidelines. On what basis do you allege that BLP commands that we must not allow any WP prose of any description to appear anywhere to describe it? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
WP:NOTABLE is not a standard for article content, it's irrelevant here. BLP requires strict compliance with multiple policies, and this material fails in the ways I have already said. 18:58, 14 October 2014 (UTC)Alanscottwalker (talk)
Your arguments were baseless for the reasons I already stated. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:47, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Jytdog, Alan, that's all you can muster when asked, in good faith, for a specific statement of the alleged BLP violation in The Federalist article? You answer with generalities and thinly veiled personal attacks (adversarial! not trying! tendentious! reflection on your behavior! not operating within WP's norms!), but yet you still cannot provide a single specific example of how the existing text of The Federalist article treats Dr. Tyson unfairly when asked? I teed it up for you, fellas, and you choose to attack the messenger? Sorry, but my new operating assumption is that you cannot articulate your case because you don't have a case. Not really much left to be said to either of you at this point. Perhaps there will be another day when we can all agree on an actual BLP violation and work together to fix it, but it's now apparent today is not that day. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:30, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

No. You offered the absurd rationale for putting something about a BLP in an article ('a website said this, and its true') and then asked us to swallow such an unpersuasive argument - you have the burden of persuasion under BLP, and you have failed. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:39, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
"my new operating assumption is that you cannot articulate your case because you don't have a case" — yep, that is it precisely. The appeal to BLP is spurious in the extreme, which is why we're not hearing anything in the way of concrete detail, actual article prose, etc. Instead, we're essentially being told that this would be unflattering to the subject of a BLP so it cannot appear anywhere on Wikipedia, which is entirely lacking in any policy justification whatsoever. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:02, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
I, for one, would be happy to discuss the BLP issue of the edit in question if someone would specify what the issue is. Then it could be dealt with. As it stands the BLP complaint is indeed spurious. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:12, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Add me to the list of concerned editors who would actually like to discuss BLP policy and related guidelines in the context of one or more specifically alleged BLP violations. For the benefit of everyone, it would be extremely helpful if the pro-deletion editors would answer the following questions that have been almost completely ignored since I posted them this morning:

1. Is the content factually untrue in The Federalist article?
2. Is the content not reliably sourced (including by NDGT's own apology) in The Federalist article?
3. Is the content not neutrally worded in The Federalist article?
4. Is the content taken out of context to reflect a living person in an unfairly negative light in The Federalist article?
5. Is there undue emphasis or weight given to the content in The Federalist article?
6. Or is there some new and novel problem with the content in The Federalist article which you care to assert?

Please free to answer the questions and engage in an actual discussion of how the BLP policy and related guidelines should be applied. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The answer to all these questions is singular: There is no consensus for having that material at the Tyson article and neither at the Federalist article. Simple. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:53, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
That is not an answer to any of the above 6 questions. Maybe that's a non-BLP reason for excluding it, (although I would disagree as to that we should remove anything in which an editor disagrees without consensus to remove), but it doesn't answer any of the above 6 questions. --Obsidi (talk ) 19:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC).
Yes, it is. Read WP:CONSENSUS. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:00, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry Cwobeel but when I see that response it translate to, You can't put it in the article because no one has said you could. I don't wish to misunderstand you or misstate your position so please correct me if I'm wrong.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── All this flaming back and forth is just ugly. For those asking me what the rationale is, I will just give you a dif for a clear statement I made earlier, since you don't seem to recall it or be able to find it. here. Everybody please AGF and please actually try to understand what the other side is saying. Jytdog (talk) 20:02, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

(ec) If you look at the page history, you will see that there is an edit war going on. This means that there is no consensus, and to find it we need to find a compromise. Problem is that some editors are not ready to commit to a process of compromise. The solution may be stubbifying the page, protect it and work out the differences. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:08, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Dirtlawyer1, with respect to your 6 questions above... Quoting BLP: "This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages. The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material." Emphasizing: including... material about living persons in other articles. The fact that the subject of the article at hand is a webzine is irrelevant. Stating the question as you have does not reflect an understanding of what the policy actually says, much less respect for its spirit. (and btw, the passage I have quoted is also why the material should remain deleted while discussion is underway) Jytdog (talk) 20:10, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  • You assert that your response is "with respect to [Dl's] 6 questions above", yet nothing you wrote brings up any specific BLP issue regarding the content. It is not enough to say "there are BLP issues" over and over. There has to be a specific concern regarding BLP policy that the content violates. None has been put forth. LHMask me a question 20:14, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
lithistman please see the dif in outdent comment above (which just links to something i wrote much higher up in this thread). Please read and respond, in good faith. thanks. and that is just my statement. others have made clear statements citing policy too. You don't have to agree with the application but IDHT is not a valid strategy for reaching consensus. Jytdog (talk) 20:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Sorry, that's another non-answer. Yes, we know that WP:BLP applies to all articles, including articles that are not biographies. Quoting WP:BLP is not helpful; we all know it. What you have failed to do is provide an actual, specific alleged violation of WP:BLP. At some point, this becomes Kafkaesque: "it's a violation because we say it's a violation and we don't have to tell you why." Bizarre. And since you cannot articulate the violation, there is no rational basis for deleting any sourced content before imposing full page protection. Once again, it's tough to assume good faith when gaming the system seems to be the order of the day. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:22, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
1) No persuasive argument has been made that it is due, true or not, and as it involves statements about a living person, BLP applies, and it is your burden to persuade.
2) Its mention is generally found in opinion pieces, which are not RS per WP:NEWSORG (as for NDGT's statement, that statement alone does not make it due, especially since NDGT's own argument is that it is being blown out of all proportion solely due to malice, 'a lawyers trick')
3) The definition of neutrally worded is that it is due, and as it has not been shown to be due, it is by definition not neutrally worded.
4) Yes, the content is taken out of context, as the claim is about a living person with little context concerning that person, or his claims that it is being blown out of proportion, and since it not been shown to be due to begin with, then it is all unneeded. As previously noted, websites say things about people, so what?
5) You have shown no published biography of NDGT that would support that this episode is due. You have not shown that other similar biographical material is generally due for biographies. Thus, you have failed to carry your burden on all counts. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:40, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Your #5 is so freaking ridiculous, do you honestly expect anybody to take this seriously, much less bother to read your points #1-4? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:58, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
What's ridiculous about it? To a neutral observer, that evidence would be more likely to persuade. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:26, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
What's ridiculous? Let's start with the fact that it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the applicable standard. Then if you're interested I could explain more ways that it is ridiculous that don't quite have a direct bearing on WP policy or ridiculous misunderstandings thereof. In any event: could you be more clear that your intentions here are inappropriate? Thanks for coming clean. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 13:45, 14 October 2014 (UTC)\
No. The last point is grounded in WP:NOR. For the rest, you are wrong. My arguments are well supported in policy, and your comment appears to merely sputter or rant. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
At no point does BLP say or even faintly suggest that material about living persons must be sourceable to a published biographical manuscript, and the burden of an editor adding material about a living person does not contemplate any such analysis. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:15, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
BLP requires strict compliance with multiple policies, including NOR, that's just the way it is structured. In this aspect, if a proposer of BLP content cannot show it is in fact biographical material that a serious biographical publication has covered, then they are just going to have a more difficult time persuading others that it belongs in a serious article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:58, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
if a proposer of BLP content cannot show it is in fact biographical material that a serious biographical publication has covered, then they are just going to have a more difficult time persuading others that it belongs in a serious article.This is really little more than an admission that you're simply arguing because you think you have a plausible excuse for saying "I'm not persuaded". Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, that's progress of a sort, I guess. At least one of the pre-deletion editors has now actually committed some specific allegations of BLP violations to writing for the first in almost 12 hours of discussion -- even if the alleged violations are so over the top as to lack any credibility. If these really are your carefully considered positions regarding these issues, and such positions are shared by other pro-deletion editors, then I fully expect that the ongoing RfC at the NDGT talk page will end in a no-consensus disaster. It is much as I feared: there is no room for compromise that does not involve the complete exclusion/deletion of all of the "quotegate" material on the most tenuous of alleged BLP violations. Notwithstanding the unfortunate tone of today's talk page discussion, I am still surprised by just how far some editors are willing to stretch BLP policy to win what is essentially a run-of-the-mill content dispute. I'm not sure what I was expecting, but the degree of political animus is truly disappointing, and the attempts at manipulating BLP issues somewhat shocking. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, progress of a sort is still progress. As for your final comments, exception is taken as you are entirely wrong, as to any of those comments about "political" whatever. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:58, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Ok so, Cwobeel, to clarify. You are saying that the dispute over this content is still on going. The content should stay out of the article until the dispute is resolved in a consensus.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:20, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes. I think that is what he is saying, and I agree. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
There's no dispute grounded in policy, as is evident from the fact that all this text has transpired without anybody stating one. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:55, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Factchecker_atyourservice please stop saying that. you have now acknowledged that you personally have read at least one argument citing the BLP policy. so just lay off that rhetoric and please actually engage. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:43, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, Jytdog, but how many dozen times must I say that simply name-dropping a policy has no effect? Coming up with a single, easily dispensed-with complaint long after the fact of filing, and then sort of looking the other way when it is instantly dispensed with, does not somehow validate all this non-discussion and posturing by you and others. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 13:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Multiple policies and guidelines have grounded the objections: BLP, NPOV, NEWSORG, the policies and guidelines in COATRACK, etc. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:37, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
For the record, Alan, WP:COATRACK is neither policy nor a guideline. It's an essay. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes. For whatever reason, you already said that. I read what you said, that is why I referenced the policies and guidelines discussed in COATRACK. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Request: In the space below, please provide the proposed text that you find problematic, specifying the reason said text is problematic. This could be a start on slipping this Gordian Knot, and actually making progress. Thus far, no one has actually said, "I find 'XXX text' problematic from the proposed text for 'YYY reason'" Doing so would constitute progress, in my view. LHMask me a question 21:38, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Dirtlawyer1 you are getting all emotional. it is not my fault you built an argument on an errant understanding of BLP. Don't get mad at me! The argument cited in my diff quotes BLP and applies that, to what is going on in with federalist content. The argument doesn't get more straightforward than that. Again, please actually engage. And yes, I and others have cited the part of BLP that says that once material has been removed from an article under BLP, it doesn't come back in, until consensus is achieved. That too is part of how BLP works - part of the policy that the community built to protect itself against slander/libel litigation and to keep standards high for articles about people, where things can get all emotional and gutterish (like the frothing blogosphere can do from time to time) and to protect living people from inappropriate attacks in this "encylopedia that anyone can edit". There is a higher bar for these matters. Please do engage with what the policy actually says and with its spirit (which is protective of WP), and what we are saying about it. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:43, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
"Emotional?" Yet another attempt at baiting your discussion opponents? You continue to mock and engage in borderline insults, which I find disappointing, as if I would respond in kind. I am not mad at you; I am disappointed that anyone thinks what you are doing here is in the best interests of Wikipedia. You are attempting to twist our well-intended BLP policy into a tool for deleting content with which you disagree: short and simple. There is no BLP violation here that any "reasonable person" would ever recognize. Asking me to engage? Was that intended to be humorous? I've been begging you and other pro-deletion editors to state your case for over 12 hours, and the only response received to date -- from Alanscottwalker -- shows just how ridiculously tenuous the asserted BLP violations are. Sure, there is a higher bar in BLP matters -- one which I strongly support -- but it appears certain editors have discovered that it can be manipulated to achieve a desired outcome of excluding factually accurate, neutrally worded, reliably sourced material from an article for no other reason than a small group of editors doesn't like it. If anyone has an "errant misunderstanding of BLP," and its intended purposes, you may want to review your own understanding with a healthy dose of humility. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, sometimes no consensus on Wikipedia leads to certain results -- that you have not persuaded me, when you have the burden, may be that you have made a poor argument (you should consider that). I have tried repeatedly to explain to you why, I view it as I do, that is all I can do, whether you think it "reasonable" or not. Yes, BLP is protective, yes, it requires pre-discussion, yes, it requires consensus. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, if you've only been engaged on this for the last twelve hours you should be aware that it's been a raging edit war for almost a month on multiple wikipedia pages. Throughout, WP:BLP has been violated numerous times as the edit war rages. My own view is that the current article passes muster with BLP (well, the last time I looked a few minutes ago anyway - it might have changed already). I also understand why some editors would still think it violates it. I fully expect it to be edited in the near future to again violate BLP policy. It's a frickin' magnet for POV editors. On both sides I should add.
My position all along has been that we need to take it slowly, wait for all the shoes to drop (and I think they have at this point) and then calmly either create a brief NPOV entry or determine that it's just not important enough in the greater scheme of things to include. The problem is that whenever a brief BLP-compliant NPOV entry manages to make it onto a page somewhere it either gets deleted or edited into non-compliance by editors with a mission.
Since every policy I'm aware of says the default is to leave material out until consensus is reached, I"m in favor of leaving it out until the RFC concludes or consensus is reached, as per policy. Whether a brief policy-compliant entry on the matter makes it into his bio or on this page or somewhere else doesn't really matter to me - it's a tough judgment call and anyone who thinks it's an obvious decision needs to check their biases. I do object to editors who are trying to do an end run around the RFC by inserting the material at various other pages. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 22:27, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  • This is a very unproductive conversation. LHM proposes a means to get it back on track. It sounds like a good idea.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 21:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
WP:BLP The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material. I am not taking a position in this dispute, but the unambiguity of the policy is remarkable. AtsmeConsult 21:55, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, Atsme, but that presumes a valid BLP concern in the first instance. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:06, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
What do you mean by "valid BLP concern"? Here, we have material about a living person and whether its substance belongs in an encyclopedia; we already know that not everything about that person (true or not) belongs in the encyclopedia. So why do you view that editorial difference as not a valid BLP concern? Don't we have to make just such editorial judgements on this BLP? What puts this BLP material in the encyclopedic register, is not a question that can be avoided, is it? Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Is this where you really want to go? If an editorial difference now qualifies as a BLP violation, there are hundreds of claims in hundreds of articles which could then be removed on BLP grounds. Do we really want, as someone suggested above, in the 30 or so days before an election to allow everyone to remove everything they don't like from every bio of a candidate? I hope you answer is no, but what policy reason would you have to object, if you contend that an editorial difference justifies the imposition of BLP removal?--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, it seems you are raising a matter of reasonableness and good faith, and as a policy matter the assumption is that they are employed in reason and in good faith. That's not just wishful thinking either, the project is built on the fact that most people do act within reason and employ good faith. It is thus unlikely that such a parade of horribles would occur. Indeed, if it snows, it snows. We also have other remedies for users who go on a rampage. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:34, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
My summation: for the most part, I agree with Mr swordfish, but I also understand the issue from the perspective of Dirtlawyer1. I opt for strict adherence to policy in BLP issues, so when there's doubt, leave it out. If your section heading contains the word "controversy", you have already raised question about NPOV. We are obligated to adhere strictly to policy when writing about a living person. My first impression from an editorial perspective is that the article probably started off as WP:PROPAGANDA and ended up as WP:Coatrack. There are multiple issues that need to be addressed in order to correct the BLP issues, but because of the The Federalist's partisan nature, the disputes will rage on. Also, considering all the media attention WP received over this one article, perhaps it's time for all of us to take a step back and reassess. As editors we rely on secondary sources when writing articles, so why not read the following two articles and evaluate what was said about WP and its editors regarding The Federalist: [26] [27] Now here's some food for thought - why wasn't all this media attention included in the article? Give that some thought, and you may find answers to some of the questions posed here. AtsmeConsult 00:09, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
This continued beating around the Bush (irony intended) is getting nowhere. The simple fact is that a large number of people don't think that this is worthy of inclusion because it is a trumped up controversy initiated by a conservative web based news outlet. It reached a fever pitch when one pro-deletion editor nominated The Federalist for deletion, a move that appeared to be a patently vindictive response to their pointing out of NdGT's errors. Ironically, this act basically guaranteed that some mention must be included as that act resulted in several stories about the attempt to delete the page. Once NdGT admitted his error, claims of BLP went out the window (not that they were particularly convincing even before then). The only real argument is weight. Arzel (talk) 00:35, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree that it is a WEIGHT issue. However, weight issues can be discussed on talk pages without necessitating removal from the article pending consensus. BLP issues deserve that special consideration, but if we extend that to WEIGHT disputes, we are basically providing any editor with a tool to remove anything at any time (as long as it relates to a living person.) I think some editors are so intent on removal of this incident that they are, unintentionally, creating a policy which will have fa-reaching consequences.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:27, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
If you agree that 'getting it right' is a good thing then it's not far-reaching per BLP. The risk of getting it wrong regarding LP's is the problem addressed by policy. The burden lies where the risk lies, that's all. It places the heavy responsibility -- the needed forethought -- where it needs to be. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:07, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • This is a very long and almost incoherent conversation with alot of ranting. The Tyson page has this conversation on Steroids. Weight is teh most and pretty much only persuasive question happening. I've misplaced my Crystalball so I'm unsure how this will end. The Tyson could remain the same, there could be a finding of undue weight and the content related to this could be reduced, and then there's the possibility of full removal. But then this question of weight is the directed at the Tyson page. I wonder if the question of weight should be directed at the federalist page as well. Perhaps on the Federalists talkpage.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Near as I can tell, the argument is that the incident reflects poorly on NDGT, thus any material about it would be unflattering to NDGT and his fans would not like it one bit, thus the material should not appear anywhere on WP. And it's sort of an open secret that there is no policy basis for this position, but certain people want a certain result and will keep talking until they get it. Have I misstated anything? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:09, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
"certain people want a certain result and will keep talking until they get it" -- I think that sums it up quite nicely. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:05, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── While there is a very slight entertainment value in the ongoing "flame war," I don't believe that it is a terribly productive use of editor time. Is anyone remotely interested in attempting to resolve the alleged BLP violation by any means other than the complete deletion of NDGT-related content from The Federalist article? If so, I have created a new subsection below for the discussion of potential compromise text that may satisfy the purported BLP issues raised above. Anyone? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:35, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Dirtlawyer1 - I think the article could be fixed with a little dedication by GF editors who are able to maintain a neutral position. I recommend starting with the undue weight issues which contribute to the BLP violation, as well as NPOV, V, and NOR. Neutralize the lede, and look for the reliable sources that are needed to create a solid foundation on which to build. If you can't build a solid foundation, the article doesn't belong in WP. If RS are available, I'd consider it a green light to add appropriate sections beginning with a mission and history section, reasons for notability and inclusion in WP, and then keep adding informative sections, one of which might include a few incidents that were notable enough to get the attention of secondary and third party sources - but they must be RS. In fact, all of this should have been done before the article was even published. AtsmeConsult 22:52, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Federalist: attempt to find middle ground[edit]

Are there any "pro-deletion" editors who previously opposed the inclusion of the "Neil deGrasse Tyson controversy" section in The Federalist article who are open to the negotiation of compromise language that would satisfy your previously stated concerns? If so, please indicate your willingness to participate immediately below. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:52, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I tried, with my "request" above. There seems to be only one position on the one side of the "discussion": absolutely no inclusion of any mention of what NDGT did, no matter what. If I am misreading any of the "pro-deletion" positions above, please feel free to correct me. LHMask me a question 16:40, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
And I thank you for that effort, LHM. In the run-up to the article lockdown, most participants apparently were not ready for a serious discussion regarding potential compromise language. While I certainly appreciate your willingness to participate, what is required is the participation of several previous "pro-deletion" editors. Otherwise, we are negotiating with ourselves. Anyone? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:46, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I am not a "pro-deletion" editor, although I have been opposed to including this material in any article at least until the RFC at his bio-page is closed. Why are we restricting comment to only pro-deletion editors? The two questions are orthogonal in my opinion. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 17:33, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I think it's because we are still in the discovering-the-opposing-side's-argument phase and normal discussion does not seem to be producing any clues, so he is making a novel attempt at a structured Q&A to try to yield some actionable conclusions or at least noticeable signs of progress! (Is that about it?) Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Federalist: Proposed compromise text[edit]

Proposal #1[edit]

As an uninvolved editor, this reads neutrally, addresses the incident thoroughly, and does not accuse NDGT of anything nefarious. Can we form consensus around this, or something like this? LHMask me a question 16:50, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Not a bad start, LHM. Reactions, anyone?
I think you need to mention the qualified/partial apology by Dr. Tyson. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:59, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Did you make the short comment directly above, Dl1? If so, you forgot to sign. As for your concern here, I think mentioning that NDGT "commented" on it is a fair compromise, as some might consider that an "apology", while others might not. LHMask me a question 17:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
What's with the use of the word "eventually"? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 17:36, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Nothing particular, except to indicate that Dr. Tyson didn't initially comment on the matter. It just indicates that time passed between the publishing of Davis's article and Dr. Tyson's reply. Is there some issue with that word that I didn't anticipate? LHMask me a question 17:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I read it as a negative impl;ication that he didn't reply as quickly as he should have. IMHO, the passage is more NPOV without it. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 17:48, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I have to say, in all my time on this project, I've never seen the word "eventually" categorized as a POV problem. The word simply indicates the passage of time between the initial article and Dr. Tyson's comments, nothing more and nothing less. But if you have a better word, or a better way to phrase it, I would be very willing to change it. LHMask me a question 17:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, it goes without saying there was some passage of time between the article and Tyson's response - he doesn't get to use that Ship of the Imagination contraption in real life to time travel. (c: Anyway, check out what has to say. One can infer negative connotations from that usage even if none were intended. I'd say just strike the word and move on.Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:51, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • It says "quotes" (plural). I believe it is just the one quote. Also, sentence 3 has WP:OR. Yes, I realize that it is true, but the threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is Verifiability, not truth. Someone once told me when I first started editing Wikipedia, that writing encyclopedia articles should be easy. If you're having trouble finding sources that say something, that's a strong indicator of something that should not be included on Wikipedia. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:21, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I believe it was just one quote. Tyson misstated a quote by Bush and attributed it to something else. I don't see the OR in sentence three, perhaps you could point it out. Arzel (talk) 01:04, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't think either does the story service. The problem is not just that Tyson misquoted Bush, but that he took a quote from 2003 and falsely attributed it (and misquoted it) to Bush as a statement from 2001 in order to imply that Bush doesn't know who actually named the stars. The context of the story should be included. WP editors also added to the story, and that should be included as well. Arzel (talk) 01:04, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Accept Proposal #1 - it reads neutral and eliminates the BLP issue. LMH provided a good example of writing to achieve neutrality. The nitpicking can be discussed at the article's Talk page where the source issues should also be worked out. AtsmeConsult 13:39, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
    Sadly enough, it seems like these two "middle ground" proposals are being drowned out by the "discussion" in the sections below. LHMask me a question 14:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposal #2[edit]

BTW, in case anyone missed it, I proposed the following text about a week ago on the talk page of the federalist article:
I'm still not convinced that this whole imbroglio is important enough to put in an encyclopedia, but something like that is more likely to gain support than some of the more um shall we say detailed versions. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 17:48, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your willingness to participate in good faith, Mr. Swordfish. And, no, I had not seen your proposed compromise text before now; I've only become involved in this discussion in the last 36 hours or so. Your proposed text does have the advantages of brevity and squeezing in all of the. basic facts. And there is no real assessment of blame, which may be essential to the compromise. We must remember that any compromise text must also be supported by one or more reliable sources, which may have an impact on the exact phrasing before we're done.
FYI, if we can arrive at an acceptable compromise/consensus, I promise to maintain the article on my watch list and diligently defend the compromise text against any and all POV-pushers, and hopefully alleviating that concern for good-faith participants in this discussion. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:57, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I too could support this text. One issue I could see arising would be with the word "apologized", which some might construe as more POV than "commented on the issue", as I worded it above. Notwithstanding this concern, though, I'm willing to throw my support behind either of these compromise versions. LHMask me a question 18:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
They all look like good progress and I'm comfortable leaving the discussion (and work, haha!) in Dirtlawyer's hands if this is where it's leading. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:22, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm just along for the ride, Factckecker. LHM and Swordfish are doing all the work. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:28, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • So, am I free to interpret this as a !vote from you for whichever (if either) text is able to gain consensus? LHMask me a question 18:29, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, sorry, should have been more explicit. I did mean to leave an implied caveat that if the end result is somehow dramatically different than the above I'd become re-concerned, but otherwise accepting that not participating in the group-writing does diminish my right to complain about the result and that's OK. I do remain concerned that resolving this via compromise may paper over some incorrect policy arguments above that should be explicitly disavowed, and that those arguments may resurface in a less-than-constructive way... Much in the same way that this current debate, such as it is, looks very much like an effort to re-fight the failed AFD. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:35, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Since my proposed text is intentionally light on details I don't think it will be hard to provide reliable sourcing. The Federalist articles are themselves reliable sources for the fact that Sean Davis wrote articles critical of Tyson, and Tyson's facebook posts are reliable sources for the fact that he acknowledged the error and apologized. I'm not seeing any other assertions of fact that need to be cited.
BTW, since you are coming in at the middle of the third act, you might want to review the opening scene: It might shed some light on why some editors are so fiercely opposed to including this material. I share your concern that a brief NPOV entry will unlikely stay that way for long, but I don't think we can use that as a policy-based reason not to try. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 18:29, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I had (very briefly) looked through that discussion, but there was so much heat and so little light--from both sides--that I found little of use there. It seemed like a whole lot of WP:IDLI from one side, with a round of WP:IDHT from the other, so I thought that starting (mostly) fresh would be best. I would guess that at some point the issue of inclusion in the main NDGT article may arise once more, at which time I may wade more deeply into the linked discussion. For now, though, thanks for linking it, and I will watch the page to see how things shake out over there. LHMask me a question 18:42, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by "...the issue of inclusion in the main NDGT article may arise once more..." - it's currently an RFC. It's entering its fourth week so I'm expecting an admin to close it in a few days. Not sure what bearing that will have on the material in the Federalist article. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 18:56, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I simply meant that at some point, some editor somewhere might try to insert it in/remove it from the NDGT article again, bringing the issue of inclusion in the main NDGT article back to the forefront. (I haven't yet offered my own views at that RFC, but I may do so before it closes.) You're right that the result of that discussion has little/no bearing on inclusion in the Federalist article. I was simply responding to your posting of a link to that page. I didn't mean to imply that the two were closely-related or anything. LHMask me a question 19:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Swordfish, but I've been following the NDGT discussions since the on-wiki dispute broke in the newspapers several weeks ago. The biggest hang-up for several of the "pro-deletion" editors is the sources: they believe the whole thing is a manufactured controversy, and there is an element of truth to that. Of course, that ignores the fact that Dr. Tyson spent six or seven years disparaging Bush as a scientific and religious illiterate on a false basis. No "right-wing echo chamber conspiracy" without Dr. Tyson doing something dumb in he first instance. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
that is a decent effort to reach to the other side, dirtlawyer; thank you for that. That is a fair description of part of the argument on the deletionist side. other key pieces of that argument:
  • this never reached the mainstream media. this is nothing like say "clinton/lewinski - -it depends on what 'is' is" which was very much mainstream media news and is still talked about.
  • at this point there is no evidence that this matters in the big picture of Tyson's life (affair with lewinksy and the way Clinton handled it brought the clinton administration to a grinding halt, effected the next election, etc) And as many have said, if it turns out to be a big deal in Tyson's life (i don't know maybe he is up for some political appointment and gets trashed at his hearing b/c of this), there will be clear sources then to reference it - sources independent of the current fray.
  • BLP applies everywhere a living person is discussed. what the proposed language doesn't say, (but the sources that will be used to support it will show) is that what the federalist and other members of the blogosphere said was actually much harsher (outright fabrication) and more extensive than this (attacking qualifications and character, etc). A bunch of fury... that basically circulated in the (mostly conservative) blogosphere and then died down, and never reached the mainstream media (NY Times, wsj, cnn, etc etc) We don't go there in Wikipedia. We don't propagate nasty gossip about living people from the blogosphere in Wikipedia. this place would become a wretched mess if we did that.
  • i get it that for the federalist this was a big deal. but per above, BLP applies everywhere a living person is discussed. that overrides the interests of the federalist per se.
  • for those who say, "he apologized for the bush misquote." yes he did. the blogosphere threw a bunch of shit at the wall and yep, they "got him" on the bush quote. So he acknowledged that mistake and apologized for it. that does not validate the whole lurid episode.
so the proposal dishonors the sources by not accurately representing what they actually said, and it dishonors Tyson by bringing in the sources in which the episode actually happened. So no, it doesn't belong in WP at all.
I am going to say something risky here, but I haven't heard anybody on the "keep" side actually address the BLP issues. lots of dismissals, sure. but i have not seen anybody actually try to speak to the spirit of BLP (much less its letter)... with the exception of dirtlawyer above acknowledging "some truth" in the manufactured controversy element. But even dirtlawyer doesn't follow that to its end. To the extent it was a manufactured controversy, how is that really notable for tyson's life? (real question) Under BLP, we don't bring in degrading content from non-mainstream media about living people. I would love to have somebody address that. (or if i missed it, which I may have in this huge thicket of content, i would appreciate being pointed to it) Jytdog (talk) 20:34, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Actually, Jytdog, your retelling of this whole lurid affair omits any mention of the key fact: the fundamental "error" of Dr. Tyson himself in publicly disparaging George W. Bush as an illiterate regarding science and religion, and doing so on a completely false basis while holding Bush up as an example of American religious conservative ignorance, over a period of six or seven years. In that regard, this entire controversy is Tyson's own creation. Tyson is a prominent public figure; Bush is a very prominent public figure. For one public figure to attack another public figure, in public, on the basis of a falsely asserted claim is the height of folly; someone will eventually pick up on it and it will be reported in the media. Tyson is either grossly negligent in his choice of political targets for not having confirmed the factual basis for everything he said, or he did it knowingly and intentionally and simply never expected to get called on it. Pick one. It doesn't really matter.
As I said previously, there are two sides to this controversy. Attempting to blame it entirely on some conservative blogosphere conspiracy absolves Tyson of all responsibility for a series of very stupid acts committed of over a period of years. At the end of the day, The Federalist only reported what Tyson actually did. Whether they did it for some unseemly political purpose that personally offends you is irrelevant. What Tyson did clearly offends many people on the Right.
Your good-faith participation in this discussion is welcome, but please realize that our purpose is to find compromise language that will reasonably resolve the purported BLP issues to the satisfaction of a talk page consensus. If you desire to be a part of that, no one would be more pleased than me. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:00, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Some mention along the above lines is due, given the sheer number of media outlets that have commented on this. This is far more prominent in terms of coverage attracted than anything else the article on The Federalist currently contains. It's completely absurd that Wikipedia has a paragraph sourced to an article on a crowdsourced website (albeit one written by a notable academic) in its article on The Federalist, yet nothing on this. Andreas JN466 13:01, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

back to policy issues[edit]

I applaud the initiatives of editors to try to find a compromise, but isn't that something that belongs on the talk page of the article? This is the place to debate the policy issues—even if compromise wording is found, that won't resolve the policy implications which I think are quite troubling.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

  • @Sphilbrick: Sphilbrick, there are more eyes on it here, and it's a continuation of the primary discussion here for the past 36 hours. Glad to have your eyes on it, too. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:26, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • There are no policy issues that have been raised regarding the actual text in question. I have simply seen people argue that there should simply be no mention whatsoever of the incident, period, without citing actual issues with the text regarding BLP concerns. In particular, there are no policy concerns regarding the above two proposals. LHMask me a question 21:16, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I have seen editors arguing that a dispute about weight is sufficient to permit the removal of material under BLP. I don't believe that was the intention of BLP, and would result in a major redefinition of the policy if allowed to stand. It may well be that such a discussion belongs on the talk page of the relevant policy, but it that doesn't happen, editors will be able to cite this discussion as justification for removal of just about anything related to living people.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I agree that some editors are trying to claim there's an issue regarding weight here, but for a passage that consists of only a couple of sentences, there isn't actually an issue of weight. I do agree with you that those type of discussions should happen on the talkpage of the appropriate policy pages. And since no one has brought up any legitimate BLP concerns regarding inclusion of at least a mention of this material, I felt like it was appropriate to start casting about for a compromise, which Mr swordfish, Dirtlawyer1, and I have been working on in the section(s) directly above. I'd love to hear your thoughts on those potential wordings. LHMask me a question 21:46, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Weight seems to be owned by the article and not to wikipedia as a whole. Or simply something can be undue on one article and not on another. The questions being posed about weight seem to be directed at the Tyson article, with the promotion that if it's undue here it's undue everywhere. The question of if it is undue on the Federalist article doesn't seem to have actually happened.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 23:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
It has happened some, the argument for dueness for the website article was briefly discussed, but I agree they were intertwined, initially above as there was an ongoing RfC about the material - and a call to wait to see if that is informative, here, especially as this seems a no deadline issue. Then there was little but not much discussion of why and how the website would be different and whether a consensus could be got around that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:30, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
There is not a content policy that says "the reputation of leftist heroes must be protected at all costs". Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:48, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

@Lithistman: The best argument I've heard (in my personal opinion) against inclusion is found in the lede of WP:BLP:

Further, BLP states:

Finally, BLP states:

The fact is that this material is being cited primarily from sensationalist and/or opinion columns. Do we aspire to be a respected encyclopedia or just another TMZ or Breitbart? There are no high quality sources that I would be comfortable with using and I cannot emphasize this enough: reliability is not a binary on/off switch. Context matters. Plainly spoken, some sources are more reliable that others.

It may be helpful to imagine reliability as a totem pole. Granted, this is a bit simplistic, but at the top of the pole are academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks. These are usually the most reliable sources. Below that comes high quality news agencies such as BBC News, Reuters, or the Associated Press. Towards the bottom of the totem pole are biased or opinionated sources which is what we have here.

So far, there has been no coverage from any high-quality news organization, and it's a bit difficult to reconcile BLP's requirement that we use high-quality sources with the fact that all this material is sourced to low-quality sources. I'm also having trouble reconciling the sensationalist/opinion sources with the goal of being a respected encyclopedia. Finally, if this is really worth covering, then why hasn't this been covered in more reliable sources?

In any case, I'm sure others will disagree with me, but that's my 2 cents. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:58, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I think you are over applying the policy. If your argument is actual policy, then there is a lot of crap on various BLP's that needs to go. Arzel (talk) 01:07, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
DING DING DING DING DING WE HAVE A WINNAH! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:34, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Letting go of "crap" seems like good sense, common sense, even. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:35, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Sphilbrick: Your comment is already completely contrary to WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. The material must comply with "all content policies". That's not a bad thing. We are dealing with people's lives. Editors should, before they edit, know that any addition of material on a living person will be heavily scrutinized under all the content policies stated in WP:BLP. --Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:19, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Usually the way these discussions unfold is that an objecting editor identifies content, identifies a policy, and then identifies how the content violates the policy. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

No inclusion[edit]

  • There is no support for inclusion of this material at this time, either on The Federalist (website) article or in Neil deGrasse Tyson. The Federalist is not a reliable source for Wikipedia. It is a conservative blog that pushes polemical, anti-science propaganda by the Heartland Institute and the Discovery Institute, and focuses on tabloid-like attacks on living people. "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid". The claim that Tyson is a "serial fabulist" is tantamount to accusing him of a serious ethical violation, since his primary role is that of a science communicator. Because this claim does not rise to the level of noteworthiness or significance outside of the small, insular echo chamber of the conservative polemical blogosphere, it should not be included on Wikipedia. Viriditas (talk) 00:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Yeah, there's "no support", LOL, also I am superman. Glad we're all committed to making arguments that can be taken seriously and aren't obvious BS. Your comments about conservatives reveal your inescapable political bias and apparent desire to have it aggressively reflected on WP. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support inclusion The Federalist is a reliable source for the articles they themselves put out. Arguing otherwise is nonsensical. LHMask me a question 01:38, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
    • No, you're referring to articles about The Federalist published by them, not articles from the same source about other topics. It's not a reliable source for anything on Wikipedia unles the article is about them. This particular source in question is not. Furthermore, The Federalist says they promote "a viewpoint that rejects the assumptions of the media establishment", which self-identifies them as a fringe source, which is exactly what they are, an anti-science, anti-evolution, pro-climate change denial propaganda machine. There's a general consensus on Wikipedia and in most reliable sources about the media, that anything connected to Heartland and Discovery is unreliable. Viriditas (talk) 01:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Even assuming we accepted your argument about using The Federalist as a source, what is your problem with sourcing this material from other places? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • The Huffington Post is a Liberal news blog as The Federalist is a Conservative news blog. News blogs are allowed as reliable sources. If the Huff Post is acceptable, The Federalist should be, as well. -- WV 01:47, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Nope. The Huffington Post runs wire stories as well as blogs, and many other types of sources. You might want to do some research before commenting here. The Federalist is a polemical opinion piece generator, focused solely on promoting fringe topics. We can't use it here. Viriditas (talk) 01:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the Huff Post does have that aspect to it that isn't a news blog. That said, the blogging portion of Huff Post is still used as a reliable source because it is considered to be a news blog. The Federalist is also a news blog. Both engage in polemic opinion pieces. Yet one is considered a reliable source. If it's good enough for one, it's good enough for the other. And, you might want to check your attitude as well as your bias before you respond. -- WV 02:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Your attempt to symmetry is baseless. The Huffington Post vs The Federalist? The latter is closer to The Daily Caller, and that site is dubious as a reliable source as well. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:34, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
And The Federalist is not a news blog. They don't publish any "news". Have you ever visited that site? It is online, you know? [28]- Cwobeel (talk) 02:37, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
The Federalist is closer to The Daily Caller? Even better. The DC is a news and opinion site. Definitely reliable as such. And definitely not considered a dubious source by Wikipedia (are you confusing the DC with The Daily Signal?). Your bias is showing, too, by the way. -- WV 02:45, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
My bias is as obvious as yours, Winkelvi. We all have them. Now, having said that, is there a place to find a compromise? Or is it my (or yours) way or the highway? - Cwobeel (talk) 02:48, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Seems like there are plenty of non-The Federalist sources that we can use here, so what exactly is your point? Do any of you have a point? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, we all have biases, but I'm not sure what bias you think I'm showing, Cwobeel. I haven't saying anything that would indicate I like or endorse either The Huff Post or The Federalist for their content. I'm only commenting on the category of articles and columns they offer. On the other hand, you have referred to The Federalist in a decidedly negative tone, using your own polemic to describe them. As far as compromise, what kind of compromise have you offered? Maybe I missed it, but I have yet to see any. -- WV 15:26, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Federalist: list of potential sources[edit]

Please comment regarding the foregoing sources in the following section. The sources are in chronological order, so editors can get a s sense of how the story unfolded over time.

  • Mark Whittington, "[ Neil deGrasse Tyson falls from grace over quote fabrication scandal]," The Examiner (September 27, 2014). Retrieved October 15, 2014.
  • Mark Whittington, "[ Neil deGrasse Tyson admits misquoting President Bush, but raises more questions]," The Examiner (September 28, 2014). Retrieved October 15, 2014.
  • Mark Whittington, "[ Neil deGrasse Tyson searches for 'a good medium & occasion' to apologize to Bush]," The Examiner (September 29, 2014). Retrieved October 15, 2014.
Multiple publications of the syndicated column by Rich Lowry are counted as a single source.

Federalist: comments regarding sources[edit]

Please comment here regarding the sources linked in the section above. Thanks.

The WP:ONUS and the WP:BURDEN is on editors wishing to add these sources to Wikipedia. While I am happy to show how these are not appropriate for Wikipedia, you have the onus and the burden to show that they are appropriate. Am I to assume that from your list dump up above, you are implying that these sources are somehow appropriate? If so, this demonstrates a misunderstanding with how we write articles, how we use sources, and our role as editors. We are not here to facilitate manufactured controversies by legitimizing them on Wikipedia. All sources are not treated the same, which is why we evaluate them for reliability. How can any of these sources be used reliably on Wikipedia? You have the onus and the burden to answer and explain that question. Viriditas (talk) 05:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Got to agree with Viriditas here (that's not something I say every day) - we're not exactly talking journal articles or reputably-published books here are we? What's the least weak source - Salon? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 05:30, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
@Alexbrn: That's one part of an argument against using these sources. Can you address the second part? The proponents of including the content claim that these sources support the idea that the misquote was significant enough to include in Tyson's and/or The Federalist encyclopedia article(s). Let's assume, for the sake of this argument, that at least one source might be reliable. How would you address this point? Viriditas (talk) 05:44, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, actually if this affair was covered by a really good source, I'd not object to its inclusion—though at the Tyson article, not here where it would be a coat on a rack. The above-listed piece[29] from The Weekly Standard (AIUI a partisan publication) suggests that one of the things that has infuriated the anti-Tyson camp is that "After Davis reported this falsehood, not a single mainstream outlet picked up on the story". If "mainstream outlets" aren't touching it, why should Wikipedia? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 06:02, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
That Weekly Standard piece was published before most of the other sources had picked up the story. Kelly hi! 06:10, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Those "other sources" are either fringe opinion pieces or blogs. The mainstream media never picked up the story because it was a non-story. If you want to challenge this point, then pick a source from the above to refute it. Viriditas (talk)|
Just to start, I would say The Week and Salon, both of which are left-wing reliable sources that discussed the topic in depth. Kelly hi! 06:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Is there some doubt that these sources are not being vetted, because they already are elsewhere. This is a splitting of the discussion, and is therefore procedurally problematic. Moreover, whoever posted the list should state exactly why in policy they view each as RS for a particular piece of article content, and were they actually into having a renewed discussion, they should have addressed the multiple policies and guidelines that have already been raised in objection to these sources for such content. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:04, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • As noted above, they are posted for discussion. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:19, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • They are already being discussed elsewhere. If a new discussion and a split discussion is actually wanted, then it would be good to answer the issues I posed. Alanscottwalker (talk)
  • As previously noted, Alan, the RfC discussion at the NDGT talk page is independent of the discussion here, because the issues are not identical, not least because your stated objections to the inclusion of the "quotegate" content are based upon WEIGHT and DUE, which must be weighed in the specific context of the two subject articles. The existence of the pending RfC does not preclude anyone from discussing these sources or any other issue at BLP/N or The Federalist article talk page. Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:06, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, as you can tell I did not say they could not be discussed -- I posed issues to be discussed, if it is to be here. The fact remains that a lengthy discussion has/is occurring and multiple policy issues (and source deficiencies, see eg below), have been raised - so there is something already to go on. So as not to split discussions a new discussion should reference back, the only reason it is a procedural problem is that you the have multiple discussions to gauge consensus you have to go through all the discussions (see forumshop). Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:11, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Should be plenty obvious that there are plenty of good sources in that list. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
The discussions are separate. You can either participate in this one, or not participate. Beyond that I am not sure what you are trying to say, other than you would perhaps not like it very much if the material was reflected differently here than at the NDGT article? Is that your concern? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
? I am participating. The discussions have been repeatedly cross-referenced. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:38, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
You said there was a procedural problem. If there is, let's all understand what it is. If not, let's stop littering this noticeboard with additional text. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
I did say what it is. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:19, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Alan, I do not think continuing to engage with this editor will make progress towards achieving consensus. For the sake of keeping the discussion focused, please let it drop and move on. Thank you. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 19:39, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, sure. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
You vaguely mentioned that people are discussing stuff in two places and intoned darkly of menacing possibilities that might result therefrom, without actually mentioning any. At no point did you describe an actual problem. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:19, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment As discussed previously on the RS notice board and other forums, presenting theVolokh Conspiracy as the Washington Post is highly misleading. If this was unintentional, please correct. A number of POV editors have tried to pass off the VC blog as a product of the Post when it clearly is not. It does not further discussion and compromise when sources are misrepresented in this manner. Thank you. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:17, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm confused, what's your point? That blog is super-RS. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:28, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Mr. Swordfish, I appreciate your good-faith inquiry regarding the "Volokh Conspiracy" law professors' topical news blog hosted by The Washington Post. I am under the impression that it is subject to the editorial review of the Post, as are all news blogs included on the Post website. Is this particular news blog by several law professors somehow different than the other news blogs on the Post website? Can you link to the other discussions you reference above so I may better understand your concerns? Please note that I have now labeled these three articles in the same manner the Post does, by including the words "Volokh Conspiracy" in their article headers. Looking forward to your response so I may address your concerns more intelligently. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:48, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
He is right, the "Volokh Conspiracy" is editorially independent of the Washington Post. In my opinion they are far more reliable then many of the source that WP considers reliable, but they are NOT editorially controlled by the Washington Post. "We are not Washington Post employees, and we have sole editorial control over the blog." [30]. Now they are not exactly "self published" (they are hosted by the Washington post), and most of the authors arn't Eugene Volokh who runs it (he could remove anything libelous), and most of them are clear legal experts, but it shouldn't be considered to have the Washington Post's reputation. --Obsidi (talk ) 15:05, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, WaPo has a reputation for being a partisan rag... but Volokh Conspiracy does not. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:15, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, I did a little digging after the fact, and found an explanation by the authors as well as similar disclaimers of "editorial independence"; which does raise some interesting questions as to how citations should be formatted. The content does appear on the Post website, and in that regard is no different than any other syndicated op-ed piece that was not written by a Post employee. The newspaper is de facto endorsing the integrity of the content by hosting it and treating it as content. I had already labeled the articles in the same manner the Post does, by including "Volokh Conspiracy" in the article headers, and I would expect that to be entirely acceptable under most circumstances. That having been said, I also recognize that we are dealing with a situation in which "pro-deletion" editors are hyper-sensitive to every nuance of every source as they attempt to disqualify them. But I also recognize that the content is exclusive content, behind the Post website's paywall; the "Volokh Conspiracy" no longer exists as a separate online publication. Perhaps the footnoted publication name should be changed to "" with a qualifying notation in the footnote regarding the "editorial independence" of the authors -- would that be acceptable, Mr. Swordfish? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
I do recall a past discussion that determined the VC blog is not RS for BLP, so perhaps someone can find it (it may have been at RS/N). Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:29, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
I think you probably mean that somebody suggested it once and the suggestion was not well-received. Also, what exactly does "not RS for BLP" mean? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:32, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
"The content does appear on the Post website, and in that regard is no different than any other syndicated op-ed piece that was not written by a Post employee. " A key difference is that if someone writes an Op-Ed for the Post it goes through some editorial review before being published - edited for length or clarity, perhaps fact-checked, and possibly rejected if it isn't up to standards. When Jonathan Adler gets a notion to post something to the VC, he just types it out and hits the "publish" button. Big difference there. So my answer is no, it's not acceptable to present the VC as the Post. Perhaps there's another notice board where the discussion of how to attribute VC articles is more on topic. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • The VC was self-published for abut a dozen years from 2002 to 2013. As of this January, Eugene Volokh entered into a distribution and ad revenue sharing arrangement with the Post, and a key point of the agreement was that the VC stay editorially independent. It was a self-published source until January of this year, and the relationship with the Post doesn't change that in any substantial way so it remains a self-published source.
"We are not Washington Post employees, and we have sole editorial control over the blog."
"We will also retain full editorial control over what we write. And this full editorial control will be made easy by the facts that we have (1) day jobs, (2) continued ownership of our trademark and the domain, and (3) plenty of happy experience blogging on our own, should the need arise to return to that."
Se also: and
Bottom line is that the Volokh Conspiracy blog is not under the editorial control of the Washington Post, and so the Post's credibility and reliability does not attach to the blog. Identifying it as The Post is misleading. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:32, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
But Dirtlawyer already addressed that concern, correct? It's called attribution. Do you agree? Yes or no? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:36, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes. thanks Mr. S, as I recall: " Resolved: Not an appropriate source for a WP:BLP. Protonk (talk) 19:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)" Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Assuming you haven't accidentally misremembered this, what is your point? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:44, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
As it says: "Resolved: Not an appropriate source for a WP:BLP." Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:47, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Ahh, so a very very long time ago in a completely different context, somebody might have said that VC should not be used for a particular article due to BLP concerns. Again: what is your point? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
The issue is not distinguishable. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:58, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Holy 0L, batman, at this point I am going to ask you to both demonstrate that this discussion actually took place, actually yielded the conclusion you describe, and actually controls the discussion so fully that we need not even contemplate sourcing an opinion to VC if it involves a living person. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:02, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
? It's already linked above. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:05, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Interesting, but none of that is a bar to using VC as a source about this incident, and there are plenty of others sources anyway so it's not clear how this fits in to your argument that there are no usable sources. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Okay, Mr. S, I get your point now. Notwithstanding the acknowledged editorial independence of the Volokh Conspiracy content, it is exclusive content, published solely on the website, behind the paywall. If, in the unlikely event the law professors were to publish something libelous, the paper would almost certainly be on the hook vis-a-vis third parties. Equally clear is that both parties to this arrangement -- paper and professors -- wanted the prestige and credibility of each to accrue to the other by this arrangement. The "Volkh Conspiracy" as a separate publication no longer exists, so simply labeling it as such (e.g., Volokh Conspiracy) as if it were is also misleading. As someone whose day job involved writing publication citations on a daily basis, I can say with some authority this presents an interesting case. As solution, I would propose something along the lines of --
1. "The Volokh Conspiracy" as hosted by; or
2. including "Volokh Conspiracy" in the article header as the Post does, cite as the publication, and include a brief notation in the footer regarding the "editorial independence" of the authors.
Reactions, Mr. S? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
There are two issues here: 1) how to treat the Volokh Conspiracy vis-a-vis WP:RS and 2) how to cite material from the VC. As for 1) since the contributors have no editorial oversight WP:SPS would seem to apply: sometimes usable as RS but with the usual caveats. In particular, the VC does not meet the criteria for a WP:NEWSBLOG. I think it is important for the editors reading this to understand the VC's status as RS and attributing it to the Post gives the misleading impression of editorial oversight. It's an easy mistake to make and when communicating with other editors we should be careful to not make it so easy.
As for how to cite it, I'm not all that familiar with the relevant policy or guideline. WP:RS says: "A prime example of this are opinion pieces in mainstream newspapers. When using them, it is better to explicitly attribute such material in the text to the author to make it clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion." My take is that Jonathan Adler should be the most prominent as the author, Volokh Conspiracy should be secondary, and The Post third. I think attributing it to the VC with the in the url accomplishes that. That said I'd be happy to look at whatever guidelines or policy applies. Perhaps you could point me at one. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 16:22, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Mr. S., I've never seen an arrangement like the one described for a major national newspaper, and frankly, I'm shocked the Post lawyers would sign-off on such a thing. The Post management clearly is placing a lot of trust in the law professors not to fuck up. I do understand your concerns, but I am curious how you would propose to represent the parent publication in any footnote. For the reasons I mentioned above, Volokh Conspiracy is equally misleading, because no such publication exists. I am open to some sort of hybrid that recognizes the unique situation, such as "Volokh Conspiracy hosted by, but that's as far as my current thinking takes me. What woudl you suggest, given the unique parameters? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
DL-1, you say "Volokh Conspiracy is equally misleading, because no such publication exists." I disagree. The blog existed for about a dozen years before signing an agreement to be distributed by the Post. That doesn't make it non-existant, any more than the Beatles ceased to exist when they signed with Capitol Records. It was a well-respected widely-read (in some circles anyway) legal blog that continues to do today what it did for the last dozen years. If the agreement with the Post doesn't work out they'll relocate somewhere else (I know this because Eugene Volokh said as much). I understand that their situation is unusual, but the simply sourcing VC blog posts to the VC seems like the most accurate way to proceed.
An apt model might be fivethirtyeight which started as an independent blog, then partnered with the New York Times for a while, and is now owned by ESPN. Would we cite NYT or ESPN as the source for their material? I don't think so. The VC is even more independent than 538 - the Post doesn't own it or have any editorial control. Seems to me that the VC remains its own entity and should be cited that way. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 18:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
(? As a side note, and a reader of VC for years, it seems clear that insurance would bless this arrangement). Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:00, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, not RS, and NEWSBLOG and all the other opinion pieces is subject to WP:NEWSORG: not RS for facts about peoples lives. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:28, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
It can used as a RS per SPS, and "not RS for facts about peoples lives" is meaninglessly general & not rooted in policy. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:30, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
No WP:SPS cannot be used for information on other living people: "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." Similarly Opinion Pieces are not RS for facts on other peoples lives per NEWSORG. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:43, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Pretty sure VC is being offered as a source for opinions about Tyson, not as a source for facts about his life, and that's completely acceptable. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
No, unless, all you want to say is 'Author says Tyson is bad'; Author says Tyson is good' -- no facts. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:03, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
So these last 5000 words were just because you assumed I don't know how to attribute a statement of opinion? How quaint — and at the same time, how obnoxious! Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
No. 'Author, says Tyson is bad person' or 'Tyson is good person' does not belong in a BLP because it has no value. People have opinions about people, so what? Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:46, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Your position is absurd and boils down to the utterly unsupportable claim that criticism about living people is always prohibited on Wikipedia. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:16, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
His position is sound and supported by policy, guidelines, and best practices. Criticism is important and necessary when it is relevant and originates from a credible source. As a front for climate change denial and in collaboration with creationists, the claims made by The Federalist simply don't meet the bar for inclusion. The fact that they were included in numerous opinion pieces is part of their strategy, it does not indicate importance, significance, or longevity. This is the way they "game" the media machine, by creating an echo chamber of criticism. Further, they openly acknowledge that they aren't mainstream, and we have sources noting that the mainstream didn't cover it. I fail to see why we need to add this fringe material to Wikipedia. Viriditas (talk) 20:30, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
It is not any of that. He just said that statements of opinion don't go on WP, and that's silly, as is the contention that any of this is "fringe", as will be readily confirmed by reading that policy. Your unsubstantiated personal theories and complaints about the publication's editorial staff/strategy/whatever should go on your MySpace page. And each time you talk about an "echo chamber" you look more silly and further insult the editors with whom you purport to be "discussing" this incident. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:34, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

For The Federalist why these articles?[edit]

Can someone who has studied the entire subject of The Federalist in depth give an encyclopedic overview of The Federalist and how these few of its articles (that are basically about a third living person) need to be discussed in its article? Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:59, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect to all editors involved, shouldn't the discussions about RS, UNDUE, and COATRACK be moved to the article's Talk page? The BLP issue appears to have been confirmed and validated according to policy. Two proposals have been made which correct the BLP issue by employing neutrality, so I don't understand why this BLPN is continuing? AtsmeConsult 14:03, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Atsme, The Federalist discussion was brought here to attract a wider and greater depth of editor opinions, including those editors who have substantial experience working with BLP issues. One can only presume that is a good thing. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:11, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • First, there was argument that we should not reflect any material on this incident as it would be unflattering to NDGT. That meritless argument having been abandoned, editors have now resorted to making other vacuous claims such as saying that there are no good sources that we could use for this material. Others responded by identifying countless good sources. So now those opposed to the abstract idea of including unflattering material about Tyson (which I'll point out is a flagrant violation of policy) are making other bizarre inquiries and demands ("Why THESE sources?", Could you please explain how you plan to use each of the sources on this list that you produced for the sole purpose of demonstrating that there are sources to use?). Of course, this has come real far from the question of "is there any policy violation here" to the question of "what can we do to stop NDGT from being embarrassed". Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:35, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Not "demands" it is, however, the burdens on the proposer of content. We need to know whether encyclopedia articles are in a feedbackloop on recentism involving "celebrity" and "political opinion", or if the substance (especially concerning BLP's) is in the wider perspective of an encyclopedia article. We can start small, do you know how many articles The Federalist has published? Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:22, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
I called these demands "bizarre" because they have nothing to do with WP content policies and are not correct statements of WP procedural requirements. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:26, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Then you don't understand the burdens are on the proposer of content - which is not only Wikipedia Policy but common sense. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
It's you who plainly doesn't understand, brah. The proposer of content has a burden, but it is not the dramatic series of illogical backflips and approval by the Soviet Central Committee that you seem to envision. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:34, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
No. And as is suggested by your odd use of "Brah" here, your comments are not serious. Alanscottwalker (talk)
My comments are both very serious and very correct. The demands you make above have nothing to do with policy and are in fact the hallmarks of a tendentious editor who is committed to not-hearing-that. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:47, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Back on topic, tell me, what do you know about, The Federalist. That would show you are serious. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Hey look — another bizarre demand having nothing to do with policy. Could you indicate more plainly that you're just filibustering? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:00, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
There was no demand, and your comments are still not serious. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Ok then, another bizarre request (not a demand!) having nothing to do with policy, I fail to see how that is serious and my observation that it's completely irrelevant is not. So do you admit you're filibustering here, just talking to take up time so that the discussion goes nowhere? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:14, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
There is no reason to shout in all bold. And, no. What's odd is you as a proposer of content seem to either know nothing about the subject or very little, (let alone policy). Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:18, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Ok, let's assume this is an appropriate and constructive subject for discussion. Please elaborate; tell me more about what you mean? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:26, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
I stated it in the first comment and the following. It would be helpful to evaluate a short precis on why this BLP information needs to be in this encyclopedia article about this website, when this website apparently has tons of articles about all kinds of people and things. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:49, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
We could chat about that on my talk page if you like. Please confine your comments here to purported BLP violations. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:58, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
That is a BLP issue - balance concerning representation of a living person is always a BLP issue. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Mmmmhmm and a noticeboard issue, at that. Well. The reason having some material on this incident is relevant is because it is central to the notability of The Federalist and its authors. So you can see that reading published biographies of NDGT has nothing whatsoever to do with that. This isn't a biography of NDGT, nor must it read like one, nor must any particular view be something NDGT would like in his biography in order for the view to be reflected on WP. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:15, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
That's not an encyclopedic overview of the subject, rather it is recentism and an apparent fixation on something. If you want to say in the article, the website is best known for criticizing a person, to begin with, you would have to have a reliable source that directly says that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:09, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
It is encyclopedic as all hell. How can you possibly suggest that an "encyclopedic overview" of a particular publication would not discuss its most prominent work? This is silly, you're just talking. You are engaging in a filibuster. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:35, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Do you have a citation to a reliable source that directly makes the claim that this is "its most prominent work" per WP:V and WP:NOR, or is that just your personal opinion? Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:49, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Do you have permission from Jimbo Wales to ask me that question? Please answer before we proceed with the discussion about whether you are simply trying to waste time by posting irrelevant comments. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:56, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── That was not an irrelevant comment, on the contrary. If you are arguing that The Federalist raise to fame and notability is because they published a number of article disparaging Tyson, and thus we ought to include this information on The Federalist article, then you need to find a source that makes that claim. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:46, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

It is a bit odd to ask for a WP:RS to prove that you can cite to a WP:RS. How often do we really have a WP:RS claiming exactly why the source is notable, like never. We look at the WP:RS commenting on the subject and use that to evaluate the notability. --Obsidi (talk) 23:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
WP:NOTABLE has nothing to do with determining article content. If you want to make a claim for article content that the subject website is best known for something, it must be directly WP:VERIFIABLE (An RS must "directly" make that claim), otherwise the claim is impermissible per WP:No original research. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:20, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Exactly. We can't say "I have checked Google and there are 20 sources that refer to this site in the context of Tyson, so it must be notable for that fact". Unless we have a source that reports that the notability of this website is directly related to the Tyson misquote, we can't make that novel claim in Wikipedia, per WP:NOR. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:25, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Sorry I used the word notable (I didn't mean it in terms of WP:NOTABLE and I am sorry for the confusion), I should have said that we use WP:WEIGHT to determine if it should be included. If its a reliable source that says what we are citing it for then it is WP:VERIFIABLE. And then it is only a question of WP:WEIGHT. We don't need a source that "reports that the notability of this website is directly related to the Tyson misquote." (If we needed a reliable source that directly says that the event is important to the subject every time we wouldn't have any content.) --Obsidi (talk) 04:58, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
First, we do not just use WEIGHT, we judge material by all WP:Content policies and for material on a living person that includes WP:BLP. With respect to WEIGHT, that portion of policy discusses encyclopedic viewpoint on the entire subject, The Federalist - to show that this website is best known for discussing the living person, Tyson - you need the RS to directly make that claim, which would include broad overview RS on the subject website. That viewpoint on the subject of the article, "should be easy to substantiate [] with reference to commonly accepted reference texts". Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:41, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Clearly all WP:Content policies could potentially apply to an article, but most are not disputed in this case. WP:BLP does apply in articles, such as this, that talk about a living person to, for instance, prevent unsourced or poor sourced content from being included. To include article content stating that they are "best known for something" we would need a direct source stating that (so it wouldn't be WP:OR or not WP:V), but this is a strawman argument because no one is claiming this. Instead we are just commenting on the fact that many of the articles about the federalist include this, and so as a matter of WP:WEIGHT facts about that should be included. In this case, because of the reliable sources verififying the actual facts in the article the policies of verifiability and original research have also been met. --Obsidi (talk) 00:25, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Several policies and related evidence are currently being disputed in this case. The weakness of sourcing discussion is happening above and elsewhere, so we can leave that off here. That The Federalist is mentioned in sources, so it 'must be in the article' is a variation on the 'it's verifiable, so we must include it' argument, which is contrary to policy. All the more so in a matter of using BLP material in aspect of prominence for a website. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:02, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
That's not my argument at all. If it were just mentioned once in a WP:RS then you could make the argument that although we can verify it, it shouldn't be included. But when it is talked about in more then a dozen different WP:RS, then it should be included. I ask that you look at the "Reception and controversies" section of Media Matters for America for an example of the organization making the accusation having it included in their page. --Obsidi (talk) 17:36, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
A dozen reliable sources? I think not. Try polemical blogs, opinion pieces quoting the blogs, and passing mention. The mainstream media never covered this gaffe as a news story. This is a classic example of a manufactured controversy created to attack a BLP, and Wikipedia should not be used to enable it. Viriditas (talk) 05:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Still waiting on my answer re: Jimbo Wales. Cwobeel/Alan I don't think y'all have the proper permission to be talking on Wikipedia, so please pipe down. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 13:09, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary break[edit]

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── There is an attempt to find a compromise here Talk:Neil_deGrasse_Tyson#terse_NPOV_proposal - Cwobeel (talk) 16:04, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Cwobeel, I think the proposed compromise language to which you linked would be entirely appropriate -- up to the final sentence re Physics Today. The final sentence is clearly an exercise in excuse-making. That having been said, I will bite my tongue and support the proposed compromise if Alanscottwalker, Jytdog, Alexbrn, Viriditas and a solid majority of the pro-deletion editors also agree to it for use in The Federalist article. i think Atsme and Mr. Swordfish will support without being prodded if they see light at the end of the tunnel. I will not fight for it if the several "pro-deletion" editors continue to oppose any compromise. If we're going to do this, let's do it quickly and move on. I think I can deliver most, if not all, of the "pro-inclusion" editors who have participated in the Federalist-related discussions. I can't make any promises regarding the RfC, other than my own !vote of support, because I have not been an active participant in the RfC and have no working relationships with that cast of characters. I hope my pledge of support helps you move the ball. Thank you for your efforts. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
The Physics Today article is probably the only sober coverage of this issue, being a non-partisan source (unless you'd argue that a scientific publication is political -- The Federalits may very well argue for that connotation), and their view needs to be there for context. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:49, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
I've read it: the author is clearly lashing out in a very non-sober manner, but I'll still swallow it, if it will put this bed. I will also defend the compromise against PV-pushers in the future. But I want a majority of "pro-deletion" editors will to agree; I want this to be stable, and I have no desire to relitigate this issue in days, weeks or months. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:04, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
To clarify, my proposal is being discussed now at Talk:Neil_deGrasse_Tyson#Alternative_proposal - Cwobeel (talk) 16:51, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Yep, when a physics journal makes a partisan political attack, it's non-partisan — because physics says so. SCIENCE, y'all! OBJECTIVITY. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:00, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
I am not sure the Physics Today article can be characterized as a "political attack", but even if you consider that to be the case, we are not asserting their views as objective in the proposed text. We are attributing their opinion fully, and we are letting our readers draw their own conclusions about their opinion. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:33, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
They say something bad about Tyson and something bad about the federalist. To post only half of their criticism is not a NPOV (even of their own opinion on the controversy). Now their opinion of Neil Tyson I wouldn't suggest including, I think both parts shouldn't be included. --Obsidi (talk ) 19:16, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
More to the point, can you say something good about the Federalist? Have they won awards? Do they have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy? Does the mainstream media cite them as experts in this area? No, no, and no. Therefore, we are not compelled to use them as a reliable source by themselves or even filtered through a better source. Viriditas (talk) 05:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Your first two sentences are irrelevant (even WP:RS are not required to have awards or people say good things about them). Your 3rd sentence is an important question, and as everyone has said the federalist has not existed long enough to be considered a WP:RS as to facts about LP. No one is claiming the Federalist is a WP:RS as to facts about Neil Tyson. (your 4th sentence is about being an expert which clearly they are not, but again no one is claiming they are) They can be a source as to their own statements, but even better if a 3rd party WP:RS comments on their statements (as occurred in this case, and why we are talking up above about the Physics Today article). Anything "filtered through a better source" (assuming that better source is a WP:RS) is considered verifiable and, as long as polices like WP:NPOV are taken care of, can be included in any article. --Obsidi (talk) 06:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
It's not irrelevant, it's important because it reminds him how much he hates the article subject! Therefore super important. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 13:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Dirtlawyer1, I have no issue with a wider, greater depth of editor opinions. I support it 100%, provided the focus doesn't stray off topic - away from whether or not there is a BLP violation as is evidenced throughout this lengthy discussion. That is when the exchange becomes disruptive, and turns into a bludgeoning of the editors by the editors for the editors, (satirizing Wilde's democracy quote). Speaking from an editorial perspective, the article not only suffers from RS, it is also plagued by WP:Eventualism and WP:NPOV. The primary writers of the article should be busy trying to resolve those issues first with RS, and the rest will fall into place. Speaking from first-hand experience, stalemates like we're seeing here usually result from the lack of RS to properly expand a stub. The result is a shift in productive energy from writing to arguing about WP:Coatrack, WP:BLP, WP:Propaganda, NPOV and the like. It's a cookie-cutter scenario, and certainly not new to WP. Until the sourcing and section issues in the article have been resolved, BLP violations will continue. BLP Balance states: Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral. With the latter in mind, how can any editor consider a section heading that includes the word "controversy" as being broadly neutral? Editors need to READ the BLP policy with neutral eyes rather than scanning over it to find only those statements they consider strategic to their POV. It appears valuable time is being squandered when it could be put to good use improving the article. Wish there was more I could do to help. I wish both sides a good result, and a speedy resolution. AtsmeConsult 17:05, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

@Atsme: I hear you, and I heard you when wrote it the first time above. Far from ignoring you, your previous comment to me is the reason why I spent two hours collecting links to every credible online publication I could find that had published an article/op-ed on point in the last five weeks (please see "potential sources" section above). Having done so, it is apparent that several "pro-deletion" editors are willing to attempt to discredit every single article linked above. But, that in itself, is useful to know. It appears that most editors are open to some form of compromise; several others are not, and are committed to excluding the content entirely, regardless of the proposed text, under all circumstances, period. You can evaluate the comments in this thread, and the positions expressed therein, for yourself. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:19, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
I would have to disagree with the suggestion there is a sourcing problem. I see easily a dozen major sources — I am just going by publication names, but those are big pubs. It would seem we can say stuff about this incident, and most of us know BLP well enough not to say inappropriate stuff. Undoubtedly each of us will think stuff that has not been put into words by a respected opinion writer, and such thoughts will subtly influence our editing. All people practice the gentle art of confirmation bias, and progressives — being no exception — like to imagine that conservative views are held only by a tiny minority of the population. But this belief is consistently repudiated by election results. There is lots of mainstream discussion of this incident.
I believe that the core concern of "deletionists" here is that this incident not be seen in outsize proportion viz. the rest of NDGT's life. That is a fair concern but it is most directly vindicated by proper balance at NDGT's article. In a case of a true fringe element with a Wordpress blog, BLP would appropriately exclude certain material from appearing anywhere on Wikipedia. But that is a model fit for another class of commentary. Applying it here gives the appearance of WP trying to hide things from readers. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:28, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
You're repeating the droning mantra of The Federalist conspiracy theory, alleging that the Wikipedia leftists are trying to "hide" negative information about their prophet. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The removal of trivial, non-notable, irrelevant, unencylopedic content does not imply "hiding" something. It implies, according to our best practices, policies and guidelines, that the material does not make the cut. And the pushback on this removal, the utter desperation and aggressive posturing in its wake, also implies that this is much more than a simple content dispute. Anyone who would spent more than 30 seconds arguing that a criticism of Tyson due to a misquote of a past president should be added to this encylopedia based on sources that outright accuse him of being a pathological liar, simply doesn't have a grip on how the policies work. Viriditas (talk) 03:53, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
He said "the appearance of WP trying to hide things from readers" not that they actually are. But I do find it funny you accusing others of accepting a conspiracy theory given your views on how the heartland institute is behind all this ([31], [32], [33]). --Obsidi (talk ) 05:30, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I gather from the above that "trivial", "non-notable", "irrelevant", and "unencyclopedic" are just different ways of saying "unflattering to Neil DeGrasse Tyson"? Also I am not aware of any policy called WP:CONSERVATIVES_DRONING_MANTRAS. The linked conspiracy theories which you have posted does make one wonder about whether you can bring an objective pair of eyes to an article on TheFederalist. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:38, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Would you be making the same claims about a different BLP in which the subject is a person of your liking or your political persuasion? - Cwobeel (talk) 00:29, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes. --Obsidi (talk) 05:01, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • This type of question is offensive, as it implies bias inn anyone who disagrees with you. And this is coming from a person who does like Dr. Tyson and shares a good portion of his (apparent) politics, but still thinks this incident should be addressed on Wikipedia. LHMask me a question 14:55, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • We are a data driven, evidence based encyclopedia. The mainstream media did not cover this gaffe. It was "covered" only by polemicists who, at the behest of special interests, criticized Tyson in order to promote climate change denial and creationism. Using the media techniques of the echo chamber, they then promoted this criticism of Tyson in likeminded opinion pieces and blogs. No case was ever made for longevity, significance, or importance of any kind. Based on these facts, Wikipedia should not address it, nor should we allow the encyclopedia to be manipulated by special interest groups promoting an agenda. Viriditas (talk) 05:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Can you please stop with the soapbox? Your bashing the WP:RS's for their policies and views is irrelevant. Either they are a WP:RS or they are not. If they are, and there is a significant minority view, then the information should be included (with proper space given as not a majority view). The only part of what you said that is somewhat important is when you said "mainstream media did not cover this." First not everything we include is published in the mainstream media. As long as it is in a WP:RS it can be included under verifiability (weight just requires WP:RS, preferably multiple, which show the importance of this to the subject). The best that you could say is that it isn't a majority view that it is important, although even for this you would usually need WP:RS saying that it isn't important (the lack of coverage doesn't normally make a majority view into a minority view, but may be implied in this case). But even if it is only a minority view, it still should get included under our policies if it is a significant minority. You can call them the "echo chamber" or "likeminded", but all you are doing is saying that there are a significant amount of WP:RS that consider this important. You may not think it is important, but that doesn't mean the WP:RS don't. --Obsidi (talk) 06:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I think it has long since become plain that insulting conservative article subjects, conservative sources, and conservative editors is all that's on the table in this "debate". There has been no policy discussed for... days. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 13:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Amanda Bynes[edit]

Baphomet Dynasty (talk · contribs) has three times added material to Amanda Bynes that is not supported by the source: [34] [35] [36]. The source he gave is here: [37]. I have warned once and reverted twice. I consider the added material unsourced and contentious. User has not discussed this addition despite my request he do so. Not sure what to do next. Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

DONE: The unsourced material has been removed by Tarc (talk · contribs). --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 15:18, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Maybe we should have pending revisions set on the article? (Maybe it is already; I'm not sure how to check for that.) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:44, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Currently, it is semi-protected -- but I think that would be a good idea. --Musdan77 (talk) 18:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The disruptive editor has been blocked indefinitely for sock puppetry. So problem solved for now. Thanks! Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:45, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Gonzalo Lira[edit]

The article is a facade whose citations consist of a URL to search results for YouTube, URL to search results on a personal website, an article written by the subject, one line mentions on the RT website etc. I've provided a summary of the sources on the talk page here so you can get an overview at a glance. My efforts at clean up have been reverted so some outside eyes and strong voices for positive change are needed. Please take a look if you have time. Many thanks. -- KeithbobTalk 15:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted back to your recent version and left a message on the user's talk page requesting that they join the discussion on the article's talk page.--ukexpat (talk) 13:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the help.-- KeithbobTalk 17:12, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done-- KeithbobTalk 17:12, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Removal of content on BLP talk pages for "not a forum" - How much is appropriate?[edit]

I noticed one day that the talk page of Talk:Amina Abdallah Arraf al Omari was completely blank. A user had removed all of the talk page content without archiving, saying: "Not a forum" - I can understand specific sections being removed but I think it's completely inappropriate to clear the entire talk page, especially since Amina Arraf is in fact a fictional character.

This user insists on removing all talk page content saying: "his is standard practice on BLP pages and is appropriate here. That it has stood for 6 months should be enough to show that it is unproblemati" @Duedemagistris: WhisperToMe (talk) 21:36, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk page is now archived.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 08:26, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you :) WhisperToMe (talk) 05:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
-- KeithbobTalk 17:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Harvey Schiller[edit]

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

Persistent addition and re-addition of non-encyclopaedic material, including what appear to be violations of WP:BLP, by Ts2803 at Harvey Schiller. Part of what I first removed there was a copyvio, so I added a copyvio-revdel request, which the editor has twice (1, 2) removed. The article has also been pasted into the talk page. More eyes, please. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

You've blanked the article and asked for Admin oversight so I'm not sure why you are posting here. Secondly, I may be missing something but it seems to me that blanking the page seems like overkill. It was a short article and it seems the offensive material could have been removed and a stub maintained for subsequent development.-- KeithbobTalk 17:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Donovan Cook[edit]

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

I am Donovan Cook, the subject of the article Donovan Cook. There are a couple incorrect details that I'd like to bring to the editor's attention.

I was not born in Antioch, California.

I worked on several Disney animated movies but I was never an animator.

Fred Seibert did not order me to revive a classic Hanna-Barbera cartoon. Making new Secret Squirrel cartoons was my idea. Fred Seibert simply approved the idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:21, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

All that stuff is basically unsourced, so I removed it in any case whether or not you are Mr. Cook. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:16, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Mr. Cook, if you can provide sources for these statements I will be glad to improve your article. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:28, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Joan Rivers[edit]

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

Other editors are removing content regarding the friendship of Joan Rivers and Nancy & Ronald Reagan. Other interested editors are invited to join the conversation.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:26, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

  • RCLC, I commented on the article talk page: I saw no problem with the content as it now exists. There seems to be some question of the placement of the Reagan-related content (and other material); that strikes me as a standard content question with no BLP issues. If you need a third-party opinion again, please ping me. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:27, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
    • given that both Reagan and Rivers are dead, how is this a Biography of LIVING Persons issue? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:27, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
      • WP:BLP specifically applies to recently deceased persons. ("The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside.") Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:47, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
        • The crux of the edits that were under discussion involved the personal friendship between Joan Rivers (recently deceased) and Nancy Reagan (living); BLP applies, but I believe the issue has now been resolved on the article talk page. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:26, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Zack Snyder[edit]

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

I know non-filming movies shouldn't go into filmography tables for actors, but what about directors? Future DC movies have been added to his filmography. They are sourced, but they aren't going to be filming in some cases for years. I wanted to get confirmation here before deleting them. --Ebyabe talk - Union of Opposites ‖ 15:26, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Ebyabe, this doesn't strike me as a BLP question (assuming that it is reliably sourced). I would suggest you run this by the film project talk page. I suspect they have a standard for how they deal with unreleased future films, and how they are mentioned in actor, director and producer bios. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:24, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

John Grisham[edit]

John Grisham made some recent controversial comments which made the news. I reverted one addition to the article that I thought wasn't appropriate, but it has been added back in. Can someone more familiar with BLP policy than me please have a look? Thank you. Deli nk (talk) 11:46, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Clearly out of line per BLP, UNDUE and NPOV. I suggest revdelete for several of the edit summaries, which make unsupported accusations. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:56, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Before anyone draws any conclusions, I would suggest that everyone review the recent coverage of this topic by the Los Angeles Times, BBC, etc. This subject got a lot of headlines about two weeks ago. Please see Google search results for further references. This merits more policy discussion than a flat dismissal. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't see the case to revdel, with regards to at least [38] and similar. I see the inclusion as undue and NPOV.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 12:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • The removal was without prejudice to a well-sourced and rewritten version. The paragraph I removed was misplaced (no obvious reason it should be in the lede) and written tendentiously ("massive public outcry"). The edit summary that must be revdeleted is this one. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 12:32, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I inserted the information in a more appropriate section, as it clearly does not belong in the lead. I aimed for a NPOV in this extremely delicate and controversial issue. Please feel free to review and improve my edit--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I have sought to improve your edit relying on the source used. Collect (talk) 16:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Collect, I think your edit summarizes it better.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:00, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

2014 Arizona gubernatorial election[edit]

This election (Arizona gubernatorial election, 2014) will take place in two weeks' time, and the biographies of both the Democrat and the Republican candidates have long-flagged issues:

Both could do with some remedial work from editors who are not known for strong opinions on US politics. Andreas JN466 21:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I cleaned up the Fred Duval article. I'll let someone else work on Doug Ducey.-- KeithbobTalk 01:44, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Oh nevermind, I cleaned up Ducey too.-- KeithbobTalk 02:07, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your work on these. --Andreas JN466 01:04, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Steve Daines[edit]

A persistent editor is repeatedly and multiply repeatedly adding the category of "Tea Party activists" to this BLP sans any connection other than a source that he votes with the Tea Party 88% of the time. I find such a labeling to be unwarranted, and his categorization of a person for being an "activist" with such a meager rationale to be improper. Other opinions on the strength of his categorization and his "88%" source are sought. Collect (talk) 21:51, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

This isn't necessarily a BLP issue, but the basic rule is "no source, no category." That applies to membership in a political party or political movement, too. Please let me if you require assistance with this, Collect. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
As always, actions by those with opinions on the policy issues are wise. I am under watch for anything approaching edit war even where I find a clear WP:BLP issue involved. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Paul LePage[edit]

[39] contains a listing of alleged beliefs of people alleged to have met with LePage, but no source that the beliefs (which are contentious) are held by LePage, or that LePage agreed with the beliefs, and the existence of the meetings is questioned.

On June 30, 2014, the website Talking Points Memo reported that LePage had met eight times with members of the sovereign citizen movement between January and September 2013. According to participants, topics discussed at these meetings, some of which lasted nearly three hours, included assertions that the US Dollar and Maine state courts are illegal, and that Maine Senate President Justin Alfond and Maine House Speaker Mark Eves are guilty of treason and should be executed,[1] and that the US government and the United Nations are planning for a war against Americans.[2][3][4]

The reasonable text excluding the edit, AFAICT, is

On June 30, 2014, the website Talking Points Memo said that LePage had met eight times with members of the sovereign citizen movement between January and September 2013.[106][107][108]
The governor's office issued a statement saying LePage has met with “hundreds of Mainers hearing thousands of ideas, concerns and suggestions” and that “hearing those ideas during constituent meetings does not translate to the Governor endorsing the ideas of others.”[108] In a phone call to the Bangor Daily News, LePage said that he stopped meeting with the movement members because "they got mad and called me all sorts of names" and had stopped listening to him. He said that he agreed with some of their views but that other views they held were "off the wall".[106] He also said that those he had met with had called his office on June 30, the day the story broke, to request a meeting, but he declined to do so.[106]
Two of the men who had met with LePage rejected the claims of ties to the "sovereign citizen movement" and denied any discussions of executions took place. Along with LePage, they threatened to sue Mike Tipping, the liberal activist making the claims.[109]

I am concerned that the iterated inclusion of the "beliefs" may be UNDUE and possibly misleading by implying that LePage holds such beliefs. Collect (talk) 13:46, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ "LePage denies he discussed ‘executing’ Maine Democratic leaders". Bangor Daily News. July 1, 2014. Retrieved July 1, 2014. 
  2. ^ Tipping, Mike (June 30, 2014). "Why Did Maine's Governor Conspire With 'Sovereign Citizen' Extremists?". Talking Points Memo. Retrieved July 1, 2014. 
  3. ^ Mistler, Steve (June 30, 2014). "LePage meetings with extreme conspiracy group questioned". Portland Press Herald. Retrieved July 1, 2014. 
  4. ^ Woodard, Colin (7 July 2014). "Paul LePage Is in Trouble. Again.". Politico. Retrieved 21 October 2014. 
I have opened an RFC on this matter at Talk:Paul LePage. I did not see Collect's thread here before opening the RFC - it may have occurred around the same time. I think it would be best to centralize the discussion in one place.GabrielF (talk) 14:20, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
For concerns specifically about WP:BLP this is the proper noticeboard. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:52, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Guy Laliberté[edit]

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

Defamatory comments at the top of the article. Edit history suggests users have removed these comments previously and they have been re-added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:15, 21 October 2014‎ (UTC)

I've removed it and added the page to my watch list. —C.Fred (talk) 21:20, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Yup. Roger that. What C. Fred deleted from the article is one of the most egregious BLP violations I have witnessed. If you need back-up, please ping me. Hopefully, nobody is dumb enough to try to re-add it. You may want to ask an admin to remove the offending content from the edit history. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:54, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Nitin Gadkari[edit]

Biased article and improperly sourced and in poor language. Logs show legitimate revisions have been reversed. Subject is a controversial political figure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:31, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Evan Peters[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The edit to the article was vandalism. The individual was blocked.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 09:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

In his entry, he is listed as "Died: October 20, 2014":

Born January 20, 1987 (age 27) St. Louis, Missouri, U.S. Died October 20, 2014 Occupation Actor Years active 2004–2014

Is this true? I have not heard it in the news, and when 'googled', there are no results found. please investigate — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Jemele Hill[edit]

Someone has maliciously edited this biography of Jemele Hill, including snarky comments about her looks, they have inferred that her journalistic skills are inferior and not deserving of her position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:45, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Thank you for reporting it, the inappropriate edit has been reverted. If you're interested, you can read more about how to deal with vandalism at Wikipedia:Vandalism. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Excuse the deletion and thank you for reverting, that was a TW misfire of some kind EBY (talk) 01:30, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Comma before Jr. or Sr.[edit]

Seeking clarification of this guideline.

In many cases, the subject individual does not have any biographers per se, but there have been books published about them or various aspects of their life. An example is John F. Kennedy Jr.. There are two possible approaches in this situation.

  • Treat these authors as the subject's biographers for the purpose of this guideline. In other words, survey the books to establish a majority preference as to the presence or absence of the comma.
  • Say that the subject does not have any biographers, and therefore the subject's preference is all that matters. If no subject preference can be determined, default to no comma.

Which is the better approach, and is there any objection to my updating the guideline to clarify? ‑‑Mandruss  05:24, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

If there are 'books published about' someone, those books are biographies - you seem to be creating a problem out of thin air. Maybe 'the subject's biographers' might be better worded as 'sources concerning the subject', but one would think that common sense would apply here, and we don't (and can't) need to invent hard and fast rules for every possibility. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:11, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Slipknot (band)[edit]

The metal band Slipknot hired a new bassist and drummer with the intent to keep their identities secret. They filmed a new video with hoods over the heads of the musicians. The band's fans have identified the bassist by his left-hand tattoo, which was reported in an industry magazine.[40] More conjecture can be found in fan forums about the identity of the drummer in the video, but the evidence is not conclusive.

User:TypeONegative13 has been adding text such that the two new musicians are actually members of the band, or members in training. The band has said in interviews that these two new players are not yet full members of the band.[41] The following articles are affected by this news and BLP conjecture:

I think Wikipedia's policies are best met by keeping a conservative stance on the guesses and conjecture surrounding the new bandmembers. I could use some help in keeping these articles BLP-compliant. Thanks! Binksternet (talk) 18:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Exactly not YET full members of the band hence in training... Look at it as they're the privates and the rest of the band are the Sargents but they will rise in the ranks eventually Corey stated they have to earn their way to be "full members" again hence IN TRAINING Also I have never added Jay Weinberg only Alessandro as he is confirmed as Corey admitted it was him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TypeONegative13 (talkcontribs) 18:57, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Gamergate controversy[edit]

This edit seems like a problem [42]. Editor self-redacted the statement, but I believe this reversion should be revdeleted. Apologies in advanced if this is the wrong place for this. Strongjam (talk) 18:54, 23 October 2014 (UTC)