Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.
This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input. Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem. Search this noticeboard & archives Sections older than 7 days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. Additional notes: Edits by the subject of an article may be welcome in some cases. For general content disputes regarding biographical articles, try Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies instead. Editors are encouraged to assist editors regarding the reports below. Administrators may impose contentious topic restrictions to enforce policies.

Carl Hewitt

After I listed on the talk page of the Carl Hewitt article, five reliable and quite mainline sources on what is the most widely noted incident in the individual's career, an administrator deleted the material (from talk page) without comment and locked down the talk page from any discussion.

The notion that one should ignore on-going world-wide mainstream news coverage concerning Carl Hewitt over a period of several years-- perhaps because it entails an essentially very minor controversy involving Wikipedia-- may be open to question.

Shutting down discussion of this matter on talk page is especially perplexing.

How does this serve the reader?

Two sources are from U.S., one from UK, one NZ and one from Germany, as follows:

Investment Weekly News January 1, 2011 (online link only available through subscription databases). Also the following with available online links; The US technology news Website "Tech Radar" [[1]] A major UK newspaper, the Guardian, here [[2]] NZ Herald [[3]] The German technology news Website "Heise Online" [[4]]

Calamitybrook (talk) 23:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm writing this from memory, and therefore may be wrong in some of the details, but the broad picture is that Carl Hewitt, a retired academic, was banned from Wikipedia after being taken to the ArbCom in 2007. The case was initiated by an editor who was a member of the ArbCom at the time, someone who seemed to have strong personal feelings about Hewitt. I know this from various emails that were flying around at the time. After Hewitt was banned, the same Arb approached a freelance journalist that he knew, and acted as the source for her on a damaging story about Hewitt's banning for the Observer. [5] It was an unfortunate situation BLP-wise, though in fairness to everyone our BLP rules were not as strict back then.

Since then, various IPs and little-used accounts have occasionally tried to add a section about this to Hewitt's bio, thereby completing the circular sourcing. I've resisted these efforts with page protection, including talk-page protection when necessary. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Keep this out, and off the talk page. Poking sticks in people is not a good idea. The best source is a Guardian Technology column which reports "allegations" of what he did on wikipedia. That hardly belongs in a short bio on his academic position and achievements. See also Wikipedia:ASR. Yes, a case for inclusion on "reliable citations" could just about be made here, but the incident is notable (if at all) in a history of Wikipedia - not in a BLP.--Scott Mac 00:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The incident seems highly notable per sourcing above. I don't know what is the better context to put the information in, but our BLP policy explicitly allows us to report well-sourced, relevant, notable allegations: . If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it.. "Relevance" is probably the matter here, but the information should be somewhere. In any case shutting down discussion of a well-sourced fact in a talk page is a shame. --Cyclopia^talk 00:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Discussion can in itself be not a neutral enterprise. Indeed the discussion can quickly, on occasions, become harmful. In this instance the discussion of the article DID and to discuss that discussion is simply adding to the problem. There's a certain vicious circularity here, where the interaction of a subject with Wikipedia is harmful, doubly so because it is reported and thus has real-world effects, and then we report those "facts" harming the reputation of the subject again. Wikipedia doesn't exist in a vacuum where can apply abstractions and forget the consequences. This is one of those cases where experienced admins need to use wise judgement, and I think SlimVirgin has done that. It would be a "shame" if this was now picked up as an in-house debating point to the detriment of the subject. The short version? Cyclopia, please drop it. We can debate Wikipolitics, but not over this.--Scott Mac 01:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Slim and Scott, who see the big picture here rather than concentrating on Wikipedia internals. We are not working in a bubble, where the only considerations that matter are Wikipedia's internal rules. --JN466 01:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not "Wikipolitics", it's a serious issue that has to do with the integrity of the encyclopedia. What is debated here is not a gossip or doubtful claim, it is a well known incident strongly sourced from multiple sources. It's not a "fact" - it's a fact. Now, respecting living people does not mean removing factual negative information about them. I entirely agree that WP does not exist in a vacuum, but , you know, we're here to build an encyclopedia, not to cherry-pick positive information and leave out negative information. So, while we have to take care of consequences, the point is that we're here to report what reliable sources say -doing that in the least harmful manner is OK, but that's what we're here for. On the precise issue, I fully agree that there could be a problem of relevance, and as such I'm not too disappointed if the info is out of the bio, but again, the fact has to be somewhere in my opinion. I think that who doesn't see the big picture here are instead Scott and Slim -in the long run, do we want to make WP a collection of promotional leaflets on living people or a NPOV collection of sourced information? Since everyone here is concerned with ethics, well, there is a long-run ethical imperative in providing unbiased and complete information as well. We're here to make a service to our readers, before everything else. --Cyclopia^talk 02:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

While not condoning Hewitt's actions, including this in his bio is the type of circle jerk that needs to be avoided. Wikipedia editors sometimes forget that what people do on Wikipedia is remarkably unimportant to those who aren't editors. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the event is footnote in overall career of the man. Where I diverge from those that favor inclusion is this implicit idea that every sourced fact belongs in a biography. It does not, and it is essential to remember that as editors we have the discretion to leave material out. This need not be censorship, and need not be a BLP issue. It's simply editing. It's permissible to recognize that the man's notability historically is as an academic, and that the wikipedia incident has no lasting significance to that. Having said all that, I'd unprotect the talk page and permit this discussion there. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

As much as Cyclopiamay wish to present inclusionism as some type of moral imperative, the fact is that the encyclopedia does not fall down if a minor "fact" is excluded, nor is any harm done. The are places to simply be pragmatic rather than have a Wikipedia Messiah-complex that ends up squashing people. The wise (and gracious) thing is to know when to drop it.--Scott Mac 08:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

It shouldn't be dropped. It goes rather to the heart of credibility question.

A particular editor may regard this as a "minor" fact. " I regard the entire article as "minor."

Editorial staff at various media outlets around the world have made independent judgments that the incident was worth reporting on. Indeed it was the only incident concerning Hewitt that excited such worldwide attention.

No reasoned argument has been made as to why it should be excluded.

There is some hearsay that a friend of his wrote the article. But freelance writers don't generally edit or publish their own work.

Calamitybrook (talk) 18:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the news. Simply because something makes the paper does not in any way at all mean that it is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia article. In the overall review of his life and accomplishments the little hooha about wikipedia is insignifcantly trivial.Active Banana (^bananaphone 19:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

(e/c)@Calamitybrook, you wrote No reasoned argument has been made as to why it should be excluded. This is simple not true. User Xymmax maks a very good case, imho, above, which I would endorse/support. A few foreign articles, specific to tech issues and this equals some noteworthy "material"? Still not convienced but willinging to be. --Threeafterthree (talk) 19:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

COI

Though the COI tag is often abused, it seems possible that the admin "Slim Virgin" has a conflict of interest in participating in this topic. It may be that this person was directly involved in the events in question. If so, this person ought best to abstain from involvement article, rather than placing it under lockup.Calamitybrook (talk) 22:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

"it seems possible" - many things are possible. Do you have some evidence, or is this just muck raking?--Scott Mac 22:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

One sees from edit history that Virgin's very active involvement in the page includes the period in question. I am not the supreme judge of these matters, nor have I made a full investigation, but perhaps Virgin can enlighten us about his actual involvement?

Let me also mention that perhaps Wikipedia is not the news. But its editors can't unilaterally determine notability. The sources cited above include one of the largest newspapers in the world located in a country that practically invented modern, responsible journalism.

Heise.com in Germany is also a very major news source. Techradar.com is owned by one of the largest companies in the UK. Large worldwide media sources, in publishing any story, typically employ layers of multiple, highly competent, well-paid & talented journalists as participating editors. Hewitt is only mentioned in any such publication in connection with the incident in question.

So Wikipedia is to instead to rely on the judgment of a single, anonymous administrator, in this instance?Calamitybrook (talk) 23:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

You made an allegation. SlimVirgin doesn't need to "enlighten us" - you need to back up your allegation with some evidence or else withdraw it. Slurs and cowardly ad hominem attacks have no place here.--Scott Mac 23:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what it would mean for me to have been "directly involved in the events in question": if CB means the ArbCom case, then no, I wasn't. I made a couple of minor edits to the article over three years ago. [6] [7] Otherwise my only involvement has been as an admin concerned with the BLP violations, and all my posts to talk have made that clear: see here in July 2009 as an example. The effect of the admin action was to calm down a troubled article and talk page, and I'd like to see that period of calm continue. I have no editorial interest in Carl Hewitt, and almost no knowledge of him. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The chatter that caught my notice, though it seems to include a misunderstanding of how news gathering works & also of libel law, is here: [[8]]

If SL has been thus involved in the events at issue, then she ideally ought to recuse herself from the page. I gather that no particular editor has a unique and indispensable role.

Five reliable sources, including one of the largest and most respected newspapers in the world, is ipso facto enough to establish notability.

Instead a few editors seem to be second-guessing the obvious.

Calamitybrook (talk) 18:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

again yes again, just cause something is verifiable dont mean that it belongs in an encyclopedia article. The consensus here is clear that the content does not merit inclusion. how many times are we going to have to repeat that?? Active Banana (^bananaphone 18:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps a viable approach is to look at the talk page before it was shut down by SL.

Many comments suggested that the wide coverage of incident in question is worthy of inclusion. These were obviously ignored.

It's the "elephant in the room" which a few Wikipedia insiders think can be ignored.

But it's still an elephant & any minimally informed reader will immediately recognize the animal as such.

So the insiders are, to use another metaphor, cutting off their nose to spite their face.

Which is very unfortunate (and needless) maiming of both nose and face.

Understand that I've no opinion regarding so-called "controversey" Point is merely that is most widely known & notable fact about the minor technoid known as "Carl Hewitt."

71.235.237.175 (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry that's me immediately above.

Probably if you want a "vote," the preponderance of comments on now-defunct talk page was to include material --in some neutral form-- from the various reliable sources.

Obviously this won't be possible.

Calamitybrook (talk) 22:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Problems continue

Just noting here Calamitybrook and Arthur Rubin continue to raise this issue on Talk:Carl Hewitt. [9] [10] I've removed their posts, and have asked them to post any further discussion here instead. [11] [12] SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Arthur continues to restore a link on the talk page to the Hewitt ArbCom case, [13] a link that John Vandenberg and I removed last year. [14] [15] [16] I'm concerned that an admin is reverting this when he's been heavily involved in editing the article. The ArbCom case took place before we had a strong BLP policy, and it's a situation that would likely be handled very differently today. In the interests of keeping the page calm, I'd like to remove that link again. Other views would be much appreciated. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Robert Spencer (author)

Jemiljan (talk · contribs)

This user appears to spend his entire Wikipedia existence adding non RS websites critiquing a living person. I've tried explaining to this editor how this does not comply with our WP:BLP policy, but to not avail. A number of possibilities on how to fix this problem come to mind, including trying again to explain our BLP policies to this editor, keeping more eyes on the article, blacklisting the sites, or a block. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I deleted the coatrack-y reference to the ostensible meaning of the name "Cordoba project", as it is wholly irrelevant to to this article, non NPOV, UNDUE. Based on the history, I suspect he will revert again, so it would be great if an admin would keep an eye on this. Jonathanwallace (talk) 22:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Brewer, I ardently disagree with the underlying basis for your criticism of me, for the simple fact that you are mischaracterizing the nature of my edit. First off, I would ask that you specifically look at how I have referred to the sites in question in the article. I do not truly "cite" any claims made by them, which would as you point out require that the materials be RS as per WP:BLP policies, but simply mention their existence. This is in and of itself pertinent in this case, as they exist solely in reaction to Robert Spencer's stated claims, as he is a controversial critic of Islam. I added a single sentence referring to- not citing- two sites that routinely examine Spencer's claims and critique them. That is all that I say about them, nothing more. I don't endorse, quote, promote, validate, or in any other fashion use them as a source of information, so your insistence that I am using "non RS" sites in violation of WP:BLP policy simply doesn't apply, as I haven't used them as a source. I simply state that they exist, and they exist because Spencer has taken it upon himself to present information in a certain manner, with which they disagree, end of story. The underlying problem here is that the article is devoted to someone who makes their living primarily by self-publishing on the web, and others who disagree with those views respond in the same format. To host a biographical entry for someone primarily engaged in that blogging (not to mention engaged in producing what could also be construed as controversial "attack pages" upon various Muslim public figures, for example, Spencer's page devoted solely to disparaging Reza Aslan), but then disallow even a brief mention of the existence of others critical of that individual solely because they employ the same format, seems more than a little imbalanced in this case. This is not truly a citation which is predicated upon reliability as it the standard for a RS; it is merely a statement of fact relevant to the individual in question, as without him, they wouldn't exist. The same criteria would also apply to the related entry on the JihadWatch site itself. So please, quit accusing me of citing a "non RS" site in violation of WP:BLP, as that is not what I have done. Now, as a compromise, I would offer that perhaps these sites should be added to the JihadWatch entry, as it's not a BLP. As an aside, I would like to add that a cursory examination of my contributions will show that my "entire existence on WP" has hardly been solely "adding non RS websites critiquing a living person" as you implied. Also Jonathan, did I have anything to do with the edits you've referred to? I don't believe that I did, but you are more than welcome to show me otherwise...Jemiljan (talk) 00:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Gawker source for Faith Popcorn

I removed [17] information about Faith Popcorn referenced with a Gawker article (http://gawker.com/news/evil-bosses/new-yorks-worst-bosses-faith-popcorn-242413.php), because Gawker was quoting an anonymous source. In general, I don't think Gawker's coverage of Popcorn (http://gawker.com/news/faith-popcorn/) meets WP:BLP - it's tabloid-style sensationalism.

The article could use a lot of work. Large portions are regularly rewritten based upon Popcorn's own marketing, or based upon attacks by her detractors. --Ronz (talk) 16:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

In the 90's, I was in the business world, regularly reading publications which covered her. I think the article as it looks right now gives a pretty balanced impression, given Popcorn's own pronouncements and choices. By the way,. if your main question is whether Gawker is WP:RS, there is a board for that, WP:RSN. Jonathanwallace (talk) 19:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I thought it best to bring up here given that WP:BLP is policy and is more restrictive on sources than WP:RS, which is a guideline. --Ronz (talk) 20:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

How would BLP disqualify Gawker as a source? It's a mainstream media outlet (at least in NYC). Mattnad (talk) 00:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe that Gawker's coverage in general, and this reference specifically, is sensationalist in the style of a tabloid, and thus not suitable for this BLP article. BLP says, "Be very firm about the use of high quality sources." and "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, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." --Ronz (talk) 00:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

If the information comes from someone described as an anonymous tipster, I think that should be enough of a hint that it doesn't belong in a BLP. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

(out)The cite given above is absolutely not RS for any BLP claims including the fact that it specifies the material is all anonymous opinion, and written by an unfindable author. IIRC, anonymous rumour does not make for an RS cite in any BLP. Collect (talk) 03:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, that there's no by-line doesn't mean it's authorship is unattibuted. The entire editorial staff is on listed to the left of the article that leads with "We". I'm not sure why you would say it's rumor - the article cites an source claims to work there but wants to remain anonymous (for obvious reasons - I imagine Popcorn would have had a negative reaction to anyone voicing that opinon). Other publications take this approach on other wistleblower articles. Now this is not the most savory example of journalism, I'll agree. But it seems to meet the requirements of WP:RS.Mattnad (talk) 18:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing for contentious WP:BLP claims has different sourcing standards. Active Banana (^bananaphone 18:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. According to WP:BLP, Needs to be a RS. To me, Gawker is a published RS and the inline citation was clearly connected to Gawker. You are suggesting (I think) it's not. Hence, I think this is more an issue for the reliable sources noticeboard since it all hinges on whether the cited article is a RS or not. But as a separate item, the Wikipedia article is pretty lousy since there's not whole lot to go on either way. Most of the non-critical material is from PR driven bios that are effectively primary source from Popcorn, or people related to her enterprise (like her publishers). For all of her fame, she's not really covered by anyone serious, good or bad. Mattnad (talk) 19:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

This desired addition by user:Mattnad has no actual value at all, its attacking in nature and worthless - this blog post on a drama website said that someone they didn't name said this living person was rubbish - Gawker is not a strong encyclopedic content source, its a titillation location. It isn't a RS noticeboard issue as the content is the issue not the website - for some content there may a case to support using a cite to gawker - personally in a BLP I would never support it, especially for content and claims that are vague and contentious as this is.. 19:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)Off2riorob (talk)

Support Off2riorob and the non-inclusion. Even if this content had appeared in a source that we will almost always consider a reliable source, such as the NYT or Guardian, the "true sourcing" to "an anonymous tipster" would fail the requirements of BLP content. Active Banana (^bananaphone 19:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I personally don't care if the content is in or out, but to say a reliable source does not meet your requirements because they did not disclose a source (which can be done for good reasons) is questionable. I think you're going beyond the guidelines of WP:BLP with this line of reasoning. Mattnad (talk) 23:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

How you can claim , "you don't care if the content is in out out" when you added it is beyond me. Actually, your desire to add this worthless weakly cited and poorly claimed attacking content to a wikipedia BLP is the only issue. Off2riorob (talk) 01:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Mattnad, I think Gawker would be a reliable source in many instances, but that doesn't give any source a free pass, especially when it comes to BLPs. You need to read WP:BLP again. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

For the record Off2riorob, I did not add the material to the article. It had been there for several years, and I restored it since Ronz removed it with no discussion and in my view an unsupported complaint. And I have read WP:BLP - it's pretty specific about needing a reliable source for contentious material. How is Gawker a reliable source in many instances, but not this one? I'm more concerned at this point about people making up policy to be honest. Mattnad (talk) 12:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

For the record Matt - Contributors are fully responsible for any content they add to an article, this is irrelevant to the fact that it might have been in the article previously - if you replace it that is an addition - you are then the person with the responsible for that content - you added it. Off2riorob (talk) 12:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Easy on the bold face, you may pop a blood vessel in your finger tips as you stab stab stab stab at the keys in a petulant frenzy. Something that was there for years is not an "addition". However, If you can demonstrate Gawker is not a reliable source, then fine. But the BLP guideline only require a reliable source. You've decided Gawker is not. Then perhaps we should take it up with RSN. Mattnad (talk) 14:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

You misinterpret, my emotion regarding this is zero. Your refusal to accept what is and is not clearly an addition is a further example of your refusal to listen and accept policy and guidelines. I bolded it for all readers of the page as that position is one that users often don't understand. I wouldn't recommend forum shopping it to RSN with the same content from a different angle, the content is being resisted here through BLP issues of weak titillating content and a similar citation - You seem to be continuing to insist that you can add any content you want to a BLP because you have a citation from Gawker, that position is the opposite of BLP. Off2riorob (talk) 14:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Mattnad, any chance to have another source reporting the information? Otherwise, BLP or not, it doesn't seem more than a tabloid-ish blip on the radar. --Cyclopia^talk 15:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure, here's one from the Huffington Post [18], The New York Daily News, [19].Mattnad (talk) 18:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Its just the same valueless content at similar cites, hilariious, some editior somewhere has likely already tried and failed to create a list from it or add it to other BLPs what a non encyclopedia waste of time. Off2riorob (talk) 18:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Another more grounded and less fretful interpretation is that other major publications (which are very often cited in wikipedia) with millions of readers felt this is worth publishing. WP:BLP requires us to have reliable source. I have now provided three including one, the huffington post, that is a couple of years after the original Gawker article. That they repeat the same information is not an issue as far as WP:RS or WP:BLP is concerned. Mattnad (talk) 20:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Those sources are even worse than Gawker, for the same reasons. --Ronz (talk) 03:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Illuminati#Modern_Illuminati

In Illuminati#Modern_Illuminati, "Conspiracy theorists have claimed that many notable people were or are members of the Illuminati" is followed by the names of a number of notable people, mostly living, sourced to non-notable, non-reliable sources. It's contended in edit summaries and on the article's talk page that the "conspiracy theorists have claimed" preface renders both this claim about living people acceptable, and the use of non-notable, non-reliable sources acceptable. That sounds pretty questionable to me. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 04:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The sources for the examples cited, specifically footnote 10 and 11, don't meet our standards for reliability; notes 12 and 13 are what would be considered fringe. My recommendation is to remove the entire phrase "including Winston Churchill...Zbigniew Brzezinski". Viriditas (talk) 11:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

A nice issue -- should "conspiracy theorists" be given any weight at all in any BLP issues? My opinion is a sound "no." Collect (talk) 11:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I have boldly removed the names and left a note on the talkpage informing them of this thread for discussion. There is also a bit of discussion on my talkpage here regarding the reliability of one of the sources that was re added. Off2riorob (talk) 14:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind removing the names... but... the sources are reliable in the context of what is being said in the article. This is a statement about the beliefs of conspiracy theorists... citing those beliefs to the conspiracy theorists who hold them is a WP:ABOUTSELF situation. It is the difference between saying "Obama is a socialist" and "Person X believes Obama is a socialist"... the first is a statement about Obama. The second is a statement about Person X... and a source written by Person X, where they say this, is reliable for that second statement.

This is one of those topics where the opinion of Fringe theorists has to be discussed to cover the topic properly. In this case, the opinions of Fringe conspiracy theorists actually carry a lot of weight. I absolutely agree that these claims would have no place in the bio articles on Churchill, Bush, Obama, Brzezinski etc.... but in the context of an article about the Illuminai, they have a place. Blueboar (talk) 15:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually... I have to question whether WP:BLP applies here.... the article is not a BLP, as it is not about a living person... its about an organization. The section in question is (in part) about Fringe theories concerning this organization. Yes, the section mentioned listed a few living people (in passing)... but that is not the same as a BLP. Context again. Blueboar (talk) 16:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

BLP applies to all content about living people and to all citations containing extreme comments about them , whether the content is disguised as a conspiracy theory or not. I see you have replaced the names as well as the citation again , recreating the exact first complaint. Especially related to extreme claims related to the names you replaced Obhsama and bush and you added this citeation which I removed and you again added - its full of BLP violations and not reliable and just not needed to cite such a simple content addition that

• - all presidents of the USA are accused to be in the Illuminati - http://poweredbychrist.homestead.com/files/bush/rituals.htm - Off2riorob (talk) 16:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I tend to agree with Blueboar. If we are to document what conspiracy theorists believe and if sources report on their beliefs, provided that such beliefs are clearly marked as such (fringe views by conspiracy theorists) I'd say that names can stay, if they're notable and recurring in the conspiracy theory. If you want to talk about birthers you have to explain it's about Barack Obama. A similar argument can apply here. --Cyclopia^talk 16:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you support the use of this citation to support this content ? Off2riorob (talk) 16:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Um, no, but not because of BLP issues, just more generally because it's unclear if it's a sensible primary source on the subject and for sure is not a secondary RS. I was referring to the general issue, but I agree sourcing is very problematic. --Cyclopia^talk 17:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, its a primary that is full of extreme claims such as baby killing by notable people that Blueboar has again named. That link it a BLP violating vessel and we should not be propagating and supporting its use through publishing it here on wikipedia. Off2riorob (talk) 17:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

That is not the point: if it was a proper primary source it would be OK (e.g.: if we're writing on a hypothetical conspiracy theory that thinks that Hollywood actors eat babies, a link to a primary source of them on their claims would be proper, provided it is used to source their wacky theories and only those). The point is if it's a proper primary source on the subject, like an official website of the conspiracy theorists. --Cyclopia^talk 18:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

It is being used as a primary source... and appropriately. When it comes to a statement as to the fact that someone makes a particular claim, the most reliable source is the book, document or website where they actually make the claim. I really think Off2 is stretching the concept of BLP. the policy is called "Biographies of Living People" after all... not "Mentions of Living People in articles about something else". Context context context. Sources and statements can be unacceptable in one situation and be acceptable in another. Blueboar (talk) 18:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Blueboar, can you explain why that website is a reliable primary source? Is it an official website of the conspiracy theorists of some kind? (And yes, BLP policy covers also mentions of living people elsewhere)--Cyclopia^talk 18:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there is a conspiracy website that we could call "official" (it's not like conspiracy theorists join a club or something)... That website is a fairly typical conspiracy website and it contains the claims we say it contains. It was chosen as being representative of hundreds of other conspiracy websites that make the same or very similar claims. As for what makes it reliable... Every source is a reliable primary source for statements as to what is contained within that source. Its why we say that no source is ever 100% unreliable. For a statement that says X make certain claims... You can't get more reliable than X's website where he says it. Blueboar (talk) 20:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. We don't choose unreliable sources to write articles, and whenever possible, we use the best sources at our disposal. The sources you added back into the article do not meet our inclusion criteria, and your reason for adding them isn't supported. When we provide examples, we choose reliable sources to do so. For example, look at our article on David Icke. In the Illuminati article, Icke is considered a source for information about the "Modern Illuminati". In his biographical article, Icke claims that "..the Babylonian Brotherhood controls humanity, and that many prominent figures are reptilian, including George W. Bush, Queen Elizabeth II, Kris Kristofferson, and Boxcar Willie." This odd statement is sourced to journalist Jon Ronson in a reliable secondary source. And while Ronson depends on the primary source literature of Icke to make this observation, we do no have to depend on Wikipedia editors to do it for us. In the same way, we do not depend on Wikipedia editors to decide which personal websites should best represent an example, because we don't use them for that purpose. We rely on reliable authors to do it for us. Viriditas (talk) 21:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Yep, Viriditas is quite right. I'd personally accept an unambiguously relevant primary source (e.g. a well known conspirational book) but as such, it's just one website out of many. I understand the point you are making and I sympathize, Blueboar, but it's not good enough, regardless of the BLP. --Cyclopia^talk 21:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, context. The article under discussion is the Illuminati article... not the Icke bio article or even the reptilian conspiracy article. The simple fact is... lots and lots of conspiracy theorists have claimed that various prominent figures are members of the Illuminati. The most common target for these claims are US Presidents (the claim has been made about every President since FDR... Bush and Obama are only the most recent). The idea that the President is an Illuminati is a major component of the theory. We can down play it, but we can't ignore it. And since we must mention it, we need to cite sources that support our mention... and these sources do so. Now, I agree that we want the best sources possible... These were the best I could find... but if you can come up with better I have absolutely no problem with replacing yours for the ones I provide. All I am saying is that in the context of a WP:FRINGE article, any source that makes a claim is reliable for the statement that the claims are made. The sources provided are "good enough". Blueboar (talk) 21:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, my only worry is that there is no indication that it is a "good enough" primary source. You said that it is a "fairly typical conspiracy website". This is your original research. You need a source which is clearly authoritative and representative of the conspiracists' thoughts, like a book they published. --Cyclopia^talk 23:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

If you can find one, please use it. Until then, we will stay with websites. Blueboar (talk) 02:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Uh, no. A non-reliable source is not a good substitute of a reliable one. --Cyclopia^talk 02:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree, seems like consensus support is for removing this cite. Off2riorob (talk) 02:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

No problem... just replace it with something better. Blueboar (talk) 15:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

BLP does not just apply to biographical articles, it applies to articles like Illuminati as well per the very first sentence in BLP "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page" (emphasis in original). Additionally, the claims "Conspiracy theorists have claimed that many notable people were or are members of the Illuminati" and "The President of the United States is a common target for such claims" are both Blueboar's original research. A reliable source for those claims is needed. Linking to primary sources of no notability or reliability to support those two original claims is also original research, indiscriminate linking, and undue weight for fringe trivia. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 02:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

This continues to be an issue diff. It is contended diff that it is not a BLP violation (and not OR) to state that questionable self-published sources are conspiracy theorists and that those questionable self-published sources commonly claim that Presidents of the United States (hereinafter POTUSes) are members of the Illuminati. Because the POTUSes are now not named (except in the pages linked to offsite), it's claimed that BLP no longer applies. However, this still involves using questionable self-published sources making claims about third parties, which is expressly prohibited, and thus the BLP issue remains. Worse, perhaps, this aspersion is now cast broadly across all forty-three POTUSes. This is not unlike going from "questionable self-published sources state that Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees members Jimmy Wales, Bishakha Datta, and Kat Walsh are [something defamatory]" to "questionable self-published sources state that Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees members are [something defamatory]." It's still a BLP either by virtue of making a number of individual BLP violations collectively or as WP:BLPGROUP, and it's still OR. The only way I can see for the OR and BLP issues to be resolved would be for RS to be added, RS that state in effect "conspiracy theorists claim that many notable people were or are members of the Illuminati, commonly targeting POTUSes" though there might remain problems with WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. Editor continues to claim that no OR has been done and that the websites linked to are RS. Should I be raising this at NOR/N and RS/N as well? Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 00:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Vince Neil sextape and other nasties

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

While doing routine BLP checking, I found this unreferenced and incredible section alleging a sextape [20]. Given the unlikelihood of a production looking for consent, even if the underlying story is true, this version is probably libellous. I've removed it (obviously), but disturbingly it has been in the heavily-editied article since April 2009.

The article contains any other number of BLP violations, which I have removed [21] [22]. It is possible that some of these allegations are, in fact, true and that they might be replaced with referencing. It is also possible that stuff I've left in the article should also be removed.

I'd like some people to look over this. Is there anything else I've missed? Maybe someone will also be willing to reference and replace some of the stuff. Please also watchlist. This article is bad news.--Scott Mac 19:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I started to tackle some of it, but it truly is a mess. What I wanted to do was to remove ALL unsourced material (the article has been tagged for years), but ended up removing only a little. Deciding what to remove and what not to remove wasn't easy. Plus, I didn't finish looking at the rest of the article. Some of the article reads like a promotional piece (clothing lines, restaurants, etc.).--Bbb23 (talk) 20:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

BLPCAT and Jewish

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

WP:BLPCAT says: "Categories regarding religious beliefs ... should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief ... in question; and the subject's beliefs ... are relevant to their notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources."

I removed Jewish categories from the Kunis article because even assuming she has sufficinetly self-identified as Jewish, her Jewishness is not relevant to her notability. Another editor reinstated the categories saying that being Jewish is not just a "religion" but also an ethnicity, and so this section of BLPCAT doesn't apply. I have trouble with that, not the concept of Jewish and ethnicity per se, but with the application of the policy. Are we going to make exceptions for religions in which someone may identify with the religion in certain ways but not with the religious aspects? Sounds like a slippery slope to me. Even assuming we wanted to make that distinction, how would we decide that a particular article subject self-identifies with the "ethnic" aspect but not with the religious aspect? WP:EGRS doesn't seem to help on this issue, either.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, for a start, nothing in the article indicates she has self-identified as Jewish. She was born "to a Jewish family". Now, I realise many might say that makes her Jewish. Fine. But that's not the only possible definition of Jewish, and so it is POV to caregorise here as a Jew, when the article lacks self-identification.--Scott Mac 20:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

True, but let's assume that stuff could be put in the article where she self-identifies. If you look at the Talk page, you'll see that the editor has identified a couple of references: here and here. They're not the best references as one is pretty old, and the other is perfunctory. However, for me, whether BLPCAT even applies is the more difficult issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

"Pretty old"? Speaking of slippery slopes, there's one if your goal is to waste the time of good editors arguing over something that is as incredibly self-apparent as categorizing a fully Jewish actress who has described herself as "Jewish" as a "Jewish actor". The fact is, the word "Jewish" refers to an ethnicity, which is why the article Jews is categorized under category:Ethnic groups in the Middle East and category:Semitic peoples (and the article also describes Jews as a "nation"!). For the record, Kunis also described herself as "Jewish" on the Craig Ferguson Show (at about 5:11 here), and I'm sure there are others. But again, I absolutely can not understand the fact that we're even having this conversation right now. This is so, so obvious, and all of us could be doing better things than repeating that obvious. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 20:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

You certainly could be doing better things than being so full of yourself.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

How do her beliefs apply to her notable activities or public life? Dougweller (talk) 21:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

If the reason for the category is her ethnicity, then the question should be how is this applicable, though the same point applies. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

We're talking about ethnicity, not "belief". Ethnicity is not covered by BLPcat (in fact, a whole long discussion on whether to include ethnicity in BLPcat just this December had not resulted in its addition). Ethnicity is covered by WP:V and WP:NOR. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 21:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

This discussion is surrealistic. It seems that everybody has forgotten that millions of Jewish were killed 70 years ago simply because they were Jewish. For most of them this was a religion, but for many others, especially in France, this was not their religion (either they had changed of religion, as the present Pope, or they had no religion at all), nor a nation (as they were French for many generations), nor an ethnicity (they do not belong to any community). To be Jewish was only their name and the religion of their ancestors. And their were horribly killed for that, even the babies.

This is the reason why, in France, it is forbidden to categorize people by their religion as well as by their ethnicity.

My opinion is that to not apply WP:BLPCAT to ethnicity (or to any other meaning of "Jewish") would be a shame.

D.Lazard (talk) 23:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree this discussion is surreal, but not for the important points you raise, but for the hypertechnical Wikipedia-like points addressed and not addressed by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Just for the sake of argument, assuming BLPCAT doesn't apply to ethnicity, how do we determine that Kunis's self-identification as Jewish is ethnic, religious, or both? And how would we determine that for any other BLP? After all, if her self-identification is religious, or even ethnic and religious, then BLPCAT applies. The only way I can think of to resolve that issue is through reliable sources (e.g., "I believe in a Jewish god" or "I don't believe in a Jewish god"), and absent any reliable sources one way or the other, we must exercise caution with BLP articles and apply BLPCAT to Jewish categories.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

If you apply BLPcat to Jewish categories, you must also apply them to Italian, Irish, and Welsh categories. Or how about "Ukrainian women", a category she's in? Again, why are we having this discussion? Why? It makes no logical sense not to categorize a self-identified Jewish actress in the category "Jewish actors". If we don't, then this category shouldn't exist (and maybe it shouldn't, but that's a different issue). WP:V and WP:NOR exist, and they are excellent policies. What more do you want? What I find impossible to understand is why anyone would want to argue over something that is so, so, so patently obvious, sourced, referenced, and fitting with every one of Wikipedia's core policies. I think the Mila Kunis article has been categorized under "Jewish actors" for about five years now, without a single person attempting to remove it from it. That doesn't make its inclusion right, but don't you think there's a reason you're the only first person to try? (BTW, as to your statement about knowing whether the "self-identification is religious, or even ethnic and religious" - ethnicity categories do not require self-identification, because they're not covered by BLPcat. According to reliable sources, Kunis is Jewish, which fits in with the excellent criteria at WP:V and WP:NOR). All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 23:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The issue is clearly vagueness - the whole Jewish labeling and cats need looking at - you have no idea if it is a religious person or not or if they have two Jewish (religious or ethnic) parents or if he has only one distant relative that was Jewish (religious or not unknown) or if hes not genetically Jewish at all but the person has converted from another faith. Off2riorob (talk) 23:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Your entire argument assumes that Jewish can only be ethnic and never religious, a notion that might offend a considerable number of religious Jews. Otherwise, you wouldn't compare it to Italian, etc. Your argument also falls apart for the same reason. And if you see no justification for this discussion, then, by all means, don't participate.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not only ethnic but that's what the normal definition of the word refers to (notice how Kunis says her parents told her "you are Jewish in your blood"). That's why the article Jews refers to the term as describing a "nation" (!). The most religious of Jews especially, by the way, believe that the word "Jew" refers to a nation, an ethnicity, a group of people. That is why Orthodox Judaism defines "who is a Jew" by matrilineal ethnic descent. Someone who believes everything that Jews believe but does not come from a matrilineal Jewish line of descent would not be considered Jewish by the most religious of Jews (Orthodox Jews don't recognize conversion to Judaism unless they're Orthodox conversions). The whole principle of Judaism is that the Jews are a people, not just a group who hold the same religious beliefs (and such religious beliefs wouldn't make someone "Jewish" according to the strictest definitions). All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 00:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

There is no "normal" definition of Jewish. You're just picking the one you like. If you do even a cursory search on the web, you'll find that mostly Jewish is defined as either cultural or religious. Here's just one example, but many other wesbites say similar things, as do dictionaries. Nor do I see how the concept of matrilineal descent has anything to do with whether Jewish is religious or ethnic or both. See here for more information about the history of matrilineal descent.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, its all so vague and cats are not supposed to be vague, it defeats the object of them. Off2riorob (talk) 00:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The fact is, it's an ethnicity. That can't be changed. I don't see how the fact that it's also a religion has any effect on this, since we're not talking about the category Converts to Judaism. I presume the "normal" definition of Jewish is the one given at the top of the article Jews ("a nation and ethnoreligious group". BLPcat does not apply to nations, nor does it apply to ethnoreligious groups.) Category:Jewish actors is categorized under Category:Actors by ethnicity. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 00:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, Category:Jewish actors is also categorized under Category:Jews by occupation which is categorized under Category:People by religion and occupation and under Category:Jews, the last of which has the following caveat: "See also the policy at WP:BLPCAT regarding categorization by religion or sexual orientation." As for BLPCAT, if you can find language in it that it does not apply to "ethnoreligious" groups, that would be helpful for you. As it is, it applies to religious groups, and as most concede, Jews can be considered a religious group.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Why do I need to find language in it that says it doesn't apply to ethnoreligious groups? No language stating that it does is there. All it says is "religious beliefs", not "membership in an ethnoreligious group". That's about it. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 00:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

As I already stated, BLPCAT says it applies to religious groups and even calling Jews an ethnoreligious group makes them both a religious and an ethnic group. But I think that at least you and I are going in circles.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Bb, you're only suggesting the removal of "Jewish actors"... right? Not all Jewish categories? Bulldog123 02:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Bb removed all "Jewish" categories this morning. It was me who specifically started mentioning "Jewish actors", but really, I'm talking about all the categories. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 02:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

AHW is correct. I removed all the Jewish categories except the descent category (as I recall). The same reasoning applies to all of the ones that categorize her as Jewish (American, Ukrainian, actor, etc). I think AHW would agree that there's no difference for the purpose of this discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

You said it. It applies to "religious groups". But a religious group is not the same thing as an "ethnoreligious group". That's why we have a separate article to define an ethnoreligious group. These are two differente terms with two different meanings. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 01:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion

The religion/culture/ethnicity multivalence of the term "Jewish" is a long-standing problem. A possible solution might be to make "Jew/Jewish" categories require self-ID per WP:BLPCAT, and to use "Jewish descent" categories in all other cases where only third-party RS descriptions are available, and no Jewish self-ID can be sourced. --JN466 23:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

It's a constructive suggestion, but I doubt any consensus will be reached to adopt it. By the way, BLPCAT requires self-ID and notability relevance.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Which is why BLPcat is problematic. Anything that has inspired a discussion so completely without logical or useful (or practical) purpose, and has wasted the time of so many good editors (I exclude myself), is obviously not a good policy (and that's why I'm glad BLPcat wasn't extended to ethnicity). All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 00:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

There's no consensus to require self-identificaiton in order to categorize people as Jewish. Many people would find that problematic, and particularly problematic to do so on grounds of holding religion up to be the paramount issue of Jewishness. What BLPCAT may or may not say on the subject is not going to answer the question - if BLPCAT did in fact prohibit this category then we would have to say that it does not reflect a consensus position. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

But Wikidemon, the only reason we're having this discussion is because an editor is taking a minor provision in BLpcat and applying it to the word "Jewish", which is unquestionably an ethnic group and a "people", something not convered in BLPcat. If BLPcat did not exist, we wouldn't be having this conversation. There is literally no other debate or point of contention here. We are talking about someone, Mila Kunis, who was born to two Jewish parents, has publically and in print and especially on national television self-identified herself as Jewish, and of whose Jewish status there is no contention, either in the press, nor among Wikipedia editors. The categorization of her as a "Jewish actress", say, passes every policy in the book - like WP:V and WP:NOR. So, while I agree with you that "There's no consensus to require self-identificaiton in order to categorize people as Jewish" - that's not even the issue here. There is no issue here except policy wonking something that isn't even covered by the policy. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 01:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

cActually, Category:Jewish actors should be nominated for deletion anyway. It pretty much falls under WP:OCAT directly and I doubt we'd get many people disagreeing with that unless they're being disingenuous. There is no proof any of these actor's Jewishness affect their acting or life as actors, and Mila Kunis is really a perfect example of that. For most people, her being Jewish or of Jewish descent is just pure trivia and the category "American Jews" or "Americans of Jewish descent" or "Americans of Ukrainian-Jewish descent" is more than enough to report that. This whole emphasis on tossing people into Jewish categories is really just fancruftism purported by places like Jweekly, JVibe, etc...etc.... It's more rampant for Jewish BLPS than other BLPs because few places give a shit if an actor is half-Portuguese or not... or at least they don't report it with as much zest. One of the reasons we don't see Category:Portuguese-American actors under Tom Hanks. Bulldog123 01:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Category:Portuguese-American actors doesn't exist, and if it did, I'm sure Hanks would be in it. The point here is not whether or not the category should exist (I don't usually participate in those, although I did vote delete on a couple of such lists). The point is since the category does exist, what possible reason would there be for Kunis not to be in it, since she obviously and verifiably satisfies both criteria for entry ("Jewish" and "actor"). The discussion isn't just about this category, though, it's also about "American Jews" and "Ukrainian Jews" in her case. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 01:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Except the criteria is not "both Jewish and actor"... it's "Jewish actor." Per WP:OCAT, Jewish actor needs to be established as a cultural phenomenon (or topic)... [where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right. ]... and in order to be included in that category, she needs to be verified as part of that cultural phenomenon. You're thinking of the category, Category:People who are Jewish and actors. Doesn't exist. Thank God. Bulldog123 01:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

"OCAT" refers to which categories should or should not exist, not which people should be in those categories. "People who are Jewish and actors" is the same as "Jewish actors". Yes, yes, we can argue endlessly that it's not or it is, but obviously, it's a matter of irrelevant semantics that I hope common sense can overcome. And that's not the topic of this incomprehensible discussion anyway. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 02:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't know where the disagreement is here. By no means is it a matter of irrelevant semantics. If "Jewish actors" is being used as a category for "People who are Jewish and who are actors" than it fails WP:OCAT standards for category creation... and has a strong reason to be deleted (saving a lot of headaches from incomprehensible discussions like this one). "People who are Jewish and who are actors" is no more notable than "People who are Mormon and who are actors" or "People who are Pennsylvania Dutch and who are actors." (I included the second example to save some numbnuts from responding to this comment with, "BuT ItS an EtHNICITY too, BULdOg!") In order for "Jewish actors" to be a legitimate category it needs to relate to the actual cultural topic of "Jewish actors" (if one actually exists... which is by itself ambiguous... as discussed in the AfD for the list). Since we now admit it doesn't serve as that type of category, this is tier 1 for deletion. That being said, why categories like "People of Ukrainian-Jewish descent" were removed doesn't make any sense. Off topic, Category:Ukrainian women is a weird category. Bulldog123 05:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

An excellent point. I was thinking about this as I was watching Serious Man on television earlier (speaking of Jewish). Very few actors will be notable because of their religion, so categories that mix the two would, based on BLPCAT, almost never be used. Perhaps an exception would be a Jewish actor who was well-known for playing in Yiddish theatre. As for the descent category, as I already said, I did not remove that category. See here.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Not being disingenuous here, but one's ethnicity is not a matter of trivia. In the case of Jewishness, that battle has been fought and lost. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Not being disingenuous here, but one's ethnicity is not a matter of trivia ...I hope that's not a response to my remarks... otherwise I'd have to assume you didn't read them at all, skipping over sentences like: "For most people, her being Jewish or of Jewish descent is just pure trivia and the category "American Jews" or "Americans of Jewish descent" or "Americans of Ukrainian-Jewish descent" is more than enough to report that." Not all trivia is totally unencyclopedic trivia, but it's still trivia. Bulldog123 01:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

• Should we have a Wikipedia:Neutrality in Judaism quasiproject/workgroup to go through all Jewish-designation categories and remove them from articles without adequate sources, and also to nominate for deletion Jewish people of uncertain notability? That's the solution being used for another relgious groups and the community seems to approve. Jayen466, would you like to initiate it?   Will Beback  talk  03:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The article should say Mila Kunis is Jewish, as that is what sources say. She states here that she is Jewish: "Well I was in Russia. I wasn't allowed to be religious. My whole family was in the holocaust. My grandparents passed and not many survived. After the holocaust in Russia you were not allowed to be religious. So my parents raised me to know I was Jewish. You know who you are inside. You don't need to tell the whole world. You believe what you believe and that's what's important. And that's how I was raised. My family was like 'you are Jewish in your blood'. We can celebrate Yom Kippur and Hannukah but not by the book. We do it to our own extent. Because being in Russia...Bar Mitzvahs weren't held. When I was in school you would still see anti-Semitic signs. One of my friends who grew up in Russia, she was in second grade. And she came home one day crying. Her mother asked why she was crying and she said on the back of her seat there was a swastika. Now this is a country that obviously does not want you. So my parents raised me Jewish as much as they could and came to America. I love my religion. I think it's a beautiful religion but I took parts of it that I want for myself. I don't need to go to temple. I will, but I don't need to." That she was Jewish under conditions that were adverse to that identity should be seen as accentuating that identity. Bus stop (talk) 04:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC) Bus stop (talk) 03:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

It does say she's Jewish.... in like 6 different places in the article... Honestly, what do you want? Mila Kunis (she's Jewish, you know). Bulldog123 05:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Bulldog123—I'm referring to the body of the article—not just to Categories. Sorry if I wasn't clear. At present it says in the body of the article, "Kunis was born in Chernivtsi, in the Ukrainian SSR of the Soviet Union, to a Jewish family." I would like to change that to read something like, "Kunis is Jewish, born in Chernivtsi, in the Ukrainian SSR of the Soviet Union." Would you support that change? The above is the only instance of mention of Jewishness in the body of the article. Bus stop (talk) 08:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

As I said on the Kunis Talk page, I don't support such a change. Inserting that as the opening sentence in the section called "Early life" is jarring. It lacks context, foundation, or relevance. As I also said, if you want to address her feelings about Judaism or "being Jewish" and you think it's relevant to the article (and I'm not agreeing it is), then try putting it somewhere else in the article. One possibility is in the "Personal life" section. But even there, just saying "Kunis is Jewish" would be inappropriate for similar reasons. Just because something is a fact and can be sourced doesn't in and of itself mean it belongs in an article. There has to be a connection to something.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Bbb23—you say, "Just because something is a fact and can be sourced doesn't in and of itself mean it belongs in an article. There has to be a connection to something." I agree. But stating that Kunis is Jewish is appropriate for a biography of her. "Jewish" is an attribute of her identity and warrants mention. Sources indicate she is Jewish. Yes, you can expand upon that if you wish, but why have you removed it? In this source we have further confirmation that Kunis is Jewish: Mila’s family moved to escape Jewish persecution in the former Soviet Union. The article at present says that she was born to a Jewish family. But more than that is warranted by sources. The article should say that she is Jewish, and I think that should be stated directly. Bus stop (talk) 11:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

• I agree with what Bus stop says above. And btw, I personally find the suggestion that it is "jarring" to reflect that she is Jewish unconvincing.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Alleged connection of Sarah Palin to Gabrielle Giffords shooting

Apparently Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was recently shot. I've twice removed content from Sarah Palin referencing this story which states that Palin was a political opponent of Giffords', and had published a "target map" including her. The referenced map is here. Would appreciate opinions on inclusion of speculation that the shooter was somehow motivated by Palin, or even if that belongs in her biography. At this point it's all breaking news, but of course the partisan blogs are on fire with the story. Kelly ^hi! 21:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Are the mainstream media commenting on Palin's "target map"? If they are, it might be worth a brief mention. There has been a similar debate with the Julian Assange article, as to whether the numerous suggestions from quite well-known sources that he should be killed ought to be reported. The consensus was that if this was seen as significant in the media it merited inclusion, but we shouldn't over-emphasise it, or rely on primary sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:NOTNEWS, it's premature to include stuff like this. There's zero indication that the shooter even knew about Palin's opinion of the congresswoman, or even that the shooter was targeting the congresswoman as opposed to the other victims. Wikipedia editors have cherry-picked news reports for anything remotely negative about Palin, while omitting to add material from those reports to the Harvey Milk article (he's mentioned in the cited report) or to the Wikipedia articles about any of the other people Palin allegedly targeted.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The killer's online messages and videos did not mentioned Sarah Palin but political experts did suggest the connection, along with Hollywood stars such as Jane Fonda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craighross (talk • contribs) 00:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Is got NPOV issues as well because it makes speculitive implications both to the motives of Sarah Palin, and to the reasoning of the shooter. Off2riorob (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Plain's people are likely to be regretting the map over the next week, but there's no way this is appropriate article content. --FormerIP (talk) 21:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I can see the argument against including it in Palin's article, but not against including it in the article on Gifford herself. It's mentioned by numerous major media outlets. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think such a speculation should be included prima facie, and in fact I don't think it has been. But I do think the mere connection between facts (being on the hit-list and being shot) is relevant and worth mentioning, because the News report it all over the world. Clearly, we would expect Sarah Palin to intend her as a political target. Arguably Sarah Palin is (or was, as of today) more notorious than Gabrielle Giffords. Just mentioning the connection isn't open speculation about the shooter's motives, and even if it is, it's not stated how much his motive was moved by a real distortion of what he perceived was Palin's message. Sarah Palin is not directly responsible for what happened, and if everybody has tools to understand what she really intended to say and what happened, I don't see why the coincidence noted by tens of major newsagents around the world should be deliberately shadowed. --Gibbzmann (talk) 22:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

That it is mentioned in the sources doesn't mean it should be mentioned in the article. It should only be mentioned in the article if it increases the readers understanding of the subject of the article. Which I think it is more likely to do the opposite of. Prodego ^talk 22:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

"It should only be mentioned in the article if it increases the readers understanding of the subject of the article". I can't follow you. Understand what? Easyness for the readers' intellectual peace of thought shouldn't be a substitute for facts. First come the facts, next comes the how to better explain them. We are not yet discussing how best to report them to make them understandable, just whether or not to report them. --Gibbzmann (talk) 22:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

It's totally relevant. I hope this important issue gets included. Politicians should know better how their images, actions and campaign affect the mind of some loons. Map is visible here --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 22:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

It's loony to jump to the conclusion that the shooter knew of the map.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Nobody's jumping to that conclusion. We're just following what reputable sources are reporting (or trying to, but it keeps getting blanked out). Even center-right sources such as the UK Daily Telegraph are noting it, so it's hardly a liberal plot. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

He didn't need to know the map, is the violent rhetoric and the misinformation what produces such kind of consequences. The map is just a sample of such rhetoric. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 22:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Violent rhetoric? Cite needed, please. Kelly ^hi! 22:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I think a 2010 piece at Huffington Post has some examples: Palin's map has gun sights, gun sights on retiring Democrats are red-colored (a bloody colour choice), "We'll aim for these races...", "This is just the first salvo in a fight ..." --EarthFurst (talk) 00:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Politicians use polemical/military-style language all the time. I remember Obama asking his supporters to get in opponents' faces. After statements like that, the other side tries to gin up outrage. This is routine stuff. Kelly ^hi! 01:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The question isn't whether the shooter knew of the map. Are the mainstream media commenting on the map when they report on the shooting? If they are, then the map needs mentioning in the Gifford article. It isn't up to us to decide what to report based on whether we think the map was actually relevent. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Why do we have to include everything the media says? It isn't up to us to report because we do not report. WP:NOTNEWS. We are writing an encyclopedia article, there are things news reporting does that we should not include, and one of those things is making speculative links. Prodego ^talk 22:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The speculation belongs in the article on PDS, not in any BLP. --Kenatipo (talk) 22:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Even the Huffington Post was honest enough to point out that "There is no evidence at this time that the shooting of Giffords was politically motivated, . . ." --Kenatipo (talk) 22:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

My feeling is that we should probably be cautious and not include somewhat knee-jerk speculation from news sources. There's nothing wrong with the article being stripped back to the confirmed facts (from multiple RS's), until things settled down. Some sources said at one point that she had died, but we did not include that in the article. That said, I don't think it's a huge issue as long as it begins "media sources have said...", and doesn't just say "Gifford was on the map...". Trebor (talk) 22:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Half the news articles I've read about the event have mentioned the Sarah Palin map. I'm frankly quite surprised by the omission in Wikipedia. Obviously we cannot (yet) link the map to the event, but it is worth pointing out the widespread speculation (in the news media at least) of the connection. 129.97.209.25 (talk) 22:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

(EC) Precisely. In the Giffords article I carefully worded the material as "Media sources noted..." We have no business making the connection ourselves. On the other hand we have no business hiding this from our readers if numerous high-end media outlets are mentioning it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I concur with the editors saying that Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS and it doesn't belong in the Sarah Palin article. I'll also add that it might be appropriate for the article on the shooting itself. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it doesn't belong in the Palin article. It does belong in the Giffords article and in the article on the shooting. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk)

It does belong in the shooting article, and has been added several times. But of course editors who don't want it in can undo faster than it's being added.CardboardGuru (talk) 22:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

to quote anythinyouwant - it's premature to include stuff like this. There's zero indication that the shooter even knew about Palin's opinion of the congresswoman, or even that the shooter was targeting the congresswoman as opposed to the other victims. Media sourses noted doesn't mean its encyclopedic content or that it is connected to any reality to which the desired addition speculates - allow the dust to settle and see if it has legs at all - Off2riorob (talk) 22:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

If mainstream sources consider it significant then it's probably worth mentioning. We can word it in a way that mentions the map (it's covered in multiple reports), but without claiming causation. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Mainstream sources report all sorts that are not encyclopedic - I don't support its inclusion and I don't see a way of adding it and not asserting causation - unless the dust settles and it is correct that the teaparty advertisement was his reason to do anything it should be kept out of our article as trivia - its like john says I am going to kill you Harry and then Harry dies of a heart attack a year later - and adding although it was unconnected to his death John said he was going to kill Harry last year. Unless it has any basis in fact then it should not be adding, wait and she. Off2riorob (talk) 22:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Red herring. We're not asserting causation. We're simply following what numerous reliable sources are reporting. To argue otherwise—that we should substitute our own judgment for what the sources are doing—is not consistent with policy. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS. If the speculation turns out to be silly or wrong, there will be no sense in including it. Best to wait until more solid information develops. The information I'm seeing floating around in the media makes it sound extremely unlikely the shooter is a conservative or a Palin fan. Kelly ^hi! 23:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

There's no speculation going on. The sources are simply reporting that Giffords was on the list. As for WP:NOTNEWS, by that standard we wouldn't be reporting the shooting at all. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The connection between the map and the shooting is indeed made worldwide (I've seen Italian newspapers citing it). In any case, let's wait. We'll see what coverage says that situation cools down. --Cyclopia^talk 23:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Any implication that Palin was responsible for this tragedy is simply against WP:BLP right on its face. The fact that some newspapers have a weaker view about living people does not abrogate WP policies. WP is not a tabloid, and tries to look at things from an encyclopedic perspective. I hope. Collect (talk) 00:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

No. There is no BLP issue, as this is a reliable source engaging in news analysis. However, the weight and relevance to Palin's biography is unclear, and a decision on including it is premature. If Palin does things that are embarrassing to a living person - herself - and they are found worthy of note by the major sources, then we don't expunge them from the encyclopedia. If Palin's map is somehow tied to the murders (it likely will not be) then we would report that. If she is falsely accused, and that is a noteworthy event, we report that. If she is critiqued as being among those advocating the politics of hate, and that critique becomes biographically relevant, we report on that. Although it's not a slam dunk at this point, I think Palin's intemperate statements and the repeated controversies over them are a very significant part of her public persona and political career, which are important to her biography. Fifty years from now, how will biographers remember her? Likely they will mention that she said and did a lot of controversial things on the national stage that drew public ire. Whether they will mention this particular one or not is hard to say. Likely, she will receive quite a bit of condemnation for that map. But we don't know yet, or to what end. It's more a question of WP:RECENT than BLP. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Wikidemon. It's a matter of NPOV, UNDUE and RECENT more than BLP. In my opinion the best thing to do is to wait. --Cyclopia^talk 00:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I still can't see one good reason the true and widely reported fact should not be cited in the Gifford article. The arguments put forward in the case of the Sarah Palin page do not apply. Any person who would shoot a politician based on some provocative and to some obnoxious "target list" made by an adversary is obviously a very insane person. Therefore, anybody here who claims the news reports are somehow implicating Palin directly, somewhat willingly, in the shooting, must be in bad faith. This is NOT what the media are doing. The question here is rather one of analysis of facts, which is being done all over the world. Palin herself must have felt the same way, uneasy about such unofrtunate coincidence, given that the "incriminated" page seems to have been taken down by her staff in a matter of minutes after the incident, despite it having been there for months before, without action having been taken. Does anybody here claim that, by doing so, Sarah Palin is actually speculating about her own implication? Insane. The connection, or coincidence, is a matter of bare analysis, very much relevant to the articles about Gifford. --Gibbzmann (talk) 01:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The page wasn't taken down, it's still up. Kelly ^hi! 01:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, my mistake, or I've been misled (maybe it was down for a while, or maybe people couldn't find it). For a moment there, I also got confused about the title, thinking to myself that it must have at least changed in the meantime. Wrong again, the picture I had in my mind was actually the twit pointing to the FB page. Anyway, the rest of my comment somehow still stands. Gibbzmann (talk) 01:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

What happened is that they pulled the "Take Back the 20" site that was the home of the "target" campaign, but not the corresponding material on Facebook. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

{WP:NOTNEWS]] has no bearing whatsoever about whether the Palin target map should be mentioned in the article about the shootings. All it could possibly be used for is to argue against an article on the shootings, which would certainly not be very effective as a basis for deletion. It is readily verifiable that she and others used gun related symbols and rhetoric in their ideological and political campaigns against some Representatives. A mention of the "target map" would not give undue weight given that sources such as the Voice of America, the New York Times, and news organizations worldwide have noted it in relation to the shootings. No WP:OR and no synthesis are required to include content from such mainstream news sources. It will not go away just because some regret it or think it might be embarrassing for some political figures. That is not the purpose of the WP:BLP policy. Mentioning it in the story, following the mainstream news sources, is appropriate and consistent with WP:BLP. Edison (talk) 01:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I mostly agree for this to be in the article about the shootings or, if such article still doesn't exist, the article on Gifford. I just would personally like to wait a few hours still to check if something changes (like, who knows, the killer declaring he didn't know anything of the Palin map). --Cyclopia^talk 01:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The article on the shootings is 2011 Tucson shooting. Mainstream sources are paying significant attention to this, so it would be against the spirit of WP:NPOV to not mention it. With proper attribution, we should be ok mentioning this. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 01:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

What would be wrong with waiting to see what develops as being verifiable? Shearonink (talk) 01:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

But the fact that the allegations are being made is verifiable already. (e.g. [23][24]) Whether the allegations are verified themselves is a separate topic, but they are being made. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 02:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The press has also made allegations that Palin had a boob job, that she's getting divorced, that she resigned as Governor because she was under FBI investigation, etc etc. It all turned out bogus. We don't include that stuff here either. Kelly ^hi! 02:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

This isn't the article on Palin. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

"The press has also made allegations that Palin ...". Are you arguing here that Giffords wasn't actually on Palin's "target" map? Gibbzmann (talk) 02:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

"Target map" is a POV term in and of itself, though it is standard American political rhetoric. See this example. The issue is whether Palin's map is at all relevant to this crime, and there's no evidence that it is. Kelly ^hi! 02:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

"'The issue is whether Palin's map is at all relevant to this crime'". That's a better posed question. But a couple of message ago you just seemed to imply the media were inventing something that had not happened (Palin having singled-out Giffords as a beatable opponent, using a certain reported figurative speech). That's what I replied to. I'm fine you have changed perspective. Gibbzmann (talk) 03:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

News sources are talking about this at the moment because they have a big story they have to cover and few actual details. We are not a news organisation and there is no reason for us to copy them or to report anything and everything just because it is in an RS. There is no reason, yet, to suppose that this is a significant aspect to the overall story. If it turns out to be, then fine. But there's no way we can know that so soon after the event. --FormerIP (talk) 02:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The guy's not talking, so anything the news folks say at this point is guesswork and pointing out the unfortunate irony of using a literal target in their campaigning, which I suspect the GOP to distance itself from quickly. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Plus. The fact that one half of the major media around the world are reporting that fact is worth mentioning. Again and again, I'll repeat until it exhaustion: A mention of a fact isn't speculation, nor necessarily implication. The media are not claiming the shooter was motivated by that campaign. It could be the read as a report of a dark coincidence, that's not our judgement to make. The media are also reporting about Gifford's position on abortion, on oil coompanies, on guns, and on and on. Are those ALL speculations and implications? Palin's opposition to her is just one other. Gibbzmann (talk) 02:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm just not understanding the urgency for getting the speculation into these articles IMMEDIATELY. Making this allegation has the potential to cause harm to a living person (Palin) who is the subject of one of our biographies. If the speculation is substantiated and the guy acted because of Palin (highly unlikely from what I'm seeing so far), then fine, it would warrant inclusion. But if the incident is completely unrelated to anything Palin has said, then it doesn't belong. What's the problem with waiting a little while to see what verifiable information develops? Kelly ^hi! 02:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I too think the motivations of the shooter might very well lie elsewhere. As I also think the truth about such motivations will remain forever unkwown as a matter of certainity, whatever any investigation or trial will ever assess. By any means, this is not the truth we are assessing here and now. There is no harm to the living person that can be attributed to be caused by a WP article that notes an actual fact, furthermore an actual fact reported everywhere in the world. Giffords being on Palin's list of chief opponents to be (politically) beaten is a notable fact about Giffords, now that it's all over the news and given that Palin is famous world-wide, unlike Giffords until one day ago. I'd say the news belongs to the Giffords page, if you wish, rather than on the shooting article. This option should very well answer you fears. Gibbzmann (talk) 03:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if that information has been included in any of the articles of the 20 politicians on the list - though from what I recall, it was a remarkably successful political campaign, if I recall correctly I think 16 or 17 of those politicians were defeated at the polls. Although the campaign itself may be notable, any attempt to tie it to the shooting would be out of bounds, and it would have to be very carefully worded. Kelly ^hi! 03:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

You have to be careful. Obviously the map's reference to Giffords is now far more notable than its reference to other people, so it's not true that if we have to include it in one place, we have to include it everywhere. I think in the context of the expanded 2011 Tucson Shooting article, including it phrased as "some media sources have noted that...." is not inappropriate. It would be reliably sourced, carefully worded, and it wouldn't be given undue weight. It would be much more inappropriate in the articles for Palin or Giffords herself. Trebor (talk) 03:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

If it's determined that Palin's effort was notable, it should probably be included in United States House of Representatives elections, 2010 or subarticles thereof. Kelly ^hi! 03:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not in question whether the campaign was successful, or whether it had anything concrete to do with the alleged success (apparently no, according to yourself, given that you do not admit the campiagn itself as anything notable for WP). What's being said is that it has just become a major element in identifying Giffords' political and personal profile until she was shot in the head, because the media covered the story at length (while before that very little was said worlwide about such "Gabrielle Giffords"). Anybody in the world who gets his news as an independent person, especially if not American, is aware of the coincidence, anybody who does not use English-WP as the sole source. Gibbzmann (talk) 03:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The coverage has expanded to the point where we can no longer ignore this. We've now got CBS News,[25] the New York Times,[26] the Los Angeles Times,[27] the UK Daily Telegraph,[28] and a host of other major media outlets covering or even doing entire stories on the Giffords-Palin connection. It's going back in. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Have they verified the shooting was tied to Palin's poltical campaign? Kelly ^hi! 03:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of. Nobody's asked the attacker what his motive was, yet. GoodDay (talk) 03:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

There is wp:nodeadline. Until reliable sources are reporting on facts, as opposed to breaking news speculation, we need to be very careful with biographies of living persons like Sarah Palin and Gabrielle Giffords (and whatever stays put at Jared Loughner). If we were simply serving as a newswire, former Governor Palin would be the mastermind, Congresswoman Giffords would no longer be with us, and Loughner would be a Tea Party activist. We have no clue about any of this at this point, because the media doesn't have a clue yet either. Speculation is not fit for a biography. jæs (talk) 03:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources are now reporting widely on the speculation, and this makes the speculation notable in and of itself. We still report it as speculation, not as truth. The main issue here would seem to be making sure it has appropriate weight wherever it's included. Trebor (talk) 03:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

There you go: "reporting widely on the speculation". That is exactly what it is, speculation, it has no basis in fact and if any article needs writing its on how the media make shit up and pontificate in the absence of real facts. John lilburne (talk) 12:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Kelly removed this topic from 2011 Tucson shooting with the note to come discuss it here. I come here and find that consensus seems to be to put it in. What gives?--Banana (talk) 04:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Consensus to include? How are you arriving at that? Kelly ^hi! 04:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Just grab a line & hang on. GoodDay (talk) 04:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

How can a New York Times article about an event not be ok for an article about that event? The above discussion is about including it in BLP's. This discussion isn't relevant to the article I was editing.--Banana (talk) 04:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The BLP policy applies to all pages, not just biographies. Kelly ^hi! 04:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

That's not what I said. Please answer my question: How can a New York Times article about an event not be ok for an article about that event?--Banana (talk) 04:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC) comment deleted by another editor --Banana (talk) 04:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

As I asked below, has the NYT verified the map was tied to the shootings? Kelly ^hi! 04:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

No. The paragraph you removed from the article did not say the map was tied to the shootings. The new york times is reporting that people are criticizing the website as contributing to an intense political climate. Please answer my question.--Banana (talk) 04:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Let's make a deal

We can go ahead and say in the Palin article that she may have inspired the Arizona shooter, provided we also say that the choice of weapon was inspired by the politician who said: "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun," and say so in his article. Deal?Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

We don't cut quid-pro-quo deals. We make principled decisions based in policy. Or at least we're supposed to. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

An alternative deal: If we suppress this information from Palin's bio, because we aren't convinced that the criticism of her is well-founded, then we also remove from Wikipedia the unfounded criticisms of John Kerry that were publicized by the Smear Boat Veterans for Bush (now known as Swift Vets and POWs for Truth). Note that these unfounded allegations are mentioned in the main John Kerry bio and have a whole daughter article devoted to them. (Of course I agree with Short Brigade Harvester Boris that we don't do deals. My "proposal" is intended to highlight that we report publicly discussed matters that affect a politician's image even if the attacks on the politician are not meritorious.) JamesMLane t c 03:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Everyone please stop political soapboxing. Kelly ^hi! 04:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Everyone means everyone, mmkay? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, this aint somekinda Democratic/Republican, liberal/conservative thing. GoodDay (talk) 04:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Wait and see what Beck and Limbaugh have to say before drawing that conclusion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Why not have an RFC and ban every US citizen from taking part - whatever their politics. Better still, why not ask Wikipedians from the Balkans to mediate this dispute - since they seem to find it easier to leave partisanship at the door than most people involved in this fracas.--Scott Mac 04:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's got that bad just yet. I find that many U.S. citizens are able to contribute to Wikipedia very positively, although perhaps not in all topic areas. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The public discussion of the possible connection belongs in the public image article

Regardless of the extent, if any, to which Palin's "target" map and gun crosshairs actually contributed to this event, the possibility of a connection is being reported and discussed. Furthermore, Palin sees enough of a connection to have pulled the graphic.[29][30] (The software prevented me from adding a link to associatedcontent dot com, which is on the blacklist but which is still an indication of public discussion.) This level of attention makes it worth a passing mention in Public image of Sarah Palin, along the lines of "After the shooting of RepresentativeGabrielle Giffords, Palin was criticized by some for having used a campaign graphic with gunsight crosshairs to make the districts of Giffords and other legislators whom Palin targeted for defeat in the 2010 election." The incident is relevant to Palin's public image, even if some Wikipedia editors think that the effect is unfair to Palin. JamesMLane t c 03:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps, if the criticism turns out to be anything other than blathering to fill dead air time while news outlets are waiting for facts on the story. But I doubt it lasts more than a few hours while the shooter's motives are investigated. News outlets always mention Palin when they want hits/viewers/readers. Kelly ^hi! 03:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Short Brigade Harvester Boris:How many sources don't make this connection? We need to look at this issue from a totality of the sources. Also, Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, so we can afford to wait to decide how to handle this. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC).

This is a specious argument. We include lots of information that isn't explicitly mentioned in every source describing that topic. This issue has extensive coverage (sometimes whole stories) in numerous prestige media outlets. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the arguments against noting the worldwide press coverage of the target map and the shootings are specious. WP:NOTNEWS in no way implies that "We must wait." WP:NPOV prevents us from censoring Wikipedia to prevent embarrassment to any part of the US political spectrum, when manistream news sources worldwide are discussing the "target map" in relation to the shootings. Edison (talk) 04:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

So have any of the RS's verified the map was tied to the shootings? Kelly ^hi! 04:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Your purpose in asking this question yet again is what, exactly? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

It's quite simple, the mainstream media are reporting that links have been made. They have noted that Giffords had already criticised the Palin Website for the image with the crosshair on Giffords' seat (per NY Times article). They aren't saying the shooting is linked to Palin, but they are saying that the issue is being commented on. Not to report these comments is a breach of NPOV. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Which article are you wanting to include the information in? Kelly ^hi! 04:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Definitely the 2011 Tucson shooting one. And given the level of mainstream media attention, it will merit at least a mention in the Palin article too. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

But if the map or Palin is not tied to the shooting, why would we include it there? I haven't seen anyone put forward a single reliable source that has said that. The most any of those sources has done is mention Palin tangentially without tying her to the shooting. Kelly ^hi! 04:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

By the way, everyone uses those maps - even the Democratic Party. Kelly ^hi! 04:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

This one is even more impressive. It's already been scrubbed and is only in Google cache now.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

"We're on Sarah Palin's 'targeted' list, but the thing is that the way she has it depicted, we're in the crosshairs of a gun sight over our district. When people do that, they've got to realise that there are consequences to that action." -- Giffords, as quoted by the BBC, in a link off their front news page http://news.bbc.co.uk/ right now. So yes, it's gone mainstream. Not just in the USA. And not in a small way. Can we try to keep it out of Wikipedia? Maybe. But for how long? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

By all indications the answer is "as long as possible." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Adding the information back in to the 2011 Tucson shooting article and then going to bed. I can't participate in a discussion with Kelly if she won't answer my questions.--Banana (talk) 04:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I've just done this. Kelly is not attempting to reach consensus. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. The relentless intransigence, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and misdirection from Kelly have made principled discussion impossible. Kelly, you win -- I'm bowing out of this. Life is too short. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

BTW, the shooter is being described as left-wing [31] who has previously made death threats to others.[32] Truthsort (talk) 04:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes: "A classmate of the man accused of shooting Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords this morning describes him as "left wing" and a "pot head" in a series of posts on Twitter this afternoon". Is this supposed to be a reliable source? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Heh - the person probably has more information than the NYT. But I'm not going to have a stroke over a brief mention of the NYT's opinion so long as it's clearly attributed as opinion. I imagine it will become irrelevant as further information develops. Kelly ^hi! 05:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I'd not think your imagination would count as a reliable source. Not that this is relevant anyway. The fact that the media are commenting on the connection being made now is just that -a fact - from reliable sources. Regardless of what happens later, it will still have happened. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Meh. What I'm trying to say is that, as real facts develop in the case and are reported, early unfounded speculation, especially if not grounded in any sort of fact, isn't going to have much weight in comparison. Kelly ^hi! 05:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Possibly, though there is a large if in there. I suspect that even if the events turn out to have no connection with anything Palin's team said or did, it is still going to have an effect on her future political career. This is all speculation though. For the moment, we can note that the issue has been raised. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, we'll see how things fall out. In the meantime, I do think it's important to monitor for weight and to avoid making any assertions not supported by extremely reliable sourcing that the killer was motivated by politics or Palin. Kelly ^hi! 05:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Unless the media have got it completely wrong, the alleged gunman's website etc seem to indicate a 'political' motive, though based on somewhat incoherent politics. I've just had to edit the Toucson Shooting article to remove a claim that the Telegraph was saying he is 'left wing' - they don't, his politics is all over the place. This wants watching too. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Kelly, I don't see anyone in this thread suggesting that Wikipedia assert, on the current evidence, that the killer was motivated by politics or Palin. The serious issue is how we handle the widespread reporting that Palin produced a targeting graphic, using figurative gunsights to mark 20 Democratic enemies, one of whom has now been targeted by a liteal gunsight. As others have pointed out, this reporting is fact.

I see no reason to believe that unfounded speculation will turn out to have no weight if it's not grounded in facts. You may recall the unfounded speculation about Saddam Hussein's alleged WMD's? the Niger uranium forgeries, etc.? Colin Powell's speech to the UN? All this was quite unfounded, and Powell has at least admitted the same, but it doesn't change the impact that the media circus had in smoothing the path to war. If nothing else develops after this weekend, the Palin targeting graphic has still gotten enough attention to be worth one sentence in our voluminous coverage of Palin. See some additional MSM coverage at TMZ ([33]) and The Telegraph ([34]). If it has legs beyond the immediate hubbub, we can amplify that one sentence. JamesMLane t c 05:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, we'll see how the coverage plays out. The Telegraph has also pointed out that the martial imagery is standard and that the Democratic Party uses it too. But we're straying away from the BLP aspects here. Kelly ^hi! 05:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Include it already jeez...--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 06:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

As the editor who originally included this news on the Palin page I have restored it. There is no point saying "wait until ongoing discussion is resolved"; one side is petulantly shutting its ears. It's a matter of record that all the major news agencies have reported it. That we haven't reported it smacks of censorship and political prejudice. We are not establishing a causal connection between the image and the shooting, simply noting in a small paragraph that the connection has been made by others. Ericoides (talk) 08:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

At present her article says: "On January 8, 2011, Congressperson Gabrielle Giffords was shot in the head outside a Safeway grocery store in northwest Tucson during her first "Congress on Your Corner" gathering of the year. Although no connection between the shooter and the "target map" has been established, media sources noted that Giffords was one of the U.S. Congresspersons whom Palin had placed on a political "target map" using images of gun sights.[275] After her office had been vandalised in March 2010 Congresswoman Giffords had said; "We're on Sarah Palin's 'targeted' list , but the thing is that the way she has it depicted, we're in the crosshairs of a gun sight. When people do that, they've got to realise that there are consequences." Following the shooting Palin offered 'sincere condolences'." NB, the passage, "Although no connection between the shooter and the "target map" has been established". The onus is on editors to show why this is NPOV ("Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources") before it is removed again. I don't think it takes a genius to see that when virtually all WP:RSs are reporting the "target map" story that for us to use it is NPOV. Ericoides (talk) 08:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The info about Palin's map is already included in Wikipedia, in the article about the shootings. Many editors (including me) think that's premature. But that's very different from edit-warring a large block of text about it into the main Palin article (as opposed to a sub-article). Please stop jamming it there before consensus is reached. The Palin articles are subject to probation, and you'd be flirting with a block even if that were not the case.Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Irrelevant to the discussion though it is, I couldn't give a damn about being blocked. Second, the onus is on editors to show why it should be removed as it was inserted in accordance with WP:RS policies. As I've suggested above, WP:NPOV is a red herring; if anything, it strongly suggests that we should include it. Not reporting a story when ALL the RSs do so is obviously following some other agenda than NPOV... Ericoides (talk) 09:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

If the target wasn't notable in the BLP yesterday then it isn't today just because she got attacked and shot, unless a clear connection as in cause and effect comes to light , if its in the Tuscon article that is at least not a BLP and perhaps the best place for the content. Off2riorob (talk) 11:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

As Hegel said, "The owl of Minerva spreads its wings only with the falling of the dusk." As with many other editors, I can't be bothered trying to argue with what is obviously a determined little cabal on here, one that hasn't even started to address the issues re NPOV and RS raised by many above, so I'll bow out too. Ericoides (talk) 11:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I could attack the people that are insisting on adding this partisan media trivia but I won't, please refrain from calling good faith editors demeaning expressions such as, little cabal, thanks. "The media picked up on it" doesn't make it encyclopedic or the kind of media titillation speculation that we should be adding to our articles about living people. Off2riorob (talk) 11:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Then please do as you recommend and refrain from using demeaning terms such as titillation for a story picked up by RSs, such as the Telegraph (a partisan organ of the Left indeed!), NYT, etc etc. Ericoides (talk) 11:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The level of press reporting these days has sunk so low that it matters not what side you think they represent, they are all trapped in propagating the same crap but we are not in that loop. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia with no allegiances to anything apart from our own editorial judgment in producing quality free educational content - this causal and effect speculation does not fit in the remit. Off2riorob (talk) 11:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, well, in that case your word partisan is quite the wrong term. Ericoides (talk) 11:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the partisanship would be more likely found in the desire of users to add such content and speculation. Off2riorob (talk) 11:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought you wrote "partisan media trivia". As has been made abundantly clear above, the content that has been added is not itself speculation; we said, "Although no connection between the shooter and the "target map" has been established ...". We are reporting on what reliable sources have said, as is our remit. This has all been reverted time and time again, in contravention of WP:RS and WP:NPOV, hence people's frustration. Ericoides (talk) 11:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you have added it three times now, the last one with that silly disclaimer - if you have to add a disclaimer you shouldn't be adding it at all, especially not repeatedly when you know there is clear opposition in discussion from multiple editors. Off2riorob (talk) 12:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take what you say very seriously from now on. Ericoides (talk) 12:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't take it that far, your kidding aren't you, I am picking up with a pinch of salt - no worries, as the article is under probation {I only just noticed) I won't be making another removal there. Off2riorob (talk) 12:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Giffods herself commented on the palin propaganda in 2010. what is discussed in the media is the influence propaganda has on political climate/level of discourse. Sayerslle (talk) 11:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

If that was notable why wasn't it added before her death, if it wasn't notable b4 it isn't notable just because she has been shot unless you are now connecting or suggesting a connection between the two. Off2riorob (talk) 11:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

'why wasn't it added before her death..?' (Are you on top of this story ?) Palin's propaganda style has been discussed at length since the shooting, a spotlight on it since the shootings, a persons political propagandist style is part of their political biography. Slagging me off as partisan, while posing as NPOV yourself is disgusting to me. Sayerslle (talk) 12:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

at length really, look the partisan comment was not specifically directed at you so don't go getting yourself all disgusted about it. Off2riorob (talk) 12:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, really, you calling me a liar? I was listening to BBC 5 Live and it was discussed at length, speaking to arizona politicians, friends of Giffords, of course I was listening to just one radio station in Britain, and i read the BBC Mark Mardell, he quoted what Giffords said in 2010 about Palins campaign tactics and the climate she encourages. I think this should find a way into the Palin article in time, certainly if this event becomes a focus for further future discussion of campaign tactics and hate filled propaganda, Anyway, I'm off to get the Sunday paper, see what the Independent is saying. I wont get myself all disgusted about it, I'm used to POV on wikipedia and wolves in sheeps clothing. Sayerslle (talk) 13:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Please stop with your aggressive tone, its not conducive to wanting to respond to your comments, thanks. 13:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

This partisan situation in violation of NPOV leads to the amusing spectacle of Users holding up a small black book and demanding to include any and all absolute nonsense exclaiming loudly as to Mr Kings vision - I have a cite! Off2riorob (talk) 11:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

There is no evidence that these shootings have anything to do with Sarah Palin, or anybody else for that matter, outside of the perp(s) themselves. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Try telling that to the families of the victims. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm completely perplexed about comments here that point out that no material ties have been found between the shooting and the campaign. As so MANY have addressed, this is NOT what's at stake, nor it is what anybody wants to write-up in the WP articles. Even if it turns out that the shooter was in love with and obsessed by Gabrielle Giffords, and because of that took action, the question posed by the media would still stand exactly as of today. The point here would rather be whether it is wise or not (and one might conclude "yes it is") to use a certain figurative speech which, in a world where nuts are around, might become a sinister presage of real facts. If anything, it would induce the speaker to feel sorry afterward. The US have an amazing history of important public figures having been assasinated, it's not like "oh, I couldn't in my sane mind have figured that out as really happening to her". In a normal world, it's pretty obvious the press would analyze this situation during an event like this one, and invite reflection. What's not normal is that it's carefully cherry-picked-out in WP, from all other stories circulating regarding the same event. Please, refrain from arguing with BLP bogus, because that's clearly not applied to the shooter, and the shooter is "accused on WP" of having done much worse than what is noted (by the media sources) about Palin. --Gibbzmann (talk) 15:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Gibbzmann. I'll add that people should look at the title of this sub-thread. It's already clear that the discussion of Palin's gunsight map has been widespread enough to be worth mentioning in connection with her public image. The general principle is: If a public figure is widely criticized on the basis of a particular allegation, then Wikipedia can properly report the fact of the criticism, regardless of whether the factual foundation of the criticism is sound, unsound, or unclear. I noted that we follow this principle with regard to the criticism of Kerry's service in Vietnam, criticism that's disproved by official Navy records. We also report the theories that Hillary Clinton killed Vince Foster, that Barack Obama was born in Kenya, etc. (As to Clinton, note generally the second paragraph of Hillary Rodham Clinton#Whitewater and other investigations -- a passage in the main Clinton bio that doesn't mention her murdering Vince Foster but includes a grab-bag of other spurious charges.) The BLP policy, which by its terms applies to "contentious" material, would (at this juncture) bar a flat-out assertion that Palin was partly responsible for the shootings, but does not bar a factual report that she has been criticized, because those facts are not seriously contested.

The more serious issue is the weight to be accorded. On this basis I disagree with Ericoides about including it in the main Palin bio. That bio can't accommodate everything relevant to Palin. That's why we have more than 20 daughter articles about Palin. One sentence in one of those daughter articles is not undue weight. JamesMLane t c 16:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Whatever has been included in other article is of little relevence as to this discussion - WP:otherstuffexists and the title of discussion headers threads has even less value. Off2riorob (talk) 17:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Otherstuffexists has been used fairly here, with several examples, to point out consitsency. It does not apply here as a fallacious argumentation, nor is it the sole argument put forward to sustain the point. --Gibbzmann (talk) 17:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

As for weight how about - In the immediate aftermath of the the sad shooting of Gabrielle Giffords the democrats used it as an opportunity for a partisan attack on Sarah Palin. Is that weighty enough? Off2riorob (talk) 17:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm waiting for Limbaugh to tell his audience that the Democrats are somehow to blame for this shooting. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies aren't all spelled out in detail. Some aspects of policy can be discerned by reviewing what we actually do. My examples show a community consensus that, when a bio subject is criticized, the fact of the criticism can be reported even if the criticism lacks merit. If you disagree, propose an amendment to WP:BLP, and if it's accepted then we'll remove all such information. As for the section head, I was pointing out that many people here are attacking a straw man. JamesMLane t c 19:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

We've yet to hear what the attacker's motive was. So far, he's not co-operating with the authorities. GoodDay (talk) 17:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

For the thousand-th time, mobody here is arguing we should guess and write what the attacker's motive actually was. Your comment, as many before, is out of topic. Plus, are you suggesting that if, for the sake of argument, it turns out he was motivated by the campaign, we should state as fact that Palin was responsible for what happened? Insane. No, we would be reporting some comments. What we are arguing about here is whether or not the ongoing media analysis should be included, irrespective of the motives (as it is in fact progressing irrespective of the motives). --Gibbzmann (talk) 18:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

He was quite badly shot as I heard, I don't imagine he is able to be interviewed yet, but when he does I imagine he will have no option but to co - operate - I saw a cite repudiating him having any connection to the republican party or teaparty groups at all. The Washington Post showed Internet postings under Loughner's name focused on communist and fascist anti-government publications, there are also reports that he was disturbed http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/01/09/Report-Arizona-shooter-was-disturbed/UPI-55291294589097/ Off2riorob (talk) 18:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The politicians generally try to distance themselves from these kinds of lunatics. It reminds me of the Tim McVeigh situation. Prior to that there had been a lot of talk about private, self-styled "militias". Once the product of that kind of thinking became reality, the "militias" scurried for cover. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, the term "targeting" referring to political positions goes back well over a century, and has nothing to do with advocating violence against any incumbent. In 1948, according to the NYT, Truman "targeted" Congress. "Tempest in a teapot" does not show the magnitude of the irrelevance of stress on that word. Collect (talk) 20:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

FWIW it wasn't just the 'term' was it, wasn't there a graphic also. still, glad you're so sanguine about the 'tempest in a teapot' , after all the history of the 20th century proved just how reasonable human beings are - what harm's a little propaganda going to do Sayerslle (talk) 20:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

A graphic like this one? Kelly ^hi! 21:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Call me stupid, but that looks like an archery target. You fire arrows at the target and, from what I know, straw or whatever they use on targets doesn't possess much in the way of feelings. Quite different from the crosshairs of a telescopic rifle, where you don't fire at the crosshairs, but at what's behind them. But I guess the average moose wouldn't know the difference. Ericoides (talk) 21:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

They look like bullseyes from a shooting range to me, while the symbols on Palin's map look like survey markers. Just shows how all this stuff is completely subjective and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. It's manufactured political faux outrage. Kelly ^hi! 21:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I now see that Palin's aide has also compared the crosshairs to survey markers. Ericoides (talk) 11:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh well, I guess I'll have to brush up on shooting ranges, although from memory I think such targets are in two colours, rather than the multicoloured archery target that you posted. Your survey marker comment is, I can safely say, hilarious. This is all, however, quite irrelevant. We aren't dealing with whether one is one and the other is the other; nor are we in the game of deciding what is or isn't real/faux outrage. We are in the business of reporting what reliable sources say. But apparently we aren't. Ericoides (talk) 21:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Kelly, you sure understand that the fact that someone else used similar imagery, as in the link you posted, doesn't make it a wise or unwise choice either for him nor for Sarah Palin, so your point is unconsequential here. Secondly, in addition to the observation about the type of target symbols used, one key observation in regard to the Palin's campaign has been that those symbols were associated with both the States and the names of the candidates. Targeting a State with an archery target isn't the same as targeting a State with a cross-hair with the name of a person associated to it just below. But as I have said, it's in any case irrelevant that someone else used it, because such an event does not contradict the thesis. --Gibbzmann (talk) 01:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Kelly, is it your view that "manufactured political faux outrage" is never appropriate for inclusion in any form in Wikipedia? In other words, once we editors, in our collective wisdom, conclude that a criticism of a public figure is ill-founded, and is advanced solely for political purposes, must we excise all mention of it from Wikipedia, including even the factual report that the criticism was made? Follow-up question: If that is your personal opinion, is it anything more than a personal opinion, i.e., is it set forth in or required by some policy or guideline that you can link to and quote from? JamesMLane t c 04:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Certainly I've never said anything like that. The Palin article contains mention of these media "controversies" that occasionally crop up. Consensus has typically been to mention them, if determined notable, in Public image of Sarah Palin, then to summarize them with appropriate weight in the main article. I imagine they use a similar approach at Barack Obama since the article/subarticle structure was modeled on that one, IIRC. Kelly ^hi! 04:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Here's the coverage on the CBS News website: [35]. In light of the numerous citations to the mass media that have been provided in this thread, can you at this stage go along with mentioning this controversy -- or "controversy" if you insist on the scare quotes -- with the sentence I suggested at the top of this sub-thread? JamesMLane t c 08:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it was like that anyhow it was more like a rifle gun sight. I've never had a gun so I dont really have the vocab. I know that hitler didn't support the socialists in the spanish civil war though kelly, however Socialist and left wing radical you think he was,omg, I think the nazis bombed guernica, and fought for franco, who was anti-socialist Sayerslle (talk) 21:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Do what? jæs (talk) 00:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

An invitation to see a pattern

I want to say first off that Wikipedia as an encyclopedia has no business making connections on whether the shooter was encouraged or not to act as a result to Sarah Palin's map. However, I would like to invite the community to realize that whether we want it or not, Sarah Palin has received heavy criticism at the wake of the mass killing in Tucson. I include this as a proof that the biggest media outlets have made this criticism and have brought to the attention of the general public said map. I believe such criticism must be accounted for in the page of Sarah Palin, and the 2011 Tucson shooting articles.

Furthermore, I would like to make the community here at Wikipedia aware of this. User:Kelly has been battling this criticism towards Sarah Palin 24 hours a day. Now, I do not know whether such user is an Admin, or what. As it's evident, User:Kelly as it is visible in this Talkpage has been defending Sarah Palin and her article in this encyclopedia from any criticism. In particular I would like to refer to a particular contribution of mine: I included yesterday a map that was similar to the one in the poster. As it can be seen in my userpage I am a graphic designer and if you can see throughout my history of contributions in Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons I work with graphics. I replicated the map with the crosshairs overlaid in a program called Inkscape and then exported the image as a png and then as jpeg. This image does not even fit the threshold of originality. Yet, User:Kelly under the excuse of copyright infringement deleted my contribution which was intended to illustrate the article. I am not gonna argue with this user on the grounds of whether such removal was right or wrong. I do however can see in this discussion and other similar discussions a pattern. User:Kelly has been persevering in the defense of Sarah Palin's article especially in lieu of the current criticism towards her. It is my belief that the community must take notice on this behavior which I believe is not beneficial to Wikipedia as a collaborative project. I am not saying that User:Kelly should not voice his opinion, but I do believe that in my particular case his editions might have gone unnoticed and not in the best interest of Wikipedia but himself and Sarah Palin's article. Thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 08:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

We should, frankly, be so lucky as to have someone at every wp:blp who "persever[es] in the defense" of neutrality and reliable sourcing. As to your comment of "replicating" a copyrighted image, simply recreating it does not make it your own or relieve your upload of our (free) licensing requirements for the underlying work. jæs (talk) 08:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

We should be lucky if our policemen were possessed of a modicum of common sense. One editor's inability to recognise the obvious difference between an archery target and a shooting range bullseye, and their comparison of a crosshair to a survey marker, gives me – to put it kindly – pause for thought. I am wondering what gives them the right to delete anything they do not like, particularly when it is reliable sourced. As I am tired of saying here, the onus is on editors to explain why so many reliable sources don't count for anything without resorting to absurd terms like titillation or faux outrage and without reverting passages that comply with WP:RS and WP:NPOV. To then go around mentioning blocks to editors whose contribution of content to the project is both considerable and long-standing is, I'm afraid, insufferable; the effect will only be to drive them away from the project. Ericoides (talk) 09:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Take a step back. Put down your pitchfork. If you really believe that User:Kelly is going around "delet[ing] anything they do not like," I daresay you might not be seeing things rationally. That being said, the difference between an archery target and a bullseye is inconsequential, as best as I can tell, to the overall argument that's been made: there's a lot of speculation right now, and we need to be careful with giving that speculation undue weight, especially in biographies. Speculation is not always biographical. Some editors believe we should err on the side of caution, as opposed to turning Wikipedia into a newswire. These are not new concerns, they are not limited to the Palin article, and User:Kelly is, by no means, the only editor who has expressed these concerns. jæs (talk) 09:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, we'll have to agree to disagree. Ericoides (talk) 09:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd still prefer a newswire wikipedia than one written by the facetious and ignorant, better to reflect the news and all sections of a debased political culture than just one section of ' a debased political culture'.Sayerslle (talk) 14:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

@ Editor:Ericoides Consider that the effect may also be to strengthen the resolve of good faith editors to persist in efforts to answer an off-setting force (as Mr Sanchez does above). Your continued efforts are appreciated by the customers of Wikipedia, if not all of the editors.Buster Seven Talk 09:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what is being asked here. If it's about the media's criticism of Palin, it's been included in 2011 Tucson shooting#Reactions, along with sourced representatives of other viewpoints, added by others, not by me. If it's about Camilo's image, I'm not an admin so I can't delete anything. If I recall correctly, it was deleted by a Commons admin for being a clear copyright violation - it was just a cropped version of Palin's political ad. Kelly ^hi! 14:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

It's a map with geometric figures overlaid. It was not a full replication of the poster. I had uploaded such poster and I knew I had made a mistake because of the possibility of Palin's original logo actually being copyrighted. That's why I decided to replicate only the map and the crosshairs since I believe they do not fit the threshold of originality under American copyright laws. To claim that the map with crosshairs overlaid is copyrighted material seems to me absurd. I have seen actual real copyrighted material here being used under the fair use rationale concept and for the most part such images make the cut with flying colors. Also, I would like to add, yes, it was you who left me a message telling me you would delete my image as seen here. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 19:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

"I believe they do not fit the threshold of originality..." Then I'm afraid you are very wrong. Until you better understand the concept, you should refrain from uploading any material based in whole or in part on the original work of others. jæs (talk) 22:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The original work of others? You mean the map of the United States? jeez..I wonder who's copyright I am violating on that one! --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 23:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

This noticeboard probably isn't the best place to discuss copyright issues. Since it was a Commons image deleted by a Commons admin, you might want to take your complaint there. Kelly ^hi! 23:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not complaining about anything other than you acting like the owner of Wikipedia. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 01:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The image was a pretty clear derivative work. And I didn't delete the image, I only submitted it for administrator consideration. Kelly ^hi! 22:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The media attention continues to mount

Contrary to the hopes of some Palinistas, the media attention to her crosshairs map targeting Giffords and others has not abated and is not limited to lefty bloggers. In the Daily News, which our article describes as the fifth most-widely circulated daily newspaper in the United States, there's now a story titled "Rep. Gabrielle Giffords' blood is on Sarah Palin's hands after putting cross hair over district".

Can we now agree that this is worth at least a passing mention in Public image of Sarah Palin? I propose adding this sentence: "After the shooting of RepresentativeGabrielle Giffords, Palin was criticized by some for having used a campaign graphic with gunsight crosshairs to mark the districts of Giffords and other legislators whom Palin targeted for defeat in the 2010 election." I'll support it with a few representative citations. The facts in that sentence are completely uncontentious, and one sentence in one of our 20+ Palin-related articles is not undue weight considering the attention given the subject by major mainstream media. JamesMLane t c 04:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with JML's sentence. While I initially thought a wait and see pause was called for, I now feel that some mention must be made in the Palin article. I don't think there is anyone that can ignore the fact that almost every news report, around the globe, of the Tucson shooting came with an adjunct report on 'prevailing political rancor' or 'charged and polarizing political rhetoric' or 'a targeted hit in a conservative state', etc. And all, either subtly or point blank, indicate the same source...the crosshairs map.Buster Seven Talk 05:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it probably merits a sentence in the Palin image article. Something like: "In January 2010, a controversy arose as to whether Palin and other conservatives were being unfairly blamed for the shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords by a gunman who had no evident link to Palin or to conservatives." That should be plenty.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

This has received far more attention that an appearance on a daytime talk show, which gets an entire section in that article. The New York Times ran a whole article on Palin's response to this event.[36]   Will Beback  talk  06:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

But what is the NYT saying that is notable, encyclopedic, NPOV, and of enduring importance about the subject of the BLP?Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

As a reply to Anythingyouwant, your proposed sentence is extremely far from neutral, given that it practically beats the reader over the head with the assumption that Palin shouldn't be getting any blame. JamesMLane's is closer to neutral, although it could probably use a little adjustment. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

atyw's proposed sentence implies blame. No media blame has been placed except on the shooter. The media hub-bub is about the inflamed rhetoric exemplified by the crosshairs map.Buster Seven Talk 07:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec)JamesMLane's sentence omits some important and widely reported facts: (1) there is no evidence or even a slight hint that the shooter ever saw the map; (2) many other conservatives besides Palin are being blamed for inspiring the shooter; (3) many reliable sources are reporting about the alleged unfairness of the aforementioned blame given that such maps and rhetoric are common on the Democratic side. My suggested sentence captured most of that, so I disagree that it's POV.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

A suggested option (#3); "After the attempted assassination of Representative Gabrielle Giffords, Palin was widely criticized for having used a campaign graphic portraying gunsight crosshairs to mark the districts of Giffords and other legislators whom Palin targeted for defeat in the 2010 election." Buster Seven Talk 07:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I like Buster's No. 3. Carefully phrased, neutral and reflects the current commentary without implying the shooter knew of the map or was influenced by it. Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I like Buster's No. 3 with a minor change: "widely criticised" could possibly be rephrased more neutrally as "repeatedly mentioned". given that numerous UK and Australian news sources have references to this, I feel that repeatedly is an apt term. Similarly, while some may consider "mentioned" to be a watering down of "criticised", it seems to reflect better the commentary I'm reading.Punkrocker1991 (talk) 12:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I usually don't follow BLPN, but I had proposed the following on Palin talk in response to a similar observation by Buster this morning. I believe this covers the relevant points that a neutral paragraph should cover, i.e. A) Criticism is primarily from the media and not from notable persons. B) Palin spokespeople have stated it wasn't a gun sight on the map. C) Giffords district was not identified uniquely by Palin's campaign, but rather was among many targeted nationally. D) Other campaigns have also used "bulls-eye" metaphors to target key political races. E) There is no evidence that Loughner was motivated by Palin or even politically-motivated in any way. As an aside, I have advocated restraint on adding this because details are still emerging. As we speak, it's becoming clear that mental health concerns were reported by neighbors and fellow students but went unheeded. It seems to me it would be more prudent to wait for a "final" media position on Palin's explicit or implicit role in this shooting, or whether Palin should have a prominent role in the apparent national call for changing our caustic political rhetoric. Anyway...

"In the wake of the 2011 Tucson shootings that critically wounded Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, Palin was criticized widely by the media for her campaign's use of a "gun sight" targeting Giffords' and twenty other political districts as the focus for 2010 Congressional races. Palin representatives stated the images were surveyor symbols and not gun sights. Other political campaigns have used similar "bulls-eye" targets to identify key national races. There is no evidence indicating the alleged shooter, Jared Lee Loughner, knew of Palin's gun sight map or supported Palin politically."

Fcreid (talk) 14:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

In this article Public image of Sarah Palin ? i think you can lose the weaselly widely also she has also had support and some commentators have said the attacking of Palin was a disgrace. Also the fact that you have to add the disclaimer " There is no evidence indicating the alleged shooter, Jared Lee Loughner, knew of Palin's gun sight map or supported Palin politically." - reveals the absolute valuelessness of the content. But, hey, if you think wikipedia is a list of press speculation without any basis in fact then , go ahead.Off2riorob (talk) 14:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Concur on the removal of "widely" as an unnecessary descriptor. I don't follow all the Palin pages, and this was just a suggested item to cover those things I feel must be there to be neutral. As to your other points, I believe there will actually be unrelated consequences to the media handling of this event, but that's irrelevant to the content discussion here. Fcreid (talk) 14:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe the disclaimer is required, as this is where the article slips from reporting of neutral fact into speculation. At present there is a lot of discussion in world media about the use of the map, and this is being related to the shooting. If this later is proven to be irrelevant to the shooting, then the additional correction can be made along the lines of, "Initially Sarah Palin was repeatedly mentioned ... It was later ascertained that there was no link to Palin or the map." Punkrocker1991 (talk) 14:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, as it becomes non-neutral by omission of a very significant fact. Fcreid (talk) 14:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Not really, the disclaimer suggests that there was some reason to connect the campaign advert to the killing, there was and is none, so why disclaim it? Off2riorob (talk) 14:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Right or wrong, in my opinion the media have connected Palin to the shooting, and the text below reinforces that position. I'll defer to the experts, however. Fcreid (talk) 14:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Regarding option (#3); "After the attempted assassination of Representative Gabrielle Giffords, Palin was widely criticized for having used a campaign graphic portraying gunsight crosshairs to mark the districts of Giffords and other legislators whom Palin targeted for defeat in the 2010 election." 1) It was an attempted assassination, 2) Rep. Giffons was the target, 3) Palin was and is being widely criticized across the spectrum and around the world, 4) They were crosshairs from a gunsight, 5) The map marked the districts, 6)The map named the legislators targeted for defeat, 7) It was the 2010 mid-term elections.Buster Seven Talk 14:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully, the aggregate of this discussion will ultimately result in a neutral statement, should it be decided to included. I do disagree with #4 above, Buster. Palin spokespeople made an explicit statement that they intended this as a surveyor symbol, and we have an obligation to report from reliable sources. For the record, anyone with a GPS-enabled BlackBerry knows that is the exact image they also use on the home screen to indicate GPS signal strength... I'm not sure you'd convince RIM it's a gun sight! :) Fcreid (talk) 14:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we are reporting all the exact details of the killings, they are not the focus of the content, Palins retoric is the focus, so, assassination attempt and the Griffiths was the target are undue, the comment that she was crittically injured and a link to the 2011 Tucson shootings is fine, the main issue from a BLP perspective is to avoid undue weight and content that Palin has any contection to the shootings at all. Off2riorob (talk) 15:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Option (#3-A); "After the attempted assassination of Representative Gabrielle Giffords, Palin was repeatedly mentioned for having used a campaign graphic portraying gunsight crosshairs to mark the districts of Giffords and other legislators whom Palin targeted for defeat in the 2010 election."

• - citations, comment needs perhaps two external links, this one is quite good and contains Palins rebuke also - does anyone have another good one? I also think that the specific criticism that is in this one would be good to add that detail as rather than just the vague criticism. Under criticism that her political rhetoric had helped create a climate for political violence<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/11/us/politics/11palin.html?_r=2|title=Palin, amid criticism, stays in electronic comfort zone|publisher=[[The New York Times]]|date=January 10, 2011|accessdate=January 11, 2011}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2011/01/09/palin-aides-inane-bullseye-map-defense.html|title=Palin Aide's Inane Bullseye Map Defense|publisher=[[USA News]]|date=January 9, 2011|accessdate=January 11, 2011}}</ref>

The disclaimer language re the surveyor's symbol is problematic. Palin herself referred to the symbol as a "bullseye" in a Tweet. Also, the idea that it was a surveyor's symbol was actually expressed by a conservative talk show host and then complacently agreed to by a Palin spokesperson. http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2011/01/09/palin-aides-inane-bullseye-map-defense.html Jonathanwallace (talk) 15:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Great. Let's substitute Palin's own description then... "bull's eye" versus "gun sight". Fcreid (talk) 15:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• - In the immediate aftermath of the 2011 Tucson shootings in which Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was critically wounded, Palin was the subject of a degree of press and political criticism, that her style of political rhetoric had helped to create a climate that fostered political violence. The criticism was specifically related to her campaign's use of a campaign graphic portraying what were interpreted by some to represent gunsight crosshairs to mark the districts of Giffords' and twenty other political districts as the focus for 2010 Congressional election. In a twitter post Palin said they were, "bullseye" and not gun sights. - Off2riorob (talk) 15:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

At this time I can support Off2's option. Any subsequent changes may of course change my support.Buster Seven Talk 15:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, me too, I also commented that to please discuss any desired alterations here. Off2riorob (talk) 15:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• - Boldly added to Public image of Sarah Palin#Approach to campaigning - Off2riorob (talk) 15:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

My proposal was for a simple sentence reporting the fact of the criticism. Fcreid offered a counterproposal that would add every exculpatory item (fact or spin) that's been put forward. Of course, his version was totally POV. If we presented one side's case so thoroughly, then we'd have to give the other side the same kind of attention. I thought it better not to go down that road because it would turn into an argumentative free-for-all.

That's what's now happened. Off2riorob's original version was somewhat biased toward Palin (for example, saying that the graphics "were interpreted by some" as crosshairs, in lieu of the more accurate "were interpreted by virtually everyone except Palin's paid spokesperson"). Nevertheless, Palin supporters went to work to push it even further in that direction, vigorously adding pro-Palin material. In one particularly notable case, Kelly added a lengthy bit of blather from Palin about how she hates violence, but removed the well-sourced information that Palin had presented her crosshairs graphic with the advice to her followers to "reload" -- even though the latter fact has been widely mentioned in the media.

So, with the Palinistas apparently having realized that they can't suppress the information entirely, and seeking instead to spin it as much as possible, I'll be marching off to join the edit warring at the Palin image article. Any further discussion might as well be on the talk page there. JamesMLane t c 02:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

So, when a BLP subject is criticized in an article, including a brief response quote from the BLP is "blather"? Um, OK. And enough with people calling me a Palin supporter just for advocating neutrality on the article, I'm sick of it. Kelly ^hi! 02:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not for advocating neutrality. When you compare the crosshairs to a survey marker, as you did several thousand feet above, then to claim you are neutral looks very fishy indeed, as you are using the very same term as Palin supporters. Or perhaps it's all one amazing coincidence? By the way, could you post a link to a survey marker that looks so like those crosshairs that a reasonably intelligent person with good eyesight could mistake one for the other (we'll forget about context, Palin's comments about targeting, etc etc)? The wikilink you posted above just doesn't cut the mustard. Ericoides (talk) 06:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The comparison was not mine, it was a statement made by a SarahPAC official. It's currently sourced in the Palin article. Kelly ^hi! 12:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. It's just that the way you phrased it initially, "They look like bullseyes from a shooting range to me, while the symbols on Palin's map look like survey markers. Just shows how all this stuff is completely subjective", strongly suggests that it was your comparison. I'm sure you can see from apparently trivial examples like this why people are wary of what appears to be your impartiality. Ericoides (talk) 16:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the Palin camp's implausible denial has to do with anything. The sources say they are crosshairs. The sources also say that a Palin aide just said they were not crosshairs. Those two facts speak for themselves. The real point here isn't exactly what Palin meant or how her public image gets spun, but that her image came under a lot of scrutiny after the event. - Wikidemon (talk) 13:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

No, Kelly, that's not what I said. The response itself is blather because it says nothing beyond cliche, and doesn't directly address the criticism. Including the bio subject's blather, however, is not blather. We don't have to agree with a statement to report that it was made. That is, in fact, the entire point that I and others have been trying to explain to you throughout this thread. If we're going to go beyond a one-sentence summary, then, yes, Palin's response is one thing we can include (and you'll note I didn't remove it). All I'm saying is that her "RELOAD!" tweet is also worth including, and your removal of that fact made the article less neutral, not more so. JamesMLane t c 03:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

But that language is in the article now. It was reinserted and I understand why. Why are you complaining about it still? Kelly ^hi! 04:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

My point was that, once we got beyond a simple report of the fact of the criticism, the article turned in "an argumentative free-for-all." Of several tendentious edits that I could have cited to prove my point, I chose yours. You removed important and well-cited information that reflected badly on Palin. Your removal clearly wasn't from any belief that the paragraph needed to be shortened, because you inserted a much longer and much less enlightening passage in which Palin tried to put herself in a good light. Console yourself that there are plenty of Wikipedians who'd be honored to have one of their edits chosen by me as a bad example.  :) JamesMLane t c 05:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I just wish folks would wait until we find out what Loughner's motivation was. GoodDay (talk) 03:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

There wasn't much evidence of waiting while sources were calling him "left-wing". And perhaps we should also wait until Loughter has actually been tried and convicted too? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, the "left wing" stuff is stupid too. Kelly ^hi! 03:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Blood libel allusion

Palin's use of the term 'blood libel' has generated a charged reaction from the commentariat. There's now some discussion at Blood libel as to whether this instance is appropriate to include in the list of notable usages. Perhaps this is related to this discussion? Ronnotel (talk) 16:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Bruno Buchberger

This report concern an edit war which has began between User talk:90.146.117.12 and me about Bruno Buchberger's work. It concerns not only the article Bruno Buchberger but also Gröbner basis, Wolfgang Gröbner, Buchberger's algorithm and Wu's method of characteristic set.

Since December 15, 2010, this user began to edit these articles in order to negate the sentence "It should, however, be noted that the theory of Gröbner bases for polynomial rings was in fact developed by Bruno Buchberger in 1965, who named them after his advisor: Wolfgang Gröbner" which appears in the first paragraph of Wolfgang Gröbner page. User 90.146.117.12 negates this assertion and pretends that Gröbner bases appeared (without their name) in a paper of Gröbner which is cited in his/her edits; this is wrong and therefore none third party source may be provided to support this negation.

Supposing good faith, I have tried to explain to him (in mine and his/her user page) that he/she is wrong from a mathematical point of view, and that even if his/her thesis were true, his/her edits break several WP policies, especially wp:libel as these edits charge implicitly Bruno Buchberger of plagiarism.

I have reverted all these controversial edits, indicating the reason of reversion in the edit summary, but User talk:90.146.117.12 reverts my reverts, the last time today, January 8, 2011, on Gröbner basis page.

As I revert systematically these defamatory edits, I am afraid to be concerned by the rule wp:3R.

D.Lazard (talk) 22:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the edits qualify as libel, but they do seem to be based on an interpretation of a primary source rather than a secondary source. The only secondary source that I'm aware of is Abramson, who addresses the same primary source (Gröbner's "Uber die Eliminationstheorie") but still ascribes the invention of the Gröbner basis to Buchberger. Given our preference for secondary over primary sources, I'd go with Abramson over the IP's interpretation of Gröbner. Unless the IP has a secondary source that contradicts Abramson, or my reading is incorrect. - Bilby (talk) 11:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Another secondary source is "Hoon Hong, Deepak Kapur, Peter Paule , Franz Winkler et al., Foreword: Bruno Buchberger — A life devoted to symbolic computation, Journal of Symbolic Computation 41 (2006) 255–258" (Note that Hoon Hong is editor-in-chief of this journal, which is the best journal of the domain, and that the other authors are well known specialists of the domain), in which it is written

"Bruno decided to study mathematics at the University of Innsbruck, where he finished his thesis in 1965 on Ein Algorithmus zum Auffinden der Basiselemente des Restklassenringes nach einem nulldimensionalen Polynomidea (An algorithm for finding the basis elements of the residue class ring of a zero-dimensional polynomial ideal) under the advisorship of Wolfgang Groebner. This was the birth of the theory of Groebner bases!"

Note also that IP's thesis is based on a confusion between the basis of the residue class ring, which is effectively considered in Gröbner paper, and the Gröbner basis, which is a different object which allows to compute the former.

D.Lazard (talk) 14:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Abramson seems to be making a distinction along similar lines, although not quite so neatly put. :) I've watchlisted the articles and will help where I can. - Bilby (talk) 23:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Magic Johnson

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

Repeated pattern of HIV related vandalism on this page over the last few days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.56.147.235 (talk) 23:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note - added to my watchlist. Off2riorob (talk) 00:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Somebody really ought to watch this better, it stayed like this for over an hour. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 01:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Robert c richardson iII

Robert C. Richardson III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Wiki editors,

Over the past 4 years I have updated and maintained my father's original USAF official biography wiki - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_C._Richardson_III . I have struggled to maintain the documented historical perspective of this wiki against the unsubstantiated political/personal opinions of other contributors (many anonymous) . At issue is my father's role as a key player in a controversial event during WWII called the Laconia Affair. The affair involved his actions/decisions after the torpedoing of a British liner in the South Atlantic. Depending on one's political and national perspective, some of today's contributors consider my father's actions a war crime, even though he was never accused, then or subsequently, of any war crime, nor does any of the numerous histories even hint that there was a war crime. (Read the article's discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Robert_C._Richardson_III). As I say in the discussion page, I added the Laconia section for its lessons on the fog of war, miscommunications, and how tactical decisions in the heat of battle can have subsequent strategic impact, unbeknownest at the time. I even asked that the article be reviewed by the wiki reviewers.

My father recently died and I am using his wiki as an obit reference. As you can tell he was a renowned individual that in all likelihood will have obituaries published in the Washington Post, WSJ, and NYT. I have done my best to footnote and reference all the article's postings, especially the controversial passages. I work to police the wiki from politically motivated and/or personal opinion edits. While I am prepared to continue to police these drive by opinion edits, I am concerned that they will slandering him as he move on to the next world.

I would ask you to please place a temporary freeze of about 3 months on edits to his wiki until after my father is interned at West Point. Robert C Richardson IV, Col USAFR (ret) Son of RCR III Wiki ID - Crossrich (removed e-mail address) 173.67.25.165 (talk) 19:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

• - Condolences about your father and thank you for your contributions to wikipedia. At wikipedia one of the basic principles is that the wiki is the place anyone can edit, it would be extremely unusual to lock an article unless it was suffering current and repeated vandalism. I am sure that your comment here some active editors will as I am doing , add it to their watchlists and keep their eye on it for you, if is suffers vandalism I will request some level of protection if and when necessary. Off2riorob (talk) 19:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

One other point, and I don't mean to be heartless in your time of grief, but it is not his "original USAF official biography wiki" - it is an article about your father in an encyclopedia that, subject editing within the rules, anyone can edit - one of the key principles of Wikipedia. Contributions here, can, and will, be edited by other users and will only be "protected" from editing in extreme circumstances such as continuing vandalism.  – ukexpat (talk) 21:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Reply to ip. My condolences also, if you are his son, since I personally don't believe/trust a dam thing on the internet, but that is me. As pointed out, I doubt this page will be locked, but hopefully it will be watched and treated "fairly". Not to comment to much, but unfortuately, this project is used all the time to promote viewpoints ect and can and is a real ceespool, BUT, like the Grateful Dead, it might not be the best at what it does, but it is the only one who does what it does. Anyways, good luck and maybe consider using an account. --Threeafterthree (talk) 00:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Death of Philip Gale

Death of Philip Gale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Quite obviously, this isn't a BLP. But considering this is a 19 year old who committed suicide 10 years ago, and that he'll have a family, it raises similar issues.

The article was a Scientology COATRACK and is currently at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Philip Gale, but that's not the reason I'm coming here. There have been attempts by established editors to add details that (although sourced) seem intrusive, unnecessary and justy plain horrible: fine for the voyeurism of low-grade disposable newspapers but not for a serious permanent reference work like an encyclopaedia.

See here, and also the details in the current Death of Philip Gale#Death section. I'm maybe too close to this - and getting into a heated argument with Cyclopedia, so some more eyes would be good. This has badlydrawnjeff overtones.--Scott Mac 19:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

• Since I've been called into question, I want to emphasize I didn't lift a finger to attempt to re-introduce this information after Scott reverted me. I have no intention of entering an edit war for that. I didn't even raise the issue on the talk page or call for further discussion elsewhere. That he got into a heated argument is entirely his own responsibility, since it was him that accused me of "bordering on trolling" out of the blue with a not-quite-civil tone, but even there I left the last word to him. --Cyclopia^talk 01:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLP does not apply to dead people. It does apply to survivors, but that doesn't seem to be the basis for this posting.   Will Beback  talk  02:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd say that even if it was a BLP, a case for the insertion of the material could be made on the basis of WP:WELLKNOWN. But this is theory: fact is, it isn't a BLP (subject is long dead), so I don't get the point of the posting either. It seems to me personally that Scott is tainting what is essentially a banal content dispute with supposedly ethical tones that have are however not grounded in policy or guidelines or any other kind of generic community consensus -all laced with threats and incivil wording on my talk page. I would hope admins knew better. However further comments on the issue would be welcome, this I agree. --Cyclopia^talk 12:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Jakiw Palij

I feel that the article is in violation of the items noted below:

Subjects notable only for one event Policy shortcut: WP:BLP1E Further information: Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People notable for only one event Wikipedia is not news, or an indiscriminate collection of information. Merely being in the news does not imply someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article. If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate biography may be appropriate. Individuals notable for well-documented events, such as John Hinckley, Jr., fit into this category. The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources.[5]

Misuse of primary sources Main page: WP:PRIMARY Shortcut: WP:BLPPRIMARY Exercise caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses. Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crasis.prefect (talk • contribs) 05:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

AFD is this way ---->> WP:AFD. – ukexpat (talk) 14:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• - nominated for discussion - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jakiw Palij (2nd nomination) - Off2riorob (talk) 14:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Antony1821 (talk · contribs)

Repeated creations of biographies of living persons, most of which remain unreferenced and/or poorly sourced. See his talkpage for the list of articles and further details. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 07:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Anthony has been here since April 2010 and has 215 edits (that have not been deleted) and he has never made a single edit to either his own talkpage or any other talkpage. I left the user a note regarding this thread. Off2riorob (talk) 14:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Viktor Pinchuk

Resolved

 – moved

• - Requested move

Victor Pinchuk — Victor Pinchuk's name is spelled with a "c" on all his official web-sites, including: www.pinchukfund.org, www.worldwidestudies.org

This is not the correct place where to put the requested move tag -you ought to do that on the article/its talk page (see the template documentation). --Cyclopia^talk 17:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but its a simple request that we can easily do, or at the least a internal link to the correct location? Off2riorob (talk) 02:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• - Victor Pinchuk - Off2riorob (talk) 02:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Stephen Singleton

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

There is a lot of information that is either false or libellous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.29.94.68 (talk) 00:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thanks a lot of vandal additions from the seventh, (Ireverted back to the last decent version)...and the edits were not noticed at all, creating a big attacking type mess, Pending protection would have stopped it all from entering the article. IMO he doesn't need his own BLP article and I am thinking merge to the most notable ABC_(band) saxophonist? and a redirect, little to merge, if you support my position feel free to make the bold edits. Perhaps he just needs improving, I have heard if you were in two notable ish band you get a gold pass to your own Wiki BLP - anyway I added the ABC tempplate - have a look if anyone is interested to develop it. Also if a passing admin is willing to protect it with pending protection that would at least stop such a situation happening again. For four days it sat like this, and that is not acceptable at all. Perhaps a bit of rev-del would be good for the death claims. Off2riorob (talk) 00:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Janelle Pierzina

Resolved

 – content removed, article semi protected

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

Material sourced only from message boards posts has been repeatedly inserted into this article despite talk page discussion and edit summaries from administrators [37] [38] explaining this is a violation of BLP. BaldPete (talk) 01:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Just picked this up. This is the most persistent IP I've seen for a long time, returning to make the same edit after a 6 month block. Anyway, I semi-protected the page indefinitely. CIreland (talk) 01:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to User:BaldPete for sticking with it and to User:Cireland for the protection - Off2riorob (talk) 02:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Jared Lee Loughner

Jared Lee Loughner and 'atheism'

Is it normal to report the religious affiliation of suspects of criminal investigations in Wikipedia articles? There is a debate at Talk:Jared_Lee_Loughner#Atheist.3F as to whether the assertion that Loughner is an atheist should be included in the article (and also as category:American Atheists).

The source for this claim seems to originate with a Guardian article[39] , which to be appears not to meet the standards required by WP:BLPCAT, that religious affiliations should be publicly self-identified. There is also an article in the Telegraph [40] which suggests that Loughner may possibly instead have occult beliefs, again raising doubts about his 'atheism'.

In any case, WP:BLPCAT indicates that religious beliefs should only be referred to in BLP articles where this is relevant to the subjects' notability, and as yet there has been no evidence offered that Loughners beliefs (or lack thereof) have any such relevance. I'd appreciate advice on this issue, as the debate appears to be somewhat at a stalemate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• This article definitely needs to be watched by BLP-aware editors. Kelly ^hi! 02:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't have an overall view, but would point out that BLPCAT does not apply here, since the issue is not about applying a category tag. --FormerIP (talk) 02:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The CAT tag is in the article. In any case, it needs to be established the Loughners atheism is (a) properly sourced, and (b) relevant to the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The CAT should definitely be removed then, but without prejudice to article content. Agree with (a) and (b). A question of looking at the source and on what basis the claim is made. If the source does not state it as known fact then it should not be included. --FormerIP (talk) 02:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

There are now three news articles that say or quote others as saying he's an atheist. [41]. I'd say CBS/AP is a trustable source.--Protostan (talk) 02:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The one source that itself has a reference (in this case, an unquoted assertion by classmates/neighbors) that he is an atheist is the same Telegraph article that surmises he may be involved with the occult. The CBS and Guardian articles both just say that he is an atheist, without any sort of apparent basis or attribution. I cannot find any references other than the Telegraph article that anyone has stated that he is an atheist, and he has not himself in any known materials. My other issue is that the Views section starts off with "Loughner, an atheist," which to me would require an even higher burden of proof than is given, as it presents itself as certain fact. (E.g., I would assume a lower burden of proof for a statement like "Classmates described him as an atheist.") Flodded (talk) 02:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Can we just leave the article as it is for now and resume this in the morning? --Protostan (talk) 02:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course not. Misleading statements in Wikipedia BLPs should be corrected immediately. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

There's no such thing as "in the morning" on the internet. --FormerIP (talk) 02:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I was writing to Flodded. --Protostan (talk) 02:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Protostan, it's obviously worse to have bad information than to have a lack of information, especially when it's questionable whether it's really all that relevant. I suggested a compromise change on the article talk page: 'How about we remove the ", an atheist," from the first sentence, and change "Classmates noted that Loughner was critical of religion." to read "Classmates said Loughner was an atheist and noted that he was critical of religion."', but there has been no reply to the suggestion. If you want to "leave this", then I would ask that you go along with this proposal until the matter is fully sorted out. Flodded (talk) 02:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

How about "both the associcated press and classmates have said Loughner was an atheist and critical of religion."? --Protostan (talk) 02:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

That makes no sense. It's not encyclopedic to state that a newspaper has reported someone's religious beliefs (or lack thereof), unless we are commenting on the newspaper, or on the accuracy of the newspaper's report (which we are here, but not in the article obviously.) Flodded (talk) 02:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok so long as that's all you change on the atheism matter it sounds ok for the time being. --Protostan (talk) 02:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd assume AP are basing their assertions on the same sources as everyone else - the ex-classmates (they seem to be talking about Loughner as they knew him 3 years or so ago). You have still not said why you think this is relevant to the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

There is no evidence the AP is getting this information from his friends of three years ago. --Protostan (talk) 02:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

It's been changed along those lines now, so we have some progress. :) Flodded (talk) 03:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Can I point out that the object of me raising this issue here was to get some guidance on policy? This isn't the best place for negotiations to go on, especially if they only involve some of those involved in the debate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe my de-indented statement below is reasonable as to a "reboot" to clarify what we need guidance on, and anyone with a differing viewpoint ought to reply to that statement and stay away from this over-indented jumble. (Of course, your original simple question "Is it normal to report the religious affiliation of suspects of criminal investigations in Wikipedia articles?" stands.) Flodded (talk) 03:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the facts need to be laid out more simply to get away from the clutter above. The matter, obviously, is whether or not Jared Loughner should be described as an atheist. There are three options: either describe him outright as is the current case ("Loughner, an atheist, [...]" at the beginning of the "Views" section in the article), note that other people have stated that he is an atheist, or not include the information at all unless it is better sourced.

The current information comes from three sources: The Guardian, which in an article titled "Gabrielle Giffords shooting: Jared Loughner may have been influenced by occult" states "[Classmates and neighbours] said he was an atheist" but without quoting anyone; from CBS, which describes him as "An ardent atheist" but without any sort of references or obvious rationale; and from The Guardian, which states that he "stood out as a vigorous atheist" again without references or rationale. He has NOT identified himself as an atheist in any known sources.

So, the question is, which of the three options is best supported by this currently available material? I think an outright description is absolutely not supported, and I lean away from the middle option of stating others describing him as an atheist, but I would leave that for more experienced editors to decide. Flodded (talk) 02:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Since nobody has provided evidence which meets the requirements of WP:BLPCAT regarding self-identification and evidence of relevance, I've now removed the category 'American Atheists' from the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Spec Richardson

This biographical article reads like bad sportswriting, a diatribe repeating the often-pressed opinion that Spec Richardson was a poor general manager for trading away Joe Morgan and John Mayberry.

Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a sports column by the local columnist-"sportswriter" trying to rehash the point that Spec Richardson traded away a lot of talent and regularly got the bad end of his trades. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.159.231.208 (talk) 05:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know enough about the topic to comment on accuracy, but Richardson appears to be notable for making bad trades. However, the sourcing definitely needs tightening, and I would recommend removing anything salvageable to the talk page for discussion and reducing this article to a stub if sources aren't added. Viriditas (talk) 05:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I would agree, and also the issue should be brought to the baseball project talk page so that other baseball specialists can look into it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Trading away a future Hall-of-Famer is always one of those "seemed like a good idea at the time" kinds of things. In Bull Durham, Annie talks about the Reds trading Frank Robinson to the Orioles for Milt Pappas. And there's the genius with the Chicago Cubs who sent Lou Brock to Cardinals in exchange for an old pitcher. The all-time worst deal, though, has to be the Boston Red Sox selling Babe Ruth to the New York Yankees, a deal that would haunt the Red Sox for 86 years. All the more exasperating is that the Red Sox knew what they had, and they still let him get away. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Vito Roberto Palazzolo : Violation of BLP policy

Vito Roberto Palazzolo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Dear Wikipedia Editors:

I wish to draw to your attention that Don Calo continues to distort and manipulate the article on Vito Roberto Palazzolo.

As reflected at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vito_Roberto_ Palazzolo&action=history, at 4h36 on 10 January, the article was elaborated (revision 407013776), to reflect two December decisions of courts, one in South Africa, and one in Italy, At 13h47 that same day Don Calo undid the change.

As stated in my earlier complaint, Don Calo has effectively taken control of the article and in the course of last year was in the practice of immediately undoing each and every change made to the article. Essentially, Don Calo does not allow any other Wikipedia user to make inputs, which he maintains in a manner that is unbalanced, one-sided and defamatory, contrary to Wikipedia policy. I repeat my request that the articles be, in terms of the Biography of Living Persons policy, deleted until a full investigation is conducted.

Sincerely,

Mallard11 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mallard11 (talk • contribs) 09:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

This article does look less than neutrally written. Just looking at the lead. The chap was found not guilty of being a member of the Mafia, although he was found to colluded with them. Yet the article seem to spin the sources with "He is assumed" (by whom?) and "he is alleged". The facts may be verifiable and referenced here, but there does look like a degree of negative spin. That's just a cursory look.--Scott Mac 10:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Pooky Quesnel

was born in 1964 - i was in the same year as her in 6th form college - think I would say she was from Ellesmere Park as well not Eccles —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.195.121.37 (talk) 15:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

unfortunately we need external sources for such information, and though I'm not suggesting you are incorrect, we can't really accept statements without verification. Having said that, I'll look into this further though, as the article doesn't seem to cite sources properly anyway. Thanks for raising this, in any case. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Since the birth date given in the article was also unsourced, I have removed the contested information. Active Banana (^bananaphone 16:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Insert non-formatted text here

• Off-topic on this page, but I think the article is a candidate for deletion. Just because someone works in the entertainment field does not make them "notable" even if they are automatically reported on by "reliable sources." Steve Dufour (talk) 16:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I followed my own suggestion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pooky Quesnel. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Use of primary sources

Is it appropriate to use citations to primary sources such as was done in this edit[42]. Is findmypast.com a suitable source? Active Banana (^bananaphone 16:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

There was a big discussion at the EL noticeboard recently about a similar website Find a grave and the result was no - not reliable for personal details. The discussion might be worth a read Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#Find_a_Grave_and_Imbd - As I suspected, its being used quite a bit - 618 links to it, personally I would never use it, IMO it's WP:OR and investigative reporting, with no guarantee that it is actually the subject of the article. Perhaps the question is better at the WP:RSN - Off2riorob (talk) 16:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh this appears to be a very different site. The problem with Find-A-Grave is crowd sourcing, therefore reliability. You are correct of course that using the source properly is important, but that is true of finding (say) new articles about a person and not ensuring that it is the same person. Given a reasonably good combination of age, name and locality it should be a reliable source. For John Smith, London, 1962 no good, but for Tamsin Outhwaite, 1970, Ilford it would be pretty robust source. Rich Farmbrough, 18:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC).

Paul Gardner Allen

Resolved

 – Removed as per this request and these citations - Off2riorob (talk) 23:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Paul Gardner Allen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Paul Gardner Allen's bio on his wiki page indicates that he is a director of Charter Communication. However, he no longer is. This can be verified by looking at the Charter Communication Corporate Governance Page.[43]

Additionally, this can be verified using Bloomberg business week. [44]— Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.57.189.125 (talk • contribs)

• - Thanks for the nudge - Off2riorob (talk) 23:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Louis Zorich

Resolved

 – Pending protection applied by User:Dabomb87

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

Louis Zorich's ethnicity is continuously being changed from Croatian to Serbian. I have sourced the fact that he is Croatian, yet someone keeps changing it to Serbian without any citation whatsoever. I have also put this issue on the noticeboard in the past, and the editors have tried to put a stop. Yet after several weeks the person comes back and makes the change back to "Serbian" again. Please help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grabovcan (talk • contribs) 17:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• - User is a dynamic Serbian IP comes and goes every few weeks, Wikipedia:Pending changes - level 1 would stop him and yet still allow unconfirmed IPs to contribute. Off2riorob (talk) 18:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I have made the request for pending page protection. Active Banana (^bananaphone 20:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Ganas Community

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

I been worried about Ganas Article since an ANI where two opposing SPAs were locking horns (Background at MEDCAB case where one is highly distressed). Last Week I finally gotten around to adressing the NPOV issues and have been diving into to it to conform to WP:BLP due to the their meeting the WP:BLPGROUP implications. As a group of a hundred close-knit commune members would feel the impact of our article more than employees of Walmart might feel. The Pro-Ganas ediotr has departed while the other seems to working on Civil POV Push Campaign against Ganas.

The repeated insertion of separate criticism/controversy section (most recent incarnation) is particularly concerning. It duplicates much of the material expanded upon in other sections only repeated more POV language.

My most serious concern is the allegation Immigration fraud that is repeatedly inserted, which even sources cited seemtotreat dubiously writing it to have lawsuits come back on the people they're quoting. Given Immigration fraud is felony and as far as I can tell there has never been a investigation for such allegations (much less a conviction). Which seems make the allegations are the more dubious to me.

SImliar allegations of Rape by a member (who is Living person) is repeatedly inserted as well despite similar circumstances (no investigation, or conviction). In fact these allegation only were reported at trial of a member who had shot one of the core members.

I would like some extra eyes and opinions on this. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Another addition I Just removed was "The 2006 shooting incident at the commune prompted questions about whether Feedback Learning might have the effect of driving some participants "insane" through invasive group examinations of their personal affair. It was not even backed up (or even implied) by the source. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

More Removed quote "Ganas has dismissed its critics as "mentally unstable" and "crackpots" The source London times describes the individual in question as unstable But does no use the term crackpot and while this one doesnt either The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

My mistake multi page aritcle but still serious on the first part the sentence The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding The Resident Anthropologist most serious concern: No one but RA has used the term immigration fraud which is only felony if the act is completed. The allegations made are of pressure to engage in green-card marriages, and this allegation is made by 3 separate and named people. Of course there would be no investigation or conviction of pressure to engage in a green-card marriage. WP:BLP requires contentious allegations be well-sourced and these are. Several editors including myself have made a lot of progress with this article with the helpful moderation of WikiDao and we would like to continue doing so. After much hard work reaching consensus The Resident Anthropologist has twice made major revisions without warning or consultation, undermining weeks of toil by others. We would all like extra eyes and opinions on this. Eroberer (talk) 02:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

RA's BLPGROUP concerns are valid, but there is also a lot of well-sourced controversy that merits mention in the article. I do not think those issues should be whitewashed, but presented in a balanced and nonsensationalistic way. There has been a fair amount of COI editing, but that presently seems under control and within reason. The article has been making progress lately, but more involvement by editors experienced with sensitive BLP/BLPGROUP issues would be great. WikiDao ☯ 20:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Jimmy Adams (golfer)

Resolved

Jimmy Adams (golfer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Is not a living person. He passed away in 1986. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewJFulker (talk • contribs) 00:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Cat removed, reference for year of death added. --Cyclopia^talk 01:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Ambarish Srivastava

The article is being used to post the resume of an individual. It was deleted at AfD, and subsequently overturned at DRV. As the original nominator of the AfD, I will say that borderline notability was shown at DRV, although I'm not entirely convinced it should survive another AfD. Main problem is that photos of buildings he's supposedly constructed are put up on his blog and used as references and so on. Most of the references are local interest pieces in the local section of a regional newspaper, nothing more. But there is claim of an award, the Indira Gandhi Priyadarshini Award which is referenced. However, I'm not sure receiving this award makes him notable (shouldn't be confused with the Indira Gandhi Prize). But eitherways, I'm bringing it here since basically the same content of spamming his online poetry publications and such is becoming a recurring problem and hopefully someone with some time at hand can clean up the article. —SpacemanSpiff 11:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Opinion columns

Are newspaper opinion columns acceptable sources for BLP material, either to support facts or for praise/criticism of the subject? (The articles that prompted me to ask are Peter Munk and Richard Littlejohn). January ^(talk) 13:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Other than the bare facts, which one can usually rely on them to report accurately, no newspaper article is balanced. The way that things are phrased and the choice of words used present a POV. This is particularly true with opinion pieces. OTOH LittleJohn is indeed very effective in presenting himself as an ignorant, xenophobic, nutjob, quite possible the original tw@-O-tron and poster child for all those parodied by it. John lilburne (talk) 13:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Take it easy, attacking living people like that John or you may find your editing privileges restricted. In fact just don't do it again or I will report you and request restrictions on you myself' Off2riorob (talk) 14:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, opinion articles are generally not reliable for facts, and I would say they should never be used to support BLP claims (especially if those claims are the least bit contentious). Here's what WP:RS says on the matter: "When taking information from opinion pieces, the identity of the author may be a strong factor in determining reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint than the opinions of others. When using opinion pieces it is necessary to attribute the information to the author, and not to assert it as fact." Qwyrxian (talk) 13:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Mickey Rooney

At the end of the section on Rooney's Personal Life, there are a few lines that do not seem relevant and are also grammatically incorrect. They appear to have been added out of spite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.219.65.226 (talk) 20:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Deleted. Jonathanwallace (talk) 20:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Michael Gove

Resolved

 – the usual type vandalism - removed

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

Offensive material has been added to introduction

Vandalism, now deleted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

David Werner

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

Forgive me if I'm posting this in the wrong place as I'm not super active here and a not positive on the protocols. I'm seeking some help from folks interested in biographies to provide outside input to the David Werner article.

David Werner is an important figure in international health, but a controversial one as he left the organization he founded amid allegations of sexual abuse. When I found his page, it appeared (to me) very promotional in nature and contained no references to these allegations. I updated the page in an attempt to make it more neutral and to provide references regarding the allegations. Someone has come along to remove any references to the allegations, even though these references are cited in mainstream news articles and are also cited using Werner's own writing. I don't think I'm the appropriate person to get into a back and forth with this person as I am connected with an organization that David Werner once was involved with. So I'd be grateful if someone more neutral would be willing to take a look at the history of this article.

An additional note is that the person who most recently edited the article (to remove any references to the allegations) appears to be a staff member at David Werner's organization: (Staff list here: http://www.healthwrights.org/hw/who-we-are)

--Bayradical (talk) 20:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLP covers all parts of Wikipedia. Your inclusion of an unsourced accusation against a living person is a serious breach of that. However, sources do exist:[45][46]. DO NOT make such claims, even on talk pages and noticeboards, without a citation to support them! Fences&Windows 23:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure the claim belongs in the article. The claim was made in one syndicated Knight-Ridder article and there never seem to have been criminal proceedings. Fences&Windows 23:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Not commenting on whether the allegation in the article would be undue weight or not, but I found lengthy newspaper articles detailing the allegations in The San Jose Mercury, The Dallas Morning News (Jan 8 1995) and The Washington Post (Dec 17 1994). Kevin (talk) 23:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there are multiple reliable, mainstream sources about his departure from Hesperian. There was a series of articles in the San Jose Mercy in late 1994 and early 1995, some reprints elsewhere, the Washington Post article, and one in the Chicago Tribune in 1999[47] also reprinted elsewhere. I don't think the biography can be complete or NPOV without mentioning this period of his life, briefly and unsensationally. --Slp1 (talk) 00:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Kalimba (singer)

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

Could a couple willing editors take a look at and monitor Kalimba (singer)? An IP is inserting some very contentious accusations only supported by sites such as Hollywood Reporter and Digital Spy. In addition, they are attempting to double the size of the article with the allegations, which even if they were supported by iron-clad sources, would be a case of WP:UNDUE. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Note there is discussion on the talk page. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

contentious accusations? The guy has an arrest warrant, 2 girls have declared he has raped them, every serious newspaper in Mexico is reporting about it, and you still call it contentious? What kind of evidence are you looking for here, sworn statements? I'm adding them back in, Wikipedia Spanish has them, so why shouldn't they be here? 201.174.49.50 (talk) 22:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

note Just because the content is on another wikipedia is irrelevant as to whether or not they are included here WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - kind of explains, but basically different wikis have different guidelines and local standards and such. Off2riorob (talk) 15:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• Update: The information has been added by another IP, sourced only to foreign language websites and the Perez Hilton gossip site. Could the the additions please be reviewed here as I have to log out for (likely) the remainder of the day and won't be able to monitor the content. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 23:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

It's El Universal, the newspaper with the biggest circulation numbers in Mexico, EsMas.com, property of Televisa, the biggest TV empire in Mexico, and CNN.com. It doesn't get more authoritative than that. 201.174.49.50 (talk) 02:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The addition that you made was against at least a couple of our policies and guidelines and I have trimmed the content back a little more also. It's only an arrest warrant - there is easily a case in an encyclopedic life story to wait to see if there are any charges or even actually wait until there is a conviction worthy of actually reporting. As in - in 2011 so and so was accused of rape but it turned out he didn't do it - is the sort of low level reporting we should be avoiding adding to our articles about living people. Off2riorob (talk) 16:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Talk pages

Is it appropriate for an editor to refactor a talk page discussion to remove assertions of criminality, when the assertion of criminality is relevant to the discussion? In other words, if he didn't do it, no article, and if he did do it, probably article? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The talk pages in question, so far, are Talk:Jared Lee Loughner and Talk:2011 Tucson shooting. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I think at this point stating that is stating fact, which means it cannot violate BLP; otherwise, we would have to remove all references of Charles Manson's crimes from his page, etc. Toa Nidhiki05 22:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Manson was found guilty. Otherwise, his page would say that he was "charged with" x, y and z and the result of the trial. Instead, as a result of the trial, have a look at what Charles Manson actually says. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

What you're essentially arguing is that Wikipedia should always trust the court system; if that is so, then we should remove all 'contentious' accusations against ruthless dictators from their pages. This man is guilty, and it is so widely sourced it is ridiculous. Toa Nidhiki05 22:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I am saying is that the material is contentious and unsourced. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I am bowing out of this discussion at this point, unless directly questioned. The material on Talk:Jared Lee Loughner has been restored by another editor. I am leaving it in the capable hands of this noticeboard. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Same here. Who's next? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Kate Hudson

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

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

After a lot of editing, the last of which was done by me, the following sentence is in the Hudson article: "On January 12, 2011, press reports based on unnamed sources said that Hudson is 14 weeks pregnant and expecting a child with Bellamy." I started a new section on the Talk page because I don't think the sentence should be in the article at all. Two gossip magazines (reasonably reputable, though) report the same thing, but both say it's based on anonymous sources. The story is now in lots of periodicals, but they are all repeating what Us Weekly first said (the LA Times said the US Weekly first reported it) I believe without more concrete information, the sentence should go. I just started the "discussion" on the Talk page, so no one has had an opportunity to respond, but my preference is to remove the sentence pending the discussion rather than the other way around. Am I being too cautious? What do others think?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

As such it's a single, short sentence and it is crystal clear that it's press reports based on unnamed sources, if it's in a lot of WP:RS it could stay per WP:WELLKNOWN. --Cyclopia^talk 16:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The press may record sensationalist rumours about celebrities from unnamed sources, encyclopedias do not. There's no rush here. Either the pregnancy will be confirmed, in which the prior rumours will not be notable. Or it will turn out to be false, in which case 10 months from now do you really think we'll say "there were some unattributed rumours of a pregnancy, and they turned out to be false." Either way, these rumours are not notable for an encyclopedia - and we NOT a newspaper that we need to be breaking news, even when the news may be unreliable.--Scott Mac 16:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Totally support this position, BLP requires a degree of responsibility in what we report, an unnamed claim of such a thing is encyclopedic-ally (long term) totally valueless. As Scott says, she will either have it or not, or she will confirm it or not, until l either of those things happen such speculative personal content is unworthy of inclusion in any BLP. I removed it, also from Matthew Bellamy BLP. Crikey, its getting like a celeb mag here.Off2riorob (talk) 17:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

My position is that if a rumour is covered by many multiple RS (provided they are RS), the existence of the rumour oughts to be reported: putting our fingers in our ears is 1)useless to the protection of the subject (it is already out there and 2)we don't make unencyclopedicity evaluations based on our tastes, we follow the sources. That something is possibly not true is not a reason not to include, provided that it is marked with the correct context; after all we have hoaxes with their own articles. WP:WELLKNOWN covers notable allegations. --Cyclopia^talk 19:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Use of partisan blog as reliable source to describe living person (Palin)

In the article Public image of Sarah Palin, there is this statement: "She promoted the Facebook posting with a tweet that urged her followers, 'Don't Retreat, Instead - RELOAD!'". The cited source is Talking Points Memo, which says the following about itself:

“ Talking Points Memo is the flagship blog of TPM Media LLC, which also publishes TPMmuckraker, TPMDC, TPMtv and TPMCafe....Commentary on political events from a politically left perspective, by Joshua Micah Marshall. ”

As far as I can tell, a source like that should not be used to support any statement of objective fact in Wikipedia, never mind a BLP. According to WP:RS:

“ "Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news outlets host interaInsert non-formatted text herective columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control....Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field.... ”

Editors at the talk page for the Palin image article are insisting on using this source in the way I've described, which seems messed up. Any thoughts?Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

It's a Polk-award winning news site. its reliable. Merrill Stubing (talk) 16:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

George Polk Awards - they are not mentioned here? That award seems to for individuals? Josh Marshall was the recipient of the award for reporting of one topic, that does not make him an automatic reliable source - its a blog, an opinionated blog. here it is written by Jillian Rayfield who is not the winner of the Polk award, not that it would make any difference anyways. Off2riorob (talk) 16:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

TPM describes itself as: "Commentary on political events from a politically left perspective, by Joshua Micah Marshall." That's not acceptable for a wp:blp, and I don't believe they're a reliable source for anything other than their opinion per wp:rs. jæs (talk) 17:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Note: if Diane Sawyer spray-paints a message in the subway, that doesn't make the graffiti a RS, even though she's a respected journalist.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

In this case, it might be more productive to find a better source. Here is the BBC, Tucson Citizen (a newsblog), the Washington Post, CBS (though possibly an editorial), and about 8000 more on Google news. It's not worthwhile to debate the quality of sources for widely reported uncontentious facts - just replace a dubious source with a better one. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The article needs more eyes, not just to replace sketchy sources with good ones, but to keep NPOV. Right now, we've got editors skewing the article badly, distorting the sources, and even pitting the actor Donald Sutherland against simple news from the Washington Post.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Its there on twitter.com: http://twitter.com/sarahpalinusa/status/10935548053 No need to cite to Talking Points. Jonathanwallace (talk) 18:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The editors there have insisted that TPM is fine, and I'm not going to edit-war about it. I hope others will get involved, because theres a whole lotta POV-pushing goin' on. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Actors comments on radio station

Yes, Sarah Palin seems to divide America in half - wiki editors seemingly as well. User:Sayerslle has added this - very accusatory comment from an actor alleging a Palin has committed a crime - at least inciting others to violence is a crime in the UK. - Awful addition imo - are we to quote anything said by such unqualified people? I would also say the citation being used to support the comment is basically a primary as it is Sutherland talking himself and imo unless he has been independently reported the comment has no assertion of notability -

• - A critic, the actor Donald Sutherland, put the deprecative view: "Putting a target on Miss Giffords' district, excuse me, I'm sorry, but there's something called 'inciting to violence'; if you participate in those violent metaphors, you put stuff in a soup, it changes the flavour of the soup." <ref> Sutherland, speaking on the [[Richard Bacon (TV presenter)|Richard Bacon]] Show, BBC 5 Live, 13 January 2011. </ref>

• • (ec)It is a huge leap from what Sutherland said to saying he accused Palin of a crime. "A critic, the actor Donald Sutherland, put the deprecative view:" is not great context though, let his words speak for him, (which they do) not ours, "Actor Donald Sutherland, on the BBC 5 Live Richard Bacon radio chat show said:" gives some context - Sutherland is an actor, not a politician or pundit, it's a chat show, not a serious discussion programme like "Moral Maze". Our only editorial decision should be whether it's significant to the article. Rich Farmbrough, 18:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC).
    
    • Ohio laws and rules - 2917.01 Inciting to violence - Off2riorob (talk) 19:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what 'unqualified' means - democracy - from the ancient greek demos , people, kratos, power, - power of ordinary, unqualified , people, to speak, argue, say things without fear of being threatened with talk of thought 'crimes' - I prefer it to an endless stream of the demagogue-Palin's propaganda which you probably feel happier with off2riorob. Sayerslle (talk) 18:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I care less either way, but I don't like what appear to me to be opinionated attacking comments from liberal leaning pro obama and pro health care actor on some English radio station in discussion with a comedian type radio host. Its just an educationally and informative valueless attack imo. From your comments the fact that it is attacking Palin appears to be the reason you have added it.Off2riorob (talk) 19:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Has his comment been considered noteworthy enough to have been reported in any independent reports? Off2riorob (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

He only just said it. why do you feel so threatened by this?Sayerslle (talk) 19:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't like to see such opinionated attacking additions added to BLP articles, thats all. It is hard to verify, you just listened to it, so clearly no one else has reported it..apart from wikipedia - what is the content it was said in? The link says he was responding to Obama speech at the memorial service, the program was two hours long, http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00xcfgl at what time period does he say this? I would like to access the show to listen to the comments. Off2riorob (talk) 19:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

If you go to the link you have noted above, and listen from say minute 66 to 74 I think that would cover the interview. The 'soup' quote came at 15:12 hrs UK time, so ,minute 72 of the 120. Theres seven days left it says on the link above to listen to the show. Though Richard Bacon is not a political heavyweight journalist, he is well informed on american politics, not a joker, , he was in Chicago the night Obama got elected. Sayerslle (talk) 19:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)