Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 20:21, 2 April 2012

Skip to table of contents

Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.

Shortcuts

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.

Rush Limbaugh

Does it violate BLP to describe this individual as antifeminist, sourced to Men & Masculinities (ABC-CLIO), Postmodern Texts and Emotional Audiences (Purdue University Press), American Culture in the 1990s (Edinburgh University Press), Listening In (University of Minnesota Press), ..., ...? User:Arzel claims that it's a BLP violation, but I pointed out that BLP specifically and repeatedly talks about unsourced or poorly sourced information about living people, not any information about living people with which a user may personally disagree, and that these academic sources (in addition to the news and mass-market sources also available) are thus more than adequate. Arzel prefers "critic of feminism," which does not seem to appear in any sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all - such a description is almost certainly an opinion and, as such, citable only as the opinion of the person holding it. Second - your first source ("The Piano ...") is an opinion piece in the first place, and only makes the claim as a parenthetical aside - not a specific claim of the author. The second source makes a parenthetical assertion about a "typical anti-feminist tirade" which is clearly "opinion" and also clearly not a specific claim about Limbaugh. The third source is even more clearly an opinion piece - calling Limbaugh a "male hysteric" which I doubt would pass muster as a claim in any BLP. Thus we have clearly opinion pieces being cited as though they were facts - which is contrary to WP:BLP ab initio. Just as we can not call Limbaugh an "obnoxious bigot" just because someone in Worcester called him one [1]. Collect (talk) 14:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at the sources again and then retract your false claim that they are opinion pieces. It's really not very collegial to waste people's time by making these sorts of claims. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please retract your "false claim" that I did not read the "sources." If one can not note that they are stating opinion and not fact there is little reason for this noticeboard to exist. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:36, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When "opinions" are stated by academic source after academic source after academic source (after news source after mass-market source), we commonly treat them as "facts." Unless it's also "just an opinion" that, I don't know, Barack Obama is liberal. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obama called his mom an "unreconstructed liberal" (in "The Audacity of Hope") but has not self-identified as "liberal." With his sometimes contradictory stances, I suspect that the simple term would vastly over-simplify his positions. I fully think he viewed "Obamacare" as a pragmatic solution to the medical cost problem, rather than as an ideological solution thereto. Collect (talk) 16:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You could use your "academic source" to say "Limbaugh is a 'male hysteric'" - which I quite suggest is not a "fact" but an "opinion." Or the Worcester Telegram to say "Limbaugh is 'an obnoxious bigot'". I suggest others can see that such are "opinions" and only "opinions." BTW, arguing with bearers of bad news does not improve the news they brought <g>. Collect (talk) 15:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like the words of a great sage are pertinent here: "Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man". All joking aside, there is a preponderance of reliable sources which indicate that Limbaugh is, and considers himself to be, an antifeminist. We do have him to thank for the term Feminazi after all. a13ean (talk) 16:03, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your mind is made up <g> - but that is not the purpose of this noticeboard. The aim here is to follow WP:BLP to the letter. IIRC "feminazi" is an "extreme or militant feminist" per Merriam-Webster. Opposing "extreme feminism" is not precisely the same as "antifeminist." Use of the term antedates Limbaugh per [2] 4 July 1989 in LA Times. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:14, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fear you have misunderstood my comment. I could care less about the article and have never edited it, but I do believe that there are sufficient reliable sources to merit a mention in his BLP. I similarly did not claim that he coined the term, but without his popularization of it, it wouldn't be notable. a13ean (talk) 16:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Ayers has been described as a Terrorist by many many reliable sources. Do we label him as such in his article? No. Assume a different deragatory straw man term and see if you feel differently. "Rush Limbaugh, a noted drug abuser, said....." I think it is clear that this is a BLP violation. Arzel (talk) 17:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Our article doesn't call Bill Ayers a "terrorist", but it does correctly state (in the lead) that he founded a "communist revolutionary organization that conducted a campaign of bombing public buildings". By way of analogy, it seems reasonable to detail the antifeminist positions Limbaugh has taken over the years—most recently, his stated belief that women interested in insurance coverage of contraception are "sluts" and "prostitutes" who should be compelled to submit footage of their sexual encounters to him as the price of access to contraception. But it's probably unnecessary to use the term "antifeminist" directly, as that would be inflammatory and a matter of "opinion". MastCell ^Talk 21:08, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Just the facts ma'am. Lets just stick to the facts.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a BLP violation. Funny thing about these discussions -- some people conjure up "BLP violations" out of their own worries that a term like "anti-feminist" is negative, when in all likelihood Limbaugh himself would consider "anti-feminist" a badge of pride. In any event, if the academic studies in question are not merely voicing an opinion but have some sort of systematic approach to descriptive labels of this sort, then it's perfectly fine to note their use of the term. If it's merely a gratuitous label, then perhaps not -- so it's a matter of assessing how the judgement is being made in their work. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its absolutely going to be undue as suggested in the lede as desired by User:Binksternet - diff - especially as its a political position and the articles a biography. Its aggressive labeling in the lede. Whenever you see cite farms like this, Limbaugh is considered as an antifeminist[44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51] - with opinions presented as if fact you know theres a POV attempting to be asserted. All such attempts as this, to present opinions as if facts and in an undue opinionated partisan way are the worst kind of violations of WP:BLP - and WP:NPOV - This comment, in all likelihood Limbaugh himself would consider "anti-feminist" a badge of pride. from User:Nomoskedasticity is imo a violation of BLP even on a talkpage. Youreallycan 17:15, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good thing it's just your opinion, then. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Utter nonsense, he is quite clearly an antifeminist and proud of it. No need to mention the word in the lead we can just note that he has criticized feminism and the women's movement in general. In the article body it is a nobrainer to include it. Perhaps even note that he has been frequently been referred to as a misogynist. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again - please consider removing your interpretation of the subjects opinions against BLPtalk - He holds views strongly supported in the conservative movement such as ....bla bla is the position to report. Youreallycan 21:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have considered it as much as I am going to.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rob, why do you try to prove a negative point by linking to a calm and considered talk page entry from me? You say, "as desired by" me but then you ignore the fact that I proposed putting "antifeminist" in the lead section while developing same in the article body. You then point to Paintedxbird's eight citations in a row as an example of "a POV attempting to be asserted" but I see this instance as the opposite: an easily supported statement that has been opposed by entrenched reactionaries, and in response the "farm" of citations is inserted by Paintedxbird to show how out of touch are the reactionaries. Binksternet (talk) 23:23, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on making a post which quite proves YRC's point. I would commend you to read WP:NPOV and also WP:TRUTH at this point. And try a glance at WP:PIECE while you are at it. Cheers and have a cup of tea. And refrain from refactoring words of others, and when they complain - follow the advice to undo your refactoring. Collect (talk) 23:31, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your logic escapes me. Ciao. Binksternet (talk) 18:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

+1. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Collect and Youreallycan in that it violates BLP to use the term 'antifeminist' in the article to label Rush Limbaugh. Rather than forcing one opinion conclusion or another on the Wikipedia article reader, the article needs to be an WP:NPOV account of Limbaugh's life that allows the reader draw their own conclusions, such as whether Limbaugh is hostile to sexual equality or to the advocacy of women's rights. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Undue weight for that to be a primary descriptor, as Limbaugh is a lot of things. Further, although there is no doubt that he is against feminism, it is a matter of opinion to say whether he is for or against women, or for or against equal rights for women, or whether feminism is the same as equal rights for women. If I read that he was an antifeminist I would take that literally, that he is against feminists, which is no doubt true. He calls them Nazis. But others read that to mean that he is against the underlying goal of feminists to bring about better conditions for women, which is a different thing. Those are all political / personal positions. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:54, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A single editor appears to be editing the BLP to increase the weight of controversy sections increasing a negative POV of the subject. This is not keeping with WP:CRIT; additionally the edits have added unnecessary multiple or lengthy quotes, which is not keeping with WP:QUOTEFARM. Assistance and additional opinions are requested, as the editor is not responding significantly on the talk page. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:37, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RightCow removed all quotes, partial or full, in which Rush called Ms Fluke a "slut" or a "prostitute". This act of POV is made even more damning in light of the whitewashing of the defamations by saying Limbaugh's was only being "contentious". The reader would have no idea of why there was any outrage at all. Others may well ask: Who is axe grinding? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 04:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BLP check request

I am proposing that the article Rush Limbaugh – Sandra Fluke controversy be checked against WP:BLP & WP:NPOV. Please see the discussion I have started here. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:14, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries such as:

contentious" is not supported or used by source, but "branding" as a slut is - his apoology is fairly described and the full quote adds nothing, the shamlessness of the defamation can only be understood by a full quote

Appear to validate that a real problem exists. Editors are not supposed to seek to emphasize "shamlessness" in any article, much less in any WP:BLP compliant article. Please folks - check out some of the more incredible edit summaries there <g>. Collect (talk) 19:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Classic ad hominem attack. No issue is made of the RS's, instead the editor's motives are objected to. Only the edits can be called POV, and I haven't seen that argument yet. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 00:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Showing the content of edit summaries is not an "ad hom" attack - it is a fact often used in Wikipedia discussions. If you do not wish to show POV in edit summaries, the best practice is to write edit summaries which do not show a POV. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of biggest box office bombs

Hello! I've been trying to remove claims about living people [3], but I am being reverted by a new user whose main contributions have been to this List of biggest box office bombs. My problem is that the content of the list is not well-defined, so anyone can add any movie to the list if they think it's a bomb and it lost money. To claims like "Eddie Murphy had the biggest contributions to film losses" are completely subjective (not to mention unsourced). But I haven't been able to remove it dispite talk page discussions (see also the discussion at WikiProject Films). Tell me if I'm out of line here; thanks for any comments, or help. Mlm42 (talk) 17:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not claim that Eddie Murphy had the biggest contribution to film losses than any other actor or person in his entire career. It presents that in this specific list Eddie Murphy appears in more bombs than any other actor, and as a result his contribution in total film losses of the movies found in this list only, is the biggest one. It is just statistical information about the list. Clicklander (talk) 18:01, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nonetheless, it is an assertion about a living person, capable of being read as a criticism of him. WP:BLP mandates that any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source. This material has been challenged, and hence must be sourced. If it is unsourceable, as seems likely here, then it must be taken out. Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:09, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For once again, there is no critisism of this or any other person in the article! It is pure statistical data. No source is needed for something is in fact already obvious from the list.Clicklander (talk) 18:22, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you say that "no source is needed"? WP:BLP is a policy which explicitly states that it must be explicitly attributed. Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:27, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because the source is the list itself.Clicklander (talk) 18:31, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Wikipedia article is not a reliable published source: see the sections WP:SPS and WP:CIRCULAR in Wikipedia:Verifiability. Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:43, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it isn´t. But this has nothing to do with statistics. Statistics are summarizing and analyzing what you see on the list. No other additional input is added.Clicklander (talk) 19:39, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then they are original research and synthesis. None of this provides any reason to escape the requirements of policy that these statements must be explicitly attributed. Cusop Dingle (talk) 20:07, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Cusop that the statistics prose is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The analysis itself must be sourced, and because it is apparently drawn from the user-made chart, I highly doubt any such source exists. It doesn't matter that the user-made chart has sourced entries; the use of that sample is WP:SYNTH. If anyone has ever published findings on box office bombs in a reliable source — and I suspect several probably exist — those could perhaps support prose along these lines, but probably not what's currently written. JFHJr (㊟) 20:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess in order to be synthesis it has to come to some conclusions. I do not see any conclusion here. This section presents nothing more than statistical numbers.Clicklander (talk) 20:55, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a never-before-published analysis of a data set created on Wikipedia. The statistics and discussion are WP:OR. "Conclusions" are irrelevant. JFHJr (㊟) 20:58, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I don't get it. How something can be called "research" with no conclusion??Clicklander (talk) 21:17, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I think the rest of us are puzzled by your continuing to maintain that this material is somehow exempt from the policy requirement "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source". Are you saying that this is not material? Or that it has not been challenged? Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I am clear to what I am saying. I never said anything about exemptions. Any information on Wikipedia must have reliable source. If “Statistics” do not have reliable source that means that the list itself does not have reliable source either. Statistics are nothing more than interpretation.Clicklander (talk) 12:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On-wiki interpretation is exactly what's prohibited. That section should be removed. Replace it only with sourced content as to any prose including scope, method, and topic. JFHJr (㊟) 02:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trayvon Martin

-Trayvon Martin, Marijuanna

Im sure many of you are aware of the Trayvon Martin shooting, and its ongoing news story. For several days the article has included that Trayvon was at his fathers house while on suspension from school, which a coulple of (now known to be false) reasons. Today, his parents announced that the reason was a bag containing pot residue. This has been exceptionally widely reported in the media, in relation to the shooting. Some editors (and one admin) have removed this well sourced information, claiming BLP/BDP. BLP itself obviously does not apply as trayvon is dead. BDP I believe does not apply, as the information is exceptionally notable and been reported by practically every RS on the planet, and was originally released by his parents, so the "affects living relatives" portion should not be in force either. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A few relevant links for reference:

VQuakr (talk) 21:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just one of the many news sources reporting on this : "Trayvon Martin was in Sanford the night he was shot to death because he had been suspended from school, and his father wanted to spend time with him" http://miami.cbslocal.com/2012/03/26/pot-blamed-for-trayvon-martins-suspension/ Gaijin42 (talk) 21:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BDP clearly does apply; if there was no source for this information, for example, we would absolutely not include it because content related to BLP's (in this case relatives of the deceased) must adhere to WP:BLP. However, I agree with Gaijin that this content is verifiable. The subject matter also does not constitute original research, provided no speculation about a connection between the suspension and shooting incident is included in the article (none was there as of the most recent edit war). That leaves whether it is neutral to include this information (and by extension editorially favorable to do so but that isn't really within the scope of BLPN). To me this content does appear neutral as well, as it relates to the events that occurred in the days before these two people crossed paths. It is critical that no speculation about direct causality between the suspension and the shooting be included in the article per WP:NOR, and as a topic only tangentially related to the subject of the article this probably only rates the ~2 sentences that were already in the article prior to the removal. Thoughts? VQuakr (talk) 21:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am absolutely ok with avoiding causality as I dont believe it is needed, but if other editors disagree, wouldnt the above quote make it acceptable since the SYNTH/OR was being done by RS? Gaijin42 (talk) 21:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well sufficient RS sources, and since the source is the family itself, I suspect that it is past the "contentious claim" standard as well. The article contains claims about Zimmermen which have less obvious relevance than these about Trayvon. Collect (talk) 21:33, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gaijin, in the article you link to above, the parents express anger that the information about the suspension was made public. What is the basis for your statement that the info was leaked by the family? VQuakr (talk) 21:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I may have misread that the information was _initially_ released by the family. Certainly it could have been leaked from some other source. However, the family has now confirmed it, as per paragraph 2 of that source "Ryan Julison, a spokesperson for Treyvon’s family, confirmed reports that surfaced Monday blaming the suspension on a plastic baggie found in Trayvon’s bookbag.", Once acknowledged by the family, I dont think BDP can apply, although I will admit it is not as clear-cut as it would be if they were the initial source. We have a very cler standard for disparaging information appearing in BLP, about notability and reliability, and this is WAY beyond meeting those standards. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:44, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The confirmation by the family covers the verifiability aspect of the BLP requirement, but everything at WP:BLP still applies (maybe we are using differing connotations of the word "apply")? The aspect of this discussion that is borderline is whether inclusion of this content is neutral, in that it might represent overcoverage since no reliable source has indicated that drugs were a factor in Martin's behavior that night but only were a factor in his presence. VQuakr (talk) 21:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We are using different meanings of apply. Of course the standard (BDP) is applicable, I mean to say none of its clauses are activated in such a way that the information should be prevented. Regarding the undueness, I think there are three facets 1) It is (coincidental) causality as to why he was in sanford. 2) martin was being presented as squaky clean no issues - while certainly not derving being shot, killed (or imo even arrested - LEGALIZE!!!) it does round out the bio of martin and make him into a "normal" kid instead of the hypothetical angel some would portray. 3) Zimmerman mentioned "on drugs" in his call. hopefully we get a toxicology/autopsy which gives us the truth regarding if he was on drugs at the time, but an accusation was made, and there is some level of evidence that trayvon used drugs at least casually. I DO NOT THINK any of the above arguments should actually be made in the article, as they are entirely OR/SYNTH, but we should provide the facts to the reader and allow them to do their own OR/SYNTH. (although point #1 was explicitly made in the linked ref, so should be ok imo). Gaijin42 (talk) 22:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zimmerman mentioned "on drugs" in his call. hopefully we get a toxicology/autopsy which gives us the truth regarding if he was on drugs at the time, but an accusation was made, and there is some level of evidence that trayvon used drugs at least casually. I DO NOT THINK any of the above arguments should actually be made in the article, as they are entirely OR/SYNTH, but we should provide the facts to the reader and allow them to do their own OR/SYNTH. (although point #1 was explicitly made in the linked ref, so should be ok imo); there is no rush - wait for the tox screen, and the inquest results. Without the context you are using Synth to provide editorial support for the content, which is equally not allowed :) --Errant ^(chat!) 00:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything wrong with including this in the article. BLP doesn't apply as the subject is deceased. As for BDP, it does say "However, material about dead people that has implications for their living relatives and friends, particularly in the case of recent deaths, is covered by this policy." However, since the family has publicly confirmed this, that makes BDP moot. And unfortunately, it appears than an admin is abusing their tools to win a content dispute he's directly involved in.[[4]] This probably needs to go to ANI. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies self-reported himself to AN, which I think is exceptionally straightforward and honorable for him to do, and I think any potential abuse can be ignored in light of the minorness. I do think his action should be reversed, and moved back to semi-protection, but I dont think any further action needs to be taken against drmies. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:46, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I didn't realize that he self-reported himself. Thanks for the update. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Throwing my comment in; Drmies acted out of concern for policy rather then taking other worse actions. The fact he used his tools only allowed for discussion and sources, additional arguements and questions of whether not it should be included to be properly made. It clearly was not a selfish act to try and win a content dispute; I don't think any of us would claim it either. I've been a neutral supporter of both sides and certain materials have been turning up that outright attacked Martin. I believe that the fact which was so such a widely reported matter should be included. It establishes the background events which lead up to the fatal shooting. ChrisGualtieri (talk)

I commented on the talk page but:

The reason for suspension is trivial detail - but because it is an illegal thing the media love it. It has no relevance for us though, following good editorial judgement and the standard approach.
- To address a point directly; martin was being presented as squaky clean no issues - while certainly not derving being shot, killed (or imo even arrested - LEGALIZE!!!) it does round out the bio of martin and make him into a "normal" kid instead of the hypothetical angel some would portray - this is not the correct way to attempt this. I agree, the media will portray Martin as squeaky clean, they always done in news stories like this. It is the reason why newspapers are generally poor sources on controversial and divisive issues. The correct way is to cut through the bullshit and report the specific facts of the case, with good editorial judgement. If the article portrays Martin in a non-neutral light, then that is an issue to fix through rework, not faux-"balancing" with bad stuff :)
The Zimmerman history needs to be culled on BLP grounds - per our standard approach of not reporting charges that do not result in convictions unless distinctly notable in their own right. This is the more urgent issue at this time.
The article is a disaster zone of weaselly wording and soapboxing. Case in point, which caused Tracy Martin to further question why Zimmerman was not arrested after shooting and killing an unarmed teenager with no criminal history. I haven't dug into the contribution history yet, but some individuals might need gentle reminders of our basic policy.

Just my thoughts so far. --Errant ^(chat!) 00:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

re zimmerman - I would normally agree with you, but here I think the "squeaky" issue is even stronger. Zimmermans "squeaky clean record" was specifically cited by the police as one of the reasons he was not arrested. As the police have themselves been accused of racism or other bad handling of the case, this is directly relevant to the ongoing controversy. For both martin and zimmerman, its not like either of them were notable in any way to go find unrelated sources. We only know this information because it was reported directly in the context of the case. Yes, if it bleeds it leads, and the media sucks, but if we second guess them to this degree, we should pretty much delete every BLP article out there that is at all controversial. These facts are a major part of the controversy and attention being generated by the media and publicGaijin42 (talk) 01:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The way I would handle that is find sources that say that exact thing, and note it within that section. I wouldn't go into detail though; just a sentence or two referring to past incidents/charges for... whatever. In terms of the rest of your comment; resist the temptation to use biographical detail dug up by the papers, it is not usually of tremendous relevant to the event (as we are not writing a biography). Realistically it would be better to work the biographical material into the event prose - this can be done with a deft hand, and usually makes the unrelated detail more apparent. It's good practice to assume their past life is distinctly irrelevant, unless tied directly to the event by the media - and then it can be recorded in that specific context. --Errant ^(chat!) 01:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gaijin42 (talk) 01:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most of Errant's points are correct, though I see minor mention that your post on the other page made some errors. He was suspended for possession and his father wanted to spend some time with him because of it. He doesn't live with his father, he was visiting and was not familiar face in the neighborhood. While the cause and effect matter are weak, the situation could just be resolved by removing everything not related to the case; including Zimmerman's 2005 arrest and dropping of charges. Getting rid of the bios would go a long way to making sure that we have no need for the suspension reason of pot. Its just easier, cleaner and further away from the media firestorm. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, yes that is the correct approach --Errant ^(chat!) 07:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with placing the information about why he was suspended in the article for the reasons explained by others above. Also, it appears that RS are beginning to report other pejorative information about the kid, including that his Facebook picture is rather more menacing than the picture his family released, comments on his Facebook and Twitter accounts appear to implicate him in drug possession and possible drug dealing, as well as involvement in other violent incidents. I believe all of this is relevant for the article. Cla68 (talk) 06:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't record pejorative information (although the word doesn't mean what you appear to think it means). We do record negative information. But not that, certainly not from news sources, who are of proven tenuous reliability during high profile incidents such as these. "Menacing" pics? Man... --Errant ^(chat!) 07:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So...... what?

Is there a concensus here or not. I've made a proposal Talk:Shooting of Trayvon Martin#Proposal, can people make their opinions known there, so we can decide if something needs to be done. Should I move the whole thing here? Or is this article just going to stay on ice for 2 days? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On removing biographies

I think there is 0 chance this will be successful, and predict the article will have to be semi-permanently fully protected to enforce this. bio information on both participants is everywhere in the media, and in the public consciousness, and is (in my opinion) a deeply integral part of the event and controversy. I personally think the info is valuable, in fact essential to understanding what happened and what peoples motivations/actions may have been - but will abide by the consensus - but the legions of people who come to this article and (don't) see information that is missing will add it all back in. If established editors do it, we can at least have some semblance of balance, NPOV, etc. vs the unwashed masses that will literally destroy this article. All of this information is exceptionally well sourced with coverage from every major news outlet. And you are fooling yourself if you think books, documentaries, dramas, etc are not going to be made about this. (And btw, if "dont use the news" is the standard, about 90% of all event/bio/pop pages should be deleted) BLP and BDP are surpassed by a ridiculous margin. We can have an article that boils down to the essential facts. "George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin." There, that is the entire article. Everything else is about the people, the events leading up to the shooting, etcGaijin42 (talk) 13:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And you are fooling yourself if you think books, documentaries, dramas, etc are not going to be made about this.; I don't mean to be too critical. But if I had a penny for every person that said this every time a media storm gets covered on Wikipedia. For kicks I usually keep track of some of the larger ones - and so far only one (of, say, 10 or so) has actually resulted in "books, documentaries, dramas" - and that was mostly because it came up again and again in the media for several years. I very much doubt this one will join it. You might be taking my advice above to the extreme (if "dont use the news" is the standard, about 90% of all event/bio/pop pages should be deleted); what I usually suggest is critical thinking, careful coverage and a healthy dose of common sense/skepticism when using media sources during a press barrage. --Errant ^(chat!) 22:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other suspensions

NYTimes reports Trayvon was also suspended previously for truancy and graffitti and was found with jewelry and a screwdriver. Would this also be appropriate in the article? Cla68 (talk) 22:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. But I doubt you care much given the way you just re-inserted the previously rejected material on spurious grounds, rather than contribute to the talk page discussion that is trying to figure out how to work the material in appropriately. I recommend reflection on the critical analysis of source material. --Errant ^(chat!) 23:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Errant, personalizing a debate isn't very helpful. One of the reasons the regulars at this board have as much credibility as they do, is because they maintain an objective distance and I appreciate their opinions. Cla68 (talk) 23:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the "do not personalize" misdirection. Snore. Brusqe, certainly. My advice is the usual, that I give to those who (objectively?) are struggling with BLP matters - especially those related to current events. Above you suggested we should post pejorative information about individuals - a troubling stance. And now you have been underhand about restoring the material. This board deals tangentially with behavioural issues; and one piece of advice most commonly given is engage on the talk page. I reiterate that advice. --Errant ^(chat!) 23:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Errant, please don't try to discourage me or anyone else from asking for advice at this board. Cla68 (talk) 00:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was just being grumpy because it was late. But in all seriousness; I think you need to engage in much more depth on the talk page. Sure, solicit input here, but getting a consensus here and then imposing it on the article is only going to cause strife. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's well-sourced and relevent to the article, but you should also include the family's statements that they are trying to tarnish Martin's reputation. Remember, we don't take sides, but we do cover them if we can cite reliable sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well-sourced and relevant. The relevance is essentially that if Martin was smoking marijuana and possessed stolen items -> then he was a "criminal" -> then his account of the altercation might not have been credible and he might have attacked Zimmerman -> then maybe Zimmerman could claim a self-defense shooting. That is a convoluted chain of logic and the relevance is low, but the sources believe it is relevant and so do I. We must remember that BLP applies directly where Zimmerman is concerned - if we take out exculpatory evidence and present this as definitely unjustifiable we're violating that policy. Wnt (talk) 21:27, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Family confirmed suspensions as not media rumors: Although some might wish the suspensions noted with just a few phrases, the family replies which confirm the 3 suspensions did occur, is needed in the article to defuse notions of invented claims. The recent suspension explains why the 17-year-old was in central Florida on a school night, rather than at his home in Miami Gardens (in far south Florida) preparing to attend class the next morning. The prior 2 suspensions explain why the recent suspension was a 10-day suspension. Plus, the mention that other students were involved in the suspension shows that Martin was not "singularly unusual" in being suspended. Hence, there is a lot of text, likely notable, due to coverage in whole reports by both The Miami Herald and The New York Times (27 March 2012, not just a single fringe source). Both reports were complete, so there is not even the need for Wikipedians to combine multiple sources to cite the 3 suspensions, and the confirmation by the parents. Another clear connection to the article is the revelation of school police searching Martin's backpack containing a "large screwdriver" and "12 items of women's jewely" (with "wedding rings") which he said "were not his" in his backpack, then photographed to notify the city police. Such details are not "fringe" or wp:UNDUE as they tie into the incident's themes of drug-use (marijuana) & burglary and police suspicions, as obvious connections for a news story. In general, Wikipedia should only censor non-neutral POV conclusions (such as "gansta lifestyle" or "potential drug dealer"), but allow statements of fact, such as detection of marijuana residue or possession of some unnamed person's jewelry and wedding rings, without concluding: "drug dealer paid with stolen jewelry" (which would be a POV-conclusion). Beware users wanting to remove text as "undue" when it is merely "un-positive" toward one side. -Wikid77 (talk) 11:35, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zhirinovsky's ass

This is an intentional double-entendre and in my view beneath this project. See Template:Did you know nominations/Zhirinovsky's ass, User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#A_DYK_in_the_making.

The article was twice moved to Zhirinovsky's donkey; each time, the move was reverted by Russavia (talk · contribs). Are we really now stooping so low as to want to put blatant BLP violations like this on this project's front page? After we've just had a DYK fiasco? There is an RfC about the rename on the article's talk page, but in my view it should be moved to Zhirinovsky's donkey right now under BLP policy. --JN466 00:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, and I think blocks need to be considered if people (no names) are going to continue being disruptive over the article name. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 00:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The name is fairly trivial (FWIW it doesn't seem to be a BLP problem to me, the point is it's supposed to be a declaiming statement, from Zhirinovsky himself, about Russian politics - so his name is hardly at risk). The actual problem is that the article is written like a joke, and probably presents something of a BLP concern for Proshka. Instead of arguing about the move perhaps efforts would be better devoted to bringing to content more in line with our practices... ? --Errant ^(chat!) 00:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest curtail RM and admin move to WP default donkey Judging by the Russian text which clearly says donkey (which is how Wikipedia describes wikt:donkey), and the mischievous/malicious/non-WP:RS content of the only English source for "ass" in the article, this does a little look to me as a gaming the system to demand a RM. It would do no harm for the move to happen, rather than drag out. Imagine if this was "Obama's ass." We'd move it presto wouldn't we? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In regard to the comment below that the "sources (!) use both "donkey" and "ass"" let's be clear that in Russian there is no pun whatsoever between wikt:donkey and wikt:buttocks. Yes the chap is a fool, publicist, and back in January did in fact (unrelated to the donkey) bare part of his rump for a nurse Жириновский оголил свой зад. Фото, but neither WP:BLP nor WP:DYK exist for editors to claim innocence but restore and insist on an edit for a childish double entendre when non-involved native English-speaker editors have made it clear that the double entendre is not wanted. Someone please put WP first on this. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Proshka. If the article is about the donkey, then it goes under the name of the donkey. If it's about the person and his election campaign it goes under the person. The current title is clearly a BLP violation, and the article itself is WP:UNDUE. In fact the whole thing is a BLP mess. Cusop Dingle (talk) 06:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed - the whole thing is a disgusting POV use of the project in violation of BLP and NPOV, all disguised under the false claim of an April fool joke - all the involved users should be blocked indefinitely. En Wikipedia has zero need of such contributors, they are detrimental to the projects neutral encyclopedic reporting goals. - Youreallycan 07:36, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Guys, the question of the name of the article aside (the sources use both "donkey" and "ass"), some of you apparently simply do not understand what you talk about. Such is the reality of Russian politics, or at least the reality of one Russian politician - Zhirinovsky. This article is about yet another brilliant performance by a political clown, which Zhirinovsky is (everyone in Russia knows that, including Zhirinovsky himself - he produces political scandals every other day and is a star on talk shows and comedy shows; and reliable sources confirm that). With this donkey add and its subsequent discussion he tried to produce as much controversy and fun as possible, and there is no point in reducing it under the pretense of BLP. Zhirinovsky would be happy in getting more attention, and really, tell me, is it normal that a top-level politician swaps ass in the election ad, claims it is a symbol of the country and then discusses it on official TV debates and comedy shows, producing a (very notable) scandal in the media (on the top of multiple scandals he produced in the past)? You could not describe what has been intended to be a joke and controversy concealing the fact that it is a joke and controversy. GreyHood ^Talk 09:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The only English-language source using "Ass" that you have been able to provide is an English text on a Russian website, written by someone with a less than perfect command of English. The New York Times says donkey. --JN466 12:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If Zhirinovsky's campaigns are notorious then, assuming they are noticed by independent reliable sources, we can look forward to an article under a title such as "Political campaigns of ...". Mr Zhirinovsky may or may not be notorious for jokes, but this is an encyclopaedia, not a jokebook. Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per the NY Times, we should use 'donkey'.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have been following this from afar and would like to say that Greyhood's and Russavia's so-called attempts to reliably document internet memes, Polandball et al., and insert this "so-and-so's ass" tripe into serious article space are just a mockery of the project, all the while trying to plead "good faith" and "reliable sources". I don't care who or what their backgrounds are, or who they are affiliated with, this reminds me of another bunch of lolz jokerz who tried to wiki-argue their way around policy. Not saying that they are as organized as GNAA, but the intention, IMHO, is the same, to ridicule Wikipedia and be able to post what they like by consistently quoting wiki-whatever, also known as wikilawyering or gaming the system. FWIW. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 15:39, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure BLPN is the best place for this discussion, but I agree, and direct people to this statement which suggests that there is more to come. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good catch, which just goes to show that there is a serious attempt to ~~pervert~~ deviate Wikipedia's purpose, probably more suitable for an Administrator's noticeboard, given the repetitive nature of the disruption? CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 16:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reese Witherspoon

Resolved

– Ancestry sourcing examined, prose rectified. JFHJr (㊟) 22:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone is asserting that Reese Witherspoon is a descendant of John Witherspoon, signer of the Declaration of Independence. I have repeatedly edited this assertion to something more factual. I do not know who keeps changing the edits. Reese may be related to John Witherspoon the Signer, but she is definitely not a descendant of John, The Signer. What is the difference? To be a descendant, she would be a great(n) granddaughter of the Signer. I have worked with her father to establish the link and he has not or cannot. While it is possible that the two lines of Witherspoons may descend from some common ancestor, this has not been documented. There are two schools of thought about John the Signer being a descendant of John Knox, the reformer. Some Scottish genealogist say yes, others say no. But again, not a documented genealogical fact. As a Witherspoon the Signer descendant, I do have a comprehensive genealogy of his descendants. And I was raised with the John Knox story. I also know that there were several John Witherspoons in the Revolutionary War, and I do suspect that Reese could possibly tie to one of these patriots. But she is categorically not a descendant of John Witherspoon the Signer.

How do we clean up this error in a living persons bio? And ensure it does not sneak in again.

Regards, Jim Alexander, Wiki editor, and Registrar-General, The Society of the Descendants of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Signersbuff (talk • contribs) 00:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for posting here. I've noted that the claim you've referenced has been disputed. I've checked what's available among the sources in question, and I've rectified the article prose according to my understanding of the source itself: the subject claims this descent, but no reliable third party has published anything on her genealogy besides her own claim. I've no doubt the subject believes it, but the sources are reporting her statements about herself. Meanwhile, what you've brought here is original research, as well founded as it might be. It's not enough to do away with any claims altogether, but your challenge alone is enough to merit revision. If you want, feel free to follow up here or on the article talk page. Happy editing! JFHJr (㊟) 04:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A book published in 1877 cannot possibly support a claim about the ancestry of someone born in 1976. I have removed the assertion that she is a descendant of John Knox. She may or may not believe that, but we should not report anything unless and until a reliable source becomes available. Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A book published in 1877 could certainly support a claim of ancestry of someone born in 1976, if other sources can be used to trace back far enough to the people covered in the 1877 book. "Book says X was descended from Y. Other sources say Z is descended from X. WP:CALC Z is descended from Y". Gaijin42 (talk) 16:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Lively

In this edit [5] a living person is being characterized as "trying to harm ... people." This is a serious accusation. Do we need multiple sources as required by WP:WELLKNOWN? – Lionel ^(talk) 02:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marwan Parham

Dear Whom Ever It May Concern,

The information in the biography of MARWAN PARHAM is incorrect on many levels. I am the Managing Director of his company Bliss Inc Entertainment and his personal Manager for his professional DJ career, Marwan AKA DJ Bliss. I am also the creator of his Official Website www.djbliss.com.

We would like to request for this page to be removed and would like to create his page as authorized by Marwan Parham.

Kind Regards,

Tanya Julz Ivin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.97.61.26 (talk) 09:40, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman

This needs resolution, article talk is unable to develop consensus, and slow edit war (overwhelmed by massive number of productive edits elsewhere) is happening

George Zimmerman, shooter, made allegedly racist comments during incident, and allegedy racist statements in the past and had arrests but not convictions for assault and domestic violence

Trayvon Martin, victim, described as "on drugs or something", and "up to no good", "suspicious" during incident, has history of pot, grafitti, and theft, but no convictions

All information incredibly well sourced by both parties. All information is being added (or removed) without OR/SYNTH, just pure recitation of the facts as reported in MANY MANY MANY reliable sources, and in the case of Martin's past, publicly acknowledged by the parents, and an ongoing part of the controversy "They killed him, and now they are trying to kill his reputation"

There is consensus that the information regarding Zimmerman should be included. No consensus if the information for martin should be included. I believe it should be both, or neither. (personally I think both should be included) In both cases, the history informs the user about the participants past actions. In both cases the information provides no direct evidence as to what happened or didnt happen during the conflict. In both cases the information can be used to judge (by the reader, NOT OR/SYNTH in the article) the reliablility/accuracy of the statements by or about the participants.

Zimmerman is accused, by the family and the media of being a racist, and tendency to violence. Martin is accused, by Zimmerman as acting suspiciously, as if on drugs, and of violently attacking Zimmerman.

Either the background is relevant, or it isnt, but it is exceptionally widely reported, there are no real BLP/BDP issues as everything is sourced, notable, public, and acknowledged.

Gaijin42 (talk) 13:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be specific, here are the details that are being debated being included

Zimmerman : Arrest but not conviction for assaulting an officer, previous statements alleged to be racist attributed to zimmerman by neighbors (no actual proof they occured other than statements), restraining order against ex-fiance regarding domestic abuse (abuse alleged in both directions, both spouses subject to restraining order)

Martin : 3 school suspensions for 1) pot residue, 2) being in an unauthorized area of schoool while under suspicion of grafitti - and found with a backpack full of womens jewelry Martin said "was a friends" that he declined to name while in possession of a screwdriver on school described as "burglary tool", tardiness (obviously of lesser importance/relevance to the article).

In both cases no convictions, but were administrative actions taken by the relevant officials.Gaijin42 (talk) 13:54, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just because something is "widely reported" does not mean it is acceptable or appropriate for a Wikipedia article. see WP:BLP1E and WP:BLPCRIME for example. -- The Red Pen of Doom 13:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting policy does not help, everyone knows the policy. The question is does the policy prevent inclusion of one or both or none of the participants background. Additionally, the policy does not say "do not include", it says "give serious consideration". Thats what this debate is about. Also that policy specifically says "For people who are relatively unknown" which does not apply to either person at this point. Gaijin42 (talk) 13:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BLPCRIME says to defer to Wikipedia:WELLKNOWN for well known individuals. I think these two fit that criteria a this point. "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. 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. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." That bar is far surpassed for all of this information. Gaijin42 (talk) 13:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I've argued on the article talk page, I think that histories relevant to the topic should be used, while everything else shouldn't. To whit, the reasons for Martin's suspensions has no relevance, so it shouldn't be in there. However, Zimmerman's history of violence seems relevant, and may be used. I have heard it argued, though, that we shouldn't detail histories of violence unless they resulting in convictions. Zimmerman has no "convictions", though it appears he did reach a deal on his resisting arrest with violence charge. If WP policy does explicitly ask us not to include incidents which didn't result in convictions, than the whole shebang should be excluded.LedRush (talk) 14:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zimmerman accused Martin of looking like he was on drugs. And up to no good. A history of drugs and behavior that directly qualifies as up to no good (trespass, graffiti, alleged theft) is not relevant? It is an alleged pattern of behavior in both the case of Zimmerman and Martin. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Our purpose here as Wikipedia editors is to provide an informative article for our readers. If something can be sourced to multiple high quality reliable sources, it probably belongs in the article. As WP:BLP says, "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. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, martin is dead, so the protection of BLP are significantly weakened. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know I, and others, have made this argument on the article talk page, but just to get it on the record here, I want to respond to comments regarding the suspension for pot possession. Firstly, there wasn't even a criminal charge, nontheless a conviction. This adds weight to the argument that it shouldn't be noted, but is not dispositive. More importantly, the fact that Martin had been suspended for possession of pot has absolutely no relevance to the shooting incident. Zimmerman had no knowledge of this, and therefore the fact that he told the operator that Martin looked like he was on drugs is neither more or less reasonable with the information regarding pot possession. What including the information does is insinuate that either Martin was indeed on drugs or that Zimmerman had reason to believe he was. The former is a clear WP:BLP violation, and the second is factually untrue as Zimmerman had no knowledge of the prior events. If, however, the toxicology report comes back and it is shown that Martin was on drugs at the time of the incident, we must include that information. Martin's state at the time of the incident is the only information that can inform the actions of Zimmerman and Martin during the incident.LedRush (talk) 17:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A past history involving drugs, when related to a later insinuation of drugs, has the exact same relevance that a past history of violence, or racism has to a later insinuation of violence and racism. A pattern of past behavior makes an accusation of later behavior more plausible. It is not direct evidence. But If I said I saw Lindsay Lohan drunk and high, most people would believe me. They would not believe me if I said the same thing about one of Obama's kids. This has nothing to do of if I personally happened to know about their previous history (or non history). Zimmerman accused martin of acting suspiciously. The readers deserve to know that Martin had some history of trouble that makes that a plausible (not necessarily factual) accusation. They also deserve to know that Zimmerman has a past history of alleged racism (be on the lookout for black youth), which makes the accusation LESS plausible. For us to decide that one or both are not relevant is clear OR and POV, when the practically infinite number of RS, including both media and official agencies have said it is relevant (but again not definitive)Gaijin42 (talk) 19:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

← This is basically one step away from bringing up a rape victim's sexual history to try to discredit them. One has the right to go to the store to pick up snacks for one's family without being accosted by a large, angry, armed man and ultimately shot to death. A previous school suspension for marijuana has exactly zero bearing on that right. If Martin had a history of violence (as, apparently, did Zimmerman) then that might have some bearing on this particular act of violence. But bringing up the fact that a high school kid apparently used marijuana is evidently an effort to insinuate that he somehow brought what happened on himself. That's the reality of how high-profile cases are tried in the media, but it's beneath us to be party to it. That's WP:BLP in a nutshell. MastCell ^Talk 19:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are putting words into my mouth. I did not say he deserved it. I think he did not, and Zimmerman should be tried. Zimmerman is being called a racist for the things he said and his suspicion of Martin. Removing all things that might corroborate that suspicion is POV against zimmerman. Martins past has no impact at all on the actual shooting. It DOES have impact on zimmeramns decision to find him suspicious, follow him, call the police on him. The ONLY information directly related to the shooting, is what was happening in the 10 seconds prior to the shooting, if zimmerman was getting beat or not, if martin reached for the gun or not, made a death threat or not (all not-proved allegations from zimmerman) and who started the physical confrontation. But there are MANY things relevant to the events that immediately preceded the shooting. the past behavior and prejudices of BOTH participants ARE absolutely relevant to if zimmerman was justified in being suspicions in the first place. If he was not justified in having the initial suspicion, then that increases the probability he is a racist, and increases the probability the shooting was directly due to his racist mindset. If he was justified, that decreases the chance he was acting under a racist mindset as well. WE ARE NOT IN A POSITION TO DECIDE. To claim the information is irrelevant is to be directly making this decision on behalf of the readers and is OR and POV. it is absolutely a POV to decide that information is not relevant, and that POV is NOT SUPPORTED BY POLICY. WP:WELLKNOWN WP:VERIFIABILITY WP:BLD If you thin you are supported by policy, please quote the specific passages of the policy that you think preclude this information.Gaijin42 (talk) 20:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But it doesn't have an impact on Zimmerman's decision to find him suspicious etc. etc. Zimmerman did not know these things when he decided to follow Martin. These are being brought up after the fact in order to justify Zimmerman's actions. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How, exactly, would Zimmerman have known that Martin was suspended from school? Wait, I understand - you want the article to say he was suspended from school so we insinuate that he was a drug addict, and thus Zimmerman should have shot him? Got it. Yeah, you probably shouldn't edit articles about people. We don't insinuate negative things about people. Hipocrite (talk) 20:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My logic has nothng to do with zimmerman knowing about the suspensions. It has to do with the plausability of martin actually and objectively acting suspiciously at the time. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

your "plausibility" has headed into untenable grounds. it may impact your personal belief, but cannot be used in any form in an article without actual specific sources making the "plausibiity" claim.-- The Red Pen of Doom 21:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Gaijin42, you're kind of digging yourself deeper and deeper here...if your reason for including the information is because it makes it seem as though Martin was "objectively acting suspiciously," you really need to reexamine your commitment to NOR and NPOV. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MastCell and LedRush are right. Martin's "trouble" is not relevant to the incident and only serves to make the unsupported-by-sources implication that Zimmerman had a reason to shoot him; it does not belong in the article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zimmerman said that he thought Martin was acting like he was on drugs, so if Martin has a history of drug use, it is relevant. It's no different than Zimmerman having a history of violence. But honestly, I'm really not comfortable with this line of reasoning because this rationale violates our policy on NPOV: using our own personal opinions to overrule what reliable sources say on this topic.

But ultimately, we exist to serve our readers. By omitting key parts of the controversy from the article, we leave our readers less informed. If a reader says to themselves, "Hey, what's this I hear about Martin getting suspended from school for marijuana?" or "what this I hear about Zimmerman making a racist comment?". If they come to our article and we don't cover it, we have done them a disservice. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We are WP:NOT a tabloid. This makes as much sense as "teach the controversy" does in science class. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The autopsy report hasn't been released yet. If it says that Martin was on drugs at the time he was shot, then the marijuana incident, as LedRush said, becomes relevant. Until then, or if it comes back clean, Zimmerman's speculation that his victim was on drugs is meaningless to us. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:29, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about "up to no good"? There will be no autopsy findings that can show that, and some of the suspension were definitely for things that were "up to no good" - grafitti, backpack full of jewelry. There is no evidence that Martin had already engaged in a crime while on the walk, but the backpack indicates he may have been involved in crimes in the past, and may have been acting suspicius (casing?). This is counterbalanced by Zimmermans alleged racism (hypothetically seeing all blacks as criminals?) and mall-cop attitude that may have seen completely innocent behavior as suspicius. We should let the reader evaluate both of their histories and decide which one is more plausible. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We don't insinuate to the reader that persons were engaging in crimes when no reliable source has said that said that persons were engaging in crimes. I am not kidding - you really need to stop now. Your willingness to defame the recently dead without reliable sources is rapidly reaching the point where you will be sanctionable under WP:BLPSE. Hipocrite (talk) 20:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bring it on. HE IS DEAD. BLP does not apply. I am not insinuating he was acting suspiciously. HE WAS DIRECTLY ACCUSED OF THIS BY ZIMMERMAN. As a result, zimmerman has been called a racist. Nobody knows what martin was doing. Martin does have a history of things that people would consider suspicious. Therefore, it is possible and plausible, he actually WAS engaged in such behavior at that time. this in no way justifies his being killed. stop putting words into my mouth. It also does not prove he was engaged in such action. Zimmerman has made statements many consider to be racist. This makes it possible, and plausible that he was a racist bastard who hates black kids. we do not know. we should let the reader make their own opinion. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"However, material about dead people that has implications for their living relatives and friends, particularly in the case of recent deaths, is covered by this policy." We do, in fact, know what Martin was doing. Reliable sources have reported that he was returning from a 7-11 with tea and skittles. The only words being put in to your mouth are yours, when you say that we need to insinuate to the reader that Martin was "casing" (your word) or "acting suspicius" (your word). Please find reliable sources for your racism. Hipocrite (talk) 21:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, there's a big difference between saying "Martin was acting suspiciously" and "Zimmerman said that Martin was acting suspiciously". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And it's in the article now that Zimmerman said that. What's not in the article now is the proposal that the article say "Zimmerman said Martin was acting suspiciously. Martin was suspended from school for being in an unauthorized area, vandalzing, and having MJ residue in his backpack, so who KNOWS what he was doing - We report, YOU DECIDE," which is what's being proposed here. Hipocrite (talk) 21:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Articles on controversial topics like this are always a mess, and I try to stay out of them, preferring to offer advice at a distance. The article is rapidly changing and it's been a couple days since I last read it. I see now that it says "Martin's suspicious behavior" in Wikipedia's voice. That's not right. Nobody know whether Martin was acting suspiciously. We only know that Zimmerman said he was acting suspiciously. We need to be very careful on how we phrase things. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This has now been fixed.[6] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I consider you calling me a racist a personal attack. why dont you take a look at WHO FUCKING STARTED THE ARTICLE, and the edits I put in, before you call me a racist.We DO NOT know what martin's actions were. We know what martins parents SAID his actions were, and they were not there. I am absolutly not saying that we should put into the article that martin was casing the homes. I am saying zimmerman said he was suspicious. Martin had previously acted in ways that are suspicious. It is directly relevant to if Zimmerman is completely making shit up or not, or might have actually seen something. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)No, it has nothing to do with being tabloid. Do you think we should ommit the Monica Lewinski scandal from Bill Clinton's article? Of course, not. And we do have an article on Intelligent design. It's a Featured article if I recall correctly. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"But ultimately, we exist to serve our readers" - as an encyclopedia. I really dont think that it is Wikipedia's responsibility or that we are actually serving our readers either short term or long term when we specifically vere from presenting encyclopedic coverage in favor of "clearing up" potential misinformation in current public media circuses. That easily leads to UNDUE focus on ephemeral, emotional trivia. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Roscelese that the Trayvon/marijuna residue suspension is irrelevant unless and until a positive toxicology report is released. Let's also remember that 'possession' (of residue) is different from 'under the influence', and that school violations are significantly different from arrests and convictions or incidents resolved by the criminal justice system. Keeping POV out of this article is very difficult, and I hope everyone can engage in some introspection. Part of that difficulty is the scope of the article itself. It's too early to characterize the meta-event, and yet that is the scope. I think in these cases, less is more, and simple is preferable, knowing that over the course of time, just what all this was about will become clearer and less controversial. ArishiaNishi (talk) 21:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A comment from someone who has so far stayed out of this dispute: I think that one or two editors may need to be reminded that Wikipedia is not a court of law. We are not here to present 'evidence for the prosecution', or 'evidence for the defence'. Our readers are not jurors, assigned with the duty of determining innocence or guilt. This is an online encyclopaedia, and we should confine ourselves to summarising, accurately but briefly, the more cogent details of the events around which the article is centred, in due proportion to the weight assigned by such sources - with the obvious proviso that we consider tabloid tittle-tattle etc of little merit. We do not have to cover every bit of 'evidence' that might be seen as significant at a later trial - if for no other reason than that we should not be engaging in crystal-ball-gazing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Gaijin. Both sides of this story belong in this article, good or bad. As long as the information is presented in a non-biased view, then we have done our job of creating a complete and informative article that a reader will be able to access and come away with their own opinions. That is what WP was designed for was to create a source of information that is presented in a NPOV that leaves the reader with the satisfaction that he was presented with "all' of the information and not had certain information ommited or censored. We leave it to the reader to form an opinion for themselves, after being presented with all of the reliaby sourced facts in this case.Isaidnoway (talk) 03:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with LedRush, MastCell, ArishiaNishi, Hipocrite, Roscelese, and maybe others here that I missed. Martin's school suspensions have no place here - not the reasons for them, and likely not even the fact that he had been suspended. Unless George Zimmerman is clairvoyant, as I have said repeatedly on the article's talk page, we have no information that says that he somehow knew that Martin should not have been inside that gated community (in fact incorrect), or had a history of anything, and that is all that matters. We do not know how Martin was acting, or what made Zimmerman suspicious. No one is claiming that Zimmerman smelled weed. He had no knowledge of Martin at all, but events happened and Martin was shot and killed. We have some actual facts, such as that Martin was unarmed, and that belongs in. But Martin's history, unknown until well after he is dead and buried, so obviously not related to how the event went down, is utterly irrelevant to this article. Zimmerman's is something else - if he has a history of violent reaction, and if he reacted violently that night, his history could have relevance to the event. "Balance" and NPOV does not mean for every bad thing we put in about one person we have to put in a bad thing about another - we put in things that are specifically relevant to the story and properly sourced. Trying to match negative for negative may be thought of as just trying to be fair, but in fact in this case it attempts to shore up the case of one side which everyone must agree is not what we are supposed to be doing for either side. Tvoz/talk 18:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well said about balance. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:41, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's your own original research as to why you think it's not relevent. But obviously lots of reliable sources thought it was relevent otherwise they wouldn't have reported it. While we all have personal opinions, we should check such opinions at the door. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are confusing the original research with the proper enforcement of wikipedia policies under BLP. No one is arguing for the inclusion of information that was derived through original research. We are arguing that because the information is completely irrelevant to the topic of the article, it should not be included. Remember, the news media is not writing an article called "the Shooting/Death of Martin". They're writing one called "let's get as many readers as possible, regardless of whether the information is relevant to the underlying facts of the incident." No article on wikipedia should include every detail of an event that is reported in the media...we should include the relevant ones. Therefore, every article is an exercise in judging what to include and what not to. It's not original research. It's a fundamental aspect of basic editing. And it's complying with BLP.LedRush (talk) 19:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, you're using your own personal opinion to override what reliable sources are saying about a topic. That goes against WP:NPOV. Further, you can't just cry "BLP! BLP! BLP!" without explaining exactly what the supposed BLP violation is. Nevermind the fact that Martin isn't a living person. And I have yet to see an argument why a less informative article is more desirable than a more informative article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now that I see you are uninterested in honest dialog, it is easy to dismiss your unfounded accusations and misrepresentations.LedRush (talk) 20:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think what happened is that I brought up four valid points, you don't have a rebuttal to any of them, so you resorted to personal attacks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:29, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can see a valid debate as to if the information is relevant to the article, or overly prejudicial to the article. I cannot see a valid point that BLP/BDP mandates the information not be included. This is extremely well sourced information, that the family has acknowledged. BLP no longer directly applies as Martin is dead. BDP could apply to the family, but I say they are clearly WP:WELLKNOWN people at this point, participating in multiple nationally broadcast interviews, protests, etc. Information which is negative, but reliably sourced, which is a source of a controversy should be added into articles, even if the subject would prefer not. This is the policy used for THOUSANDS of bio articles. There is clearly a controversy/scandal regarding this in the media, and obvious (from this discussion) a controversy within wikipedia. Just saying "it shouldnt be there" or "BLP!!!!" is not enough. Specific clauses of policies need to be cited, and specific refutations of why the clauses in policies such as WP:WELLKNOWN do not apply. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've largely been debating "relevance". If it is not relevant, than BLP kicks this info out. If it is relevant, than it doesn't. Of course, I would still debate WP:Coatrack and WP:Undue, but we're on the BLP board.LedRush (talk) 21:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"BLP! BLP! BLP!" Sadly, this policy is being used as bogeyman. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When writing about a person notable only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced... This is of particular importance when dealing with living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization.

From WP:BLP; emphasis mine. The question is not simply whether the material appears in print somewhere. We should not be acting as an echo chamber for the effort to posthumously cast Martin as a menace. MastCell ^Talk 21:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If this were about some minor detail, I'd agree with you. But with this topic, we have editors arguing to omit key aspects based on their own personal opinions and prejudices which is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. My advice is this: if something is widely covered by lots of reliable sources, it probably belongs in the article. If it's not, then it probably doesn't. Generally speaking, that's good advice no matter what the topic. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:02, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I included the BLP quote to clarify that this is policy-based, not a personal prejudice. Secondly, we don't include details just because they've appeared in the press; that's a major theme of WP:BLP, addressed directly by the quote above. And finally, what key aspects are we talking about? I see people arguing over a school suspension. MastCell ^Talk 22:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mast, based on that last comment it seems like you may not be aware of what the school suspension under discussion are about. Martin was suspended 3 times. Once for tardiness (clearly not relevant). Once (most recently) for having a baggie that had pot residue in it. Once for being in an unauthorized area of the school. In that suspension, he was observed on a security camera allegedly putting graffiti on school property. When confronted, they searched him, and found a backpack with a bunch of women's jewelry in it. He said it belonged to "a friend", but declined to name a friend. No theft could be proven, and no charges were filed. All three suspensions are well sourced, and acknowledged by the parents. That is the context for my comment below about "history of doing things that if observed would be considered suspicious".

@MastCell & @LedRush Thank you for putting out more reasoned and cited reasons, it makes it much easier to have a discussion. I am in general agreement with you regarding extending victimization, etc. and that the primary issue is relevance. There seems to be general consensus, that Zimmerman's past assault/domestic violence history is relevant to the current situation, as he may have a predisposition to resorting to violence, and this may have had an effect on his actions that day. He has been directly accused of such by the media and Martin's parents. Zimmerman accused Martin of acting suspiciously. Martin has a history of doing things, that if observed, would be suspicious. I am absolutely not accusing Martin of any wrongdoing at the time of observation by Zimmerman, but if Zimmerman is making that accusation, how is a past history of such behavior not relevant in the same way that Zimmerman's history is. Both have been confirmed to have done (in the past) what is being discussed. Neither one was convicted. Both had administrative action taken against them by the relevant officials. Both histories have a plausible relation to hypothetical but unobserved unproven behavior at the time of the incident. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:25, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to explain this in a sort of diagram-y way, if it'll help. Zimmerman has a history of violence ... Zimmerman was violent ... relevant and included. Martin has a history of acting suspiciously ... Martin acted suspiciously ... relevant and included? No, because we only have Zimmerman's word here that Martin acted suspiciously, and he's not exactly objective. And again, Zimmerman was not in possession then of the same knowledge that we have now about Martin's history. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:41, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Let me make two points. Zimmerman has a history of unjustified violence (since there were legal consequences, we can say unjustified?). He was violent in this case, but it is only an accusation that it was unjustified. Secondly, my logic does not require Zimmerman to have any knowledge of Martin's history. If Martin has a history of suspicious behavior, it is in fact possible he was acting suspiciously and Zimmerman observed that.

I think the relevance of Martin's suspensions (and their causes) can be plausibly argued for or against. I don't see a consensus on whether to include them or exclude them. The question is whether, by default, Wikipedia includes reliably sourced information or excludes it. As it is right now, the de-facto policy is to *exclude* information of plausible relevance. Personally, I think well-sourced information that is at least plausibly relevant ought to be *included* by default, and left to the reader to decide. Emeraldflames (talk) 18:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@MastCell: I know, and I apologize if you thought I was referring to you. I was referring to some of the other editors working on that article.

I'm not saying we should include every detail just because they've appeared in the press. I am saying that if something is widely reported by multiple reliable sources, it probably belongs in the article. If it hasn't, it probably doesn't.

You quoted part of WP:BLP so let me quote the very next paragraph:

“

In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. 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. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.

”

I think that's pretty much what I am saying here.

I'd like to take a step back and reflect on what the BLP policy really means. BLP adds little beyond what WP:V, WP:OR and WP:NPOV already state. That is to say, if you're writing an article and you're carefully following V, OR and NPOV, odds are that you're following BLP, too. The few additional restrictions that BLP adds to these three core content policies (such as not using categories regarding sexual orientation unless the subject publicly self-identifies or don't create biographies about people notable for only one event) don't apply to this article (or haven't been violated).

I get the idea that some editors think that BLP radically alters the way we write articles, and that's simply not the case. For the most part, BLP just reiterates what V, OR and NPOV already state. BLP reminds us that since we're dealing with living people, we need to make sure we get it right. If you look at the top of the BLP policy, it says that we should be very careful to make sure that we're following V, OR and NPOV:

“

This page in a nutshell: Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoiding original research.

”

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:26, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Include suspensions stated by family as not media rumors: Although some might wish the suspensions noted with just a few phrases, the family replies which confirm the 3 suspensions did occur, is needed in the article to defuse notions of invented claims. The recent suspension explains why the 17-year-old was in central Florida on a school night, rather than at his home in Miami Gardens (in far south Florida) preparing to attend class the next morning. The prior 2 suspensions explain why the recent suspension was a 10-day suspension. Plus, the mention that other students were involved in the suspension shows that Martin was not "singularly unusual" in being suspended. Hence, there is a lot of text, likely notable, due to coverage in whole reports by both The Miami Herald and The New York Times (27 March 2012, not just a single fringe source). Both reports were complete, so there is not even the need for Wikipedians to combine multiple sources to cite the 3 suspensions, and the confirmation by the parents. Another clear connection to the article is the revelation of school police searching Martin's backpack containing a "large screwdriver" and "12 items of women's jewely" (with "wedding rings") which he said "were not his" in his backpack, then photographed to notify the city police. Such details are not "fringe" or wp:UNDUE as they tie into the incident's themes of drug-use (marijuana) & burglary and police suspicions, as obvious connections for a news story. In general, Wikipedia should only censor non-neutral POV conclusions (such as "gansta lifestyle" or "potential drug dealer"), but allow statements of fact, such as detection of marijuana residue or possession of some unnamed person's jewelry and wedding rings, without concluding: "drug dealer paid with stolen jewelry" (which would be a POV-conclusion). Beware users wanting to remove text as "undue" when it is merely "un-positive" toward one side. In general, heed wp:NOTCENSORED and only omit POV-conclusions (either derogatory or peacock), where the vast bulk of text from multiple sources should be allowed in an article, and not blocked by users trying to wp:OWN the contents of an article. Background text must be allowed. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:04, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Without restating the arguments, I believe these facts are relevant and should be included for both Martin and Zimmerman. Intrepid-NY (talk) 21:31, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see that this farcical 'talk page trial' is still continuing. When are we expected to reach a verdict? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:34, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you like writing about current events, Wikinews would love to have you!

Here we go again, can we not step back and remember Wikipedia:Recentism, Wikipedia:UNDUE, and Wikipedia:NOTNEWS? Give it a few days, I'm here in France and the recent Toulouse killings have generated a lot of "he did, he didn't, he was disguised as a camel robbing a post office, oh no sorry it was his 5th birthday party" type of coverage, Wikipedia *is not* a breaking news website and, as such, neeeds to step back, weigh up the different RSs and let the dust settle before writing definitve things in article space about PEOPLE! CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 15:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with some other people on some points - this is like bringing up a rape victim's sexual history, and Wikipedia is not a court of law. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that should cover what the sources cover. That means including arguments that we feel are irrelevant, illogical, and unethical, provided that the media sources find them to be relevant. We're not here to judge - we're here to provide a navigable path through the thicket of available sources. To exercise NPOV sometimes we need to be dispassionate, and sometimes we need to be outright cold-blooded. Just cover the sourced information. Wnt (talk) 03:28, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please reread WP:BLP. We do not abdicate relevance to newspapers. Otherwise, the Amanda Knox article would have a list of everyone she's every dated, where she ate lunch yesterday, and when she and Sollecito are going to start making flippy-flop again. The reasons of the suspensions are simply not relevant to the crime or the shooting, and therefore cannot be in the article. It's clear from this talk page that we do not have consensus for inclusion, so the suspensions should remain out until consensus is reached, again, per WP:BLP.LedRush (talk) 15:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gaijin42, the premise of the encyclopedia is that we approach articles conservatively. The media does not. You claim things are widely reported and notable and there are no BLP issues to worry about. The facts are limited, and that is why the media is having such fun playing with this and swinging back and forth. If there are reasons to exclude something from the article, then prudence dictates we should avoid it. It is true that this has become a national phenomenon, but that is entirely a work of the media, not the work of George Zimmerman, and certainly not the work of Trayvon Martin. Spreading titillating bits of gossip about people might work for the media or a trashy tabloid, but it is beneath the encyclopedia. Stick to a rational and reasonable portrayal, based in solid and honest reporting, not the stuff that mostly fills the airwaves. Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 16:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Avanu: "You claim things are widely reported and notable and there are no BLP issues to worry about." Yep, that's pretty much what BLP says:

“

In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. 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. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.

”

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You keep on missing a quite important word in the policy. "Relevant". Seeing as most of the discussions here have been arguing that the information isn't relevant, I think you should start to read the section you've now quoted at least twice.LedRush (talk) 16:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@LedRush: Not at all. Zimmerman said that Martin was acting strangely as if he was on drugs. It seems to me that Martin's drug history is very much relevent. It's also relevent in that supporters of Martin have attempted to portray him in a positive light while Zimmerman's try to portray Martin in a negative light. It's not our job to take sides. We simply document what these sources say. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your position on relevancy has been discredited above. So has your vision of a Wikipedia in which every bit of minutiae published by any newspaper finds its way into an article.LedRush (talk) 17:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@LedRush:Diff, please? Anyway, now that I think about, if anything, it's a BLP violation not to include it, both from a NPOV perspective and from Zimmerman's perspective. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You mean to not violate BLP and NPOV we need to violate it? Sounds quite streching to me.TMCk (talk) 18:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the this very thread where everyone explains the logical fallacy of the relevance of a past suspension from school for pot possession on whether or not a man was justified in thinking that someone was on drugs when he had no knowledge of such past suspension. So many people have articulated this, it's not worthwhile to show the diffs. The same truth refutes your BLP claim: omitting irrelevant info can never be a BLP violation. And when in doubt, the info is out!LedRush (talk) 17:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@LedRush: I saw that post. It's based on the straw man that Zimmerman needed to have knowledge of such past suspension in order for it to be relevent. Do you actually have a valid reason to omit key information from the article? It's sounding more and more like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's "key" about it? HiLo48 (talk) 19:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing "key" about it. And with no knowledge of the suspension of Martin, it doesn't even inform his actions in any way. If a toxicology report comes back which shows Martin was on drugs at the time of the shooting, that would be relevant and should be mentioned. But until then it remains irrelevant trivia which must not be included.LedRush (talk) 19:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@LedRush: Yes, that's your personal opinion. We write articles based on what reliable sources are saying, not on our personal opinions. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Reynolds (Politician)

Resolved

– Unsourced content removed, article sent to AfD. JFHJr (㊟) 00:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Reynolds (politician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am a close friend and associate of Peter Reynolds'. The content I see and the link I forwarded to him are not the same. One states he is the leader of CLEAR, and the link I forwarded to him states that he is self-appointed and is libelous slander. I have requested a new password and requested permission to edit, but I do not recall my password and am still awaiting a response with a new link to reset my password. I can absolutely state that the link I sent him is filled with false, slanderous information. He is indeed the leader of CLEAR, and has been subject to "infighting" and endless attacks in the UK. I live in the US, and am a very close friend and associate/assistant. Please assist me immediately in rectifying this misinformation. Mr. Reynolds will validate that he has authorized me to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.255.239.151 (talk) 13:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. This article has recently been the subject of vandalism, so you probably encountered it at an inopportune moment. Please note, though, that it is not considered OK on Wikipedia to delete the contents of an article, as you did twice earlier today, without the agreement of other community members. If articles are not in a good state, they should be improved using what is there as a starting point. Because this article is a biography, its information should be cited to reliable sources. This is not the case at the moment, so if you wanted to go through the process to get it deleted you may well be successful: WP:AfD. Thanks. FormerIP (talk) 21:40, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Adams (theatre actor)

Is http://instinctmagazine.com/blogs/blog/instinct-cover-guy-nick-adams-discriminated-against a reliable source for making the specific WP:BLP contentious claim [7]

He is openly gay.

My reading of that blog from "Instinct magazine" fails to make that statement, as it only states he has a "boyfriend" which, as far as I can tell, is not sufficient to aver "openly gay." Collect (talk) 14:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Really? The fact that he titled the post "Turtle Gay", mentions his boyfriend, and compares himself against other people in the area who are straight? And was on the cover of a gay magazine?Gaijin42 (talk) 15:37, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that someone is "openly gay" is only "contentious" when the person is not in fact openly gay. I'm fully on board with the notion that we wouldn't describe someone like Ted Haggard as openly gay. But it really isn't necessary to "protect" someone like Nick Adams. Q for Collect: is it "contentious" to say that someone is "openly straight"? (Oh, sure, there's no need to in most cases because being straight is "normal" and therefore assumed -- though that point reinforces the point of asking my question.) Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All the discussions on BLP have reached a conclusion that sexual orientation is not a matter of surmise by non-RS sources, no matter how certain one is that he is "openly gay."

Note specifically:

Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources.

Which clearly applies here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "surmise" here. Adams identifies himself as gay in the blog post in question. Let's end this charade about how naming out gay people as gay on Wikipedia is the worst thing ever. (Incidentally, Nomoskedasticity, Haggard is out as bi.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find no such comment in the blog. Nor is the blog even written by Adams. BLPCAT is policy. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The blog http://thenickadams.blogspot.com/2009/07/turtle-gay.html, linked to from http://www.nickadams.biz/ which IS nick adams self identified blog and biz sites, containing all of his contact information included the lines "They screwed with the wrong gay. ", "looked at my boyfriend then smirked" "then watched a group of straight guys" and named the post "Turtle Gay"

http://micahjesse.com/interviews/spotlight-nick-adams-queen-of-broadway-micah-jesse-interview/ "Did you struggle with that? Were you picked on?

NA: Absolutely, I think that’s why I was so excited to find the arts community because I felt like I could be myself and what I was good at was celebrated. At school, kids would make fun of me for doing shows, so I’d try to keep that a secret, but being gay was a whole different thing."

http://greginhollywood.com/nick-adams-talks-to-advocatecom-about-nyc-club-gay-snub-and-using-the-internet-to-spread-the-word-9218 "“It’s been tough times for [the gay community], and I think people are more sensitive now to little things like this that, in 2009, are just unacceptable. And especially with the help of the Internet — we’re a strong community, we have a lot of pride, and I think it’s beautiful to see people I don’t know back me up on this and say, ‘We shouldn’t have to deal with this.’”"

http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/01/12/Nick_Adams_Likes_Ryan_Reynolds_Abs/ "Nick Adams, the out Broadway star who's as well known "

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaijin42 (Gaijin42) 22:41, 29 March 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

Adams has stated his sexual orientation on his blog (which BLP explicitly permits as a source), in an It Gets Better video which covers both the primary and secondary bases because it was covered by the Advocate, in interview after interview. There is no special secret clause of WP:BLP that says "ignore everything else written here if you really really want to censor someone's sexual orientation." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:47, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes: BLP policy doesn't justify 'censoring' someone's sexual orientation - but neither does it justify turning Wikipedia into a database of sexuality (or ethnicity, or anything else). As it happens, I think in this case there is sufficient sourced material to justify a comment about Adams' sexuality in his bio (and I've edited the article accordingly) - but this doesn't mean that there is any automatic requirement to include any 'reliably sourced' sexual orientation in biographies. In some cases, it is none of our business. If we chose to make it our business, we are obliged (per common decency) to explain why. An article that states that "X is openly gay" (in an isolated paragraph) is about as encyclopaedic as a shopping list, or a betting slip... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:27, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually we almost always include information on people's sexual orientation in their biographies, even when it's totally irrelevant. It's just that people forget that heterosexuality is also a sexual orientation. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:29, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Really? As far as I can recall, I've only ever seen one article (Karl Marx) that actually stated that the subject was heterosexual, Or are you suggesting (per your edit summary [8]) that only heterosexuals engage in male-female marriage? Whatever - you seem to be under the misapprehension that there are only 'homosexuals' and 'heterosexuals' in the world, and that everyone is one or the other. Please take your dubious compartmentalisation of sexualities elsewhere... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't posture; it isn't cute and it doesn't make you look smarter. Ms. BLP's personal life may indeed be irrelevant, but it's very stupid to claim that it's relevant when she has a boyfriend and not when she has a girlfriend. Since there's a tacit if not stated consensus that the former gets included (to choose three other actors at random, why the hell should I care about Jewel Staite's, Laura Linney's, or Glenn Close's male partners?), it is logical to include the latter as well. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the lengthy discussions about BLPCAT where the idea that a person's surmised "sexual oritentation" belongs in a BLP was thoroughy dismissed as improper. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Surmised'? "I thought I would check it out along with my boy friend... They screwed with the wrong gay". [9] This thread gets weirder by the minute... AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh boy, let's not turn this discussion into a battlefield, shall we? Look, this was reported in WP:3RRN and resulted as no action and requested for page protection. Maybe we shall take a six to twelve hour cool down before another reply. --George Ho (talk) 06:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Roscelese : Very view bios say "openly straight" or "hetrosexual". They do mention significant others, or spouses. It is my impression that BLPCAT would not prevent inclusion of any homosexual relationship being listed as a spouse or significant other, assuming such information can be reliably sourced. (Possible BLP objections for those where such a revelation would be particularly scandalous, or especially if the SO is low-profile - which clearly does not apply in this case) However a more explicit identification as "gay/homosexual" requires the self-identification, and some level of significance to the subjects identity/notability. In this case, that is clearly satisfied by Nick's repeated and very visible advocacy, and a major portion of his fame coming from being involved in gay oriented/themed entertainment. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:20, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In general, a man could have a boyfriend, but classify himself as a bisexual, or perceive himself as a male-to-female transsexual etc. The evidence described above sounds like a good argument for gay per se, but if there's any residual doubt, just say what the source says. If it says he has a boyfriend, say he has a boyfriend. The data for Wikipedia articles can be fragile, the less jostled the more likely to come out intact. Wnt (talk) 03:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Kahneman

Resolved

– Content sourced. JFHJr (㊟) 23:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

in the wikipedia article / page for daniel kahneman, under the personal life heading, dr. kahneman is erroneously described as being married to Anne Treisman. because i know the kahneman family personally - kahneman's son lives in my apartment building and is a close friend of mine - and i take care of the kahnemans' computer & IT needs in tel aviv (where mrs. kahneman - her name is irah - and their son, michael both reside), i can assure you that she is not anne treisman. additionally, whoever thought that kahneman is married to anne treisman, apparently also wrote the wikipedia article / page for her as well, because it once again incorrectly lists her as being married to kahneman. i believe the author may have been confused because kahneman & treisman have worked together and are both princeton faculty members. kahneman's wife, irah, is not a professor and lives here in tel aviv not far from where i reside. please rectify this error as expeditiously as possible as this seems somewhat disrespectful to his actual wife, and i feel that daniel & irah deserve better, more accurate treatment - not to mention your readers.

if you are still not convinced of the error, please see this publication by kahneman, which he dedicated to his wife irah, his son, michael, and his daughter lenore.

http://www.princeton.edu/~kahneman/docs/attention_and_effort/Attention_lo_quality.pdf

thanks very much beau schutz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.186.13.185 (talk) 14:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced, so removed. Please feel free to do this yourself next time. But thanks for letting us know in any event. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-added it with a reference: Daniel Kahneman's Autobiography on nobelprize.org. Anne Treisman is his second wife. In his Nobel Prize autobiography Kahneman writes about both his first wife, Irah, and about Treisman whom he met in 1965 and married 12 years later. Voceditenore (talk) 15:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure the information is current? I take the point that Irah was his first wife -- I'm only wondering whether there have been any changes since 2002. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to this Treisman and Kahneman were still married in September 2011 (7 months ago). I'm not sure, how much recent it needs to be. Voceditenore (talk) 15:29, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me -- certainly better than a source 10 years old. thanks, Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:29, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note also the Acknowledgements page of his 2011 book, Thinking, Fast and Slow. Voceditenore (talk) 15:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marty Morrissey

Resolved

– Vandalism removed by OP. JFHJr (㊟) 00:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This page regarding an Irish TV/Radio journalist is the subject of repeated alterations. I believe that accounts may be being set up just to amend this page. Not sure where this is coming from, probably an Irish forum like Boards.ie

I can't sit here making changes all day, I'll check back later. Is there any way to lock a page like this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ByrneD (talk • contribs) 16:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are currently no glaring problems with this BLP; you've reverted the vandalism. The same vandal appears to have vandalized other BLPs; these were also corrected through normal editing. If you think this article is of particular concern, you might consider requesting semi-protection at WP:RPP (protection from IPs and/or new accounts). BLPN is not the correct forum. Bear in mind that if a protection request at RPP is successful, you will be unable to edit the article as well, since you have a very limited editing history. In the meantime, I'll be happy to watch for further vandalism. JFHJr (㊟) 23:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AJ McCarron

Resolved

– Sources verified. Re-post if the subject's preference becomes apparent. JFHJr (㊟) 00:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please correct the following

The name is listed as A.J. and it is AJ McCarron with no "dots" in his name. Also, his place of birth is Biloxi Mississippi not Mobile Alabama. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.21.69.211 (talk) 12:29, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

His rolltide.com bio has it with periods, as does AOL, although not rivals.com or Mobile Press-Register. It isn't initials, so our use of them isn't necessary. His hometown is listed various places as Mobile, which people may have presumed was birthplace, but Biloxi isn't in any of the included references. Dru of Id (talk) 12:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Federline

Resolved

– Vandalism removed. JFHJr (㊟) 00:15, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article about Kevin Federline should be removed immediately because someone has maliciously edited it to claim a lot of nasty and completely untrue things about him. Go to the page and read the opening paragraph; that will tell you all you need to know. You should remove it before you get sued.

Thanks - this was blatant vandalism, which I've reverted. Sadly, it seems to have been in this state for almost a day, which is unusual - most vandalism gets dealt with much quicker. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vaali poet

This article is a total lie .... Infact apart from his parents name none of it is true .... please delete the post and do not allow this bugger to post any other article .... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.178.204.164 (talk) 20:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed a fair amount of unsourced content that involved self serving claims and claims about third parties. Lots of the filmography seems to check out, and I'm not in a position to delve into each entry to verify. Please feel free to remove those entries that you feel comfortable challenging, since none of them is actually sourced. JFHJr (㊟) 00:21, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Renuka Chowdary

Resolved

– Contentious material rectified per available reliable sources. JFHJr (㊟) 00:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been tagged for neutrality since Dec 2010. There is a Controversy section where I've just removed some copyvio, and what seems to me to be poor sources ( link to google search, feminazisofindia.wordpress.com !) and coatracking. There are other claims which are unsourced and maybe undue, please could an established editor take a look at this article . regards 94.195.187.69 (talk) 22:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there was quite a bit of POV pushing and misrepresentation of sources, which I have fixed. It still needs more sources but at least now it honestly reps the existing sources and is neutrally worded.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:36, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Tomlin

Resolved

– Sourcing and content rectified; BLP under page protection. JFHJr (㊟) 00:26, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone recently posted an article on wikipedia on a christian music artist by the name of Chris Tomlin. In this post these people made the claim that he was arrested and convicted on sexual assault charges. I did research and checked, and these accusations are completely false and unfounded. These claims are both demeaning to this man's character, but also to all who profess to the same faith he does. Please follow this advice and check up on these claims and remove them immediately.

Thank you for you time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.8.17.183 (talk) 02:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted this blatand BLP violation. There were two references listed with the content, which were completely unrelated to the content itself. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting us know. I too found and removed related content. Don't be afraid to remove such content yourself if you have good reason. NTox · talk 03:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Depuffed a bit as well. Collect (talk) 12:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Hanlon

Resolved

– Article content reviewed; see talk. JFHJr (㊟) 00:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article reads like a resume and should be reviewed for neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reedolly (talk • contribs) 06:10, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Depuffed a bit. Wikipedia ought not be an advertising medium. Collect (talk) 12:29, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good work Collect. It seems there is also some coatrack info and undue weight in the article. I'm going to post some suggestions on the talk page. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:58, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rush Limbaugh - repeated insertion of a "mug shot"

[10] has the edit summary:

Whitewash won't wash. Obviously not a BLP violation. Do you also intend to remove the text it illustrates?)

In restoring a mugshot of a public figure, labeled as "booking photo" (it used to be labelled "mug shot"). I suggest WP:MUG, part of WP:BLP policy, applies -- that is, there is no value to the image other than to show that it is a "mug shot." There are many images of Limbaugh available, and the rationale that this "mug shot" must be here to prevent a "whitewash" shows fairly clear the intent of any editor who insists on having a "mug shot" in a BLP. I suggest that WP:MUG be enforced here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The image itself doesn't appear to be offensive. Without the caption one might think it was taken at a social event. It's a head shot and he's wearing street clothes, he's smiling and relaxed. There isn't any police or arrest paraphernalia in the photo. It doesn't in anyway illustrate his arrest or the content in the Prescription Drug Addiction section of his BLP. I don't see how it helps the reader or enhances the article. It's only value in the article appears to be in giving extra weight to the information about his arrest. PS--The photo is currently being used on nine different Wiki sites. Out of the eight I could Google translate, two of them label the photo as an arrest photo, while the other six use it with the simple caption: Rush Limbaugh.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:28, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the photo doesn't look like a mug shot, it's being labelled as one, thus the same effect. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't enhance the readers understanding and it violates WP:MUG.– Lionel ^(talk) 10:49, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUG: "Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light. This is particularly important for police booking photographs (mugshots), or situations where the subject was not expecting to be photographed." Would you point out the violation(s)?. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I'm missing something, I agree with Collect, Keithbob, Niteshift36 and Lionel that this image is inappropriate. It doesn't add anything to the article and seems only being used to extra weight to the arrest. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also , unless I am missing something - there is zero additional value to the reader from the picture - it adds nothing at all that is supported in the text of the article and the continued placement of the pic in the article is nothing more than a simple partisan attack deemed by his opponents to add weight to the negative aspects of his arrest. Youreallycan 14:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"the continued placement of the pic in the article is nothing more than a simple partisan attack deemed by his opponents to add weight to the negative aspects of his arrest." I'm not familiar with the history of this argument, but is that your subjective opinion or has it actually been stated by his opponents? I don't care one way or another about the image; I was honestly seeking information about how its inclusion violated policy. The argument also could be made (and I'm not making it) that his appearance indicates that he honestly didn't believe he had violated any laws, based on the same subjective projection. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:20, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you miss the "whitewash won't wash" edit summary used by one of the inserting editors? I think that shows there was a specific rationale, other than just giving an image of the living person, involved in the insertion. Collect (talk) 18:33, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michel Aoun

Resolved

– Template kept: better sourcing is required. JFHJr (㊟) 00:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Madam or Sir, General Michel Aoun is a Lebanese political leader. He is mentioned on a page on Facebook: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Aoun His page still carries the following paragraph inviting people to edit it: This biographical article needs additional citations for verification. Please help by adding reliable sources. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous or harmful. (December 2011) This is used by some vicious political opponents to defame and libel General Michel Aoun. I have just made the necessary correction to restore the page to its original version. Could you kindly review the page as I just corrected it, and remove the invitation to edit it further? You may want to compare the English version to the French or Arabic ones. Thanking you in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.187.93.254 (talk) 19:04, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your concern, but according to the standards and policies of the English Wikipedia, the article is completely lacking in sources for several sections. This is not acceptable and the notice at the top of the page is entirely appropriate.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:45, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lubert Stryer

This biography has recently been extensively revised and documented. What is the procedure for removing the old box stating "This biographical article needs additional citations for verification. Please help by adding reliable sources...." ?

Thucyx (talk) 05:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only reference which appears to support the biographic details is his Stanford University faculty profile, so the tag should probably remain for now. Dru of Id (talk) 05:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the tag should remain; in fact, I'm starting to see the need for a multiple issues tag. Several citations apparently added to support prose do not in fact support the puffiest claims made. The article looks like it's got a large dose of improper synthesis of sources, original research, and good old fashioned fake cites. The contributions of the editors in question should be scrutinized. If anyone wants to find an old version that, though unsourced, does not have deceptive citations, I think that roll back would be appropriate. JFHJr (㊟) 23:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Melvins

A bot report at UAA led me to this ongoing edit war and possible sockpuppetry going on for several days (actually, heating up; it's gone on for almost a month) without anyone else apparently noticing. Since it involves a band with living members I think this is the best forum to start in.

On Melvins, Legitmang (talk · contribs), an account opened several weeks ago that has primarily edited only that article, has suddenly gotten very active in the last week or so, repeatedly adding this negative material (earliest, unsourced version). I checked the sources and, as noted by a reverting anon, one of them is indeed a private message board. The YouTube video may well be legitimately posted, but the other link doesn't look good either. So, the controversial statements are not reliably sourced.

Legitmang has stayed under the 3RR radar, never doing this more than twice in a given 24-hour period. This, to me, suggests someone with previous Wikipedia experience.

The reverting accounts also seem to be working together to avoid the radar:

DarthSivius (talk · contribs)
Keelhaul2 (talk · contribs)
GrouchoMarxist88 (talk · contribs)
Melvinsdotcom (talk · contribs) (the one that set off the UAA bot)

IPs 69.136.96.78 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 190.176.67.26 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) also seem to be involved.

For starters I have full-protected the article for a week. Any suggestions for further action? (SPI seems likely). Daniel Case (talk) 05:57, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, BLP issues. The prose in diff you've provided violates BLP because 1) one source is a self-published source (even though it's attributed to a news source, angelfire is not an acceptable reproduction); 2) the second source is a private message board; 3) the prose itself contained puffery and editorializing; and 4) the prose itself puts undue weight on the topic, which is likely of little to no enduring or encyclopedic biographical significance. Second, it looks to me like you've fully protected the article to preempt a single editor, whereas other problematic edits by WP:SPA could be prevented with a semi-protect. I think it's a good candidate for semi-protect and WP:SPI. The autoconfirmed user should be warned using appropriate escalating templates, blocked if necessary, and/or reported at WP:ANI. JFHJr (㊟) 23:54, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I went with full protect to a) minimize the likelihood of any other edits in the meantime and b) protect against sleeper socks. I'll go back to semi for a longer period. Daniel Case (talk) 02:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request needs scrutiny, may need redacting

Could an admin oversight the 13:09 request? Dru of Id (talk) 13:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which request? Daniel Case (talk) 16:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of Touré's surname in his article

Since the matter of whether to include Touré's surname has come up again, can interested parties voice their opinions here? If you're new to this matter, and not familiar with the arguments for and against doing so, you can read them just above that section, or click here. The discussion is of considerable length, but not too long to get a gist of the primary arguments for and against. I really appreciate it. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 16:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ameriie

I was wondering if other editors could weigh in on a situation at the Ameriie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article. For a while an IP user 108.220.75.38 (talk · contribs) has been repeatedly changing her birth date without providing reliable sources (e.g. [11]) & contrary to sources already in the article, and blanking the "Personal life" section (e.g. [12]).

Now there is a user calling themselves Feeniix Rising Ent (talk · contribs)—incidentally the name of Ameriie's management company—purporting to represent the singer officially & making the exact same edits to her birth date and personal life details, e.g. [13]. Just now I've found that this user has emailed me privately to say that they "will not allow incorrect information [...] to stay on my clients [sic] page", and much to my surprise the email seems legit.

I'm not sure how to proceed in this instance so I'd appreciate any & all input from users more experienced in dealing with these matters than me. Thanks. Extraordinary Machine (talk) 00:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The e-mail should have been sent to WP:OTRS; in the meantime, the content in question is adequately supported by one of the better reliable sources currently in the article. Other prose that was removed doesn't appear to be sourced to exceptionally reliable sources, but then again most of the article is similarly sourced. A reliable source to support the management company's claims would be appropriate; IMDB is not one of those. JFHJr (㊟) 02:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Tsang

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

There is an on-going dispute surrounding the use of the honorary prefix "Sir" to the name of the subject in the lead section of the article. Those against the use of this prefix have stated thus:

Donald Tsang and the Government of Hong Kong have consistently used his legal name "Donald Tsang" without including the British honor.
The British Government does not have a policy on Donald Tsang's use of the title. In a parliamentary hearing, Ian Pearson stated "It is for the individual concerned to decide whether they use or wish to be known by their title." – [14].
The British title is a foreign honor and an entitlement and cannot be forced upon an individual. Neither Donald Tsang nor the HKGOV have used this title post-handover.
There are multiple reliable recent mainstream media sources which simply refer to him without including the British honor.

Those for the use of this prefix have stated thus:

There are multiple reliable mainstream media sources which refer to him as "Sir Donald" or "Sir Donald Tsang".
The subject of the article has not formally renounced the title.

Since I am involved in the dispute, I would urge commentators to please read the complete discussion thread on Talk:Donald Tsang (click here) and then comment there itself. Thank you. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 05:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a BLP issue as the fact that the subject of the article is holds the title "Sir" is a fact supported by multiple reliable sources. see Donald_Tsang#cite_note-1 as well as [15],[16],[17],[18],[19]. This issue should instead be raised at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies on whether we should make an exception to the convention that anyone who is entitled to "Sir" will have that title in bolded text in the leading sentence of his biography. This is a Manual of Style issue, not a verifiability issue. --Jiang (talk) 05:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the top of this page: "This noticeboard is for reporting and discussing issues with biographies of living persons." Despite what you have said, this is a BLP issue (and not just MoS) given the reasons I have explained above. Thanks. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 07:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This page is for BLP violations, not just about issues with biographies of living persons in general. I can't tell what part of the BLP policy would be violated with inclusion here. Please quote the policy.--Jiang (talk) 17:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. "This noticeboard is for reporting and discussing issues with biographies of living persons. These may include editing disputes and cases where contributors are repeatedly adding troublesome material over an extended period." Claimed BLP violations are included but not the only sort of issue that might be discussed here. Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...which is under the bolded title "Report a possible biographies of living persons violation". Regardless, if there is a BLP violation as Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington claims there is, I'd like to see what part of the BLP policy is being implicated here.--Jiang (talk) 18:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The MOS is a guideline rather than mandatory policy. As it says, "Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions". Rabindranath Tagore is an exception presumably because he renounced his knighthood. Donald Tsang could be another exception because he doesn't use the title. Exceptions are not an issue. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-life feminism

Pro-life feminism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article labels Breda O'Brien as an "Irish abortion opponent" using a cite by Laury Oaks. Only problem is that the cite is unavailable for under $36, and a free article by the same author does not make the same specific characterisation.

I have asked without success for anyone to furnish the text of the cite to determine if it is being properly used, to no avail. Meanwhile, one of the edit warriors is saying that the article is under 1RR (though he fails to warn his compatriot who is at 3RR <g>) meaning that the characterisation of a living person as being "abortion opponent" and not as a "pro-life feminist" remains.

Last I checked, the term "abortion opponent" can be considered a contentious claim which requires actual verifiable reliable sourcing. Edit summaries, alas, make a claim No basis for argument as Collect has not read the cited source which means that making a source unverifiable makes it a stronger source than one which can be verified <g>, and on the talk page oh yeah, I'd forgot you're one of those people who waves the BLP flag to cover up POV-pushing) which is exactly the sort of anti-WP:BLP attitude which causes so many problems on Wikipedia. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:07, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not involved on that article, but allow me to correct a misimpression: the source is not "unverifiable" (anyway it's content that has to be verifiable, not sources). Please have a look at WP:SOURCEACCESS. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Practice in the past has been that a person using a source be prepared to give the wording in that source, Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you asked Wikipedia:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request? Have you checked Inter Library Loan? Hipocrite (talk) 19:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC) Alternatively, have you asked on the article talk page? Hipocrite (talk) 19:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I checked online - and decided $36 was a lot. I asked repeatedly for thpse using the "source" to furnish quotes thereform - but so far they seem quite loath to do so. This would not be a problem except that we have found people making claims in the past for sources, which were not in them. All I ask is that the material be furnished - a simple matter if the source's exact wording corresponds with the claims made for it. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, in summary, your answer is "no?" Please ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request, go to the library, or ask for a copy of the source on the talk page. Hipocrite (talk) 19:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with others that you should ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request. But if no one can come up with a source, I say you probably should remove or rephrase it.

BTW, the citation template has a place where you can give the exact quote from the citing article. Had the original author filled this part in, we could see if the source actually backs the article content. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From what I read here, there is a source. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of BLP is that you would have to remove this claim until someone actually gets the source and verifies that it is correctly used. Certainly it is best practice to try and get the book from inter-library loan or whatever, but BLP policy is quite protective adn conservative, and the safest answer is to leave it out until someone gets the source.LedRush (talk) 19:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're not understanding. Collect's problem is not that no-one has the source -- Collect's problem is that (s)he can't get the source for free. Again, see WP:SOURCEACCESS. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I understand. I think BLP concerns, especially on a topic as heated as this one, are more important.LedRush (talk) 20:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As Nomoskedasticity points out, it is not necessary for every user to be able to access a source in order to use it. Binksternet, Sonicyouth86, and I all have it. However, accessibility isn't the problem: Collect has found another article by the same author with similar content, and this article also characterizes O'Brien as an abortion rights opponent whose arguments are characteristic of abortion opponents, not "Irish women" as a class. Collect is, as usual, waving the BLP banner as a coverup for POV-pushing and, in this case, flagrantly misrepresenting sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

jill kenton

would it be possible to remove the warning tags on the article on Jill Kenton? I think mostly the article is within the strictures of the biographies of living persons - it was sourced mainly from information directly from her (she asked me to edit her article for her, as she has no experience of doing this) and is as neutral as possible; almost all the references to her are confirmed through third-party sites. PeterPwarne (talk) 19:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Er, that's actually the problem. The article has no references, and that may be grounds for deletion soon. The external links are her family business, her official site, her employer, a BBC article, and a YouTube video. See Wikipedia:No original research#Primary.2C secondary and tertiary sources. Dru of Id (talk) 19:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLPPRODed. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abi Titmuss

I am having a difficult time convincing an editor that navel-gazing negative gossip such as this, sourced to the The Mirror, is not appropriate content for a BLP. Unfortunately they are edit warring to restore the BLP-violating material despite my multiple requests to get consensus that it is appropriate content. The content has been removed on BLP grounds by both myself and another editor, yet it continues to be restored by Shylocksboy. Since they have chosen not to reach out to get the consensus required to include such information, I have begun the discussion. Additional input welcome please!. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:17, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 663: / Line 663: @@
 :::::::You're not understanding.  Collect's problem is not that no-one has the source -- Collect's problem is that ''(s)he'' can't get the source ''for free''.  Again, see [[WP:SOURCEACCESS]]. [[User:Nomoskedasticity|Nomoskedasticity]] ([[User talk:Nomoskedasticity|talk]]) 20:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 ::::::::Nope, I understand.  I think BLP concerns, especially on a topic as heated as this one, are more important.[[User:LedRush|LedRush]] ([[User talk:LedRush|talk]]) 20:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
+*As Nomoskedasticity points out, it is not necessary for every user to be able to access a source in order to use it. Binksternet, Sonicyouth86, and I all have it. However, accessibility isn't the problem: Collect has found another article by the same author with similar content, and this article ''also'' characterizes O'Brien as an abortion rights opponent whose arguments are characteristic of abortion opponents, not "Irish women" as a class. Collect is, as usual, waving the BLP banner as a coverup for POV-pushing and, in this case, flagrantly misrepresenting sources. –[[User:Roscelese|Roscelese]] ([[User talk:Roscelese|talk]] &sdot; [[Special:Contributions/Roscelese|contribs]]) 20:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 == jill kenton ==

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards