Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

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

Children names in BLPs

Chelsea Clinton

An editor has put a blanket veto on placing the name of Chelsea Clinton's baby in the article, even though the name of the baby is in the title of a Washington Post article and the name has been publicized by the family. The editor is also edit warring over this issue [1] [2] [3]. Is this editor's behavior in line? How hot is the sun? (talk) 06:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

There is an ongoing dispute about the inclusion of material regarding the name of the new Chelsea Clinton baby (on on the talk page for Chelsea Clinton). Today many articles from trusted news sources released the baby annoucement, and in fact it was a high trending news item of the day. Various politicians or poltical figures have their childrens names (and in many cases date of birth) in their Wikipedia articles from cited sources. I understand in the situation of certain celebrity children, privacy is an issue, however this was publically announced by the family and can be cited. This baby is notable for reasons beyond being born, including the lineage of a political family. Information about the child is being removed from this article by Winkelvi and the user has removed other political childrens names, with what appears to be a misinterpretation of BLPNAME. Can we please make a decision on how the BLPNAME policy effects this article? Thank you. Jooojay (talk) 06:11, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

No, this baby isn't "notable for reasons beyond being born" - she isn't notable (in the sense that Wikipedia uses the term) at all. Notability isn't inherited. And as for this being 'a high trending news item of the day', firstly this encyclopaedia is an international project, and I very much doubt that it is 'high trending' everywhere, and secondly this is not a newspaper, and we are under no obligation to slavishly copy the ephemeral concerns of the media. If the child's name needs mentioning at all, it needs to be justified on proper encyclopaedic grounds, rather than because the local media have run out of more interesting topics on a dull news day. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Andy is right. The child is not notable in its own right. It's not like a child in a royal family, with a position in the line of descent. The child's name would add nothing to the article. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and does not have fill column inches with trash every day. HiLo48 (talk) 06:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I can't for the life of me see any convincing reason not to name a child within an article—notable or not—when reliably sourced. Winkelvi has indeed oversimplified (and likely misinterpreted) policy- omission is NOT a requirement simply because a person isn't notable. Giving nameless children is vague, ambiguous, and unhelpful to readers. It also certainly is NOT PRIVATE when publicly announced by the child's family AND many reliable secondary sources. Inclusion is valid as long as it is reliably sourced, simple as that. Jooojay and Tvoz are absolutely correct that it is valid to include. Snuggums (talk / edits) 07:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

HiLo48 a child's name is trash news? That is offensive on many levels. Jooojay (talk) 07:21, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Snuggums (talk / edits) 07:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll ignore that silliness. Being sourced is a necessary but never sufficient reason to include something in Wikipedia. The default position in Wikipedia is obviously to exclude children's names. See most other biographical articles for evidence. This child would need some special notability to be named here. This child has no notability. HiLo48 (talk) 08:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't go so far as to say exclusion is "default"- there's a fuckload of articles which include names of all one's children, age and notability not withstanding. Charolette (or any other celebrity children) not having independent notability is not at all a convincing reason to leave out names. Snuggums (talk / edits) 08:21, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah, fuckload. I see the level of conversation we're working with now. HiLo48 (talk) 08:28, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLPNAME gives us guidance here. The relevant part seems to be: "The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons. The names of any immediate, ex, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject." So, convince that including the kid's name "is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject". She had a baby. That can be news. What she called it makes no difference to my understanding of that fact. HiLo48 (talk) 08:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The name of the granddaughter of Bill & Hillary Clinton certainly belongs in Chelsea Clinton's BLP. IAR and all that. This is as close to American Royalty as we can get. I see zippy harm to the baby or the Clintons by including this name which is sourced in every major RS newspaper on the planet. This is taking BLP policy to an absurd level. ABSURD!Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 08:53, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Snort! Chuckle....royalty? Blah...who gives a crap what Princess Chelsea named it. But....the way the name was publically stated and the fact that the name can be reliably sourced means there is no policy that prohibits mentioning the child's name here.--MONGO 09:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Not a notable baby, but having a baby is a significant event in this notable person's bio. Relaying her name isn't vital, but you'd have a slightly more complete understanding of Chelsea if you knew what she chose. No harm done, like when associating someone's name in Google results with their notorious murderer uncle (or aunt). InedibleHulk (talk) 10:16, September 29, 2014 (UTC)

Publically released in a statement from the family? Carried in reliable news sources? There is absolutely nothing in policy or guidelines that bars us from including it. Whether we want to or not is another matter, but I can see no harm in one mention of the name in connection with the birth. We have stacks of articles (including BLPs) where an infobox lists all the children, whether they are notable or not. I see nothing here that makes the inclusion of the name a problem. - SchroCat (talk) 10:19, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Keep in mind, Marc Mevinzky is also not notable, and the article doesn't mention him doing anything independent of "the couple". If this sort of thing is harmful, we should help him, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:32, September 29, 2014 (UTC)

Will you folk please have a think about why you're thinking this way? What earthy difference does the kid's name make to you? And to our readers? It's trivia. It's effectively voyeurism. Chelsea is of no real importance herself. Her kid even less so. The kid's name? LOL. HiLo48 (talk) 10:40, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

But her gluten-free wedding cake, that's important. And her "more sophisticated look" from Donatella Versace. #5 Girl in a 2002 Tatler magazine list? Damn important, whatever it means. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:49, September 29, 2014 (UTC)

Poor Chels and Mezza. The name is obviously irrelevant. The child deserves her own article! Martinevans123 (talk) 10:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

"It's effectively voyeurism"? No, having one mention of the name is nothing like voyeurism, effectively or ineffectively. - SchroCat (talk) 12:07, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Then answer the question. What earthy difference does the kid's name make to you? Or any of our readers? HiLo48 (talk) 12:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

This is not our call whatsoever. We pass that kind of question off to WP:RS. If they, for whatever reasons they deem applicable, widely report the name, then the name crosses all sorts of threshholds for inclusion. (Unless some intentional suppression has been requested by the family or courts or government, as per WP:BLPNAME.) Whether their reasons were "effectively voyeurism" or something else is completely irrelevant to us, and as such, you are not making an argument for exclusion. Choor monster (talk) 13:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

FYI, this tabloid-ish nonsense is infesting Bill Clinton's article as well. IMO WP:BLPNAME is enough of a rationale to leave a baby's name out of infoboxes and such for the time being. Tarc (talk) 13:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comments +policy: The child is not notable by Wikipedia standards; notability is not established by one event. In this case, the "one event" is the child being born. Including the child's name does not help the reader better understand the article subject. The child's name in an encyclopedia article is tabloid trivia worthy of People Magazine, it's not encyclopedic content.

• Guidelines found in WP:BLPNAME are clear on this: "Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event...When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories. Consider whether the inclusion of names of living private individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value."

• WP:LOWPROFILE applies: "A low-profile individual is someone who has been covered in reliable sources without seeking such attention, often as part of their connection with a single event."

• WP:BLP1E applies as well: "Wikipedia is not news, or an indiscriminate collection of information. Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. We should generally avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met: If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article."

I have seen this argument discussed many times over the last couple of years I've been here. Each time it comes down to what I posted above with the conclusion being: the names and all identifying information of non-notable minor children are to be left out of Wikipedia articles. In the case of Chelsea Clinton's baby, saying the birth occurred and in the month/year it occurred is sufficient. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 15:18, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Nobody ever said notability came from a singular event or whether a separate article is automatically warranted. Names are NOT TRIVIAL, and I'm sure anybody would be highly offended to hear that said about their child, and would highly disagree about it being "tabloidish" or "tabloid trivia" or "not encyclopedic". It is NOT indiscriminate, and when prominent political figures like the Clintons become grandparents, society views that as a pretty big deal, regardless of whether or not the grandchild becomes independently notable. There's nothing unencyclopedic with including an important part of a person's life. There is no hard-and-fast rule prohibiting inclusion. If a reader comes across text saying "_____ has a child", he or she will likely ask "what is the child's name?", and it would help readers to simply give answers when and where they want them. Being "non-notable"/"low-profile" isn't by itself a convincing reason to leave out names. If Chelsea on the other hand specifically mentioned she did not want her child's name known/revealed, that would be a different story. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:45, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

SNUGGUMS wrote: "I'm sure anybody would be highly offended to hear that said about their child". I'm sure the Clintons couldn't care less about what Wikipedia editors are saying about them in a Wikipedia talk page or noticeboard. No feelings of the article subject and associated relatives will be hurt during the course of this discussion. Such emotional commentary is neither germane to the conversation nor is it helpful. You further state, "Being "non-notable"/"low-profile" isn't by itself a convincing reason to leave out names". Policy disagrees with your personal, emotional opinion. You're free to take this up with Wikipedia policy-makers, I suppose, but in the meantime, the policy is what it is. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 16:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

No no- policy doesn't explicitly state it absolutely should/shouldn't be left out simply due to lack of notability. Also, I was saying Chelsea would highly disagree that info on her daughter is "trivial", especially seeing to it that she publicly gave it out. Calling Charlotte's identity "tabloidish" would likely offend the family. As long as the information is reliably sourced it IS VALID to include. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:10, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

(e/c, responding to Winkelvi above, agreeing strongly with SNUGGUMS) You have badly misunderstood all the policy that you have been quoting. WP:BLP1E and WP:LOWPROFILE, for example, are about whether someone should have a separate standalone article or be part of some larger article. The standards for simply appearing in an article are much much lower than having a standalone article. And they say nothing against including the name. In fact, the policy you quote explicitly recommends that such a low-profile name be an explicitly named redirect to the more general article. This is what is done, for example, with Obama's children, who have done nothing notable. (Although the instant they do something as minor as Chelsea or the Bush twins have done, or even HRC's mother, they will doubtless become so.) Contrast this with potentially being fourth in line to the English throne: that in itself counts as so notable that one doesn't even need a name, let alone a birth, to have a standalone article. Here, no one is suggesting a standalone article, so quoting reasons why we can't have one is simply wasting everyone's time.

As for WP:BLPNAME, I cannot see how anyone can read it as applying to this situation. The purpose is to protect privacy, which simply does not exist in this situation. As for newborns, names, genders, and dates are certainly considered routine information, told to everyone. As for "reader's complete understanding", well yes, the name is necessary: forcing our readers to click on the NYT link (and apparently we can't reference the WashPost article because the title has the name?) or Google for that one last bit of information is ludicrous. At worst, consensus must be achieved, and misapplying policy isn't contributing to consensus. Choor monster (talk) 16:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)No, I haven't badly misunderstood policy on this. In response to your comment, "As for newborns, names, genders, and dates are certainly considered routine information, told to everyone." Not in an encyclopedia. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 16:24, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• Regarding policy, you have opted for WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Not very encouraging. Yes, I typically find children's names of people with in encyclopedia articles, both WP and in-print. Choor monster (talk) 16:35, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• It is rather silly not to include this reliable information in the Chelsea Clinton biography (perhaps someone else's biography, it would be different but this is not someone else's biography). Sure, we do not have to, but per policy, we apply common sense to such things, and a widely publicized child name is just a standard part of reasonably complete biography for a mother. There is certainly no privacy concern, so all of those objections are without foundation. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:21, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• Are we really having a discussion about this? Most bios include names of the person's children, and I don't see why this would be any different. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
• I would support inclusion. This isn't "trash news" as others have claimed. The birth announcement was covered widely here in America. While I understand the privacy concern, we shouldn't substitute our judgment for that of the child's own parents. Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 17:02, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not the child's parents whose privacy we are concerned about. The name belongs to the kid, not the parents, and it hasn't given permission. It may grow up not wanting to be routinely and automatically connected with its philandering grandfather. It IS trash news. It's trivia. Chelsea herself isn't really independently important. The kid is definitely not. It may grow up NOT wanting to known as Bill Clinton's grand kid. We must leave it with that choice. And Cwobeel, you need to provide evidence that "Most (Wikipedia) bios include names of the person's children". I also say again, what the media says doesn't change our policies, which clearly discourage naming the child, no matter how incapable some here are at reading WP:BLPNAME. And to those saying it's well sourced, that is never enough. HiLo48 (talk) 17:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The notability of Baby Clinton is not being discussed. What Baby Clinton might want or not want regarding its grandparents is outside our control or concern: the attachment is there and will always be made. Media does not make our policy, for sure, but our policy relies on the media. In particular, the choices that the media make are given great weight. The name is not trash news. That is a rather rude, obnoxious and insulting statement for anyone to make regarding something that most of the media have apparently decided is of interest to their readers. And I'd say you've blatantly misread WP:BLPNAME. It asserts the name should be clearly left out in certain narrowly defined circumstances, and leaves it to editorial discretion in other cases. This is not one of those narrowly defined circumstances, ergo, you cannot raise an objection based on WP:BLPNAME. Choor monster (talk) 17:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I can, and have. You cannot dismiss it that easily. HiLo48 (talk) 18:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

You've missed my point. Charlotte's parents are the ones who get to make the call on her privacy concerns. Not us. I'd also suggest you step away from this discussion if you really feel Chelsea isn't notable enough and if you continue to insist the name is trash. Of course, you also wanted ISIS' beheading videos on Wikipedia, so I'm not sure anyone should listen to what you have to say. Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 18:02, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

That's a stupid and pathetic debating strategy. Please stay on topic. HiLo48 (talk) 18:12, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree: Calidum, stick to the topic.

Meanwhile, you have not actually raised on objection based on WP:BLPNAME. You have taken some words from it, and thrown them up in the air, claiming they apply here. They do not.

To be precise. The first paragraph of the policy addresses people known for one event. Baby Clinton is not known for any events, although some people are saying she is notable for "being born", which is ridiculous. (Unlike Louise Brown, whose only claim to notability was being born.) The baby is known and newsworthy today, and will remain known and newsworthy for quite some time, precisely because of Grandfather and Grandmother Clinton. (Just wait for her first play date with Prince George.) And that will never be something she can erase, so all your talk about WP ought to take some moral high ground and respectfully back off makes absolutely no sense. Like you said, please stay on topic, OK?

As for the second paragraph of WP:BLPNAME, the "presumption in favor of privacy" is null and void here. So long as we have WP:RS identifying the names for us, it's explicitly no longer a WP:BLPNAME leave-it-out concern, but a consensus-based editorial issue here, as the paragraph explains. Choor monster (talk) 18:36, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• The names of notable people's children regularly appear in the articles of those notable people. This in now way violates BLP1E, NOTINHERITED, or any other BLP policy, as those policies refer to whether or not an actual ARTICLE on the child should exist. If THAT were the debate, I would NOT support including an article on Chelsea Clinton's child. But it's not. So, I support including the name. LHM^{ask me a question} 17:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Notability is not a criteria for inclusion of content in a Wikipedia article. Notability is the criteria for a subject or topic to have a Wikipedia article. Is a baby and its name significant to an article on Chelsea Clinton or to any mother /father/parent. Apparently so since its included in most WP BLPs where that information is available. Is the baby and its name included in multiple mainstream sources. Yes, and further attests to the perceived significance of this content. We should not confuse notability with significance.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:42, 29 September 2014 (UTC))

Editors here keep saying things like "...its included in most WP BLPs where that information is available". I have asked several times, and will ask again. Prove it. Too much of this discussion is of the form "I declare this, so it's true". HiLo48 (talk)

You can't seriously be arguing that the names of children of BLP aren't included in the articles of the BLP, can you? This is a serious case of WP:IDHT. Here's one on Jeb Bush, for example. There are literally thousands of others. 18:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I asked you to prove it. Jeb Bush isn't "most". And put-downs like "You can't seriously be arguing..." never help. Of course I'm serious. Let's keep some quality in this discussion. HiLo48 (talk) 18:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• I have unclosed this discussion: it was not signed, no outcome was provided (whose stick? which stick?), and there is certainly no consensus on anything. I see at least three editors who are providing arguments for not including the material, and plenty of editors on the other side. This is not ready for closure. Drmies (talk) 23:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• In this case the name should be included in Chelsea's article. It is true that we often elect to omit the names of non-notable minor children from bio articles. However, the reasons for doing so are obviated when the family itself releases the name, and it is the subject of extensive coverage in major media. The denigration of the coverage here as "tabloid" is inappropriate given that the sources include all the major American newspapers. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, of course that name is in the media (tabloid and otherwise); mom is famous, and of course the family released it. But the way I read the policy, we should leave the names of clearly non-notable people out of these articles. They are included in such articles all over the place, but by the same token they are also frequently removed from such articles, and with better grounds. Drmies (talk) 01:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

It's tabloid. Even the major newspapers have lowered their standards in recent times to retain/attract audience in a dwindling market. It's the child's privacy that matters here. We have policies. We don't have to lower them just because others lower theirs. HiLo48 (talk) 01:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Tabloid!? HiLo, you know as well as everyone else that major newspapers are quite different from tabloid journalism AND have much higher integrity. The idea of privacy is entirely moot when the family publicly announced it, so that argument is pretty much nullified. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:52, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Have you noticed that the Clintons happen to be a particularly publicity seeking family? They seek all the publicity they can get, for obvious political reasons. We don't have to play that game. Our policies say we should give the kid privacy. I have made my point about newspapers. HiLo48 (talk) 01:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and BTW, the ONLY reason I know that Chelsea even had a kid is because of Wikipedia. It isn't news outside the USA. (Well, not in the outlets I see regularly.) The kid's privacy is safe there. Well, it was,, until some excited Wikipedians chose a global encyclopaedia to announce the kid's birth AND name. HiLo48 (talk) 02:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Policies do not explicitly say it is a requirement per se to "give the kid privacy". In short, such information is NOT private at all when widely known to the public. If it was private, then society likely wouldn't have even known about her existence. As long as the information is reliably sourced, inclusion IS valid. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:07, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Bottom line: if the child/grandchild is non-notable and a minor, WP:BLPNAME is clear: naming them doesn't enhance the reader's understanding of the article subject, we aren't writing a tabloid or newspaper/magazine article, therefore, privacy for minor children is preferred for encyclopedic content. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 02:20, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

It is not an absolute requirement, though. In fact, given how one's child(ren) make up an important part of his/her life, leaving it out wouldn't really help viewers. If a viewer reads "_____ has a child", he or she will likely seek to know the child's name. For the reader's convenience, it is much simpler for them to provide the answer right then and there. No, policies DO NOT EXPLICITLY give a preference. And it is NOT PRIVATE AT ALL when known to the public AND publicly announced by family AND is reported in reliable sources. Adding such detail doesn't by itself constitute a tabloid, magazine, or newspaper. It IS encyclopedic to include as long as it is reliably sourced. The idea of privacy is oxymoronic when the public already knows about such detail. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:29, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

You really don't need to shout. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 02:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• non notable minor, no value to article or reader. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • On the contrary, it IS of value. Stating someone has a child and not giving any further detail is unhelpful and vague to readers. One's children are quite important to a person's life, unless said person simply doesn't care about his/her children. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

that some people dont feel satisfied until they have all the personal details about everything is why tabloids exist. As an encyclopedia, we serve a different function.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

SNUGGUMS wrote: "One's children are quite important to a person's life," Oh my gawd. How many times do you have to be reminded that this is an encyclopedia and touch-feely thoughts of "I may hurt someone's feelings by leaving their child's name out of an article" don't apply here? -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 02:42, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't so much a "hurt someone's feelings" as it is A: children are a major detail about the person, especially when aiming for a comprehensive article (with Wikipedia's definition of "comprehensive" meaning "it neglects no major facts or details") B: said person would disagree that it is "trivial" or "not important". There's absolutely nothing un-encyclopedic about including a major aspect unless it is unsourced/poorly sourced. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• Good grief. This entire thread is basically one small group of editors applying a draconian (and wrong) view of WP:BLPNAME in an attempt to (for whatever reason) keep the names of a BLP's children out of an article, when the BLP herself has released the name of the child. I could list hundreds of BLPs where names of non-notable children are included in the BLP's article. And if you look at the talkpage, the ENTIRE argument from BLPNAME has just been completely blown out of the water. There's no reason not to include the well-sourced name of Chelsea Clinton's child--or Jenna Bush's, for that matter, as one of the editors above is trying to make some kind of WP:POINT by going to THAT article and removing her child's name. This really needs to stop. LHM^{ask me a question} 03:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

To say that there's no reason is insulting to those who have presented some reasons. You may not those reasons are important enough, but they exist. Please think of using manners here. And stop using such shallow argument. HiLo48 (talk) 03:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Your reasoning has been shot all to hell at both the talkpage and here. Completely taken apart as without merit. But you didn't hear that, so you keep accusing others of bad manners and such, in lieu of explaining how including the well-sourced name of Chelsea Clinton's child in her article violates BLPNAME. LHM^{ask me a question} 03:42, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

HiLo, you've been dismissive yourself towards others' rationales on multiple instances here, so there's hypocrisy on your part. Just saying. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I will dismiss particularly foolish and dishonest editing. HiLo48 (talk) 04:39, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Wow. I'd much rather deal with someone who swears like a sailor than someone who begins hurling around insults once their arguments are put to bed. LHM^{ask me a question} 05:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Me too. HiLo48 (talk) 06:00, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• Mention by name Quite properly, we have biographical articles about the three grandchildren of Abraham Lincoln, including the boy named after him Abraham Lincoln II who died at age 16. We have a biography of a JFK child who died shortly after birth. None of them accomplished all that much, but are notable as descendents of a great president. We have articles about many parents and grandparents of U.S. presidents. I am not arguing for an article about Charlotte at this time, nor Sasha Obama nor Malia Obama. But refusing to mention these presidential offspring and grandchildren, discussed widely in reliable sources, and mention of which is entirely approved by their parents, is excessively pedantic and unsupported, in my view, by policy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

That's just more WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and I can't imagine why most of those articles exist. Might look at nominating some for deletion. HiLo48 (talk) 08:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Given your behavior in this discussion, such a WP:POINTy display from you would not surprise me in the least. (And if you're going to keep citing OTHERSTUFF, you should really read it. It doesn't say what you think it says.) LHM^{ask me a question} 08:04, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Can you get me mind reading lessons too? HiLo48 (talk) 08:10, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• Yes to the baby's name since the parents of the baby prominently published the name. Not only do we have strong arguments for inclusion of the name, based on very high quality sources, and many positive precedents, but HiLo48 let slip the true nature of the opposition with the offhand comment "Chelsea is of no real importance herself." That shows an ideological opposition rather than a logical one. Binksternet (talk) 08:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Really? I, for one, have no idea what you're talking about. Care to elaborate? Which ideology? HiLo48 (talk) 08:29, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The comment "Chelsea is of no real importance herself" shows you shifting into an emotional position, the abandonment of logic for a snide slam against the bio subject. If you really thought Chelsea was not important you would nominate her biography for deletion, which would never fly, and I'm sure you know that. So you've hurt your otherwise logical arguments, saddling them with emotional baggage. Binksternet (talk) 15:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

In what way is Chelsea Clinton important? And again, how is my position ideological? HiLo48 (talk) 21:04, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

You have a better vantage point than I do to judge how your position might be more ideological or emotional than logical. Regarding Chelsea's importance to the world, she is commonly considered future presidential material in the U.S., for instance by these sources:[4][5][6][7][8][9] In the interim, she is stepping up to take over the titular leadership of the Clinton Global Initiative so that Bill and Hillary can be freed from the constraints of being so closely associated with that fairly powerful NGO while simultaneously promoting Hillary as a presidential candidate. Binksternet (talk) 21:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

So we include the kid's name because its mother might be important one day? No. HiLo48 (talk) 21:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

And this ideology thing. It's you who said my position was ideological, not me, so it's you who must explain that statement. How is my position ideological? HiLo48 (talk) 21:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• There simply is no basis to keep this information out. As already noted, privacy is no issue where the fact is repeatedly well sourced. Moreover, the argument that it is not encyclopedic has no legs, as that does not accord with the meaning of encyclopedic. As for unnamed "good reason", none has been brought forward -- it is informationally part of her biography (see, eg. [10]). Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Many reasons have been given. You are free to disagree with them. But obviously many disagree with you. That contradicts "There simply is no basis to keep this information out." Privacy IS an issue. Wikipedia is long term and global. The current media frenzy in the USA is neither. Nobody has asked the child if it wants its name in a long term, global encyclopaedia. HiLo48 (talk) 21:04, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

No, disagreement alone does not form a basis in reason. It is unreasonable say that a newborn should be asked anything. Privacy is not an issue when the matter is already well published. Indeed, I already linked to a long term and globally published biography of Chelsea Clinton that has this well documented fact in it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:19, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Care to post that link again please? (There's a lot of crap been posted here, and I missed that.) 22:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

It is linked in my comment of 12:46 that you responded to. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support inclusion of name, as (i)being extremly well published and as such any privacy concerns are de facto moot (ii)of encyclopedic value, since last time I checked names, just as dates and locations, are encyclopedic information. We don't talk of "that President of the United States", we talk of George Washington or Richard Nixon. Names are the essential identifiers we use to look for something. In some cases we can avoid naming people due to privacy concerns, thus failing our encyclopedic mission in the name of some greater good, perhaps, but in this case -again- those concerns do not exist. Finally, given that BLP concerns are out of the question, then (iii) we do not go around deciding to remove sourced and germane information because "it is trash", since we are not censored.--cyclopia^speak! 13:15, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

You are ignoring all that has been properly said about the privacy concerns.The Washington/Nixon analogy is about as irrelevant as it could possibly be. Nobody is censoring anything. HiLo48 (talk) 17:10, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Nothing has been "properly said" about actual "privacy concerns." You've just jumped from blue link to blue link, trying to find any rationale you might be able to twist unrecognizable to support your campaign against inclusion of Chelsea Clinton's baby's name. There are no "privacy concerns" in this case, as the parents have made the name widely known, and various reliable sources have published it. LHMask me a question 18:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support including the child's name. This is standard practice where it can be reliably sourced, and done in numerous FAs. Just because the child is not (yet) independently notable, doesn't mean her name is not worth including in her mother's article. What importance is the name? Of what use? How about actually telling people the child's name? There are people who look to Wikipedia just for such information. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

You people all have WAY too much time on your hands. No one in the real world actually gives a rat's behind about "BLP", "NPOV" or any of the other nonsense that's been discussed here. Mention the kid's name or don't. I and 99.99999999999% of people in this world don't care one way or another. I urge you all to do something that is actually productive in this life, like teaching illiterate children to read or keeping elderly people company or any of a hundred things. This "conversation" has long since passed the point of being absolutely absurd. To quote William Shatner "Get a life!" 66.67.32.161 (talk) 21:58, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Jenna Bush Hager

Jenna Bush Hager (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A very similar issue to Chelsea Clinton's baby being deleted from the Chelsea Clinton article, is now happening to the Jenna Bush Hager article with user Winkelvi taking a stand that the discussion here did not reach a consensus or decision noted about the inclusion of baby names. This behavior seems unproductive at this point and he is not seeking community feedback. Jooojay (talk) 20:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

In fact, he's now edit-warring on Chelsea Clinton, just saying BLP over and over again. Choor monster (talk) 20:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I hate to say this, but such actions are now bordering on WP:POINT. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:24, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. The only arguments put forward are a blatant misinterpretation of BLPNAME, that has been roundly refuted above, and the sticking of one's fingers in the ears after that argument has been refuted. LHM^{ask me a question} 21:47, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I neither know nor care who Jenna Bush Hager is, but I just saw that claim of "roundly refuted above". That is simply wrong. HiLo48 (talk) 23:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Jenna Bush is one of the daughters of George W Bush. I assume that the article is being offered for purposes of comparing what our general practice is. I suspect you would be hard pressed to find a recent President whose grandchildren are not named. Jack Carter (politician) names Jimmy Carter's grandchildren. Jason Carter (politician) names the great grandchildren of Jimmy Carter. Michael Reagan names President Reagan's grandchildren. Jeb Bush names grandchildren of George H W Bush. --B (talk) 02:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Very true. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The issue is in regard to non-notable minor children and grandchildren. Not all children and grandchildren.

Bottom line: if they are non-notable and minors, WP:BLPNAME is clear: naming them doesn't enhance the reader's understanding of the article subject, we aren't writing a tabloid or newspaper/magazine article, therefore, privacy for minor children is preferred for encyclopedic content. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 02:18, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Bottom line, you are wrong, you don't listen, and this is becoming tendentious, and pointy - Cwobeel (talk) 02:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

You're very needlessly rude. In fact, an admin at the 3RR noticeboard has pointed this out. I guess you missed it. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 02:25, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

No, it says nothing like that. "When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed" (none of that stuff is the case here) "... it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context." You're trying to pretend that only the second part of that sentence is in there without the first part. I'm about as pro-BLP as they come, but not including names of a President's grandchildren is silly. You don't have a more public family (at least in the US) than a President's family. --B (talk) 02:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, B. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:59, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

(Insert scoffing here) Not including names of a President's grandchildren is silly? What possible value could including the names of someone's grandchildren bring to an encyclopedia article (unless we're talking ancestral line importance)? The answer: No value whatsoever. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 03:07, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

While it might not necessarily belong in the President's own article, it most certainly DOES belong in the article on the President's child. This is what I believe B meant. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:12, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Unless they have done something significant in their own right, I cannot see why a President's child is notable, let along that person's children. Having a famous parent does not make one notable. The fact that it's done in some other articles doesn't convince me I'm wrong. HiLo48 (talk) 03:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Nobody ever said the child was independently notable, only that articles should contain details on their children. It doesn't have to be extensive, but there should at least be something (i.e. name and birthdate). Otherwise, the article is incomplete. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:53, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry, but that makes no sense. An article on subject A is incomplete without the name and birthdate of non-subject B? The operative phrase in BLPNAME is "editorial discretion", and really, this is where I, and apparently a whole bunch of others, draw the line. You can't simply dismiss that as "oh those idiots didn't hear that/had their fingers in their ears/justdon'tlikeit" or some other cute bluelinked phrase. What on earth could the birthdate (and name) add for the reader of this or other articles, unless we're just another TMZ? Drmies (talk) 04:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• Don't worry- I wasn't being dismissive. What it would add is a significant time and event of the person's life (unless subject does not hold parenthood in high regard). Including it in no way makes Wikipedia like TMZ unless it was unsourced/poorly sourced. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• User:SNUGGUMS, my children are very important to me. To me. And at some point I aim to be notable (via PROF, hopefully, not via GNG), and at that time you better leave my kids out of it. Those events are of enormous importance to me and, I would assume, to Chelsea Clinton. But that doesn't make them important to the reader, and it doesn't take away from the injunction we have for editorial discretion, including such things as full names and birthdates. That such can be found in other ways by those who care is irrelevant: we have removed, even rev-deleted material on living people that was all over the internet for BLP concerns. Note that (for me) the sourcing, as I said above, is not the problem--rather, my TMZ reference refers to readership and what we want ourselves to be. There are lots of things that are well-referenced that we don't report either; it's a matter of taste (in K-pop, performers have designated colors, and apparently their bloodtypes are important to the fans). You and I (and others) can disagree on what is in "good taste" or not, but you cannot simply say "oh that's your opinion" because that applies to yours as well: there is no iron-clad reason why we should include that information. After all, she's not notable because she had a baby. Hell, my wife had three, all of which mine (she says), and neither that, nor the fact that those events were momentous for us, rise to the level of notability. Also, my babies were better-looking than hers. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 05:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• Whether such information should be included depends on how much said person wants to reveal. In instances were one intentionally keeps information on family secret from the public, it wouldn't be included. I wasn't saying to have things like bloodtypes in articles, only that including simple detail like who the child is and when he/she was born isn't a harmful idea unless parent specifically objects to society knowing about it. The only ABSOLUTE REQUIREMENT is that details need reliable sourcing. Aside from that, there are no hard-and-fast requirements for inclusion of detail. Also, it's not like I would post someone's home address or email or anything. Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

SNUGGUMS wrote: "Nobody ever said the child was independently notable". Which, on its own, is the very crux of this whole matter. If the child is not notable, we have no reason or need to name them. Just because their name appears in reliable sources doesn't give a reason to include them in an encyclopedia article about someone else. Both of these points have been mentioned several times in this noticeboard discussion as well as all the others with the same theme. The child is a minor and non-notable. Their name and other identifying information is not of any import in an encyclopedia article. That's exactly what WP:BLPNAME already tells us. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 03:58, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

What do you believe the purpose of the rule is? The purpose of the rule is to have a respect for privacy - not anything having to do with notability. We don't give family and personal details of marginally notable people out of a respect for their privacy. We don't want someone who doesn't like their local weatherman's forecast to come here and find out where he lives, what his kids' names are, and where they go to school. Privacy is not an issue in this case, though, because the names are widely known and publicized. --B (talk) 04:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

But the kid is still no more than marginally notable, so there is no point including it. HiLo48 (talk) 04:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Not a convincing reason to leave such detail out- omission would make the article incomplete. Also, it is not private when publicly known within society. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:21, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

B wrote: "The purpose of the rule is to have a respect for privacy - not anything having to do with notability." First of all it's not a "rule", it's policy. In answer to your question, the purpose is not just "privacy" but keeping out non-notable and non-important trivia found in publications with little to no editorial discretion out of an encyclopedia article. It's become clear to me today that (a) people editing Wikipedia have no concept that it's supposed to be an encyclopedia they are writing, and (b) there are still a number of people editing who have serious reading comprehension problems when it comes to policy - in part because they don't realize they are editing an encyclopedia, not a newspaper/tabloid/magazine article. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 04:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

No, BLPNAME actually does not explicitly say such detail has to be excluded simply due to being a non-notable minor. That's a very dogmatic oversimplification. It IS of import because it is an important part of the parent's life. What it actually says that such detail, if included, must be reliably sourced. It doesn't help readers to just give vague detail. So far, I haven't seen any convincing reason not to include it. Given how Wikipedia's best content is to be comprehensive, omission would prevent this from being top-notch as it is a major fact/detail. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I think you're arguing against something nobody has actually said there. HiLo48 (talk) 04:18, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

He is arguing against those of you who are oddly claiming that a widely-known name of a BLP's baby shouldn't be included in that BLP's article, even though that goes against how we do things on BLPs where children's names are widely-known. What hes actually doing is arguing against something you all have been claiming throughout the article: that the article shouldn't disclose the name of a child that has been covered in many major secondary sources. As the specious WP:BLPNAME claims have been completely refuted, the argument against inclusion is left with little more than, "well, I don't think it should be included, and so I'm going to take it out anyway. LHM^{ask me a question} 04:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The WP:BLPNAME claims have NOT been completely refuted. And unfortunately, you chose to lie about the thread above as part of your evidence. I suggest that you should 1. apologise for your lie, and 2. just keep quiet for now because of the embarrassment you have caused on your side of this debate. HiLo48 (talk) 04:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, they have. Just because you have your fingers in your ears doesn't mean people haven't torn those claims to shreds. And I have not "lied" at any point--I find it quite hypocritical that someone who was complaining about someone using the term "fuckloads" above is now accusing me of "lying", demanding apologies, and telling me to "just keep quiet." LHM^{ask me a question} 05:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you lied and are still doing it. Maybe it was unintentional, in which case, one can only wonder why? HiLo48 (talk) 05:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

One can not unintentionally "lie." A "lie" requires knowing X to be false, and still claiming it to be true--an act of will against the truth, once one knows what the truth is. That's why, even as you dig your heals in regardless of the evidence, I don't think you're "lying", as much as you're just being willfully obtuse, which is different. But it's just sort of sad to watch you insist that I am lying, when I've posted swaths of examples showing that what I claim to be true actually is true. LHM^{ask me a question} 12:29, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

You said, right near the start of this thread, that the argument around BLPNAME "been roundly refuted above". That was a lie. HiLo48 (talk) 21:21, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• I've seen the argument put forward above, "well the kid isn't notable." Certainly not, and no one's claiming she is. But her existence and her name are notable in relation to her mother's article. And the names of many non-notable people appear in the articles of BLPs. We nearly always list the names of a BLP's non-notable parents, for example. A person doesn't need to be notable in their own right for their name to appear on Wikipedia, particularly when they are part of a notable person's immediate family. (Note: I'm not arguing for ARTICLES on those people, just noting that they are nearly always MENTIONED in the articles of the people to whom they are closely related, or to events in which they participated. LHM^{ask me a question} 04:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

A BLP's non-notable parents are never minors. HiLo48 (talk) 04:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

So? They're not notable, yet their names appear in the articles. "The kid isn't notable" was an argument put forward above. LHM^{ask me a question} 05:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. You misunderstood my post. The bit about minors was the important bit. HiLo48 (talk) 05:59, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

It was? Where is that in policy? At the moment, it appears to be your personal bugaboo. Choor monster (talk) 13:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

You are failing to comprehend. There is no point me wasting more time on you. HiLo48 (talk) 21:10, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing to be comprehended. You have not made an argument based on policy. You have made an argument based on your personal wishes. If there is some aspect of policy which singles out "minor children" in this situation, while permits "adult parents", you have not identified it, and now you are just running away, unable and unwilling to admit you are the one wasting everyone's time. Choor monster (talk) 11:44, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I have made considerable argument based on policy. There is no point me wasting more time on you. HiLo48 (talk) 17:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

It would not be a waste of time if you identified the alleged part of policy where "minor children" whose names have been widely publicized by the parents and MSM are singled out for exclusion. Just repeatedly running away is the same as conceding that there is no such policy. Choor monster (talk) 13:59, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the inclusion of the names of BLP's children in the article of a BLP

Here is a partial list, on just a few of the articles that sprung immediately to mind: Angelina Jolie, Lisa Kudrow, Jeb Bush, Katie Holmes, Barack Obama, Tom Cruise, Michelle Obama, Kanye West, Kim Kardashian, and the list could go on and on. In addition to WP:BLPNAME being utterly shredded as a means for deleting the names of a BLP's children at the talkpage of one of the articles, as well as above, precedent shows that we don't have a problem including such information when it is well-sourced. LHM^{ask me a question} 05:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Much agreed. The key is reliability of sources. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

No. Sourcing is never enough. And WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS negates the first post above. HiLo48 (talk) 05:42, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Have you read OTHERSTUFF all they way through? It is specifically NOT an argument against using precedent, as you seem to believe. Given how insulting your posts have become above, it may be time for you to step away from the discussion for a bit. LHM^{ask me a question} 05:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh come on, that's not even original. HiLo48 (talk) 05:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

In the future, I'd suggest reading the essays you cite, to at least make sure they support the point you think you're trying to make. OTHERSTUFF actually makes the case that precedent DOES matter, in some cases. LHM^{ask me a question} 07:29, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• Exactly. For a prime example, see Ted Cruz. The names of his children can not be well-sourced, and thus are properly excluded from the article. LHM^{ask me a question} 05:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)LHM, I refer you to the following (also only a partial list of more examples of the same): [11]; [12].

Your understanding of WP:BLPNAME is incorrect. Moreover, saying that we've done it before isn't a valuable or valid argument. Plenty of people run stop signs everyday, too. That doesn't make it an acceptable or wise practice or erase the "policy" regarding such an act. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 05:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

You keep repeating WP:BLPNAME over and over, even though it's been utterly refuted as an argument against inclusion at the talkpage. I mean literally, it's been point-by-point debunked as applying in this case. BLPNAME does not mean what you think it means. LHM^{ask me a question} 05:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

It hasn't been "refuted". (Hardly the right verb, but if you like it, I'll go along with it.) HiLo48 (talk) 05:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

You must not know what the word "refuted" means, either. The use of BLPNAME to try to remove all names of children from BLP articles HAS been refuted. (Note: I'm not saying the that BLPNAME has been refuted, just that the bastardized way you guys are trying to USE it has.) LHM^{ask me a question} 07:33, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• And you want this to be a clear-cut "run the stop sign" type of case, but it's not. Inclusion of the names of a BLP's children is acceptable in some articles, but not in others. It all depends upon the sourcing available. And no matter how many times you repeat it, BLPNAME does NOT refute that. LHM^{ask me a question} 05:53, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

No, it hasn't been refuted. There are a few who (like yourself) have claimed it's been refuted. Saying it's so over and over again doesn't make it true. I keep repeating policy because it is what it is and it is real and right. How anyone can believe policy can be "refuted" is beyond my understanding (unless one's thought process goes into the realm of bad faith, that is). -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 06:00, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

It is NOT what BLPNAME says. You are willfully misinterpreting it. Well-sourced, made public by the parents, cited all over the world, is in no way defamatory and in no way in violation of BLP policies. And to add to LHM's list above - and this could go on for days - of particular relevance to Presidential daughter Chelsea Clinton would be Jenna Bush Hager, Caroline Kennedy, Lynda Bird Johnson Robb, Amy Carter, Susan Ford, Julie Nixon Eisenhower, Luci Baines Johnson, Margaret Truman and more - and let's expand that list to the daughter of someone who actually was elected President - Karenna Gore, and what the hell, how about some Presidential sons' BLPs like Jack Carter (oh my, even names his step-children), a Presidential grandson Jason Carter, and some wannabe Presidential children like Tagg Romney and Vanessa Kerry. Shall I go on? This is idiotic, incorrect, and a tendentious waste of our time. It has NOTHING to do with BLPNAME. Stop this disruption. Tvoz/talk 06:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't go so far as to call this "idiotic", Tvoz, but yes policies don't explicitly prohibit including such detail. Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• More precedents: Denzel Washington, Tom Hanks, David Letterman, Craig Ferguson, Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins, and the list could go on and on and on... Precedent should never be simply ignored like a few editors above are recommending. LHM^{ask me a question} 07:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia could finally decide to follow policy, and not write so much about non-notable people, rather then be swayed by the whims of excitable and excited editors. HiLo48 (talk) 08:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Or, alternatively, you could realize perhaps you don't understand policy in this matter, and that it could possibly be that a decade plus of WP practice is right and you are wrong. LHM^{ask me a question} 08:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Policy does not forbid or even discourage writing about non-notable people. It forbids having articles about them. Anyone mentioning a need for "notability" here as grounds for exclusion of the name does not have a clue about policy. Choor monster (talk) 12:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Our fundamental goal here is to create a quality encyclopaedia. Personal details of non-notable people, like me, and you, and this baby, aren't part of that. HiLo48 (talk) 21:25, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:DROPTHESTICK already, please. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I see no stick. And anyway, I'm having too much fun. HiLo48 (talk) 22:24, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, at least now we know that WP:POINT without a doubt applies to you, and that we should stop giving you the attention you crave. This is my last reply to your nonsense. LHM^{ask me a question} 22:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

We really are working at different levels here. That was my poor attempt at a joke. You didn't get it. Not your fault. But that it led to further insults from you was unfortunate. HiLo48 (talk) 23:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• HiLo48: you responded to my statement about policy with your personal opinion about what really belongs in a "quality encylopaedia". Essentially no one here shares your opinion. Meanwhile, you did not address my statement about policy. Again, rather than admit that yes, you have misunderstood policy, you are pointlessly running off in some irrelevant direction, merely wasting everyone's time. You're posting here because it's fun to share your contrarian opinions? You're a self-admitted troll. Choor monster (talk) 12:30, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

When did you last read the pages of a quality encyclopaedia apart from Wikipedia. (Which is sadly becoming more tabloid every day itself.) Maybe Britannica? The print version, of course.HiLo48 (talk) 17:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Complete non sequitur, as it is utterly irrelevant to this discussion what makes you sad, what you think about Brittanica (whose online version is not great at all), or whether you prefer print encyclopedias to online ones. LHM^{ask me a question} 18:08, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I love it when you effectively repeat what I've said as a way of arguing against me. (Agreeing about the print version of Brittanica, for example.) I am interested in making Wikipedia a quality encyclopaedia, not a collection of trivia. This is a fundamental goal of the project. HiLo48 (talk) 18:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Adding detail on one's immediate family is NOT trivia. You know that, and please do not condescend this website or its editors. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLPNAME does not apply to Chelsea Clinton's daughter, line by line

I posted the following on Talk:Chelsea Clinton while the above was closed.

---

Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event.

• Actually, CCM is not being "discussed" at all, let alone in terms of a single event. She is mentioned, being a highly relevant bit of her mother's bio. I believe this is different enough to matter, but if not, note that it merely says "Caution should be applied". Not, do not name.

When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context.

• Totally irrelevant here. Even so, in such an extreme case, policy is merely "it is often preferable to omit it", not obligatory policy.

When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories.

• This is just a weight issue, but apply WP:SNOW: her name will get more than a "brief appearance" over time. It will appear again and again.

Consider whether the inclusion of names of living private individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value.

• The daughter is of course directly involved in the article's topic.

The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons.

• A presumption is something to apply when you otherwise do not know what the situation is. In this case, we absolutely know what the situation is regarding privacy of the name: it does not exist whatsover. The parents and grandparents have made their decision, and this decision has been very widely reported. Had there been no reports, or just one or two minor reports, we'd be obligated to make the presumption in favor of privacy. But as I mentioned, this does not apply in this situation.

The names of any immediate, ex, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject.

• That's right, the name may certainly appear. It boils down, once all the BLP concerns are properly satisfied, to editorial discretion. If you are claiming this sentence from policy is relevant, you are agreeing that there are no BLP issues.

However, names of family members who are not also notable public figures must be removed from an article if they are not properly sourced.

• They are properly sourced.

---

Choor monster (talk) 12:17, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Here we go again. What caution are you applying? HiLo48 (talk) 12:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Again??? There is no "again", as there was no discussion over there, just you claiming you're right, without giving anyone a clue how that could possibly be.

As it is, the "caution" in this case is to see if some closely involved family member is trying to maintain privacy regarding the name. Or if most of the mainstream media is deliberately avoiding the name. Or if some court or other government actor has issued a gag order. And to make sure WP:RS have indeed named the name. Choor monster (talk) 12:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The media you refer to is in one country and the content is pure recentism. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Wikipedia IS global and long term. The child's opinion cannot be obtained. I see no evidence that you are applying any caution. Caution would guide us to leave out the kid's name. HiLo48 (talk) 21:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Now it seems you're just flinging completely unrelated blue links at the proverbial wall, hoping one sticks. This isn't "recentism", it's not overly newsy, and it doesn't matter that the baby's "opinion can not be obtained." Please drop the stick. LHM^{ask me a question} 22:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Of course it's recentism, of the most obvious kind. HiLo48 (talk) 23:13, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

If we devoted a section to the birth, sure. But that kid will be Chelsea's kid her whole life, and even after, she'll have a particular name on her tombstone. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:58, September 30, 2014 (UTC)

What we see here is HiLo48 has completely conceded he has absolutely no objection based on WP:BLPNAME. He made one lame objection (what "caution"?) and was told what "caution": the cautions explicitly asked for in the policy, and all obviously not relevant. Rather than face up to this, he runs off and comes up with another imaginary objection, based on zero comprehension of policy. First off, there's WP:RECENTISMISNOTPOLICYOREVENAGUIDELINE. That's right, it's just an essay, offering some intelligent warnings. Even worse, WP:RECENTISM clearly supports the inclusion of the name. It begins by defining recentism:

Recentism is writing or editing without a long-term, historical view, thereby inflating the importance of a topic that has received recent public attention [...]

Got it? Somehow mentioning the birth of a daughter, without the name, this shows respect for the "long-term, historical view", but including the name doesn't? I, for one, don't see how. Anyway, even if this is recentism, the essay continues with the possible dangers:

[...] possibly resulting in:

• Articles overburdened with documenting controversy as it happens.
• Articles created on flimsy, transient merits.
• The muddling or diffusion of the timeless facets of a subject, previously recognized by Wikipedia consensus.

So let's see. Are there any articles now overburdened with documenting a controversy as it happens, thanks to the name? No. Have any articles been created on flimsy, transient merits, thanks to the name? No. Have the timeless facets of Chelsea Clinton now become muddled or diffused? No. So the good news (except for editors who can't bother to read, let alone comprehend, policy, guidelines, essays) is that "recentism" is not a problem here. In fact, the essay goes on to say:

Recentism is a symptom of Wikipedia's dynamic and immediate editorial process, and has positive aspects as well—up-to-date information on breaking news events, vetted and counter-vetted by enthusiastic volunteer editors, is something that no other encyclopedia can offer.

That's right. We are encouraged by this essay to include breaking news, so long as it is properly "vetted and counter-vetted". The essay goes on to explain examples of where recentism was a problem, and how it was solved. For example, the effects of Hurricane Katrina were overwhelming New Orleans related articles. The solution (not deletion, by the way) but the creation of a separate article.

So, what's your next non-BLP complaint? WP:BIAS? By mentioning the name we are not giving a proper world perspective on the issue of the baby? Really, you're that ridiculous. Choor monster (talk) 12:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I have not conceded that I have absolutely no objection based on WP:BLPNAME. HiLo48 (talk) 17:19, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Of course you have. That's what running away from a clear refutation of your utterly lame response to a direct explanation of BLPNAME means in this case, off to some other complaint, apparently picked at random, certainly picked without bothering to even read what the relevant "essay" (not policy, not guideline) even said in the first-place means. Choor monster (talk) 18:18, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

---

Here's a Canadian one, with the name in the subheadline. Here's a British one, with the name in the headline. Here's an Australian one, with the name in the lead sentence and photo caption. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:32, September 30, 2014 (UTC)

Here's a South African one about her campaign to stop diarrhea in Nigeria. No mention of what's-her-name on that site. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:38, September 30, 2014 (UTC)

Here's India Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes. That Australian one is classic Murdoch tabloid style. (He virtually controls the tabloid press in Australia. It's no doubt why I didn't see this news. I avoid his publications.) The CBC and BBC ones less so, but I will observe again that even those outlets are today far less formal than they used to be. I still wonder how we should deal with the particular obsession in one country for its elected public figures' families. There is no way the grandchild of an ex-Australian Prime Minister would crack a mention like this. (John Howard's kids don't even have articles of their own.) Doubt if it would happen in the UK for its PM. I suspect we're seeing more coverage from the BBC of this American "royal baby" than they would ever give to the grandchild of an ex-PM of their own. HiLo48 (talk) 23:13, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Sure, maybe the newspapers have gone to shit/leaned toward America. How should we deal with it? Dismantle the Murdoch and AP empires and build our own. Until then, we'll just have to reflect the way the English world media currently works. Trying to keep one baby nameless in one sentence in one article won't do anything to turn the tide. I don't say this often, but resistance is futile. The Australian one is from AP, by the way. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:50, September 30, 2014 (UTC)

And Sydney MH and The Age and ... Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:27, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

We still need the newspapers, I agree, but we, the editors, have editorial control here. We don't have the same demands as the daily papers. We choose whether something is due. I'm still thinking out loud (well, in text really) about this cultural difference between the USA and the rest of the world. It does seem that the whole world is more excited right now about an ex-US President's grandkid than they ever would be about a similar birth in their own countries. Bet you no-one will ever post anything about John Howard's grandchildren. He was Australia's PM for eleven years, so pretty significant historically. And yes, he has grandchildren. But not even his kids have articles. We're obviously talking about a different standard for writing about the descendants of elected officials in one country when compared with others. Maybe it's valid. It doesn't feel right to me. And all the irrational shouting up above about how obvious it is actually pushed me away from that view. HiLo48 (talk) 00:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The community has already decided how to deal with this issue. I've posted many examples of the precedents that prove that long-established community consensus is that if there is reliable sourcing for the names of a BLP's children, those names are included. And it's quite rich that you accuse others of "irrational shouting." Quite rich, indeed. LHM^{ask me a question} 00:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't say many people (let alone the world) are "excited" about this kid. Maybe a bit, four days ago. Pretty much the only reason we're talking about her on Wikipedia now is you. Compared to Prince George and his unborn sibling, this one's a fart in a windstorm. If you feel like adding Howard's (grand)children's names with an RS, that'd probably be fine. But if nobody wants to, nobody wants to. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:57, October 1, 2014 (UTC)

Okay enough - Proposed wording of RFC

It's clear that this argument will continue incessantly on various articles. I think we need a well-publicized RFC to see where the wider community stands. Here is my proposed wording:

1. Should Wikipedia mention the names of non-notable minor children in the biographies of their parent(s) or guardians?
2. If yes, what are the sourcing requirements for such a mention?

Thoughts? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• I think this RFC is not particularly useful, since the answer to #1 is "sometimes", and the answer to #2 is "reliable ones." There is long precedent for the names of the children of particularly famous individuals to be included in their articles, as long as those names are reliably-sourced. (I have listed many examples at various points in this discussion.) There is no precedent to simply remove such names. Should we be including such names when the only sourcing is poor, and the subject of the BLP is not particularly famous (say, an academic at a university)? No. But there is simply no support, either in policy or by precedent, to remove all such names. LHM^{ask me a question} 15:26, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • We have editors who think "sometimes" doesn't cut it, that non-notable minor children should not be mentioned at all. Perhaps a new question between 1 and 2? If yes, what are the requirements to rate a mention? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

    The consensus above was that "sometimes" and "reliably sourced", combined with the vast precedent, was more than enough. If you insist on opening a formal RFC on this, I will of course express what policy and precedent tell us to do, but I just think it's a waste of time, given that consensus above and vast precedent settles the discussion. A couple of editors refusing to acknowledge the consensus and precedent doesn't merit an RFC, in my opinion. LHM^{ask me a question} 15:43, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

    • It's not just a "couple of editors". Looking at the diffs and history, it's clear that other editors share the same view. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

      I count two who were employing an WP:IDHT strategy. I count maybe one or two others who expressed very qualified reservations. Other than that, most editors were agreeing that given the vast precedent and the reliable sourcing, that certain names of children of BLPs were acceptable. Consensus does not mean unanimity, Neil. LHM^{ask me a question} 15:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

      [13], [14], [15] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:02, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

We're not talking about "garden variety celebs", we're talking about famous people, who have not expressed any desire to keep their children's names private, and who (in many cases) actually make public announcements regarding the names of their children, and whose children's names have appeared in reliable sources. Wikipedia will look quite foolish if we refuse to print the names of such, given wide coverage in reliable sources, and no policy precluding it. LHM^{ask me a question} 16:08, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: Short, sweet, to the point. This does need to attract a wider audience for comments. The only change I would make is to include grandparents (as in the case of Chelsea Clinton's baby, some were adding her name to the articles on both Bill and Hillary, from what I understand). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:21, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
• Could we also ask "If yes, should their names be included in the infobox?" which has been a source of contention. I would hate to have a major RFC that does not cover all the bases in hindsight. HelenOnline 15:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • @HelenOnline: Infoboxes. Crap... :-) They're kind of weird because the core argument is that only notable people should appear in them. I've seen boxes with only one parent, boxes listing only notable minor children and cutting out the rest, etc. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I think there is a consesnsus above, and why no wait until it is closed? Regardless, the wording of this RfC is wrong, "notable" is vague, obviously the names of the children are notable, otherwise we would not know them -- whereas, WP:NOTABLE is not an issue for content of already existing articles. WP:NOTABLE is not in-issue within the details of articles, whereas NPOV's WP:UNDUE, is what you are talking about. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:26, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree on all counts. There is consensus above, and the issue of whether the names of non-notable (in the sense that they don't merit their own article) can appear in the articles of famous people is not an issue. Such names appear all the time in our articles, both in BLPs, as well as in articles that discuss events in which such people participated. LHM^{ask me a question} 16:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Moreover, even if you were to get an instruction-creepy "rule" (which we are usually loathe to do), we would still have individual article exceptions. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:43, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I think, from my understanding, the few editors above who were against including CC's child's name were against it in all cases, no exceptions, which seems absurd, but it's how I read their "arguments." LHM^{ask me a question} 16:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

This discussion is not only about Clinton. Drmies, for example, has this to say on Roger Federer. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

NeilN, I've been removing such names for years now, but like everything else on Wikipedia recently this had to become a "problem". The problem--if anyone cares what I think the problem is--is that for celebrities such names are always going to be given out to the media, whether the parent wants it or not, since that's part and parcel of being a celebrity. So there can be no "I don't want my child's name to become known", since the tabloids are always going to find out anyway--much better to just offer up that name and be done with it. So "reliably sourced" is utterly irrelevant: in all cases of celebrities such names are going to be reliably sourced. Cite me one single celebrity who kept a name secret--but you bet there's plenty who wished it didn't work this way, but the best thing they can do is to grant a special interview or photo session, and get it over with.

Second problem, for many, is "editorial discretion", explicitly mentioned in BLPNAME as a criterion for judging whether we should include a name (if reliably sourced). Whether it's obscene remarks (Jameis Winston or children's names (Federer, Clinton, whoever) or what someone said on a blog post (Irene Caesar), it seems that editorial discretion is rarely practiced here: there's always someone who says "it's sourced" and "you're censoring". (No, in none of those cases is censorship practiced.) I made reference to Borges's "On Exactitude in Science" and that applies here: the desire to include every single detail (verified or not) does away with any notion of editorial discretion, and this drive for exactitude leads to horrible writing, undue weight, and--yes--BLP violations. Drmies (talk) 19:05, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I believe entirely in using "editorial discretion" in such matters. I also think it's a bit strange to refer to the well-sourced names of a BLP's children as "every single detail (verified or not)." We're not talking about discussion regarding the minute details of what a person wore to a particular party (or something similar). We're talking about a very large part of who they are as a person. And it is an egregious misreading of BLPNAMES to conclude it in any way proscribes the inclusion of the names of non-notable children from the articles of BLPs. It gives editors the discretion to do so, should their be extenuating circumstances, such a poor sourcing, for example. But you seem to believe "editorial discretion" means "not including names of children of BLPs no matter what." That is not "discretion", it is proscription, and it is not supported by policy. LHM^{ask me a question} 19:17, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• I would only leave out if intentionally concealed from public (which certainly hasn't happened with people like the Clintons) and/or no reliable sources exist that give detail. Like LHM, I would say that the requirement for inclusion is reliable sources. When reliably sourced, it simply leaves any article incomplete to not include detail- they ARE after all a prominent aspect of their lives. Warranting separate articles, of course, is an entirely different story. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:46, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

  This is what none of the few editors arguing for blanket exclusion wants to admit: the notability of the children is not the issue--no one (that I've seen, anyway) is arguing that these non-notable children should have separate articles. The notability (or non-notability, as is usually the case) of the BLP's children is not, in any way, the issue at hand. LHM^{ask me a question} 19:20, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• I should also add that becoming famous automatically means one will live under much more scrutiny than those who are not. Only become famous if you are prepared to have your life publicized. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
• Certainly children's names can be censored out at wikipedia if enough editors agree. There are other examples of wiki-censoring of that type, so it wouldn't be unheard of here. We had someone try to add... I think it was Serena Williams shoe size... and it was deemed too trivial even though it was sourcable. I don't think kids names fall under the same trivia (maybe their birthdays do – a year date seems good enough to me). Things like Encyclopaedia Britannica don't seem to have a problem with kids names/birthdates of celebrities. Wikipedia almost always has more info than a standard encyclopedia – it would seem a bit strange that we would give less info. If it's easily sourced (not tabloids) it seems to be no problem. Leave it to the individual editors involved as a content dispute rather than some safety/policy issue. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:46, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

andre lamothe

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

Does not meet notability requirements. Reads like a long advertisement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.19.158.53 (talk) 19:47, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I think you have a point here. I'll do some pruning.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Yoel Romero's religion.

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

Synthesis, poor sourcing, poor writing and undue weight at Yoel Romero in "Personal life". Brought it up at the No Original Research noticeboard, but it may be better here, as there are multiple problems relating to a BLP. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:40, October 6, 2014 (UTC)

Ok so I removed a part sourced to apparently a video on a blog. I'm thinking the portion sourced to image files shouldn't be used. I question the reliability of about.com. I went to review the youtube videos but my net connection is lagging. I can only say that they don't seem to bring a copyvio issue. I'm not sure why they have posted the meaning of his name.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 06:57, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the Personal section. There was a lot of OR there and sources that did not support what they were citing.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:36, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, looks much better. Hope it lasts this time. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:23, October 10, 2014 (UTC)

Is it any wonder hope rhymes with nope? InedibleHulk (talk) 10:37, October 10, 2014 (UTC)

I removed it once again. At this point they are edit warring. I've contacted them to attempt to explain [16]. I've asked them to come here and make their case and get a consensus before adding the material back.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 08:52, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Stephen Collins

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Rough consensus achieved on the proposed text by Keithbob: In October 2014 the New York Police Department began investigating Collins after an audio tape, that purported to contain Collins admission of child molestation, was leaked to the media. At that time the Los Angeles Police Department reported it had investigated Collins in 2012 after receiving a claim of a molestation 40 years earlier, however they were not "able to substantiate the allegation." - - Cwobeel (talk)

---

Various websites (such as TMZ) are making allegations regarding Stephen Collins, getting repeatedly added such as here: [17] - eyes probably needed before it becomes a witch hunt full of salacious rumors... Echoedmyron (talk) 21:25, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• Indeed that page should be watched closely. If including such a claim, TMZ should certainly NOT be used as a reference. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:27, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• Not so surprisingly there is currently edit-warring and disagreement at the talk page of this article. It is currently semi-protected, but an administrator might consider a short full protection and encourage people to try and find a consensus at the talk page. Iselilja (talk) 21:28, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Eyes are already on it (see article talk page discussion). At this time, there is an audio tape with a man's voice saying he molested a few girls forty years ago. The tape was provided by Collins' ex-wife as part of her divorce case. The voice has not been verified to be Collins nor has Collins made a confession or statement. There are a lot of allegedlys being used in this case. And, of course, the gossip sites are all over it with news agencies picking up the gossip site content. At this time, the article is partially protected. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Stephen_Collins is currently the recipient of a bunch of media attention due to the fact that he's been accused of molesting children and that apparently, there's a tape of him admitting to it obtained by TMZ. I'm not going to cite any sources because I'd be citing a ton of them, just search 'Stephen Collins' in Google News and you can see all that I'm talking about. What this mainly falls upon on BLP is that WP:BLPCRIME specifically states that For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured. Ultimately, due to all the media sources reporting on it, it was eventually added to the article to mention the allegation of molesting children. I removed the section about it, and there was some back and forth on the talk page. For a permalink linking to the personal life section (and the bit that I removed), see here. My main concerns of the material is that being accused of molesting children without a conviction or criminal charge is infinitely BLP material that should be removed. The editor who opposed me stated that he was a public figure and that the wide media exposure at least warranted response on the article. What should happen with this article? Thank you. Tutelary (talk) 00:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Please see the current discussion (the latter part of it, at least) at Talk:Stephen Collins#Molestation allegations. There is not edit warring going on now (hasn't been for more than 24 hours, once a minimal description and carefully crafted statement of the facts then known was posted), but there is a discussion now (since the reversion of that statement) prompted by Tutelary about whether those facts should appear in the article at all. I have made my case fully (and it is set forth accurately) in that discussion, so won't repeat it here. Dwpaul ^Talk 00:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
• I will only add that I'm not sure why Tutelary keeps latching on that bit about "relatively unknown" people. If Collins was relatively unknown, this story wouldn't have been around the world twice already. Dwpaul ^Talk 00:25, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comments on previous comments: At the article talk page, there have been numerous comments made by the crowd who believes BLP policies should be pushed aside in order to get something in the article about the alleged molestations by Collins. At first I was okay with putting something in about this issue, now that editors are trying to "grow" the content into a section, I have to say, "whoa, wait a minute". Here is my take on what's been bandied about at the article talk page:

Dwpaul wrote: "we have every business in reporting reliably sourced information of potentially lasting significance" Uh, no. Just because something is reliably sourced it belongs in Wikipedia? No, no, and no. If that were the case, we'd be recklessly putting up all kinds of crap and calling it encyclopedic. That's even less true for a BLP. Like Tutelary has already said, read up on WP:BLP for a clear picture regarding the care we are to take in BLPs more than any other type of article in Wikipedia. Why? As you said yesterday, Dwpaul, there are liability issues to be considered. And let's not forget this is an encyclopedia, not a collection of gossip, rumor, trivia, and the latest news.

Secondly, Dwpaul wrote, "of potentially lasting significance". No, again. "Potentially" is second-guessing. Please read WP:CRYSTAL.

Next, "he is being investigated". So what? People are questioned by law enforcement everyday without being charged/booked. Does that make the investigation/questioning encyclopedic? Of course not. If he was charged, we would have something to put into the article. That he's being investigated is not encyclopedic content.

"an audiotape was released" Again, so what? Who's been verified/authenticated to be the person making the alleged confession on the tape? Oh, you mean they haven't said yet? Then it's not encyclopedic and doesn't belong in and Wikipedia BLP.

"broadcasts have been cancelled" Reruns of an old program have been cancelled. Big deal. Not encyclopedic.

"he has resigned a significant position on the national board of a major actor's union" Which happens how often that we don't put anything in Wikipedia about it? We don't put it in because... (yes, you guessed it) ...it's not encyclopedic.

ImprovingWiki wrote: "My view is that this is an important story" WE DON'T REPORT STORIES. This is NOT a newspaper or magazine or online blog, it's an encyclopedia.

-- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

• These are no longer "rumors" reported only by TMZ. There are a lot of reliable sources covering this, and no argument can be made that these facts are insignificant to Collins' biography. As such, reverting out a neutrally-worded (and short) summary of what the reliable sources say is a bit mystifying to me. LHM^{ask me a question} 00:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Saying that somebody 'allegedly molested children' is a BLP vio, straight and simple. Unless he's been convicted or been lodged some criminal charge, we should -not- be using the phrasing 'allegedly molested children' in any context. Additionally, in order to restore this material, you must seek out consensus per WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. Tutelary (talk) 00:55, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Stephen Collins is not a "relatively unknown" person. He is very well-known. What BLPCRIME is referring to is more along the lines of a notable, but relatively unknown academic, or something on those lines. Also, REQUESTRESTORE specifically mentions that one should make sure the section being restored is written neutrally and based on "high quality sources", both of which are the case here. BLP policy was never intended to be a bludgeon to keep relevant, well-sourced material--that also happens to not reflect well on the BLP--out of such articles. It was intended to keep poorly-sourced and/or irrelevant material out of such articles. LHM^{ask me a question} 01:03, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

BLP was designed to ensure that BLPs would be fully compliant with npov, accusations and allegations and that another scandal regarding misinformation on BLPs wouldn't happen. (Forget the name) Stephen Collins is -not- a public figure like you call him, that would be a politician or a famous celebrity. That doesn't apply in any case. REQUESTRESTORE specifically entitles you to get consensus for the contested edit before restoring. BLP policy also meant that removing 'alleged child molester' wouldn't count for 3RR. Do you really consider it adequate to tell every single reader of that article that he 'allegedly' did it? No, we're not, because that violates BLP and all common decency. We're in a media buzz right now, and don't need to coincide with them, especially when we're calling some living person some derogatory term or implying heavily that he actually did it. Tutelary (talk) 01:10, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The statement you reverted implied no such thing, heavily or otherwise; unless you think, as you seem to, that a statement that someone is being investigated implies that they are guilty. Whether it does or not, it is the fact. Dwpaul ^Talk 01:14, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Adding 'allegedly' to something doesn't make it euphemize all the stigma that it carries. This is the same reason we will not publish mere accusations that something has occured. We need sources there. In this, we need verification that the allegations are true to even include a mention of them, per WP:BLPCRIME. Sexual assault or Child molestation is a very, very serious crime and to accuse him of allegedly doing it is a BLP violation and should not be present in the article. BLPCRIME is unambiguous. ...or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured. He's only been accused, and per BLPCRIME, should be omitted in its entirety. Tutelary (talk) 01:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The material you keep reverting just reports the fact that he's being investigated regarding that matter--which he incontrovertibly is. And are you seriously claiming that Stephen Collins "is -not- a public figure"? Because that seems a bit absurd. LHM^{ask me a question} 01:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Since he's not been charged with a crime or a criminal charge, we should omit it per BLPCRIME. Adding 'allegedly' to a very serious BLP violation doesn't make it suddenly not a BLP violation. Tutelary (talk) 01:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I could just as easily (and accurately) say that since he has never been formally accused of a crime, WP:BLPCRIME does not apply. There has been no indictment, nor even (to our knowledge) any legal (at least not criminal) accusation of misdoing. However, I would think that was an overly literal reading of that guidance, and I think you are just as much being overliteral to the other extreme. Dwpaul ^Talk 01:27, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

You would be agreeing with me. BLPcrime specifically excludes including allegations or accusations that a person has committed a crime. Sexual assault or molestation is a crime. There's no charge or conviction. Tutelary (talk) 01:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Would saying something like "Collins was charged with molesting children" or "Collins was accused of molesting children" be any better? Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Unless something new has occurred, I'm pretty certain that at this point, he hasn't been charged with anything yet (so why would you want to say he has been charged?) -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:35, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

It was more of a general question as to whether "charged with" or "accused of" would be better than "allegedly". Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

• I would be against including it at the moment. Has anyone offered a source other than TMZ? Isn't TMZ a tabloid?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 04:54, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

• TMZ is indeed tabloid-like in nature. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:01, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

They regard themselves as one, but only because information includes TMZ as source it cannot be discarded. Also read WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_34#TMZ.com. VandVictory (talk) 05:39, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

• Given the incredibly high profile nature of this situation, I don't think BLP issues are a worry here. If this were an issue of an accusation and him denying it the situation might be different. There are substantial and notable aspects of his career that are affected by this and need to be included in the article, such as his removal from TV shows and movies. BLPCRIME specifically discusses "relatively unknown figures" -- there is no prohibition on included sourced NPOV info on already notable figures. This would mean not saying he is a child molester, as that would be improper, but acknowledging that there is an ongoing investigation. --Yaksar (let's chat) 07:40, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

side conversation about the page protection process

Six hours before this article was (in my opinion improperly) protected, Winkelvi made this edit removing any mention of the investigation. In the edit summary he claimed that most of the content was POV, even though none of it was, as it was simply a neutrally-worded reporting of the facts. LHMask me a question 13:30, 9 October 2014 (UTC) Are you here to talk about the article or editor behavior? Got a problem with me? AN/I is the other direction. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 13:38, 9 October 2014 (UTC) Why would I take this to ANI, when it is a content dispute? That doesn't make sense. This isn't a battleground, WV. My problem is that you claim the material was removed for a reason that is inaccurate. This is especially problematic given that you had just agreed to a substantially similar version only a few hours earlier. The material at issue is neither "POV" (as you now claim) nor undue, which is the only possible issue as I see it. It is a short, simple summation of the facts regarding what happened. LHMask me a question 14:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC) Note: The reason I refer to the protection as potentially improper is because there wasn't some hot-and-heavy edit war in progress. The last edit to the article prior to the protection was WV's removal of the short, neutrally-worded passage six hours before. To fully-protect the page for 3 days at that point seems more than a bit excessive. LHMask me a question 14:17, 9 October 2014 (UTC) You brought me up by name, which was unnecessary if you are only commenting on the edit. My reasons were not inaccurate, but might seem that way to someone who disagrees with the removal of the content. Would you be okay with the full protection for three days if the article still contained the content you think should be there? Never mind, don't znswer. we're not discussing editors, just edits, right? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:34, 9 October 2014 (UTC) I would most certainly not be in favor of full protection, even if you hadn't removed the neutrally-worded, succinct passage regarding the investigation. (Implying that I would have been is an assumption of bad faith on your part, and not appreciated.) There was, quite simply, no pressing need to fully protect that article, period, whether with the material or without. LHMask me a question 15:54, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I've collapsed the above section so the discussion about content can continue. I'm inclined to agree with others that WP is not a newspaper and there is no rush to include this info. The story is still developing. All of the articles I have seen say: "according to an audio tape acquired by TMZ". And even the entertainment site's narrative is based on the audio tape which has not been validated. The only other thing I've seen is a story saying that LA police had an earlier allegation and they investigated but found no grounds for action and that they are now reviewing the case to make sure they didn't miss anything. So I think some patience is needed. If Collins is arrested and charges are filed AND if that is widely reported in reputable sources like the LA Times (which it likely would be) then it can be a minor mention in the article per WP:BLPCRIME.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

That's pretty much my entire qualm with it. Nothing has been confirmed, the situation is dynamic and who knows, he could get off scot free tomorrow and the investigation finds no wrong doing, what would go in the article then? That's a discussion for when that happens, but I feel that some would argue that the accusation itself was notable--No. This BLP issue is stemming from the fact that you can't say allegedly or say that someone accused someone of doing something that is a crime--Innocent until proven guilty, as mandated by BLP. We can't include any mention of the overt allegations until there is a criminal charge or a trial going on. Nothing's happened so far. Tutelary (talk) 18:13, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Your reading of BLP is incorrect, in my opinion. If "you can't say allegedly or say that someone accused someone of doing something that is a crime", then Michael Jackson would never have become a featured article because of this kind of section about the child molestation accusations. (For the record, I know that article is no longer a BLP, but it was at one point, and we didn't pretend like the allegations didn't exist.) LHM^{ask me a question} 18:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:OSE is a useful essay because it encompasses differing circumstances and in this, Michael Jackson's difference was that he was actually charged with a crime and acquitted. A court case happened out of it. That has not happened here. Should the allegations have appeared and there not be a court case, and I'd been on that page, I'd have argued the same thing that they be left out in favor of BLP, regardless of how widespread they might be. Tutelary (talk) 19:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

And you'd have been wrong to do so. The purpose of BLP policy is not to "scrub" articles of any negative information about the subject. The purpose is to keep such information out when it can't be reliably sourced and to keep it from becoming the focus of the article. Yours is a common misconception, though, and sometimes even manages to gain a tentative consensus, even though it is what I consider to be a major misreading of BLP policy. LHM^{ask me a question} 19:38, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

You are the one who is misreading policy. We can't state that someone committed a crime without them being convicted of that crime. that's what BLP policy is inherently instructing us. It does note for a 'public figure' exception, which Stephen is not a politican or a highly famous celebrity and does not qualify. Anywho, I'm not gonna argue the hypothetical when I have the realism in my face right now. No allegations of any child molesting or anything of the sort should go into the article until a criminal charge or a conviction has occurred. Tutelary (talk) 19:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

What I would like to know now is this: How long will the article remain fully protected? If not indefinitely, will someone issue a policy-based proclamation that every mention of this must (or even can) be reverted? Because I can almost certainly guarantee you that shortly after the protection is lowered some mention of it (likely many that will be poorly phrased and/or sourced and/or be outright BLP violations by any reading) will be repeatedly inserted in the article, and if we continuously revert those insertions, without a clear and concise policy statement to point to, we will simply (and not unreasonably) be accused of suppressing information merely to protect the subject's reputation. And for those spans of time between insertion and revert, multiple violations of BLP and probably other policies will be present in the article, which is currently seeing page views on the order of 120,000 per day. Dwpaul ^Talk 19:48, 9 October 2014 (UTC) Only 10,000 of which are me. ;-) Dwpaul ^Talk 19:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

• Please point to even one editor who is advocating that the article "state that someone committed a crime." Literally not one editor is asking for that. What we are advocating is that Wikipedia not pretend like there's no investigation regarding Collins. It is not against BLP policy for a BLP's article to reflect that the person is being investigated regarding a crime before "a criminal charge or conviction has occurred." LHM^{ask me a question} 19:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I've already made myself quite clear on this. What the allegations are saying is that he has committed a crime against children. Allegations, accusations, that he's committed this crime. This is specifically addressed in WP:BLPCRIME which I'm sure you're familiar with right now. ...editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured. Suggesting that he 'allegedly' did a crime is saying or accusing that he did do it, a violation of BLPcrime and should not be present in the article in any form until he's been charged or convicted. Why is that such a harsh standard? As I said, this situation is dynamic and could change. Tutelary (talk) 19:57, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

You consistently and quite conveniently ignore the beginning of that sentence, which is: For relatively unknown people. Collins is not relatively unknown by any standard. And it says must seriously consider. This has been very seriously considered for several days now, here and on the article's Talk page, and unless you can tell me how this is going to work in a practical sense (see above), I think we have given it quite enough consideration. Dwpaul ^Talk 20:03, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

• I echo Dwpaul's concern, noting, with interest, that you left out the portion of the above quote that clearly does not support your interpretation: "For relatively unknown people," it says, and Collins is not "relatively unknown." If you are going to quote policy, please do not snip it in such a way that it misconstrues the meaning of the policy. LHM^{ask me a question} 20:06, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I did just mention it under the influence of 'public figures', which I mentioned that he is of not. He's not a politician and he's not a famous celebrity. Tutelary (talk) 20:08, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

How do you define "famous celebrity"? And where did you find that as the definition of "relatively unknown"? Dwpaul ^Talk 20:09, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

That is certainly a novel definition of "relatively unknown", when it includes a man who spent many many years as the face of a popular TV show. LHM^{ask me a question} 20:13, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Since there has been no response to my question, let me point out why Tutelary's interpretation of "relatively unknown" is completely wrong. WP:BLP#People who are relatively unknown refers the reader to WP:Who is a low profile individual for clarification on this question. I would like Tutelary, or anyone else, to point out even one of the criteria (of which only one must be satisfied) for a "high profile" individual which Stephen Collins does not meet, and did not meet prior to the current scandal.
Also, I am still waiting for someone — anyone — from the "exclude all mention" camp to explain how that will work in terms of implementing, explaining and defending the continuous reversion activity that will be needed to maintain the state in which they think the article should remain. Dwpaul ^Talk 21:17, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I want to clarify my earlier statement. I still support that WP is not a newspaper and we should take our time and let the story develop. However, WP:BLPCRIME pertains to people who are relatively unknown and whose privacy needs to be protected. However for a public figure like Collins, WP:PUBLICFIGURE is the applicable guideline and when the allegations become wide spread and reported in multiple, reliable third party sources then we should consider some modest insertion of content. Keeping in mind that this is one event in the context of 65 years of life and a 40 year career. At the same time we have to be careful of WP:UNDUE weight and WP:RECENTISM.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:30, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposed text

Because Collins is a very notable public figure and the coverage of the allegations have now spread to multiple mainstream sources I think some addition to the article may be appropriate per WP:PUBLICFIGURE which 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 noteworthy, 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

• USA Today - Oct 9, [18] Stephen Collins, you might have heard, is under investigation for child molestation charges.
• Fox News - Oct 9 [19] Stephen Collins –aka Reverend Eric Camden—is being investigated for child molestation,
• People magazine - Oct 8 [20] On Tuesday, audio files, purporting to be Collins confessing to having had inappropriate sexual conduct with underage girls, were leaked to the media.
• Time magazine - Oct 8 [21] The former 7th Heaven star confessed to molesting young girls to his estranged wife in a recording released by TMZ Tuesday. Collins is currently being investigated by the New York Police Department.
• LA Times - Oct 8 [22] Los Angeles police began investigating "7th Heaven" actor Stephen Collins in 2012 after receiving a report from a woman who claimed she had been molested by Collins 40 years earlier, a police captain said Wednesday............The New York Police Department revealed Tuesday that special victims detectives were investigating Collins, 67, after celebrity news site TMZ posted an audiotape in which a man purported to be the actor confessed to sexually abusing three girls. TMZ said the tape was recorded by Collins' estranged wife during a therapy session with the actor. The man on the tape mentioned two victims in New York and one in Los Angeles, TMZ said.

Based on the content from the above reliable sources I would propose a one or two sentence summary such as this:

• In October 2014 the New York Police Department began investigating Collins after an audio tape, that purported to contain Collins admission of child molestation, was leaked to the media. At that time the Los Angeles Police Department reported it had investigated Collins in 2012 after receiving a claim of a molestation 40 years earlier, however they were not "able to substantiate the allegation."
• -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The LAPD has said they were not able to substantiate that a crime had occurred in LA in response to the report which they investigated. The NYPD has made no such statement. Your text invites conflation of the two investigations. And I think that at this time your introduction of yet another variation into this discussion is unhelpful. The current discussion must reach consensus about whether the scandal should be mentioned at all before we start trying to rewrite the text that introduces it. And it will take only one or two editors to completely corrupt your effort to arrive at a NPOV expression of the facts. How will we address that? Dwpaul ^Talk 21:25, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, a technicality: We do not know whether the NYPD investigation began before or after the tape was "leaked" (and was it, and by whom?). We have heard that a complaint was filed in New York, but we do not know when it was filed. NYPD confirmed only that it was investigating a complaint. Dwpaul ^Talk 21:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I think there are multiple sources saying he is under investigation and that needs to be considered. As for the unresolved investigation by the LAPD, maybe that sentence could be left out for now. I also share your fear that the insertion of minimal text will open the flood gate for the expansion of the coverage in the article and create undue weight but I don't think we can totally ignore the widespread news coverage per WP:PUBLICFIGURE. I look forward to comments and insights from others.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:37, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Apologies, I do see now where you contributed your thoughts in this section to the question of whether the information should be introduced at all. Dwpaul ^Talk 21:39, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

• I support the tone and length of the proposed text, as it takes a NPOV, is not overlong, and is well and reliably sourced. LHM^{ask me a question} 23:13, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
• Though I think it is only marginally better, if at all, than the text that was removed (and not because I wrote it), I support this (with the concern I expressed). Certainly better than pretending that nothing has happened. Think there should also be some mention of why TV viewers won't be seeing him for a while, and his resignation from the national leadership of the major US actor's union, both of which were in the removed text. Dwpaul ^Talk 23:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

• I still don't think anything needs to be said in the article about the investigation until he's charged with something. If he ever is. Put in the article that he resigned from SAG, but in no way should there be anything that ties the two things together. Until Collins releases a statement in regard to his reasons for resigning, if he ever does, nothing should suggest to a reader that the two things (investigation and resignation) are connected. Until he's charged with something, it's a non-issue in regard to encyclopedic content. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:10, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
• i would support this text, as it accurately summarizes the available significant reliable information without violating any of our policies and while maintaining the correct amount of neutrality.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
• I still have an issue with the text because if the allegation wasn't supported by the police, then why even include it? And then there's also the question of the first sentence. I'm feeling that it is still a BLP violation because the admission of guilt is not collaborated by a public statement by the person and has not been confirmed to be an exact admission of wrongdoing (or independently verified by audio experts of similar people). Though honestly, all this conflict is making me want to fold...as a counter proposal, could we just include the fact that he's under investigation with the police, with no mention of anything relating to children? Of course I can already see the responses, since it's omitting what's the major bit of the happening that the media has had a field day with and the main issue of contention can be controversial in itself. Tutelary (talk) 21:57, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
• I support the proposed text. ImprovingWiki (talk) 22:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
• Requesting swift admin closure and a statement of consensus on this dispute ASAP as the subject article is now fully unprotected. Dwpaul ^Talk 16:42, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
• FYI, there is some commentary on this incident at Faye Grant. Kelly ^hi! 17:10, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
• A little late to the conversation but I support the proposed text.LM2000 (talk) 22:14, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

WANTED: Experienced, uninvolved editor or admin to close and summarize this thread. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:10, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

And so it begins. [23] [24] Dwpaul ^Talk 23:13, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

• Proposed text to reflect that on Faye Grant article page: "In October 2014, it was revealed that a tape recording secretly made years ago by Grant and allegedly containing the voice of Collins was under investigation. In it, the male speaker on the recording allegedly confesses to sexual abuse against minors." Reference is as follows: [25]. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:28, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Investigative Project on Terrorism

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

Not sure about BLP, but it's a bit misleading. The article says this Emerson guy is against Islamic terrorism. That's hardly the same as being against Islam. I fixed the bit that implied he still thinks Muslims blew up the Oklahoma building. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:08, October 8, 2014 (UTC)

The Center for American Progress seems to think the organization is Islamophobic, but judging from their article, they're hardly objective observers. I've removed the box, as it seems to rely solely on that claim. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:12, October 8, 2014 (UTC)

There are other aspects of the article that also create potential BLP violations because of V and NOR issues, BLPGroup, undue weight, and Coatrack, all of which are magnified by the template. RS issues also plague this article because the sources that mention IPT point back to Steven Emerson, or involve trivial mention. IPT inherited Emerson's notability, and relies heavily on original sources published at the IPT website. With the exception of a few secondary sources considered to be biased, everything else relies on IPT's own press releases, Emerson's television interviews, and testimony at congressional hearings. There are not any reliable third party sources to my knowledge. From 1995 to mid 2006, Emerson worked as an independent television reporter, self-proclaimed terrorism expert, and documentary filmmaker for his own production company. He headed up his own think-tank called the Investigative Project. The website is called the Investigative Project on Terrorism, and claims to be a nonprofit organization founded by Steven Emerson in 1995 - unverifiable. However, what is verifiable is the fact that in mid-2006, Emerson founded The Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation, which is a legally organized charitable organization recognized by the IRS as a Sect 501(c)3 non-profit foundation. The Foundation purportedly funds Emerson's terrorism work, and staffs a managing director, and a couple of other individuals referred to as Shillman Fellows.

Following are a few excerpts from comments made by a collaborator when we tried to expand the article and correct the RS issues. (diffs follow comments):

1. I've actually been surprised at how very little information there is about IPT itself in reliable sources. I'd expected there to be quite a bit more given how much it's mentioned. The sources are all about Emerson with passing mentions of IPT and people who work for IPT with passing mentions saying that they work for them. If this were a software company I'd be sorely tempted to send it to AfD, but obviously that's not going to end well. I guess we soldier on. [26]
2. The more I look for sources the more I think this whole IPT thing is a front for Steven Emerson and ought to be redirected to him. Anyway, thoughts on the relative weight that this Boston marathon material ought to have in the article? [27]
3. The trouble is that they don't do anything. Really, I've looked and looked for sources, but they're all about Emerson, not IPT. I agree that it needs to be summarized. Do you have a proposal?[28]

Two more excerpts from comments made by two editors at an ANI over the BLP issue: (diff follows both comments):

1. Well the BLP violation may stem from more than merely saying that it was said. I can see a good argument that it violates WP:UNDUE to put the claim that the day after the Oklahoma City Bombing Emerson suggested that it might have been perpetrated by Muslim terrorists in the lead section of an article about a think tank Emerson founded. In which case it probably would also violate WP:BLP.
2. As I recall, pretty much everyone jumped to the conclusion that it was foreign terrorists. It was a reasonable assumption at the time. It never occurred to most of us that someone like McVeigh would do something like that. Now we know better. Supposing the BLP in question actually did say it, why does it matter 19 years later? [29]

Final two excerpts from comments made by two other editors: (diffs follow both comments)

1. I'm in favor of moving this article to Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation as you suggest, and having the Emerson biography corrected to reflect accurate secondary sources (rather than self-serving primary sources) but I'm not so hot on the idea that all of Emerson's former activities should be fully removed from this article. We should tell the reader what came before, and how it is related. [30]
2. I'm able to find more hits when naming Emerson rather than IPT, since it seems to be sort of a one-man op. [31]

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

Yeah, the entire article is a bit problematic. I don't think Wikipedia would be lacking without it. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:29, October 8, 2014 (UTC)

I kind of feel like this thing needs to be stubbed and stripped, if not merge/redirected to Stephen Emerson. I don't see what's really notable about it, and with the exception of one Salon article, pretty much all the sources are polemic from either side — right-wing sources think the group is doing great work investigating alleged terrorism and left-wing sources think the group is peddling Islamophobic conspiracy theories. There's hardly any neutral sources here, which suggests it's not particularly notable from a mainstream perspective. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Well this a crazy request and all but could we stick to the subject of BLP? The subject of notability was taken on recently at AFD. Now Islamophobia template. While of course there of course is the matter of the template on the page, there is also the template itself. The template itself contains a link to Investigative project on terrorism. It is located on a section titled organizations. Does the presence of Investigative project on terrorism on this template represent a BLP violation?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 16:30, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

No, it doesn't, because the organization is not a living person. Organizations are not entitled to the same protections that we give to living people. Statements about Emerson personally might implicate BLP, but statements about an advocacy organization he works for would not. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:21, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

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

So the template in the article does not present a BLP violation?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 19:30, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Read WP:BLPGROUPS - The extent to which the BLP policy applies to edits about groups is complex and must be judged on a case-by-case basis. A harmful statement about a small group or organization comes closer to being a BLP problem than a similar statement about a larger group; and when the group is very small, it may be impossible to draw a distinction between the group and the individuals that make up the group. When in doubt, make sure you are using high-quality sources. The template is without question a BLP violation under BLPGroups. The V and NOR issues add to it, but it's not just the template, although it is the worst violation. If anything, "IPT" might be considered a group when it was Emerson's think-tank prior to 2006, but it is not verifiable, and I hardly consider the IPT website as a "high-quality source." It's NOR. Common sense tells us the article is about Emerson. IPT inherited his notability - which not only raised the notability issue for IPT's existence, the fact that the notability is about Emerson makes it a BLP violation. The article relies heavily on information and actions by Emerson. User:Callanecc tried to explain to me the reasons behind the Gamergate controversy as follows: If you have a look at the wording of the discretionary sanctions and WP:BLP both apply to edits and articles which have biographical content which is what Gamergate controversy is about at it's base level. Diff here: [32] I'm not sure the BLP violations are comparable, but I would think the exclusivity of IPT to Emerson, and the V and NOR issues are what create the problems. Since there is no verifiability of IPT being anything but Emerson's own small group, if it can even be considered a group prior to 2006, the material contained in the article is definitely biographical, particularly the History and mission section. Atsme☯^Consult 22:17, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Investigative project on terrorism was founded in 1995. They state this themselves. Steven Emerson states this. CAIR states this. CAP states this. NEWMAX states this. The only sources that you have found that state otherwise suggest that it didn't exist at all until 2006. That was simply two sources. One of those source used the other as evidence. Drop that stick at any time or make a case that isn't solidly original research. IPT inherited it's notability? Isn't that the same argument that you used in the AFD? It wasn't compelling there so why now is it suddenly supposed to be compelling? Serialjoepsycho (talk) 23:24, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Please note that the merger/deletion debate has been recently and thoroughly discussed in other places, including Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Investigative Project on Terrorism (closed as "keep" on 30 September) and Talk:Steven Emerson#Merger proposal dated September 2014. Discuss here. (closed with a "clear consensus against the proposed merge" on 25 September). --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:37, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Whoa, please. You just provided incorrect information. The merge proposal was closed in July, not September, and the proposal was not "thoroughly" discussed. The reviewer, User:Sunrise, closed with the following comments: Note that this close does not evaluate whether the articles are compliant with policy (e.g. WP:NOR); it would be a good idea for the editors here to resolve these issues, but they would only have become relevant to the merger question if so much of the article was noncompliant that nearly all of it had to be deleted, and arguments to this effect have not been presented. [33] The arguments are being presented now, only this time we're discussing WP:BLP WP:BLPGROUPS violations which is probably what should have been addressed back in July along with the NOR issues.

Serialjoe just referred to Steven Emerson and the self-published IPT website as sources in his rebuttal to my comment above. I suggest reviewing WP:SPS. Where are the third-party reliable sources? Where are the reliable secondary sources? He listed CAIR and CAP - two biased sources. Read the headline in the January 2014 CAIR article: [34]. Whose name is in the headline? There's also the issue of WP:RSUW, and WP:SPS. Where are the "high-quality sources"? But wait - how about Newsweek? Clarke's secret work with private researcher Steven Emerson is among a number of revealing disclosures in the ex-White House aide's new book, [35]. Oh, my. Did that read "private researcher Steven Emerson"? Does being a private researcher make one a terrorism expert? And how exactly does Emerson being a private researcher, and investigative reporter fit in with the "group", or "organization" being founded in 1995? It certainly doesn't explain away the BLP issue, that's for sure. Also, if the template doesn't present a BLP issue, why isn't there one on Steven Emerson? What about the biographical material in the History and mission section of the IPT article, and the NOR and V issues which are two of the three core content requirements that must strictly be adhered to according to WP:BLP? And what about the statement under the Funding section of IPT: IPT is funded via the Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation, a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization established in 2006, and largely operated via SAE Productions, a Delaware-based company founded by Emerson in 1994. Tell me again about the "common name" argument, and how Serialjoe concluded that IPT, the Investigative Project, and the Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation are one in the same? Serialjoe even created the following redirects: The_Investigative_Project and The Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation. The BLP issues and noncompliance to NOR, RS, and V, are clear. How long are we supposed to let such blatant BLP violations remain? Atsme☯^Consult 02:23, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

• Responding to the question first posed, the template applied to that article does not appear apt, but rather an exercise of POV. Epeefleche (talk) 02:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually that was not incorrect at all. A merge proposal that was opened due to your actions was closed in September. There was also your merge proposal in July. Also there is the AFD where you mention the same stuff you are pushing here. The investigative project, the investigative project on terrorism foundation, and the investigative project on terrorism are the same thing. Have you read their website where they solicit funds? They themselves say that IPTF is its fund-raising arm. That common name argument? You mean the one where when you title an article you use the most common name? wp:common name <That one? It's not as much an argument as it is a wikipedia policy. When we read the CAIR blogs headline should we avoid reading the article? Where it talks about the investigative project on terrorism? Where it's made clear that this the blog is about an Article released by IPT? Do we just read the headline? You mention wp:sps but have you read it? And did you happen to read the policy just under it WP:SELFSOURCE? Serialjoepsycho (talk) 03:37, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually the statement about the merge is incorrect and misleading, not to mention irrelevant to this discussion, but for the sake of accuracy I've provided the diff showing how the same proposal materialized twice by mistake: [36]. I thought the 2nd proposal was made by another editor because my June proposal had already been discussed and closed in July, leaving issues unanswered as I accurately mentioned above. Atsme☯^Consult 14:18, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Just wanted to add - if the comments made above reference the delete proposal I requested on September 22nd, 2 days before you filed an ARB to topic ban me and diverted my attention away from the delete request, well sir, that is a horse of a different color. Attempting to combine the various requests to make it appear as one in the same is as misleading as your attempts to combine the various names Emerson used throughout his career as one article, and pretending it's an "organization". Then, when I was forced to switch my attention to your baseless ARB request, my delete request was closed after only 7 days of discussion. Great gaming strategy. Atsme☯^Consult 17:06, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

In addition to the many reasons stated above by other editors who recognize the BLP violations, following is my summary as a collaborating editor of IPT who contributed over 58% of the prose:

1. The justification for "common name" is false and misleading, and lends more credence to the BLP violations because it establishes the exclusive connection to Steven Emerson as an independent researcher, investigative reporter, and terrorism expert.
2. The IPT Foundation was founded in 2006 by Steven Emerson who also serves as its Executive Director. The IPT Foundation is the only recognized nonprofit charitable foundation designated as such by the IRS. Regardless, even if IPT is inaccurately recognized as a nonprofit organization founded by Steven Emerson in 1995, it has no notability of its own, and the BLP issues would still apply according to WP:BLPGROUPS. Research for reliable sources has consistently produced trivial mention of IPT with the primary focus on Steven Emerson, independent terrorism expert/investigative reporter. Newsweek, a high quality reliable source, established the identity of Steven Emerson as a private researcher in an article they published in March 2004. It substantiates the exclusivity of Emerson to IPT which is the norm, not the exception. It further establishes a reliably sourced basis for the template being a BLP violation. [37]
3. The information provided in IPT is highly dependent on unreliable self-published sources, including IPT's own website, original research from documents presented at congressional hearings, Steven Emerson blogs, and IPT press releases. There are no reliable third-party sources cited. It also relies on information from biased political pressure groups such as CAIR, CAP, and the Heritage Foundation. The reason the "undue weight" tag was added to the CAP reference was explained well by an uninvolved editor, User:Vfrickey: [38]. That explanation also draws attention to a potential WP:Terrorist violation which would also involve the template.
4. Serialjoepsycho's original protests to the template can be seen here: [39] [40] The reasons he stated then remain the same today: "Perhaps it should be changed regardless. Again as written it makes it seem as if this organization is Islamophobic. Is there anyway to change it? This is not a confirmed Islamophobic organization. From what I can tell in the article it is only alleged." Serialjoepsycho (talk) 02:32, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
5. All of the violations that make IPT a BLP violation also apply to Steven Emerson. When I tried to correct the information, Serialjoe continuously reverted it. [41]
6. I attempted to create a corrected article using accurate reliably sourced information in an attempt to eliminate the BLP violations. The draft can be seen here: [42] Unfortunately, I was met with further resistance. Serialjoepsycho quickly created redirects Investigative Project, The Investigative Project, and The Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation to derail my efforts in creating a corrected article. He further established his intent to move the template to the new article disregarding all input from other editors who kept informing him of the BLP violations. [43] Atsme☯^Consult 15:58, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

• That's another really long rant. Do you have a BLP issue to discuss? BTW my comments that you are quoting as a protest are actually a question. A question that went unanswered. A question that has been answered actually outside of your rants, here. You've moved the goal post so many times that I wonder if you recall what the goal post was there in that RFC? NPOV. Oh and the AP Stylebook. That question got lost somewhere in that RFC between your rants, accusations of bad faith, and threats to take it elsewhere if you didn't get your way.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 18:00, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

• Ooops. Guess I hit a nerve. Ranting with important information is far better than rambling nonsense like you are accustomed to doing, but please, let's not get off topic. On point: the obvious BLP violations that you have chosen to ignore. Atsme☯^Consult 18:51, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Have you hit a nerve? No. Are you trolling or something? Could you stay on point? Do you have a BLP issue that you would like to discuss?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 19:08, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

• This was brought here on the suggestion of Arbcom to ask if the Template:Islamophobia is a BLP when placed in the article. I had also hoped that any other BLP question could be raised. This this was not brought here to forumshop the issue of notability that was recently answered by AFD. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 03:00, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
  • You brought it here, but you don't want discussion on the issues that creates the BLP violations? It isn't about deleting the article because of inherited notability so please stop dredging up past AfDs. The notability discussion here relates directly to WP:BLPGROUPS: The extent to which the BLP policy applies to edits about groups is complex and must be judged on a case-by-case basis. A harmful statement about a small group or organization comes closer to being a BLP problem than a similar statement about a larger group; and when the group is very small, it may be impossible to draw a distinction between the group and the individuals that make up the group. When in doubt, make sure you are using high-quality sources. The individual is Steven Emerson, his notability, and not being able to draw a distinction between the so-called "group" and Steven Emerson. The fact remains...there is no distinction, and therein lies one of the biggest problems. I certainly hope editors who understand this issue will be more bold about confirming the BLP violation so we can close this section, and get on with editing. Atsme☯^Consult 15:20, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

This is the case you made in AFD. Prior you opened this issue in 2 of the 3 ANI's you've opened, a merge, delete and recreate proposal, a merge proposal opened on your behalf, and where ever else. AfD said it was notable. It doesn't need to be forumshopped here. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 21:48, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

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

• Not sure about BLP, but it's a bit misleading. The article says this Emerson guy is against Islamic terrorism. That's hardly the same as being against Islam. I fixed the bit that implied he still thinks Muslims blew up the Oklahoma building. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:08, October 8, 2014 (UTC)
• The Center for American Progress seems to think the organization is Islamophobic, but judging from their article, they're hardly objective observers. I've removed the box, as it seems to rely solely on that claim. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:12, October 8, 2014 (UTC)
• I kind of feel like this thing needs to be stubbed and stripped, if not merge/redirected to Stephen Emerson. I don't see what's really notable about it, and with the exception of one Salon article, pretty much all the sources are polemic from either side — right-wing sources think the group is doing great work investigating alleged terrorism and left-wing sources think the group is peddling Islamophobic conspiracy theories. There's hardly any neutral sources here, which suggests it's not particularly notable from a mainstream perspective. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
• I agree with all points made by Atsme with respect to the article and template, above. And it does seem that IPT is inextricably linked to the Emerson guy. DocumentError (talk) 01:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
• Responding to the question first posed, the template applied to that article does not appear apt, but rather an exercise of POV. Epeefleche (talk) 02:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

To further summarize the WP:BLPGROUPS argument, following are the comments I included above regarding a recent ANI BLP discussion:

Two more excerpts from comments made by two editors at an ANI over the BLP issue: (diff follows both comments):

1. Well the BLP violation may stem from more than merely saying that it was said. I can see a good argument that it violates WP:UNDUE to put the claim that the day after the Oklahoma City Bombing Emerson suggested that it might have been perpetrated by Muslim terrorists in the lead section of an article about a think tank Emerson founded. In which case it probably would also violate WP:BLP.
2. As I recall, pretty much everyone jumped to the conclusion that it was foreign terrorists. It was a reasonable assumption at the time. It never occurred to most of us that someone like McVeigh would do something like that. Now we know better. Supposing the BLP in question actually did say it, why does it matter 19 years later? [44]

My closing statement: There are no high-quality sources, secondary or third party, that separate IPT from Steven Emerson. Substantial evidence confirming unreliable sources, and Emerson's exclusivity to IPT has been well established in this discussion. The template and all the other poorly sourced criticisms and allegations that point to Steven Emerson with trivial mention of IPT, including the template, are violations of BLP (BLPGROUPS). Atsme☯^Consult 13:28, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

• Serialjoepsycho's closing statement: AfD has already and recently answered the question of notability. There's no reason to forum shop the issue of notability here. This noticeboard is for BLP issues and not a clearinghouse to shop issues that one has failed repeatedly to achieve a consensus on in other noticeboards and wikipedia processes. However the issue regarding the template is important. I do ask whomever closes this to determine if there is a consensus that the template in question does present a BLP violation.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 16:43, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
  • WP:BLPGROUPS defines this situation unambiguously as do the majority of comments in this discussion, particularly the unreliable sources used to justify placement of the template, and IPT being inextricably linked to Emerson. Atsme☯^Consult 17:21, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

That's very interesting indeed. Though the prior closer didn't find that. One of the issues they closed it on was the actual forum shopping. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 17:45, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Atsme has come to my talk page to ask me what I am talking about above. Ok so This [45] is a link to the response LHM gave to Atsme when questioning their prior close. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 18:13, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

To conclude that there's no BLP violation because IPT is not a living person demonstrates an unfamiliarity with a very important part of BLP policy. There was no mention of forum shopping. The BLP violations in IPT and the template are applicable according to WP:BLPGROUPS: The extent to which the BLP policy applies to edits about groups is complex and must be judged on a case-by-case basis. A harmful statement about a small group or organization comes closer to being a BLP problem than a similar statement about a larger group; and when the group is very small, it may be impossible to draw a distinction between the group and the individuals that make up the group. When in doubt, make sure you are using high-quality sources. IPT is a small group inextricably linked to Emerson, a legal person. Those facts have been noted in the comments above, and during the ANI (BLP discussion) which drew attention to the BLP violations as noted above. The NOR issues and unreliable sources also contribute to the BLP violations per WP:BLPGROUPS. Hopefully the next closer will not be so hasty in drawing a conclusion that is not properly based on the correct policy. Atsme☯^Consult 20:36, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Irrelevant and unrelated to the template's BLP violation per WP:BLPGROUPS. There's no ambiguity - it begins and ends with that policy. Atsme☯^Consult 22:05, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Your argument begins and ends with an inherent notability argument that you brought up in AfD. It's made up of points you made in AfD and elsewhere. Forum Shopping notability here.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 23:04, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

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

It was removed yes, but if the close doesn't make it clear that the template is a BLP violation the template is going back in based on the prior consensus. And yes you can move on to another BLP issue. Do you have a BLP issue that you would like to discuss or are you going to continue trying to forum shop the already resolved issue of notability?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 17:40, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• CLEAR AND INDISPUTABLE BLP VIOLATION PER WP:BLPGROUPS FOR THE REASONS STATED IN THE LIST OF COMMENTS ABOVE, ALL OF WHICH APPLY TO THE TEMPLATE AS A WP:BLPGROUPS VIOLATION. Read the policy and the comments if you're still confused, and stop being rude. Atsme☯^Consult 22:18, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

If it is clear and indisputable then the uninvolved editor that closes this will find that it is a BLP violation. In the event they do not, much like the prior closer did not, the template goes back in per the prior consensus. That's pretty much what I just said. Your rude display of posting in all caps does not change this. Now do you have another BLP issue that you would like to talk about or do you wish to continue trying to forum shop the notability issue here?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 00:14, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

You stated: I don't actually care one way or another what actually happens to the IPT article. I don't care if the Islamophobia template is eventually removed. [46] Why don't you act like it, and allow me (the primary writer of the IPT article) to do what needs to be done without further disruptions from you? It isn't my fault that you and the prior closer have a problem understanding WP:BLPGROUPS policy. The BLP violation is clearly against Emerson who is inextricably linked to IPT, and that is why it's a violation per WP:BLPGROUPS. What you're doing now is WP:IDHT, and your conduct is rude and taunting. This is the second time I am asking you to stop.

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

1. No reliable secondary or third party sources that confirm IPT and/or its legal person, Steven Emerson, are Islamophobic. Inclusion of the template on IPT would be the same as inclusion of the template on Steven Emerson because the two are inextricably linked; please read WP:BLPGROUPS which does not require the violation to be against a "living person";
2. Comment from InedibleHulk who also confirms source used to justify the template is biased - The Center for American Progress seems to think the organization is Islamophobic, but judging from their article, they're hardly objective observers. I've removed the box, as it seems to rely solely on that claim. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:12, October 8, 2014 (UTC)
3. Comment by NorthBySouthBaranof who draws attention to sources that are not reliable, NPOV, and how Emerson is inextricably linked to IPT (all BLP violations) when he suggested merging/redirecting to Emerson - I kind of feel like this thing needs to be stubbed and stripped, if not merge/redirected to Stephen Emerson. I don't see what's really notable about it, and with the exception of one Salon article, pretty much all the sources are polemic from either side — right-wing sources think the group is doing great work investigating alleged terrorism and left-wing sources think the group is peddling Islamophobic conspiracy theories. There's hardly any neutral sources here, which suggests it's not particularly notable from a mainstream perspective. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
4. Comment by DocumentError who agreed with all of my points, and also confirmed inextricable link with respect to the BLP violation - I agree with all points made by Atsme with respect to the article and template, above. And it does seem that IPT is inextricably linked to the Emerson guy. DocumentError (talk) 01:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
5. Comment by Epeefleche who confirmed the template is an exercise of POV which violates WP:BLP - Responding to the question first posed, the template applied to that article does not appear apt, but rather an exercise of POV. Epeefleche (talk) 02:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
6. Comments in a recent ANI BLP about IPT also confirm BLP violations - Well the BLP violation may stem from more than merely saying that it was said. I can see a good argument that it violates WP:UNDUE to put the claim that the day after the Oklahoma City Bombing Emerson suggested that it might have been perpetrated by Muslim terrorists in the lead section of an article about a think tank Emerson founded. In which case it probably would also violate WP:BLP. [47]

• In summary, the template is clearly a violation under WP:BLPGROUPS for all the reasons mentioned above, and because it lacks the required high-quality sources, relies heavily on its self-published website, violates NPOV, has no reliable secondary or third party sources that make a distinction between IPT and Steven Emerson. A BLP WP:BLPGROUPS violation does not require it to be against a "living person", rather the policy refers to a small group or legal person. Atsme☯^Consult 13:28, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Katie Jones (web entrepreneur)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Resolved

This issue appears to have been resolved. Feel free to remove this closure if further issues arise, or if you feel I've missed something in the discussion that needs further addressing. LHM^{ask me a question} 17:08, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

---

Could someone with more experience than myself with BLP matters take a look at Katie Jones (web entrepreneur)? There seem to me to be any number of issues here, but given the number of people who've edited it and apparently not seen a problem, maybe I'm completely up the wrong tree. Mogism (talk) 19:41, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

What do you specifically see as a BLP issue there?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:03, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I removed one line that was a problem, but do not see any problems with the rest of it. GB fan 20:14, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The sentence "She has not been struck dead by a higher power for irony, hubris, or hypocracy" which has just been removed, the lengthy and unsourced timeline, the fact that article about child abuse and legal disputes is sourced to a blog post, The Register, People magazine and Amazon... Mogism (talk) 20:20, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I would just cut the where are they now section. It reminds me of one of those cheesey VH1 bits about what happened to the cast of 90210 or what ever. Not only is it poorly sourced but it's hardly relevant. Ok you can buy her book on Amazon used for a cent. Ok so where do they sale it used for $2? That shouldn't have been put in anyway. The book has been renamed [48]. Also check this out Katie.com. The timeline is unnecessary. You could cut it or check to see if you can find better sourcing.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 21:37, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I have excised the "Timeline", "Where are they now" (both per the above) and "See also" (because the sole link is already in the article) sections.--ukexpat (talk) 12:38, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I've cut it back further, removing the unsourced claims and the non-notable personal drama. I also recommend it be merged with the book article as Jones is not notable per WP:1E.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:06, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

There still remains the issue of Katie.com which is an exact mirror of the Katie Jones as it was when it was brought here. Should it be cut as well or even just moved to articles for deletion or a speedy delete?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 19:14, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Good point. There is an ongoing merge discussion and I've suggested that Katie Jones be merged into the Katie.com article. Please join the discussion here. Thanks!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:58, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I went to Katie.com, removed the timeline, where are they now section and some unsourced stuff.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 04:19, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Good, I expanded and reorganized the article with better sources and some additional sources which I placed as External Links.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Giorgio Antonucci | removing of the Start-Class assessment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Resolved

Not really a BLPN issue, but seems to have been amicably resolved. LHM^{ask me a question}

---

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

Hello,

the article that I submitted to Afc has been accepted (in July) and classified as Start-Class. I basically translated the Italian page about Giorgio Antonucci (that is not considered a Start-Class article), then I continued to improve the page adding information and links. I am really surprised to see that the page is still considered a Start-Class article, despite the improvements made over the last months.

Could you please revise the assessment?

thanks

Footprintsinthesand — Preceding unsigned comment added by Footprintsinthesand (talk • contribs) 15:49, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:37, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I've upgraded it to C but its marginal. The sources provided are all in Italian and this is the English WP so most of the sources should be in English.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:40, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Scott Greenstein and some people I haven't heard of

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

Last time this article was on this noticeboard (this is the third time now), Off2Riorob said he had added it to his watchlist and would help with any future problems, but unfortunately he can't be with us here tonight. So I would welcome help from anyone else who has input on this conundrum.

As can be seen from the article history, there is someone who insists on re-inserting WP:UNDUE material into the article. The material relates to some talk-show host(?) I haven't really heard of, allegedly criticising the subject of the BLP for not letting two other people I haven't heard of into some event. Please opine wherever appropriate on whether this material should be included based on this sourcing. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Nope, needs secondary sources so we can ascertain significance. The article has a heck of a lot of name dropping in it, though. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:08, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

On my list now -- but too many editors regard BLPs as fair game for nonsense :( Collect (talk) 23:37, 10 October 2014 (UTC) Depuffed a tad. Collect (talk) 23:41, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Article about Kailash Satyarthi

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Resolved

Seems to have been taken care of before any action from here was needed. LHM^{ask me a question} 01:57, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

---

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

ABOUT KAILASH SATYARTHI: "He became Prime Minister of India after conclusion of latest Lok Sabha elections in May 2014." WELL HE NEVER BECAME THE PRIME MINISTER OF INDIA. PLEASE RECTIFY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.181.104.28 (talk) 11:09, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I can not find this sentence in the article, so I presume it has been removed already.--Auric talk 17:13, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Srdja Popovic

Certain users continue to vandalize the Srđa Popović (activist) page with libellous content about his supposed relationship with Stratfor and a Goldman Sachs investment banker. The editing has gone back and forth too many times to count. I continue to revise the page with a concise and accurate summary of the controversy, with many sources supporting both sides. Other users continue to detail allegations on the page that are not supported by the sources they are citing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwightkschrute91 (talk • contribs) 12:32, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I am in the process of preparing a detailed response to this. In the meantime, Dwightkschrute91, you said you continue to revise the page-when is the first time you personally edited it? Were there times when you edited it as an unregistered user? GPRamirez5 (talk) 20:42, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

@Cambridge Weather Board On second look, I actually don't think much of a detailed response is necessary: It's there in black-and-white in the Wikileaks emails. More to the point, Gibson and Horn communicated with Popovic, and he didn't deny their accusations; he denied things they did not charge -like saying that CANVAS doesn't take money from the Goldman Sachs corporation - but he didn't deny their implication that Muneer Satter personally gave money to CANVAS, and he definitely didn't deny acting as liason between Stratfor and Satter; He denied putting activists "in touch" with Stratfor without their permission, but he didn't deny giving information about activists to Stratfor without their permission; He denied that CANVAS took money directly from the National Security Council, but didn't deny the charge that NSC's Michael McFaul was his associate and that McFaul had arranged funding for CANVAS.

Overall, any description of this content as "libelous" is absurd. Despite communicating with them, Popovic did not accuse Gibson and Horn of libel or any kind of malice. Furthermore, because of these charges, Popovic quietly left the board of Waging Nonviolence, a tacit acknowledgement that he cannot challenge them. GPRamirez5 (talk) 03:59, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Christopher Lee (politician)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Resolved

Article PRODed by Meatsgains. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:04, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

---

Short article about a local politician. Quite possibly not notable, but not really A7-bait IMHO. But the problem is that the facts in the article are highly negative. They look to be sourced, but I get the feeling the article was written just to put the negative stuff here on WP. - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:19, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I would agree with you on that. Seems to not notable and it was all negative. Honestly I would consider opening an AfD or putting it up for speedy delete. He's a politician for a township of 4,873. He's a CEO of (i suppose) the company that ones that historical place. Neither of which seem to meet notability guidelines.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 23:16, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I PROD'd the page as subject is non-notable. Meatsgains (talk) 04:40, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Charles Lavine

Charles Lavine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Socks or meat puppets and possibly partisan editing of this politician's bio. Dougweller (talk) 11:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Ugh, what a horrible article. I've removed some of the worst of the garbage from it, but someone seems to have registered an account for the sole purpose of reverting me, funny that! Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:31, 12 October 2014 (UTC).

Kwame Kilpatrick

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Resolved

Collect removed material and photo that was in violation of WP:BLP. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:02, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

---

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

Is a booking photo necessary or even allowed when we have (and have used for years) an ordinary photo (File:Kwame Kilpatrick.jpg)? I feel that this is a BLP violation of unnecessary disparagement. Rmhermen (talk) 14:54, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually - just something which would need a positive consensus as being the most representative image of the person. I also removed the gratuitous use of a prison address as his "residence" as being also something which is generally not done in a BLP. Collect (talk) 15:10, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

The booking photo and prison address smack of either a poor attempt at humor and/or POV-pushing, neither of which is appropriate in any Wikipedia article, let alone an article subject to WP:BLP. Bottom line: delete the prison address, replace the booking photo, and let the facts of his convictions speak for themselves. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:17, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Well said, Dirtlawyer. I have nothing original to add except to agree with the proposed approach. TheBlueCanoe 15:37, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hugo Race

I am trying to correct the incorrect information and spelling in the Wikipedia post on myself - my edits are being blocked, Please advise, thank you. preceding unsigned comment made by HJ Race (talk)

Hello Hugo, it is not recommended for a person to edit his own BLP.
Can you point out the errors in the article so other editors can try to fix it? I noticed you tried to change the date of birth (1963 instead of 1961) and the name of a band Boom Boom Fix instead of Boom Boom Fit. Can you find any sources that can be referenced? I was not able to. Since in my opinion, your date of birth is probably not a controversial issue, in case you also can't find a reference, and there is no valid reference that cites the incorrect date of birth, you might self-publish the correct one on the bio section of your webpage, and then request for it to be corrected by other editors here or in my talk page--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:09, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:COISELF Here is the policy that concerns you editing your own article.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 10:43, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I cannot find any sources regarding his birthdate. Out of the two used in the article to support "early 1960s" one is a broken link and the second is just him saying he listened to music as a child in the 1960s and doesn't specify how old he was at the time. I suggest we remove references to his birthdate until a source is found. WP:BLP asks us to remove any unsourced information, even if it is mundane. I don't see "Boom Boom Fit" anywhere in the article, but I did see they tried to change "Dum Dum Fit" to "Dum Dum Fix". I'm not sure if they were trying to make fun of us (ie "fix it dum dum") as a quick Google search has plenty of hits for Dum Dum Fit and none for Fix. I see user:OrangeMike reverted this editors edits that were being made from a different username as spam, which suggests to me there was a more problematic series of edits in the past. CorporateM (Talk) 16:45, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not actually clear if this individual is the same as the person that got banned. The person that got banned only made one edit. If we can't validate the birthday your proposal that we remove the birthday would fix that issue.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 19:34, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Jaycee Dugard, Survior

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Resolved

Cwobeel has removed the sentence with the problematic phrasing. LHM^{ask me a question} 22:04, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

---

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

In the entry describing Jaycee Dugard's kidnapping, Wikipedia allows the use of the phrase, "Garrido also told her that by engaging in sex acts with him, which he would videotape, she was protecting other girls whom he would not need to victimize." The legal and practical application of this terminology, especially without the proper grammar to specify a direct quote or source, gives 'weight' to the offender's assertion that his pedophilic urges somehow qualified as a "need". This is INACCURATE and also misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.24.103.222 (talk • contribs) 15:45, October 12, 2014‎

I have removed that sentence as it was unreferenced. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Interaccess Electronic Media Arts Centre and User talk:24.52.243.144

InterAccess Electronic Media Arts Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There are two instances of BLP violations, now reverted, that should probably have the history hidden. Even though this is an IP talk page, two mentions of a person regarding legal issues should be removed out of the history, here and here. This is concerning someone who does not have an article on Wikipedia, is not a public figure and, as I lived in the city at the time of the events in question, I kno it was as never in the media, so there would be no sources available. Mind you, this is a talk page, but I believe BLP and RS would still apply. Thanks. freshacconci talk to me 01:12, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• The edit summary for the article in question, here now contains the name of the person I have been discussing and should be hidden as well as this IP is clearly on some sort of personal campaign.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Freshacconci (talk • contribs)

Jack Evans

Jack Evans (D.C. politician)

This Washington DC councilman ran for his party's nomination for Mayor last year. In the run-up to the primaries his Wikipedia biography became an egregious hatchet job of undue negative innuendo and trivia.

After I left a note here a month or two back, a couple of editors with no history there and some understanding of WP:BLP arrived and we pared it back to a simple, neutral encyclopedia biography. It's starting to slip back now (is the council election on now?) and I don't have the time to watch it.

The subject of the abuse is understandably outraged. As am I. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:37, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• I just critically reviewed the article, and found only very minor, but well sourced criticism of the subject for his use of constituent service funds. I made several stylistic edits, but it appears that Anthony and others have already removed any NPOV or BLP problematic content. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:59, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The Federalist (website)

A revert occurred on The Federalist (website) claiming WP:BLP issues ([49]). I asked what the WP:BLP issues where on the users talk page (currently you can read them here but being moved to the main talk page:[50]), further discussion can be read on the articles talk page (Talk:The_Federalist_(website) under the section "BLP - ARBCOM").

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

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

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

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

• I have restored the content, notwithstanding my respect for Gamaliel and others. This material is factual and well-sourced, and there is no valid BLP or NPOV basis for removing it. This controversy is part of the subject publication's public notoriety and contributes to the subject's notability for Wikipedia purposes. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:05, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think that was wise, dirtlawyer. In any case, content similar to that included in the federalist article about Tyson was added to the Tyson and was withdrawn from the Tyson article under BLP (and has stayed out while discussion was ongoing, per BLP), and there is currently an RfC underway to determine whether the material should come into that article. I will note that the federalist (the subject of our article) is one of the blogs fanning the flames of the criticism of Tyson in the blogosphere. Because BLP applies everywhere a living person is discussed, the content should stay out of the federalist article (and others) until the RfC at the Tyson is complete, at least. If it comes in there, of course in comes in at the federalist (although content there may raise its own issues under BLP). If it doesn't come in there, the close might provide guidance as to what is reasonable to bring in to the federalist or other articles. But there is WP:NODEADLINE and there is no good reason not to wait for the RfC to close. WP is not part of the blogosphere and there is nothing urgent here. Jytdog (talk) 05:16, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  • There is a RfC about inclusion at the page about Neil deGrasse Tyson. Notice the title of that RfC: "Request for Comment: WP:WEIGHT/WP:UNDUE". This is a RfC as to if it is important enough to include on the page (not if it is verified to have occurred or not). WP:WEIGHT issues apply to all pages and are not WP:BLP specific issues. (and it is at least possible that it is not important enough to the overall story of Neil Tyson, while also being important enough to the overall story of The Federalist (website) --Obsidi (talk ) 05:24, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• As Obsidi observes above, the RfC is addressing the Tyson "quotegate" material in the context of WEIGHT/UNDUE is really a giant opinionfest, with little solid basis in the guidelines or policy for including or excluding it from the Tyson article. Opponents of including the content in the Tyson article have retreated from asserting a clear BLP violation (completely undermined by Tyson's recent public apology) to claiming that the material is not significant enough to include 250 bytes regarding this controversy in an article of 55,000+ bytes. There is no similar WEIGHT/UNDUE concern in this article, and no one has credibly asserted one. Ironically, this controversy may have contributed significantly to the notability of The Federalist website, thereby reinforcing the logic for including it in this article. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:39, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:COATRACK applies as well. While any notability of the federalist may depend upon its bizarre fixation of this living person , it does not mean that the page can be allowed to be a site to carry on claims against a living person . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 07:11, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

COATRACK is exactly the issue. What's needed here is some admin cojones, to step in and start enforcing proper behaviour regarding the editing of BLPs. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:24, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• There is a BLP aspect here for sure and it seems some editors are using this article as a coatrack for pov-pushing. It is of particular concern that Obsidi questions the relevance of this issue being raised at this noticeboard because the article is "not a BLP", as if that absolves editors from following policy. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, guys, but I just don't see it. Here are the facts of the controversy, and the on-Wiki controversy:

1. Well-loved public television host (and public figure), with known liberal political leanings, repeatedly misquotes (and quotes out of context) a former president of the United States on multiple occasions over a period of years;

2. Political columnist for online conservative news and opinion magazine describes public figure's repeated use of such misquotes;

3. Minor online controversy ensues as other conservative websites begin to repeat accusations of misquoting by public figure, and public figure denies misquoting former president;

4. Wikipedia editors add content to public figure's biographical article regarding his habit of misquoting the former president;

5. On-wiki controversy and edit-war ensue when regular editors of bio article deleted content on the basis of alleged violations of BLP, NPOV and RS, and when the material is supported by neutrally worded language and reliable sources -- including a public apology of the public figure -- the objections to the content morph into objections based on WEIGHT and UNDUE;

6. Factual nature of content is now undisputed following public figure's public apology;

7. Several editors who object to the content on various bases file an AfD for the Wikipedia article about the online conservative magazine that published the original allegations -- now factually corroborated -- in an attempt to delete the Wikipedia article on the basis that the online magazine is non-notable per WP:GNG and related notability guidelines;

8. The attempt to delete Wikipedia article at AfD are rebuffed when AfD is closed as "keep";

9. Editors who object to including content in public figure's Wikipedia bio have filed an RfC, no longer based expressly on primary BLP concerns (i.e., factual accuracy, reliable sources, etc.) -- but now based on WEIGHT and UNDUE -- to continue to block content regarding "quotegate" from bio article;

10. WP:BLP is now cited as a reason to remove factual content supported by reliable sources from the article about the online conservative magazine. A "good faith" BLP objection to the content in the article about the magazine is claimed, but no specific grounds for the BLP objection are described other than an RfC is pending on the talk page of the article about the public figure -- an RfC now explicitly based on whether the content should or should not be included based on WEIGHT and UNDUE because the factual nature of the content is no longer in dispute;

11. WP:Coatrack -- an essay, not a guideline, not policy -- is now cited to demand that factual, neutrally worded, reliably sourced content be removed the Wikipedia article about the online conservative magazine. "POV-pushing" is alleged above; in response, I state that I am no POV-pusher, and I have no history of POV-pushing in this article or elsewhere. I am an uninvolved editor who is appalled by how this on-Wiki controversy has been handled. From my perspective, it is difficult to discern what point of view is being pushed by factual, neutrally worded, reliably sourced content that is directly linked to the notability of the online conservative magazine;

Frankly, my fellow editors, rarely have I seen our policy and guidelines twisted in such a manner. I never get involved in Wikipedia political editing controversies, but someone needs to speak up. WP:BLP is not a censorship tool; it is supposed to be a policy and related guidelines that protect living bio subjects from false content, distorted out-of-context content, content unsupported by reliable sources, etc. Our BLP policy and guidelines are not supposed to provide a shield from all criticism or negative content about popular public figures; Wikipedia prides itself on being NOTCENSORED.

If a member of ArbCom or an uninvolved administrator tells me to remove the factual, neutrally worded, reliably sourced content from The Fedealist/federalist.com article, I will do so under protest, but I see no BLP violation here. I simply see policy and other guidelines stretched far beyond their intended purposes by opposing editors. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 10:39, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, because there's no problem with forcing off-topic content into this article sourced (for example) to a political blog post entitled "Neil deGrasse Tyson, serial fabulist". Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 10:48, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Alexbrn, as I just reminded another editor, please assume good faith, reduce your combative tone, and do your best to state your case without unnecessary rhetoric. I am no POV-pusher, and I have ZERO history of POV-pushing on Wikipedia, in political articles or otherwise; I am a previously uninvolved editor. It is undeniable that there are two sides to this "quotegate" controversy, and one of them is The Federalist. As such, the content is decidely not "off-topic," but has contributed greatly to the notoriety/notability of the online magazine. Furthermore, it is also now undeniable that Tyson repeatedly misquoted (and quoted out of context) George W. Bush, and did so in a manner that disparaged Bush. Tyson has now publicly apologized for quoting Bush out of context, removing all doubt as to the factual nature of the basic premises of this controversy. While the Neil deGrasse Tyson talk page RfC may or may not decide that a 250- to 500-byte mention of the "quotegate" controversy is somehow unworthy of inclusion in that article, it is difficult to comprehend how a similar argument can be made against the present content of The Federalist (website) article. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:14, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Not sure it's worth adding to this since minds are obviously made up. Just to be very clear, for when this inevitably gets escalated, both Dirtlawyer1 and Obsidi have made Wikipedia repeat the charge that Tyson has engaged in "fabricating quotes" (not made a mistake or anything like that), sourced to a partisan blog post. And they're cool with that even being aware of WP:BLP. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 11:42, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

This is not a true statement of what I said or did. He was ACCUSED of "fabricating quotes" by the federalist. He actually mistakenly dated it to 9/11 and in different context, and I source that to Neil Tyson himself when he said: "It appears in his speech after the Columbia Shuttle disaster, eighteen months after September 11th 2001. My bad. And I here publicly apologize to the President for casting his quote in the context of contrasting religions rather than as a poetic reference to the lost souls of Columbia" --Obsidi (talk ) 11:53, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

@Obsidi:—Are you really not aware of what you did? this edit you (yes) made Wikipedia repeat the accusation of fabrication, and sourced it (the source says "outright fabrication") to a partisan blog post. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 12:14, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I know that is my edit (reinserting the removed content), I disagree with your original characterization of it as saying that he "engaged in 'fabricating quotes' (not made a mistake or anything like that)". --Obsidi (talk ) 12:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I didn't mean to suggest that WP:BLP policy didn't apply to all pages in which WP:BLP is added, I just wanted to make sure I was in the right place. --Obsidi (talk ) 11:25, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Just so we can eliminate a potential bone of rhetorical contention: I agree 100% that BLP policy and related guidelines apply to all Wikipedia articles (and talk pages, for that matter), not just biographical articles. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

This information really belongs at the Tyson page, with a dablink/summary at this article. That BLP concerns have improperly but successfully kept the piece out of the NDT article seems to be the bigger problem here. It's a noteworthy criticism covered responsibly in reliable sources, and that seems to be the crux of things. Thargor Orlando (talk) 11:40, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Thargar, I have no objections to linking or transcluding this discussion, but I believe it should remain separate from the NDGT talk page RfC. The issues are obviously related, but not identical. In the case of the NDGT article, there is at least a colorable argument for excluding the "quotegate" controversy from the article based on WEIGHT and UNDUE; the controversy certainly is not among the primary reasons for NDGT's notability. I do not believe that any similar credible arguments based on WEIGHT and UNDUE exist for excluding the content from The Federalist article; in fact, the controversy has apparently contributed greatly to the notoriety/notability of the online magazine. Bottom line: we have two related, but different fact patterns, and two related, but different sets of issues under the our policy and guidelines. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:50, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Dirtlawer: As others have intimated, per WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE, this matter needs to be settled before you restore it to the article, so stop edit warring it in. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:08, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Alan, no one -- including yourself -- has yet made a credible statement of what the alleged BLP violation in The Federalist article actually is. Perhaps you would care to do so? Otherwise, in the absence of an actual statement of what the BLP violation is, I think it is perfectly reasonable for other editors to simply ignore such bald-faced and unsupported claims of violations. As for edit-warring, Alan, we have both reverted the deletion twice, and you reverted twice before I did -- are we both edit-warring in your estimation, or do the same 3RR/edit-warring rules not apply to all parties? Please feel free to explain your interpretation. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:22, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

You're wrong. People have stated a concern about the representation of a living person. You're just not listening. Even were you to "be right", you cannot circumvent the discussion that is ongoing, by editing on the basis of your personal dismissal. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:12, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• This is a pretty clear case of editors abusing the BLP policy to cover what most likely is actually IDONTLIKEIT. I have yet to see anyone specify exactly how this particular content violates the BLP policy. It's merely being asserted as a magic word or a trump card. Kelly ^hi! 12:18, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• Roger that. None of the pro-deletion editors has yet made a statement of what the alleged BLP violation is. I'm doing my best to assume good faith, but these circumstances easily lend themselves to another interpretation of gaming the system. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:22, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Untrue [51]. Try listening, first, to what they have said. (I am out of time and may return later.Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:27, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

@Alanscottwalker: I note that you responded after the fact. That having been said, you are simply asserting the same WEIGHT and UNDUE arguments that are being used in the RfC on the Neil deGrasse Tyson talk page. These are marginal BLP violations, assuming they are valid complaints at all, in the context of the NDGT article. Can you please explain how WEIGHT and UNDUE apply in the context of The Federalist article? The material you have deleted from The Federalist was factual, neutrally worded, and supported by reliable sources. Once again, I am doing my best to assume good faith, but I see elements of gamesmanship and abuse of policy and guidelines everywhere throughout this matter, and I find it very distressing that editors believe that it is acceptable to use BLP for purposes that were never intended. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:38, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Your edit warring against per WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE, is why you imagine it is after the fact, my comment is during the discussion that BLPREQUEST requires, and is restating what other editors have already stated to you - so you are in a BLP dispute, whether you like it or not. The issue of due weight regarding this BLP is currently an open discussion, so therefore you edit warred against BLP policy with your first revert. You claim they are "marginal BLP violations", so they are BLP violations -- stop violating BLP. You are repeatedly showing bad faith by your editing when there are those of differing opinions in an open discussion, whether you assume it or not. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:05, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Alan, you seem to have a problem with misquoting and quoting people out of context, which is somewhat ironic (and unintentionally humorous) given the discussion at hand. What I wrote, and what you clearly chose to ignore, is that minor BLP violations, if any ("assuming they are valid complaints at all"), in the NDGT article do not translate into BLP violations in The Federalist article. In fact, one can assert based on the current NDGT talk page discussion that no one is even making credible assertions of BLP violations, but only those based on WEIGHT and UNDUE, and those are hotly disputed. It's apparent to anyone who has followed this story (and the on-Wiki controversy) that the basic facts are no longer in dispute. Tyson misquoted Bush, and quoted him out of context, and did so in a disparaging manner; we can quibble about whether Tyson did it knowingly and intentionally, but I do not pretend to have a window into men's souls. So, let's just stick with the facts. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:24, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Dirtlawyer, you seem to have a problem with listening to what other people say to you and to misunderstand and misconstrue them (whether deliberate or not on your part, who knows). You have stated that there is a discussion ongoing about "marginal BLP violations", you therefore have violated policy by inserting the matter being discussed into the article. Stop violating policy. BLP requires that the matter not be undue -- in the article material concerning a living person, but your editing is so intent on putting the matter into article space, either regardless of whether it is undue, or regardless of whether the discussion on that is ongoing. Thus, you are breaching policy.Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• Completely concur with Kelly on this. I have no tolerance for actual BLP violations, but more and more, I'm seeing WP:BLP being wielded as a hammer and anvil to simply keep any critical coverage of admired people out of Wikipedia. BLP policy was never intended to be misused in this way. And as much as I like NDGT, there's simply no valid BLP concerns with this material. LHM^{ask me a question} 13:48, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

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

But we are contending about it, dearest Collect. That makes it "contentious", no? You must have said so thousands of times, and/or acted in ways that rely on such logic. What makes it contentious is that there is significant disagreement about whether it should be included, no? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:40, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

@Nomoskedasticity: I have made no such assertions, Nomo. For my benefit, and for the benefit of others, please explain why you believe this factual, neutrally worded, and reliably sourced content should be excluded from The Federalist article?

1. Is the content factually untrue in The Federalist article?

2. Is the content not reliably sourced (including by NDGT's own apology) in The Federalist article?

3. Is the content not neutrally worded in The Federalist article?

4. Is the content taken out of context to reflect a living person in an unfairly negative light in The Federalist article?

5. Is there undue emphasis or weight given to the content in The Federalist article?

6. Or is there some new and novel problem with the content in The Federalist article which you care to assert?

Please answer. We are doing our best to assume good faith, but the failure to provide a credible statement of the alleged BLP violation in The Federalist article undermines your credibility and contributes to the perception of gamesmanship, wiki-lawyering and inappropriate manipulation of policy and guidelines. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:52, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be imagining, incorrectly, that my post addressed you. But since you have pinged me, it would have been impolite not to reply. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

@Nomoskedasticity: No, sir, it was crystal clear that your previous post was addressed to User:Collect. That having been said, this is a public talk page, and the questions remain unanswered -- and my questions were addressed to you. Would you care to answer them, or are you also relying on the unsupported assertion of a BLP violation in The Federalist article. I am increasingly disappointed by the behavior and tone of otherwise rational and well-behaved editors in this matter, and I remain hopeful that you and others will reverse that trend. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

For those who are unclear what the BLP issue is, the content in the federalist article says "In September 2014, columnist Sean Davis wrote a series of articles for The Federalist accused astrophysicist and television science documentary host Neil deGrasse Tyson of fabricating quotes in a portion of his public speeches". fabricating. And as everyone here knows, this led to a feeding frenzy of similar accusations of fabricating material, attacks on him and his education, etc etc in the right wing blogosphere. Which the contested content in the federalist article also reports and sources. One big smearfest. BLP says "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives" Folks here have used Tyson's apology as an excuse to include the material. Tyson did not admit to fabricating anything. There is valid grounds to contest the material under BLP. Matters under BLP are' being discussed in the RfC regardless of the RfC's title. Per BLP the material should stay out of WP at least while the RfC is underway and should not be WP:COATRACKed into the federalist article in the meantime. For those disagreeing with this application of BLP, please speak to the point, namely the repeated accusations of fabrication and the other accusations made in light of the quote from BLP above.Jytdog (talk) 13:18, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

This sounds like a strawman argument. So far as I know, nobody wants to make an assertion of fact in any Wikipedia article that Tyson fabricated quotes. I think the closest anyone has come is to propose saying that The Federalist accused Tyson of fabricating quotes, which is neutral and true and documented in reliable sources. No BLP violation there. Kelly ^hi! 13:30, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

There have been problematic edits made. As WP:BLP puts it: "Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable". Repeating The Federalist's charge of fabrication with iffy sourcing is to repeat a problematic claim and show a cavalier disregard for policy rather than the "special care" which is required. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:42, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• @Jytdog: Actually, The Federalist content, as it last existed before its deletion this morning, said that Tyson publicly apologized for quoting Bush out of context ("Tyson later apologized for mistakenly dating a quote of George W. Bush to September 11, 2001, when in fact the President said it on a different occasion and in a different context than that asserted by Tyson.") -- is that not factually accurate? Please answer the specific question, so we can begin to get to whether the deleted content constituted "one big smearfest," as asserted. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:37, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

not speaking to the point. fabrication =/= mistake. and please don't try to argue that "it depends what 'is' is" BLP calls us to be careful, not split hairs. Jytdog (talk) 15:33, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Jytodg, you still have not articulated what the alleged BLP violation in The Federalist article actually is. No credible BLP violation -- no BLP remedies. If you can't get a third-party administrator to agree with you, then you probably haven't done a very good job of identifying the problem, because there are an awful lot of editors who are just as smart as you, and just as knowledgeable as you, who disagree with your unsupported assertion of "BLP violation!" in The Federalist article. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:57, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. It's obvious where policy points us on this issue so I have gone ahead and restored the content in question, pending the possible future revelation of some hint that it might be inappropriate in some way. Fortunately, there is no deadline for folks to figure out what is wrong with it! Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 13:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

That is the exact opposite of what BLP says is done in these cases. Jytdog (talk) 15:33, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Since BLP is being used as a pretext to avoid NPOV, IAR tells me to ignore your insistence on rigid technical adherence to the precise protocol that is being gamed and abused. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:38, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Factchecker_atyourservice Please WP:AGF - there is no "pretext." It is my view that the content in the federalist article is a violation of BLP. People can have different perspectives and not be lying. I cannot respond to the rest because I don't what "IAR" refers to - what does it mean? Jytdog (talk) 18:08, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

If a rule prevents you from improving Wikipedia, ignore it. That's what IAR stands for. In this case, it's not really a rule, but stubborn failure to understand the rule, that is the obstacle. In any event: currently ignoring it. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:25, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary break for convenience

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

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

• At this point, Atsme, I have chosen to become involved because I believe that WP:BLP is being grossly misused to delete factually accurate, neutrally worded, reliably sourced content -- which is pertinent to the subject -- from The Federalist article, in a manner which far exceeds the intended reach of WP:BLP. And, yes, the inclusion of these three or four sentences in The Federalist article do improve the article; in fact, one can assert and easily support the proposition that this controversy -- whose basic facts are no longer in dispute as a result of NDGT's Facebook apology for quoting Bush out of context -- are among the principal reasons for The Federalist's present notoriety/notability. Speaking as a lawyer (for no one other than myself, of course), there is zero potential libel issue because (a) NDGT is a public figure within the meaning of New York Times v. Sullivan, and (b) most importantly, the basic facts are no longer in dispute. I see no violation of law or potential tort claim, but you're welcome to ask another alwyer with whom you are friendly for their opinion on point. I also see no violation of NPOV, V, RS, BLP, WEIGHT, UNDUE or any other Wikipedia policy or guideline that is relevant to this discussion, nor has anyone made any credible assertion of any BLP violation regarding the content of The Federalist article that would lead to the content being deleted absent an actual consensus to delete it. Atsme, you seem to be a reasonable editor, but others seem to have lost all perspective in this matter and are willing to twist policy and the guidelines to suit their desired outcome. That's not the purpose of WP:BLP, nor should it be an outcome with which anyone is happy. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:53, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

You misconstrue BLP -- at it's core, BLP pauses usual editing practice because "we must get it right" in the very first instance of it being in an article -- it's not and never has been enough that it passes law, it must be soundly established that it passes editorial judgement under all core policies. We "soundly establish" that in discussion and dispute resolution and in the meantime it does not go in. Your position on this especially makes little sense in light of BRD. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:52, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I disagree, are you really trying to say that 30 days before an election, someone can come on to a politicians bio page, claim WP:BLP problems and then we got to wait for 30 days for the RfC to finish just because "we must get it right" and they are disputing it? That's silly and not policy, now Neil Tyson is not a politician, but can anyone dispute he is public figure? If there was any question as to the validity of the statements (or the source of that validity) or if the accusations were not attributed correctly, it should be removed (until any dispute over the blp issues are over). That is not the case here, what occurred is not contentious at all. This is similar to the second example in WP:WELLKNOWN: "A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He or she denies it, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should only state that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that he or she actually did. If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported." In this case replace affair with fabricated quotes. WP cannot say that he fabricated anything, as we don't know. What we can say is that the accusation was made, and that he gave a response. It is only a question of WP:WEIGHT as to if we include it or not.--Obsidi (talk ) 16:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

A parallel because "multiple major newspapers" have published the allegations? If that's so why is the article sourced to a blog? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:23, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Because it was the blog that made the allegation (we are linking to the allegation), it also has another reference as a source which is a WP:RS (one of many such WP:RS talking about the incident). --Obsidi (talk ) 16:26, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The charge of fabrication you have sourced to a blog. There are not "multiple major newspapers" publishing this charge, so your comparison above is bogus. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:36, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The Tampa Tribune (the source linked) is an over 100 year old daily published newspaper with a sunday circulation of 262,369 as of 2 years ago (it may be higher now). 3 years ago it was the 36th largest newspaper in the country. It maybe not be the largest of papers, but it isn't that small, its still a "major newspaper". There are other papers that talked about the charge as well. --Obsidi (talk ) 17:21, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

No. An opinion piece is not a reliable source per WP:NEWSORG. This is all the more true for a BLP, where opinion pieces shape facts to support their opinion, that's the purpose of persuasive writing. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:28, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Please redact this objectively false statement of WP policy. Opinion pieces may be used as reliable sources. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

You have not read NEWSORG I see. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:37, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Please go read NEWSORG, recognize your wrongness, redact the above wrong statement that I asked you to redact, and then I suppose I could accept an apology. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:44, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

What don't you get about opinion pieces not being general RS for facts, per NEWSORG. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:50, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh snap! I got you to read further! Any day now you might start actually understanding policies instead of merely shouting their names at the top of your lungs, over and over! Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, what? It says that opinion pieces are not generally RS -- they only may be used for stating the author has an opinion, but that opinion would have to be due for it to matter. They are not general RS about the lives of third persons. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:20, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• A right-wing website publishes a number of attack pieces, with names such as (1) Bro, do you even science? Super scientist Neil deGrasse Tyson doesn’t understand statistics, (2)Did Neil deGrasse Tyson just try to justify blatant quote fabrication? If Neil deGrasse Tyson is an honest broker, why do the facts in his stories keep changing?, (3) Another day, another quote fabricated by Neil deGrasse Tyson, and (4) Why is Wikipedia deleting all references to Neil Tyson’s fabrication? Neil Tyson's Internet defenders sure are cultish and anti-science. For them this is a big deal because Tyson represents something they despise in many fronts. They have the right to publish these opinions on their website, but WP should not be an echo chamber for them. Let's look at this from the other side of the spectrum: Will people here advocating for inclusion of this material in the The Federalist article, be comfortable with including despising material about a conservative personality in the Daily Kos article? - Cwobeel (talk) 15:33, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. Looks to me more like The Federalist represents something Tyson despises, or is perhaps loosely affiliated with something he despises, thus causing him to have a painful series of critical brain farts. And now you're really mad about it. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:41, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• You'd be absolutely correct if the issue was solely posted at The Federalist. It would be akin to posting meaningless content from Media Matters for America in a BLP when only MMfA is talking about it. The issue is no longer about just one group talking about it, however, as the issue has been posted in a variety of reliable sources and has been shown to have some legs. Thus, it deserves a short note in both places: the topic of the controversy and the Federalist article as the site has received attention because of it. Nothing overwhelming or significant, but a relevant mention of a noteworthy situation. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• Really? A few conservative blogs and sites echoing the same attacks is not "attention", it is a political campaign and we should have nothing to do with it in WP. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:52, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• You're assuming motive, and motive doesn't really matter much. It may be a political campaign, it may not, but it is notable and verifiable in reliable sources, and it has some legs. That's all that matters. For comparison, you've readded the Media Matters criticism, which is quite clearly and unequivocally a "political campaign," and you've arguably defended it as such. That criticism has no apparent notice outside of Media Matters, but you've opted to include it. What's the difference for you? Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:09, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• The difference is obvious. The MMFA article describes a political stance by The Federalist as anti-LGBT (which BTW, is not disputed). OTOH, the attacks on Tyson are related to a living person. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:43, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• I dispute it, but I also don't see it as noteworthy. The "attacks" on Tyson are reliably sourced and noted. You could argue the MMfA attacks are related to living people too, as they call out authors specifically. Should we remove based on BLP or remove because it's not noteworthy? Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• I guess we will have to agree to disagree. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:52, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• Thankfully, to paraphrase Tyson, the facts remain the same regardless of whether you agree or not. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:58, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. Last I saw, there was NOT an anti-LGBT stance being described, rather, it was being mentioned that an anti-LGBT group said nice things about the article subject. Looks like a smear campaign. Did you know that Hitler loved art? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:43, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• @Dirtlawyer1: I think I said what needed to be said in the edit comment. There's no consensus to include the material and my understanding of process is that the default is to omit material until consensus is reached. I'm not sure where you get the idea that the material must remain until there's "...an actual consensus to delete it." I'm hoping that there will be some resolution to the RFC over at his bio page and that we might be able to infer how to treat the material here at The_Federalist_(website) from that result. Until then, there is no deadline. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 16:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks, Mr. Swordfish, but I know the WP:BLP process and understand its purposes as well as you. No one has yet articulated a credible statement of what the alleged BLP violation in The Federalist article is. No BLP violation -- no BLP remedies. Someone who dislikes factually accurate, neutrally worded, reliably sourced content cannot simply scream "BLP!" and remove the content. In the absence of a self-apparent attack article, demonstrably incorrect information, or possibly libelous statements, the good faith objecting party needs to articulate a real and specific violation of the BLP policy and/or related guidelines; otherwise the claimed BLP violation lacks credibility. Common sense still applies. If there is a current BLP violation in The Federalist article, it is not self-evident for many of your reasonably intelligent fellow editors. As for consensus, I think there appears to be a stronger consensus to keep the content than remove it, especially when one considers the weak policy objections of the objecting editors. FYI, even though I don't see a problem with using of the word "fabrication" in the context of the quoted Federalist article, I have replaced it with the less inflammatory "misquoted" at your suggestion. There is a middle ground to be reached here, provided everyone will stop trying to game the system. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:52, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• Now that I have more time, let me address Dirtlawyers (and similar) meta-argument. His argument appears to be that if it is true and sourced it must be permitted in. "It's true" has never been a basis alone for putting something in on a "living person". "It's sourced" is also alone insufficient. His due weight argument is that somehow what this website said about a living person made the website notable, but there are scores of articles about websites that talk about living people, and they are notable for it, but if we filled each ones' article with what they said about people, we would be in any given instance, as a matter of editorial judgement, raising undue weight on information about those living people, and giving undue weight to information about living people is against WP:BLP: Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies: Neutral point of view (NPOV)[including Undue] . . . We must get the article right. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:23, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• Alan, and you still have not articulated a credible statement of what the alleged BLP violation in The Federalist article is. No BLP violation -- no BLP remedies. You might want to focus on convincing other editors in this discussion that there is an actual BLP violation, instead of shouting "BLP!" and demanding BLP remedies. You still haven't satisfied Step One. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:52, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

at this point Dirtlawyer1 your claim that a BLP objection has not been articulated is simply WP:IDHT. If you cannot state what the objection is under BLP, I suggest you actually read what people are writing, as it has been articulated several times. You may or may not agree with it, but for you to say that it hasn't been stated is just IDHD and a violation of the mandate to actually try to work toward WP:CONSENSUS - that is the fundamental principle of WP (this is not like a court where it is perfectly fine to ignore what other people are actually saying, which appears to be your strategy here) Jytdog (talk) 16:57, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Jytdog, it's clear that one of us does not have a grasp of what it means to articulate a statement of a violation with specificity. Let's assume I'm just not as smart as you. Why don't you explain the BLP violation right here, right now, in three to four sentences. Please tell me how the present language of The Federalist article constitutes a BLP violation. If you're relying on UNDUE and WEIGHT, please explain how the current presentation of facts in The Federalist article distorts reality to the detriment of Dr. Tyson. That's your burden; make your case if you can. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:02, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

you are not even trying. it is not a question of "smart" it is a question of listening and actually engaging with what others think, to work toward consensus. you don't have to agree or even find it well grounded, but it is a reflection on your behavior here, that at this advanced stage in the conversation you have no grasp on what the good-faith argument is of those who think differently. you are not operating within WP's norms. Again, the adversial approach is perfectly fine for court. It is not how we operate here. Jytdog (talk) 17:57, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, Dirtlawyer, people have articulated it over and over again, so you are either being tendentious or you just don't understand and there is nothing to be done about the later. But let me try, what is it about the following that you do not understand: "but there are scores of [Wikipedia] articles about websites . . . and they [the websites] are notable for [talking about living people], but if we filled each [websites'] article with what they said about people, we would be in any given instance, as a matter of editorial judgement, raising undue weight on information about those living people, and giving undue weight to information about living people is against WP:BLP: Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies: Neutral point of view (NPOV)[including Undue] . . . We must get the article right." It, of course, has to be against BLP, because tending to put someone in an unfair (ie. undue) light is a problem that would tend to harm living people. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:14, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Lol, could you try again in English? And maybe even a specific reference to allegedly problematic material? Are you trying to say that BLPs shouldn't say stuff about living individuals? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:22, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

"Lol"? Doing this for the Lulz? As for your question, it IS against policy for them to have undue facts. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

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

No. You offered the absurd rationale for putting something about a BLP in an article ('a website said this, and its true') and then asked us to swallow such an unpersuasive argument - you have the burden of persuasion under BLP, and you have failed. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:39, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

"my new operating assumption is that you cannot articulate your case because you don't have a case" — yep, that is it precisely. The appeal to BLP is spurious in the extreme, which is why we're not hearing anything in the way of concrete detail, actual article prose, etc. Instead, we're essentially being told that this would be unflattering to the subject of a BLP so it cannot appear anywhere on Wikipedia, which is entirely lacking in any policy justification whatsoever. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:02, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I, for one, would be happy to discuss the BLP issue of the edit in question if someone would specify what the issue is. Then it could be dealt with. As it stands the BLP complaint is indeed spurious. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:12, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

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

1. Is the content factually untrue in The Federalist article?

2. Is the content not reliably sourced (including by NDGT's own apology) in The Federalist article?

3. Is the content not neutrally worded in The Federalist article?

4. Is the content taken out of context to reflect a living person in an unfairly negative light in The Federalist article?

5. Is there undue emphasis or weight given to the content in The Federalist article?

6. Or is there some new and novel problem with the content in The Federalist article which you care to assert?

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

The answer to all these questions is singular: There is no consensus for having that material at the Tyson article and neither at the Federalist article. Simple. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:53, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

That is not an answer to any of the above 6 questions. Maybe that's a non-BLP reason for excluding it, (although I would disagree as to that we should remove anything in which an editor disagrees without consensus to remove), but it doesn't answer any of the above 6 questions. --Obsidi (talk ) 19:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC).

Yes, it is. Read WP:CONSENSUS. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:00, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry Cwobeel but when I see that response it translate to, You can't put it in the article because no one has said you could. I don't wish to misunderstand you or misstate your position so please correct me if I'm wrong.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

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

(ec) If you look at the page history, you will see that there is an edit war going on. This means that there is no consensus, and to find it we need to find a compromise. Problem is that some editors are not ready to commit to a process of compromise. The solution may be stubbifying the page, protect it and work out the differences. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:08, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Dirtlawyer1, with respect to your 6 questions above... Quoting BLP: "This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages. The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material." Emphasizing: including... material about living persons in other articles. The fact that the subject of the article at hand is a webzine is irrelevant. Stating the question as you have does not reflect an understanding of what the policy actually says, much less respect for its spirit. (and btw, the passage I have quoted is also why the material should remain deleted while discussion is underway) Jytdog (talk) 20:10, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• You assert that your response is "with respect to [Dl's] 6 questions above", yet nothing you wrote brings up any specific BLP issue regarding the content. It is not enough to say "there are BLP issues" over and over. There has to be a specific concern regarding BLP policy that the content violates. None has been put forth. LHM^{ask me a question} 20:14, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

lithistman please see the dif in outdent comment above (which just links to something i wrote much higher up in this thread). Please read and respond, in good faith. thanks. and that is just my statement. others have made clear statements citing policy too. You don't have to agree with the application but IDHT is not a valid strategy for reaching consensus. Jytdog (talk) 20:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry, that's another non-answer. Yes, we know that WP:BLP applies to all articles, including articles that are not biographies. Quoting WP:BLP is not helpful; we all know it. What you have failed to do is provide an actual, specific alleged violation of WP:BLP. At some point, this becomes Kafkaesque: "it's a violation because we say it's a violation and we don't have to tell you why." Bizarre. And since you cannot articulate the violation, there is no rational basis for deleting any sourced content before imposing full page protection. Once again, it's tough to assume good faith when gaming the system seems to be the order of the day. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:22, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

1) No persuasive argument has been made that it is due, true or not, and as it involves statements about a living person, BLP applies, and it is your burden to persuade.

2) Its mention is generally found in opinion pieces, which are not RS per WP:NEWSORG (as for NDGT's statement, that statement alone does not make it due, especially since NDGT's own argument is that it is being blown out of all proportion solely due to malice, 'a lawyers trick')

3) The definition of neutrally worded is that it is due, and as it has not been shown to be due, it is by definition not neutrally worded.

4) Yes, the content is taken out of context, as the claim is about a living person with little context concerning that person, or his claims that it is being blown out of proportion, and since it not been shown to be due to begin with, then it is all unneeded. As previously noted, websites say things about people, so what?

5) You have shown no published biography of NDGT that would support that this episode is due. You have not shown that other similar biographical material is generally due for biographies. Thus, you have failed to carry your burden on all counts. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:40, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Your #5 is so freaking ridiculous, do you honestly expect anybody to take this seriously, much less bother to read your points #1-4? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:58, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

What's ridiculous about it? To a neutral observer, that evidence would be more likely to persuade. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:26, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• Well, that's progress of a sort, I guess. At least one of the pre-deletion editors has now actually committed some specific allegations of BLP violations to writing for the first in almost 12 hours of discussion -- even if the alleged violations are so over the top as to lack any credibility. If these really are your carefully considered positions regarding these issues, and such positions are shared by other pro-deletion editors, then I fully expect that the ongoing RfC at the NDGT talk page will end in a no-consensus disaster. It is much as I feared: there is no room for compromise that does not involve the complete exclusion/deletion of all of the "quotegate" material on the most tenuous of alleged BLP violations. Notwithstanding the unfortunate tone of today's talk page discussion, I am still surprised by just how far some editors are willing to stretch BLP policy to win what is essentially a run-of-the-mill content dispute. I'm not sure what I was expecting, but the degree of political animus is truly disappointing, and the attempts at manipulating BLP issues somewhat shocking. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, progress of a sort is still progress. As for your final comments, exception is taken as you are entirely wrong, as to any of those comments about "political" whatever. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:58, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• Ok so, Cwobeel, to clarify. You are saying that the dispute over this content is still on going. The content should stay out of the article until the dispute is resolved in a consensus.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:20, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes. I think that is what he is saying, and I agree. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

There's no dispute grounded in policy, as is evident from the fact that all this text has transpired without anybody stating one. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:55, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Factchecker_atyourservice please stop saying that. you have now acknowledged that you personally have read at least one argument citing the BLP policy. so just lay off that rhetoric and please actually engage. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:43, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Multiple policies and guidelines have grounded the objections: BLP, NPOV, NEWSORG, the policies and guidelines in COATRACK, etc. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:37, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

For the record, Alan, WP:COATRACK is neither policy nor a guideline. It's an essay. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes. For whatever reason, you already said that. I read what you said, that is why I referenced the policies and guidelines discussed in COATRACK. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Dirtlawyer1 you are getting all emotional. it is not my fault you built an argument on an errant understanding of BLP. Don't get mad at me! The argument cited in my diff quotes BLP and applies that, to what is going on in with federalist content. The argument doesn't get more straightforward than that. Again, please actually engage. And yes, I and others have cited the part of BLP that says that once material has been removed from an article under BLP, it doesn't come back in, until consensus is achieved. That too is part of how BLP works - part of the policy that the community built to protect itself against slander/libel litigation and to keep standards high for articles about people, where things can get all emotional and gutterish (like the frothing blogosphere can do from time to time) and to protect living people from inappropriate attacks in this "encylopedia that anyone can edit". There is a higher bar for these matters. Please do engage with what the policy actually says and with its spirit (which is protective of WP), and what we are saying about it. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:43, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

"Emotional?" Yet another attempt at baiting your discussion opponents? You continue to mock and engage in borderline insults, which I find disappointing, as if I would respond in kind. I am not mad at you; I am disappointed that anyone thinks what you are doing here is in the best interests of Wikipedia. You are attempting to twist our well-intended BLP policy into a tool for deleting content with which you disagree: short and simple. There is no BLP violation here that any "reasonable person" would ever recognize. Asking me to engage? Was that intended to be humorous? I've been begging you and other pro-deletion editors to state your case for over 12 hours, and the only response received to date -- from Alanscottwalker -- shows just how ridiculously tenuous the asserted BLP violations are. Sure, there is a higher bar in BLP matters -- one which I strongly support -- but it appears certain editors have discovered that it can be manipulated to achieve a desired outcome of excluding factually accurate, neutrally worded, reliably sourced material from an article for no other reason than a small group of editors doesn't like it. If anyone has an "errant misunderstanding of BLP," and its intended purposes, you may want to review your own understanding with a healthy dose of humility. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, sometimes no consensus on Wikipedia leads to certain results -- that you have not persuaded me, when you have the burden, may be that you have made a poor argument (you should consider that). I have tried repeatedly to explain to you why, I view it as I do, that is all I can do, whether you think it "reasonable" or not. Yes, BLP is protective, yes, it requires pre-discussion, yes, it requires consensus. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, if you've only been engaged on this for the last twelve hours you should be aware that it's been a raging edit war for almost a month on multiple wikipedia pages. Throughout, WP:BLP has been violated numerous times as the edit war rages. My own view is that the current article passes muster with BLP (well, the last time I looked a few minutes ago anyway - it might have changed already). I also understand why some editors would still think it violates it. I fully expect it to be edited in the near future to again violate BLP policy. It's a frickin' magnet for POV editors. On both sides I should add.

My position all along has been that we need to take it slowly, wait for all the shoes to drop (and I think they have at this point) and then calmly either create a brief NPOV entry or determine that it's just not important enough in the greater scheme of things to include. The problem is that whenever a brief BLP-compliant NPOV entry manages to make it onto a page somewhere it either gets deleted or edited into non-compliance by editors with a mission.

Since every policy I'm aware of says the default is to leave material out until consensus is reached, I"m in favor of leaving it out until the RFC concludes or consensus is reached, as per policy. Whether a brief policy-compliant entry on the matter makes it into his bio or on this page or somewhere else doesn't really matter to me - it's a tough judgment call and anyone who thinks it's an obvious decision needs to check their biases. I do object to editors who are trying to do an end run around the RFC by inserting the material at various other pages. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 22:27, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• This is a very unproductive conversation. LHM proposes a means to get it back on track. It sounds like a good idea.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 21:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLP The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material. I am not taking a position in this dispute, but the unambiguity of the policy is remarkable. Atsme☯^Consult 21:55, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Atsme, but that presumes a valid BLP concern in the first instance. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:06, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean by "valid BLP concern"? Here, we have material about a living person and whether its substance belongs in an encyclopedia; we already know that not everything about that person (true or not) belongs in the encyclopedia. So why do you view that editorial difference as not a valid BLP concern? Don't we have to make just such editorial judgements on this BLP? What puts this BLP material in the encyclopedic register, is not a question that can be avoided, is it? Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

My summation: for the most part, I agree with Mr swordfish, but I also understand the issue from the perspective of Dirtlawyer1. I opt for strict adherence to policy in BLP issues, so when there's doubt, leave it out. If your section heading contains the word "controversy", you have already raised question about NPOV. We are obligated to adhere strictly to policy when writing about a living person. My first impression from an editorial perspective is that the article probably started off as WP:PROPAGANDA and ended up as WP:Coatrack. There are multiple issues that need to be addressed in order to correct the BLP issues, but because of the The Federalist's partisan nature, the disputes will rage on. Also, considering all the media attention WP received over this one article, perhaps it's time for all of us to take a step back and reassess. As editors we rely on secondary sources when writing articles, so why not read the following two articles and evaluate what was said about WP and its editors regarding The Federalist: [52] [53] Now here's some food for thought - why wasn't all this media attention included in the article? Give that some thought, and you may find answers to some of the questions posed here. Atsme☯^Consult 00:09, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

This continued beating around the Bush (irony intended) is getting nowhere. The simple fact is that a large number of people don't think that this is worthy of inclusion because it is a trumped up controversy initiated by a conservative web based news outlet. It reached a fever pitch when one pro-deletion editor nominated The Federalist for deletion, a move that appeared to be a patently vindictive response to their pointing out of NdGT's errors. Ironically, this act basically guaranteed that some mention must be included as that act resulted in several stories about the attempt to delete the page. Once NdGT admitted his error, claims of BLP went out the window (not that they were particularly convincing even before then). The only real argument is weight. Arzel (talk) 00:35, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• This is a very long and almost incoherent conversation with alot of ranting. The Tyson page has this conversation on Steroids. Weight is teh most and pretty much only persuasive question happening. I've misplaced my Crystalball so I'm unsure how this will end. The Tyson could remain the same, there could be a finding of undue weight and the content related to this could be reduced, and then there's the possibility of full removal. But then this question of weight is the directed at the Tyson page. I wonder if the question of weight should be directed at the federalist page as well.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

dick strawbridge

subject to army abuse inquiry — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.155.91.92 (talk) 05:10, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• This isn't clear what you want here. And a prior BLP issue seems to be resolved.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 05:21, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  • It's nearly Halloween, this happened last year too. User talk:89.248.18.62. I suggest page protection and rapid short blocks of the IP, as it morphs. If there's anything for them to say about these allegations, WP is not the place to be saying it. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:20, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Jody Hice

Someone associated with the Jody Hice campaign keeps removing edits that refer to negative comments Hice has made about Muslims, Mormons, the Sandy Hook shooting, and other topics. He is threatening other users with libel suits despite all of the comments being properly sourced. His username is CranberryCash and it seriously looks like he is being paid by Hice to maintain this Wikipedia page like an advertisement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.137.13.32 (talk) 06:11, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

He isn't threatening anyone with libel suits. He said, "If the Islam issue is inserted again I will be making a complaint for libelous accusations on the notice board." That would be the first time I've seen a court called a notice board. This is not a legal threat. There's also nothing that seems to justify your accusation that he is being paid by Hice. It actually looks more like they are a fan of Hice. I wonder if the balance of the article might be one of the issues that CranberryCash might be trying to get across. Review the talk page and and the discussion that he has had with editor Muboshgu on the matter. If it's not obvious this a new user and they are trying to discuss this matter and collaborate.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 07:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• I just reviewed the article in question. It is a poorly written mess, and it seems to serve merely as a collection of criticism of Jody Hice. If his campaign staff are rewriting the article to favor the candidate, they certainly aren't doing a very good job of it. I would caution your reliance on suspect online publications like Vice.com and similar online. You also cite the Christian Science Monitor as a source, when, in fact, the link reveals a CSM blog that links to another blog in Buzzfeed.com. In researching Hice, you should be looking to the professional reporting of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, The Athens Herald-Banner and the Augusta Chronicle as your primary sources on this candidate, campaign and election, and to any mainstream national publications that report on this election. If I have some time in the next day or so, I may make some changes to the article that better balance the criticism and weak sources currently used. If anyone else has the time to deal with, I certainly will not object. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 07:10, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Vice may be a bit "edgy" (or whatever you call it) culture-wise, but their journalism department does a generally fine job. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:20, October 13, 2014 (UTC)

Kálmán Mizsei

Hi there! I created the article about Kálmán Mizsei while I was taking classes with him. Today I came across these two articles that lambaste him. Is Inner City Press a reliable source? Should their criticism of Mizsei be mentioned in the Wikipedia entry? The answer is probably no but I just wanted to make sure. Nataev ^talk 07:41, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Ian Brown

A user repeatedly, over several months it would seem, changes a referenced location of Timperley, Altrincham to Manchester on the Ian Brown article (the editor incorrectly argues that Timperley is in Manchester - when even the articles themselves on Timperley and Altrincham make it clear these are not areas of Manchester.... the editor doesn't appear to understand the different between Manchester the city, and Greater Manchester the county). I have explained to the editor recently that Timperley is an area of Altrincham and that Altrincham is a town south of Manchester in the county of Greater Manchester. These are all facts, but this refuses to accept this - if you look at the edit summaries of some edits you will see some of their abusive comments using several usernames including WIKifact agent, Anastasiabbb, Bollockbrother and IP 90.213.94.117. The abuse is ongoing and would appreciate an experienced editor to look at the article and hopefully protect the page (I am aware this would stop myself from editing, but I am more interested in the page being accurate!).

92.8.19.201 (talk) 13:14, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Well I think the matter is of a simple mistake. Greater Manchester seems to be at the heart of the dispute. Perhaps you can make a change that keeps mention of Altrincham but also mentions that it's in Greater Manchester. That would certainly broaden the information and be of more value to the reader. I think that should resolve the issue for them and I can't see that you would have an issue with that change.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 18:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

If necessary you could report them for edit warring. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 18:05, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Chowdhury Irad Ahmed Siddiky

This article is clearly written by the subject in question. Please remove it and replace it with the previous version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.120.205.62 (talk) 15:26, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Trimmed heavily to remove unsourced content. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:35, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

hector jimenez bravo

Mucho de lo escrito en este articulo es mentira y no probable usa esta página para robustecer su imagen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chef martin joel vasquez (talk • contribs) 17:52, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Hector_Jimenez-Bravo, This individual? What information do you think is a lie? Is it information cited to a source you find unreliable or is it unsourced information? And I don't see any immediate evidence that this individual has been involved with the creation of their page. I do see that another editor with conflict of interest may have edited the article but it wasn't to help this individual.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 18:15, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello @Chef martin joel vasquez: I have taken the liberty to fix your Spanish spelling, pending your answer to Serialjoepsycho's questions I do see an issue with the fact that 8 of the 18 references in the article point to the webpage of Hector www.chefbravo.com --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:16, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Elliot Rodgers (2014 Isla Vista killings)

Including this here because there has been some talk regarding creating a separate biography page for Elliot Rodgers, the recently deceased perpetrator of the 2014 Isla Vista killing spree. Please participate in RFC [54] regarding whether or not the article 2014 Isla Vista killings should be in the category "Violence against men" [55], which is described as a category: "for articles on the topic of sexual or gender-based violence against men or boys". --BoboMeowCat (talk) 02:22, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

BoboMeowCat is fully involved in this dispute, and is using the fact of a seperate biography page for Elliot Rodgers (which hasn't been brought up for literally months) as an excuse to post this RfC to this noticeboard, where it clearly doesn't belong. Tutelary (talk) 02:40, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Readers are free to read my (and Tutelary's) vote on RFC if for some reason they are interested in our personal opinions, but Tutelary, your comment here seems inappropriate because my notice of RFC was neutrally worded and in no way attempted to sway voters one way or the other. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 02:46, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Bobo, please don't try to shoehorn something that literally has not been discussed for months on that page in order to advertise the RfC on this noticeboard. No one has discussed a new biographical page for Elliot for months, not a single peep about it. It's excessively strange that all of a sudden, out of all your other notices, you only post this thought of a separate article as well on the BLP noticeboard, no where else did you mention it. Seriously, this is just not the place for it. It's like going the NPOV noticeboard with a 1 year old neutrality dispute tag because you want more input for the RfC that you filed for a dispute you're involved in. Tutelary (talk) 02:52, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Tutelary, why limit community input? Seems the wider the community input the better.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 03:13, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• If the RFC does involve a BLP claim there is nothing wrong with posting it here as long as the posting is neutral. This seems neutral.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 02:50, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Serial, the thought of a BLP article on Elliot has not been discussed for literally months. Not a single peep. Then Bobo wants to advertise this RfC more and includes it half heartedly into the lead so that it would somewhat fit on the BLP noticeboard. That seems right to you? Tutelary (talk) 02:52, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Does the issue in this RFC involve any BLP issue?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 03:02, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

It does because the question involves whether or not Elliot Rodgers, recently deceased, perpetrated a gender based attack against men.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 03:10, 14 October 2014 (UTC)