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.

Nick Griffin

There is a consensus that the two UK tabloid sources (Hastings and MacKenzie) can be used in the article. However, Ritchie333's proposal regarding using secondary sources has also garnered consensus over using those two UK tabloid sources. I'll remove the full protection as this should solve the edit war. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:27, 13 December 2014 (UTC)}}

a few opinionated comments does not overide policy wp:blp - Govindaharihari (talk) 01:42, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

User:John claims that as they're generally considered unreliable, we are not allowed to cite two UK tabloid sources for a BLP. This is a position I would normally agree with. But the citations are to editorials from notable authors (Max Hastings and Kelvin MacKenzie), writing for those tabloids, offering their opinion on a controversial television appearance the article's subject made the night before. It's impossible to find a better source for these quotes - they exist nowhere else. I think John does not understand the policy and I would appreciate it if someone could confirm that I'm correct. Since he has not removed similar opinions on the same topic from more reliable newspapers, his actions are, in effect, censoring editorials written in tabloid newspapers. I do not see how this can be considered neutral. Parrot of Doom 21:12, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

By "tabloid" here we're talking about the Daily Mail (Hastings) and The Sun (MacKenzie). The Mail is an awkward one: it's a disgusting rag for its editorial bias. However, like all newspapers working under the UK's onerous libel laws, it's far better on simple accuracy of facts (it can't afford not to be!) than most US papers. The whole term "tabloid" is skunked for use on WP. In the UK that's an accusation that a paper is trivia and celebrity-obsessed but usually still trying to have some grasp on reality (even the Sun). In the US though, "tabloid" means a thing sold in supermarkets for amusement value only.

The particular statements here are two highly subjective judgements on Griffin's character, made by both Hastings and MacKenzie. Both are presented straightforwardly as opinion pieces by named writers of some stature. Such writers are allowed to be subjective, and we're allowed to record what they said. There is no credible case that either Hastings or MacKenzie are being misreported here (even in the Sun). Similarly there is no case that Griffin is being treated unfairly by WP cherry-picking obscure comments upon him by biased commentators: neither Hastings or MacKenzie are left wing ideologues with a prejudicial grudge against Griffin.

Both of these statements, as recently included, should be restored to the article. Andy Dingley (talk) 03:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

The Mail and the Sun are disgusting rags with a proven reputation for making up lies and challenging the victim to sue. Kelvin McKenzie is not a "named writer of some stature" but (to quote from our article on him) ..."was responsible for the "Freddie Starr Ate My Hamster" front-page headline. The claims made in the accompanying article, that the comedian Freddie Starr had placed his girlfriend's hamster on a sandwich and proceeded to eat it, turned out to be entirely untrue and an invention of the publicist Max Clifford. The headline is often held up as the prime example of The Sun's supposedly celebrity-obsessed, sensationalist and often inaccurate journalism." Nick Griffin is a right-wing ideologue but that does not mean we should repeat the claims of a proven liar and purveyor of tabloid trash regarding him. Max Hastings is a writer of some stature but even there, if this opinion is of any weight, it will have been repeated, covered or quoted in more serious publications (Hastings has written many books; has he included this material in any of them? If not, why not?). BLPSOURCES as written prohibits us from using material sourced in this way, and it contains no get-out clause that allows us to rubbish living people because we don't like their politics. On a separate note, the behaviour of the complainant may well be considered blockworthy; having a strong opinion about Nick Griffin or misunderstanding BLPSOURCES are both forgivable but edit-warring to restore contentious material to a BLP is pushing it. --John (talk) 07:16, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't care less what those newspapers have done or are doing, the quotes are opinions not statements of fact. You are misconstruing policy and need to stop, right now. There is absolutely nothing unreliable or contentious about the material quoted. Parrot of Doom 10:30, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

To paraphrase you John, "Kelvin MacKenzie is of no stature and here's a quote from WP, where he has implicitly passed WP:N, to prove it".

Hastings and MacKenzie can find themselves a seat on Paxman, Question Time and their like, a role that is not open to you or I. Neither of us may like their politics or opinions, but these two men of letters have a stature within the media that is demonstrated by the willingness of editors to pay them substantial money for their words. They are not merely bloggers or twitterers. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:05, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

disputed detail is just attacking opinionated against the person (griffin) - if you want to attack him add it - if you want to write a wp:npov bio then remove it - Govindaharihari (talk) 08:01, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Did you read the remaining quotes in that section? Parrot of Doom 10:50, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

The two sources are WP:RS but for contentious claims about living persons they may be challenged, but so may any source making contentious claims. They are "tabloid" in format, but it is well-established that "tabloid journalism" is not the same as "tabloid format." When it comes to opinions of notable persons writing in those journals, however, they are fully reliable. Collect (talk) 11:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• Actually, I'd dispute most of that - The Mail and The Sun are generally not RS for most of their content because they've both got long histories of making things up and then challenging their victims to sue. When they do, they usually win and a groveling apology from the paper appears in a tiny hidden corner of Page 39 (when the lies about their victim were on the front page). However, I'd prepared to agree with Collect's last sentence, I'd have to agree; the opinions of their own columnists, especially if notable as here, can happily be quoted as long as it is made clear they are op-eds. Black Kite (talk) 11:55, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oh? From what I can tell, the claims are that opinions are held by people who expressly wrote those opinions for the papers. Unless you mean to suggest the papers are not reliable sources for material expressly written for them, then the sources are RS as long as the opinions are presented as opinions. Collect (talk) 12:10, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes, that's what I said. There is no evidence that op-eds in those papers are unreliable, regardless of how problematic those papers' news content has traditionally proved to be. Black Kite (talk) 12:28, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
• For what it's worth, Kelvin Mackenzie is a known liar. No judgment on the content. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:16, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I seem to be missing the part which proves he's a liar instead of a misled journalist. This 'is' the BLP noticeboard, right? --Onorem (talk) 17:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
• So there are people saying that even though Kelvin Mackenzie is a proven liar, and even though he was writing in a publication known for printing lies, it is ok to publish his opinion on a BLP on Wikipedia because it was an op-ed? That doesn't make sense. Nick Griffin is a living person, and however much we may dislike his political views he deserves the same protection that any other living person does here. --John (talk) 16:39, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

John is deliberately misleading here. His original deletion of content was simply marked BLPSOURCES with no attempt to suggest why, either in his deletion rationale or in more detail on the talk page. His second removal had no reason given whatsoever. His third said "WP:BLPSOURCES worth a read at this point", as if I hadn't. His fourth and fifth deletions simply say "BLPSOURCES". At no time has he attempted to instigate a discussion on the article's talk page - I did to avoid a 3RR situation - and gave proper reasons for reinstating the material. Another editor, Parrot of Doom, took up the issue and also gave reasoned justifications for reinstating the material. Both of us have received what amount to threats on our talk pages. This is not acceptable. John has still not addressed the issue and, indeed, has compounded it, by seeking justification in this discussion.

The issue is a really simple one: The section of text at issue is prefaced with the words "The programme dominated the following day's newspapers." Now there a number of daily newspapers in Britain. John wants only The Guardian to be quoted. That is not "dominated" and giving a single example does not demonstrate "dominated"; a selection is required. The selection we had includes the leading left leaning broadsheet (Guardian), the leading right wing paper (Mail) and the best selling tabloid, also right leaning (The Sun). None of these is quoted for evidence of Griffin's nature, activities, views or life. They are quoted as evidence of "The programme dominated the following day's newspapers." No matter that the authors in the papers' articles are highly experienced commentators (who, as it happens, I would rarely find myself in agreement with) the question of reliable sources is totally irrelevant. Where are you going to find evidence that the Mail said this? Well, in the Mail. Where are you going to find evidence that the Sun said this? Well, in the Sun. It's really a no-brainer. And it's not as if the two papers are inherently non-reliable - they're not, as countless other Wikipedia discussions have shown. "Use with care" is the best description, and in this case that is how they have been used.

It seems to me that this discussion is only taking place because John has happened to come up against two editors who have stood up to his bullying attitude and refusal to so much as consider reasoned comments. Emeraude (talk) 17:12, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Quick point of order, it was I who started this thread. I should have made a note on the article's talk page but I was tired and not thinking straight. Parrot of Doom 17:17, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• John, of course we should observe BLP in relation to Griffin. We should accurately report whatever dreadful words Hastings and MacKenzie used against him. There seems no solid challenge on that basis. Now are they relevant in this case? That would seem to be the only good grounds for removing these quotes: do they form a worthwhile part of encyclopedic biography of Griffin?. As part of reporting mass media reaction to Griffin's highly notable appearance on QT, they surely are and so are justified for their appearance here. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:26, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• Allow them. I really don't see what all the fuss is about. There are only four (maybe five) vital questions that should be asked to satisfy Wikipedia policies in a BLP regarding adding op-ed quotes: (1) Are the quotes Parrot of Doom produced veriable per WP:V and not the product of original research? Yes, they are verifiable. Parrot of Doom didn't make them up. (2) Are they accurate, yet brief, quotations that satisfy both WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE? Yes, Parrot of Doom didn't attempt long citations that placed undue weight on these two opinions regarding Nick Griffin published in the Sun and in the Daily Mail. Parrot of Doom did the right thing; he made them brief and to the point. (3) Are they the product of a WP:COATRACK? No, they're not. Parrot of Doom placed the brief opinions of the two authors in exactly the right place in the article to offset the opinion of the Guardian regarding the event. (4) Are the newspapers reliable in the Wikipedia sense that they have editorial control and oversight and are not self-published internet pieces discussing third-parties? Yes, they are reliable. The argument (which strikes me as original research and a little tendentious) that these two newspapers are inherently unreliable because of their perceived rightwing political bent by a few Wikipedia contributors strikes me as irrelevent. Equally irrelevent is the argument that because a Wikipedia editor personally dislikes Kelvin Mackenzie (i.e., "He's a proven liar") that his opinion published in a newspaper directly related to the subject cannot be neutrally cited. It's the reader's responsibility to weigh the various opinions of the event that are published in reliable sources. It's not our place to decide because Wikipedia is not censored. I agree with Parrot of Doom, Andy Dingley, Emeraude, Black Kite, and User talk:Collect. Oddexit (talk) 18:46, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, allow them. For all the reasons Oddexit stated. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:18, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• Ok. Let's say someone wants to add to our article on Russell Brand that Richard Littlejohn called him a "disgusting hypocrite" in his column in the Daily Mail. Here is the reference. Would those defending the tabloid sources defend this? All the same conditions are met. No, it's still not working for me. --John (talk) 21:54, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Absolutely. Firstly, no one is, as you put it, "defending the tabloid sources". But, without reading Wikipedia's article on Brand or Littlejohn's article, the answer is quite simple. If there has been a media reaction to Brand's speeches/writings that needs to be covered, then it would be perfectly acceptable to write something like: "Several media sources were highly critical, including Richard Littlejohn in The Daily Mail who wrote that Brand was a "disgusting hypocrite", Fred Bloggs in the Gleaner who said he ought to know better and Fanny Adams in the Daily Post who thought he was deluded." (With referenced sources.) And, no doubt, similar from those commentators/papers that were sympathetic. Emeraude (talk) 13:18, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry but I cannot square that with the BLP policy that I know and help enforce. Let alone with ethics. Why does the vile drivel of the tabloid press "need... to be covered", when it concerns negative material about a living person? Oddexit, thank you for at least thinking about this rather than making a "me too" response. I fundamentally disagree with several of your premises. The material contravenes NPOV, UNDUE and COATRACK, but more importantly it contravenes BLP as currently written. It would need special reason for us to bend this important rule and I am not seeing it. It is not a personal dislike of the two sources we are discussing nor of the one particular journalist that rules this material out, but the well-established mendacity and unreliability of the sources and this journalist in particular. To follow up the Brand example, I would be less uneasy about including this material in Littlejohn's article, but I think it could not be used on Brand's unless it were covered in better sources. I feel the same way about this. Finally NOTCENSORED is a dreadful argument when we are discussing BLP, which we are. --John (talk) 00:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

John, it's unfortunate that you're using language like "disgusting rags", "dreadful shit," and "trash" to describe the newspapers and cited columns for the article. Not because you're using profanity on Wikipedia (I'm not offended), but because it signals to other Wikipedia contributors that you've made very clear normative judgements about the newspapers and authors. As contributors, we're supposed to be neutral when editing. How much of your refusal to abide by WP:CONSENSUS is the result of your (mis?)reading of Wikipedia policy and how much of it is your desire to keep the specific citations out of the article for personal reasons? Yes, it's certainly true (you're right) that part of WP:BLPSOURCES reads "Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism." But the material to which they're referring are alleged facts appearing in supposed tabloids which cannot be found elsewhere. The intention was to avoid Wikipedia contributors adding specious claims from (say) the National Enquirer alleging that Elvis Presely is alive and well, or alleging that actress Sandra Bullock just had given birth to her ex-terrestrial love child. That policy was never intended to be used as a weapon to exclude political opinions from columnists published in newspapers with third-party editorial control. Had the intention of the Wikipedia Community been to include op-eds in that clause, they would have most definitely revised WP:BIASED which reads: "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective (emphasis added). Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. While a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context (emphasis added). When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking. Editors should also consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source, as in "Feminist Betty Friedan wrote that...", "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff...," or "Conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that...". Ultimately, what needs to happen is that quotation needs to make clear to the reader that so-and-so writing in such-and-such newspaper argued/opined/stated that [fill-in-the-blank-briefly]. That's all. Oddexit (talk) 22:57, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

• There are at least seven people who disagree with John. Despite this, he shows no sign of relenting. Can someone please unprotect the article and restore the quotes? Parrot of Doom 21:11, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
  • We're still discussing it. A discussion is not a vote. I need to see more replies to my question of 21:54 5 December. I have had one so far. I am sure you can wait a few days before you spoon this dreadful shit back into the article on a living person. Why would anyone want to do this ? Is it because you dislike his politics? --John (talk) 00:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
    • The discussion appears very much over to me, with several people explaining why you're wrong. You need to step away from this subject since it's clear you don't understand the BLP policy on sourcing. And frankly, for accusing me of being biased against Griffin, you can go to hell. For daring to improve an article on such a controversial figure I've already suffered people accusing me of supporting his politics. Parrot of Doom 08:52, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
      • If your idea of "improving" it is adding snippets from The Sun to it, perhaps it is you who need to step away from it. --John (talk) 15:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
        • This whole argument boils down to you not liking the opinions of two authors published by two tabloids. As I and everyone above has already told you, there is nothing unreliable about anything added. I will be taking further action to redress this situation. Parrot of Doom 19:48, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
          • It may say more about you than about me that you see it this way. I am an administrator on this project and I am entrusted with (among other things) enforcing user conduct. Among all the other rather vague behavioural guidelines, BLP is one of the few clear-cut policies we have. At present, the relevant section says: "Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources." There is no proviso saying "... unless it is an op-ed", "... unless the subject is an unpopular right-wing politician" or anything else. Perhaps there should be. In the meantime we are discussing how best to enforce the policy as it is written, and not as you would perhaps like it to be. I find it funny and sad that while those of us able to grasp the underlying principle of BLP are discussing this matter, you have run off to AN/I to complain about me. So be it. I am still requesting further replies to my post of 21:54, 5 December 2014. I have so far had one. --John (talk) 20:06, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:SOURCE: The word "source" in Wikipedia has three meanings:

1. the type of the work (some examples include a document, an article, or a book)
2. the creator of the work (for example, the writer)
3. the publisher of the work (for example, Oxford University Press).

All three can affect reliability. (emphasis mine) Furthermore WP:NEWSORG explains "opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, " So, although publication in tabloid sources is reason to scrutinize them vary carefully, it doesn't necessarily preclude their use. In this case, excluding them results in the article ending up NPOV. NE Ent 20:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

• I'm going to side with John on this one. The Daily Mail and the Sun have absolutely no place in a BLP, and I don't give a damn about what they're being used for. There is one exception; an official notice that they've hired the subject in question, or parted company with them. Tabloids are unreliable sources, and as such, we don't put the opinions of their journalists into BLPs - that's just flat-out wrong, especially when they're inflammatory statements about controversial figures. Likewise, we wouldn't put people's opinions from blogs into an article, would we? And yes, that would be exactly the same sort of thing. Yes, sources are not required to be neutral - but they sure as hell are required to be reliable. This is a clear violation of BLP in my eyes, and I'm disappointed that so many people think it is appropriate to include information from two of the very worst tabloids of all (and make no mistake about it, both truly are woeful) in a BLP. And there are plenty of people condemning Griffin in reliable sources; we don't need tabloid ones as well, and we don't need a comment from every Tom, Dick and Harry. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:24, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
• Keep Hastings quote, remove MacKenzie's. I'm trying a moderate position but overall John has a point. First question: why is this dispute on this page and no one here is asking for it (or a toned-down version) at Question Time British National Party controversy where it could be more relevant? Just a random aside. I think John's point is that we shouldn't allow attacks on him if the attacks aren't from reliable sources. That's a plausible interpretation of BLP to me but I agree in part and disagree in part. The opinion pieces are clearly written by the outside authors. No matter how much discredible the Mail or the Sun are, it's a primary source that they wrote them and that it's their views. John, are you saying that because the papers or because Hastings and MacKenzie are not reliable sources, then saying what they say isn't reliable? If the front page of the Sun said tomorrow "X" then saying "the front page of the Sun said X happened" isn't an issue of reliability. I think that's a matter of weight and I'd say it's an WP:UNDUE issue but not a source issue. We aren't arguing whether or not Griffin seemed slippery, repugnant or was a lying piece of work, we are arguing that those quotes from those individuals calling them those names isn't particularly relevant and is basically gossip. Looking over each of the points of WP:BLPSOURCES: (1) the fact that those two said those things about Griffin's appearance isn't likely to be challenged because it's clear they said their opinions in their op-eds; (2) this isn't conjecture of their opinions, it's verbatim quotes. If there is any dispute, it would be between Griffin and Hastinsg or MacKenzie on whether the op-eds pieces are themselves accurate but that's not Wikipedia's job to determine. (3) This may be an accurate point. It's not a feedback loop but it's gossip that is not "relevant to a disinterested article on the subject." The subject is Griffin's appearance. Hastings is discussing his appearance when he says the panel made Griffin "seem slippery and repugnant" (akin to the Guardian view that Griffin "looked just plain shifty" here). That's a criticism of how Griffin came off. It's like any television debate or interview: how the person came off is different than what people thought of the person overall. MacKenzie's attack that he "emerged as the lying piece of work" is equally a criticism of Griffin's appearance but is more of an attack in line with gossip than how Griffin's appearance within the show came out. Skipping ahead (4, 5, 6, 7): we aren't using the primary source of the television presentation itself, this isn't a self-published, this isn't Griffin's self-published source and this isn't related to the other sections. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
• Comment I'm not going to say "Keep", "Delete" or something else, as I believe the solution that will hopefully gain consensus is a little more complex than that. What the quotations were doing is to show the ranges of opinion in British newspapers the day after the Question Time appearance. Perhaps, as a solution, we could instead produce a secondary source that sums those views up? The discussion upthread has discussed the reliability of the op-ed, and its suitability, but one thing I noticed that hasn't really been disagreed is that the opinions are all primary sources. The event was notable enough for its own article (and rightly so in my view) - why don't we use secondary sources that talk about the papers' response at arm's length instead. For example, we could use this New York Times piece that says "The early reading by many of Britain’s major newspapers was that Mr. Griffin lost heavily on points." Question Time British National Party controversy contains a number of other sources cited in the article like the NYT piece, but doesn't expand on them other than to say they exist. Perhaps that's the answer. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:57, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

• That sounds like a thoroughly sensible suggestion. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:27, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
• Great approach. By the way Ritchie333, there's a dispute about a baby... NE Ent 23:08, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
• It's a great suggestion and it accords with one I made a week ago. --John (talk) 06:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
• Solely because we have a more specific article on the QT appearance itself, I'd be happy to cut this back to a secondary source, per Ritchie333.

With the following observations though: 1) There is consensus here that the two direct quotes would be permissible in Nick Griffin under the sourcing rules. I would remove them from here under UNDUE, as they can be covered in the QT-specific article. 2) Those two quotes are permissible, and I would encourage them, in that QT-specific article. 3) When the QT-specific article is deleted or merged back to Nick Griffin, the two quotes should follow it back here. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

That sounds fine to me, provided all the existing primary sources are replaced with secondary. At the moment, the article has a problem with WP:NPOV as the current quotations from primary sources that weren't removed give the impression together that Nick Griffin was misunderstood and the programme was bullying him. That's not neutral. So, can the article be unprotected to do this, or would an admin like to edit those changes first? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:07, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm happy with that, but I want it understood by all that in this context, such sources are absolutely fine in a BLP. We cannot censor views that we disagree with based on nothing more than the medium they're published in. The policy appears to be rather badly worded. Parrot of Doom 10:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

:::That's funny User:Andy Dingley. You don't get to make conditions like this. Being "permissible" does not mean we need to use them or should use them. On what basis would you want to make such a stipulation? Ritchie333 has a better point; in such cases we should always use reliable secondary sources over trashy primary ones, or we will be back here again constantly. Which I don't think anybody would want. --John (talk) 16:46, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

John, I would ask you for a little more respect than comments of "lol". Andy Dingley (talk) 17:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, I see I have to make this even clearer. DO NOT accuse me of "blackmail" over this issue. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Lets be clear - these desired additions are only required to attack the person of the biography - here they are, sourced to opinionated blogs in low quality sources ... Max Hastings wrote "... the panel had little difficulty making Griffin seem slippery and indeed repugnant ..." in the Daily Mail, and The Sun columnist Kelvin MacKenzie said "He emerged as the lying piece of work you always suspected." - insulting opinionated comments - they are not notable positions, not opinions that have been commented on on in other reliable sources - Govindaharihari (talk) 10:45, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

They're interesting enough to be published by two newspapers with very large circulations (they're read by many more people than the Guardian, Times etc) and independently their authors are very notable. And is it really your contention that we should not include material that attacks living people? If so then that is possibly one of the more stupid things I've read of late, not including your misunderstanding of what a blog is btw. Parrot of Doom 10:57, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing neutral about your edit warring this purely insulting opinionated content into a biography wp:blp- they are columnists, opinionatedly blogging in a tabloid - When there is a bad guy you don't need to attack them, you just write a neutral article well sourced and that will reflect the reality in a much better way. Govindaharihari (talk) 11:18, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[

I think PoD knows how to write a well sourced neutral article - you do know that he's the the biggest contributor to Nick Griffin, and helped improve it to GA status, right? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

That and his edit warring this disputed content into the biography only worries me more. Govindaharihari (talk) 11:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I think it's clear for all to see that you don't have the first clue what you're talking about. And please stop lying - it is John who was edit warring to remove content that had been there for years. If you have a problem with the article's neutrality then perhaps you should put your money where your mouth is and question it's GA status. Parrot of Doom 12:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Parrot of Doom - it's not a good article at all - its an attack piece - - I won't take it for reassessment as looking at the historic it is a rubbish article supported by opinionated peeps supporting each other - Govindaharihari (talk) 10:06, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Yep, you definitely don't know your arse from your elbow. Thanks for confirming this. Parrot of Doom 18:34, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I see the article has been full-protected for nearly five days. I can't recall a BLP being full protected for more than three or four in the past. We have at least a short term consensus to replace the primary news quotations with a secondary follow up, so what's keeping the article locked? Should I go to WP:RUP and explicitly request it? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi User:Ritchie333, you claim a "short term consensus to replace the primary news quotations with a secondary follow up,, "Please post your desired addition here so we can check it out - Govindaharihari (talk) 11:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

They are reliable sources. They get sued more than the broadsheets because they write about things the broadsheets ignore. For example, the Indescribablyboring probably would not have sent investigative reporters to find out if a certain writer was paying prostitutes. Nonetheless they make errors and omissions too,[1] just that they are less likely to be libelous. TFD (talk) 03:21, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

if or not reliable is not important - it is just that the content is just worthless attacking opinionated insults, so why is it so important? Govindaharihari (talk) 18:39, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Risto Näätänen (in English)

In the article the Risto Näätänen appears in the past tense (e.g., "Risto Näätänen was") although he is still alive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.116.224.130 (talk) 08:26, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I replaced all the was with is throughout the article because he is in fact still alive. Meatsgains (talk) 15:25, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Beck

On the page "Beck" about the singer, in the personal field there is a sentence which I believe is mistaken.

The sentence "Marissa and Giovanni Ribisi were delivered by Beck's mother, Bibbe Hansen.[109]" is telling us that Beck's own mother delivered the Ribisi twins, one of whom would later marry Beck. It sounds too unbelievable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.211.240.19 (talk) 20:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Seems well sourced. http://www.eonline.com/photos/2505/rock-s-steamiest-romances/91365 http://tv.aol.com/2013/10/22/giovanni-ribisi-four-things-you-never-knew-about-the-dads-sta/ --GRuban (talk) 20:50, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

But are they reliable sources?--ukexpat (talk) 02:55, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Holly Weber

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

---

Holly Weber article was nominated for deletion several months ago; I rewrote it using various sources I found and it was kept. However, there is some sensitive but public information on her website, which I summarized with only one sentence on her Wikipedia article ("She also worked as an escort"). However, an anonymous user claiming to be Holly Weber is constantly removing that info. I want to stress out that this information is explicit on her official website, http://goholly.com/. I would like to receive some feedback on this. Thanks. --Λeternus ^(talk) 09:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

If it's not mentioned in reliable secondary sources, I'm not sure how relevant it is. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:BLPSPS if it's contentious material, it needs reliable secondary sourcing, even if it's mentioned or self-published at some point by the subject of the material. This protects us from situations where the subject tweets something in jest, like "I go crazy every Monday" and us adding it as an admission of mental illness or somesuch. It also protects us from repeating non-factual boasts, promotional hyperbole, and other completely fictitious claims that people make on their own websites. If there's some reasonable doubt about potential authenticity of a person's claim, especially regarding potentially criminal activity, we can't use it sourced only to a self-published source, even if said by the subjects themselves, per WP:BLPSELFPUB. __ E L A Q U E A T E 15:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Just to add, that website looks super-dodgy. I don't think there's even clear enough proof it's "official", considering it's selling 2013 calendars. Not a source for iffy BLP claims.__ E L A Q U E A T E 15:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

• We have something of a consensus to leave it out. Such material should be included only if highly relevant and supported by the best possible sources. Otherwise, err on the side of being conservative with people's reputations. Metamagician3000 (talk) 11:36, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

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

G. Edward Griffin

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

---

• G. Edward Griffin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The lead, section titles, and body of this article contain blatant BLP violations. I attempted to correct the violations, and also included updated, reliably sourced information, but my edits were reverted by User:Jytdog and User_talk:Yobol. [2]. The article is based on outdated information, and is written more as a condemnation of the subject than an informational biography. The lead begins with contentious labeling, and the body of the article is riddled with WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE issues. Jytdog added a warning template for edit warring on my talk page which I deleted as an abuse of warning templates, and advised him of such. Atsme☯^Consult 09:55, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Atsme appears to be trying to edit war Laetrile as a cancer cure into the article, amongst other stuff. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 10:00, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any BLP violations in accurately describing medical quackery as... medical quackery. Can you specifically describe what in the article you believe violates BLP? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for opening this discussion, Atsme. This is the right way to handle your concerns. That said, I encourage you to point out specific issues here. I don't see any issues. Please do note that WP:PSCI is also policy and there is no conflict between editing per PSCI with reliable sourcing and BLP. You might have an argument if content per PSCI and other "negative" content were not supported by reliable sources, but that content is reliably sourced, from my perspective. Jytdog (talk) 13:38, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with NBSB -- it is not a BLP violation to have an article here describing this person the way he has been described in reliable sources, and it is a violation of NPOV to use "neutral" language to describe a widely held critical perspective. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:46, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome, Jytdog. I was hoping the sources I cited would have avoided this step. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. The fact that editors aren't seeing the BLP violation indicates an even bigger issue than what I first imagined. My reverted edits were updates using reliable sources - scientific research and recent laboratory tests - and corrected the BLP violations while providing neutrality and proper weighting to the article. The updated sources clearly dispute, and at the very least challenge the antiquated 20 to 35 year old sources that were cited in the article. The first sentence in the lead contains a blatant BLP violation as it is contentious labeling that is poorly sourced using the opinion of a "politically progressive media watchdog group", Media Matters for America. Hardly what WP defines as a reliable source worthy of inclusion in a BLP. The weasel words are blatant throughout the article. "Quackery" is a pejorative term, and clearly POV, not to mention disputed and/or challenged by current research. I cited highly reliable sources because when it comes to BLPs, we must exercise strict adherence to policy. The use of contentious labels, pejorative terms, and weasel words in G. Edward Griffin, all of which are poorly sourced, clearly fails the acid test for BLP inclusion, even in the case of fringe theories. Caution should be exercised when evaluating whether there are enough sources available to write a neutral biography that neither unduly promotes nor denigrates the subject. Wikipedia:Fringe_theories#Treatment_of_living_persons. There are also derogatory claims in the article that are not sourced, or are poorly sourced which further confirms the BLP violation. Example: the quackery references are poorly sourced because they use outdated (1979 & 1984) information. This is the 21st Century, people, and recent science disputes, and at the very least challenges the antiquated claims of quackery in this article. Please read the diffs I included so you can compare the updated information to the current article. Also read the following abstracts of last year's and this year's lab tests before you comment on the BLP violations: [3], [4] and [5]. Please learn the differences between the chemically altered Laetrile™ formula that was developed and patented by biochemist Krebs, and the generic use of the word "laetrile" which is used to describe various forms of amygdalin, including chemically altered and natural, as well as black market laetrile sold in Mexico, none of which represent what Griffin referred to or wrote about. And at the very least, familiarize yourselves with the reason the FDA did not approve Laetrile™, and the review the actual results that were published in the links I provided. Why would any editor deliberately choose to exclude such important UPDATED, SCIENTIFICALLY RESEARCHED information from this article, and opt for keeping the antiquated information claiming quackery that is over 35 years old, and creates a BLP violation? Atsme☯^Consult 15:06, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

this WP:WALLOFTEXT is not helping you. Best to give bullet points and be concise. And you are still not dealing with WP:MEDRS with regard to the health claims you want to add to the article; you are not going to get any traction with respect to those issues unless you bring sources that comply with MEDRS; based on what you write above you don't appear to understand its letter nor its spirit (primary sources describing in vitro studies cannot be used to support health claims) Jytdog (talk) 15:12, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Atsme to keep things compact, could you please briefly state what you think the very worst example of poorly-sourced material is in this article which thereby merits removal. This will help busy editors assess the case. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice, Jytdog. I will follow-up on it. It should also apply to the sources currently used in the article. Wanted you to see, Doctored Results, by whistle-blower, Ralph W. Moss, Asst. Dir of Public Affairs at Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, NY. [6] It brings a much different perspective to the claims of quackery and conspiracies with regards to Laetrile.

Alexbrn, I'm on it. There are just so many sources I consider the "very worst", so I included a few to give you some idea of the scope of the problem:

• Source - Popular Paranoia: A Steamshovel Press Anthology - "Kenn Thomas works as a conspiracy writer, a parapolitical researcher, university library archivist, and showrunner for Steamshovel Press, a parapolitical conspiracy cyber presence and magazine."
• Archived articles from local newspapers like the Walla Walla Union Bulletin, and the Middlesboro Daily News.
• Dead links to forums
• No sources in several instances
• Media Matters for America - a "politically progressive media watchdog group".
• Several reliable sources, but with antiquated articles that have been disproven and/or challenged by modern research - May 1979. "Laetrile: the cult of cyanide. Promoting poison for profit". Am. J. Clin. Nutr. Also Lerner IJ (February 1984). "The whys of cancer quackery". The first source is over 35 years old, and the second at least 20 years old. Atsme☯^Consult 19:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Responding only to the issue of laetrile, which made up the bulk of the actual content changes proposed in the article: The reason why most of the material surrounding laetrile was published in the late 70s/early 80s is because this was when there was when the large social/political controversy surrounding it emerged and was discussed. As the medical community found it to be quackery, there was little reason to continuing publishing about it. There has been no human clinical trials published about laetrile since the mid 1980s so there is no reason to suspect there is a change in the overall assessment of its use (see also, for example, this recent Cochrane review which found, "The risk-benefit balance of laetrile or amygdalin as a treatment for cancer is therefore unambiguously negative."). You want to use primary in vitro studies to challenge the consensus of the medical community, which is strictly prohibited by WP:MEDRS (which you have not shown signs of actually reading or understanding, despite multiple editors directing you to it). I also fail to see how the discussion of laerile is primarily a BLP issue (as opposed to a MEDRS/WEIGHT issue), and see this as using BLP as a bludgeon to win a content dispute about laetrile. Yobol (talk) 19:48, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

That's not it at all, Yobo. My job here is to get the article right, and correct the BLP violations. I'm not competing in some childish contest, either. My time is far too valuable. Try reading the actual clinical tests under the heading Human/Clinical Studies - [7]. The National Cancer Institute contradicts its own conclusion that case reports have provided little evidence to support laetrile as an anticancer treatment. In 1978, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) requested case reports from practitioners who believed that their patients had benefitted from laetrile treatment. Ninety-three cases were submitted, and 67 were considered evaluable for response. An expert panel concluded that two of the 67 patients had complete responses and that four of the others had partial responses while using laetrile. And this one: benzaldehyde, which is one of laetrile’s breakdown products, has also been tested for anticancer activity in humans. Two clinical series reported a number of responses to benzaldehyde in patients with advanced cancer for whom standard therapy had failed. In one series, 19 complete responses and ten partial responses were reported among 57 patients who had received either oral or rectal beta-cyclodextrin benzaldehyde. One would think common sense would guide the medical community into further research, especially considering the results of chemo and radiation, but it isn't my job as an editor to make assumptions. My edits are based on the information available in reliable sources, and when it comes to BLPs, those sources must be high quality. The Griffin article is riddled with dead links, unreliable sources, and contentious claims about the man and his work. Try reading some of the links I've provided above, starting with Doctored Results. Atsme☯^Consult 21:11, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

So what you're asking us to do here is to ignore the National Cancer Institute's analysis of what the NCI says in favor of your analysis of what the NCI says, and to follow your picking of individual studies over their overview. That is an argument that is unlikely to gain much traction here. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:24, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Is the problem reading comprehension? I can't believe some of these comments. Of course that isn't what I expect or want. You're actually accusing me of wanting to do what has already been done in the article. Perhaps once we get past the POV pushing in support of antiquated information, and all this denial of findings in 21st Century research, not to mention the information Ralph Moss exposed in his book, we can address the BLP violations, or do you consider Popular Paranoia and Media Matters for America to be reliable sources? You might want to read WP:BLP again. Atsme☯^Consult 22:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Just wanted to add - it appears the source I cited above, and also when I made the edit updates and corrected the BLP violations at the article (that were subsequently reverted for no valid reason) was somehow overlooked, or misunderstood so I'll include it once more with a brief quote. [[8]] - It has also been concluded that amygdalin has no anti-tumor potential, although from 368 cancer patients listed in one review, 12.5% experienced a complete or partial response, 6.8% had stable disease and 22.9% demonstrated symptomatic benefit from amygdalin. The latter observation by the researchers was included in the Introduction of the August 2014 article that was published in PLOS ONE, an international, open access, peer reviewed Journal. Atsme☯^Consult 23:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Those are inconclusive results, meaning, the study simply did not draw a larger conclusion from possible positive results that you seem to be trying to make here. It's clear they are not representing amygdalin as "effective treatment". I don't see a BLP issue with the sourcing in the article regarding this On a separate note, I will say that this source (essentially a bit of caption text) seems pretty light to support the article's claim that the BLP engaged in Aids Denialism. I would hope someone could find and replace that citation with a source that more directly supports that claim. The rest of the article seems to have stronger reliable sourcing.__ E L A Q U E A T E 00:41, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

This thread has gone off the rails into a morass of discussion about medical topics, not BLP (Griffin) issues. Editors should note that the BLPN instructions say "Welcome to the biographies of living persons noticeboard. This page is for reporting issues regarding biographies of living persons. Generally this means cases where editors are repeatedly adding defamatory or libelous material to articles about living people over an extended period." So, with these instructions in mind, just what are the particular edits to the article that are of concern? Please provide diffs. – S. Rich (talk) 04:07, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the BLP violations occur because of the outdated medical claims, references to quackery which might as well be claims of witchcraft, and the way Griffin has been associated with those claims, which is clearly a BLP violation. I provided diffs, links and excerpts, but was criticized for WP:WALLOFTEXT, and asked to provide a short bulleted list with worst example, etc. which I did. My edits at the article to correct the problem in a neutral manner are being reverted for no valid reason, and that has to stop. I've done enough editing here to know what a GA is supposed to look like, as well as what constitutes a BLP violations. The article is horribly written as is, and not worthy of inclusion because of the blatant BLP violations. Editors who are reverting my edits are clearly pushing POV by inhibiting properly sourced updates regarding recent research, and it must stop. If I don't see some results in this BLPN soon, I will request closure, and will move this discussion to ANI because it is quite apparent that I am one editor dealing with a group of editors who maintain a particular POV, regardless of the BLP violations I've pointed out, and that is not acceptable behavior.Atsme☯^Consult 14:20, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

There was some questionable material but S. Rich has cleaned this up nicely. Is there anything further to be done? We're certainly not going to say that amygdalin, a classic example of a quack cancer treatment, is anything other than just that: the medical literature seems quite settled on the question. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:36, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Atsme, as I wrote to you on my Talk page, I suggest you address specific BLP concerns on the article Talk page, which you have not done at all - what little discussion you have made there, has all been focused on health content. You are not going to get much traction on any behavior board, if you haven't made calm, good-faith efforts to work through the content issues, deliberately and clearly, on the article Talk page. Talk it out. There is WP:NODEADLINE, and I still don't know what specific bits of content you are finding problematic under BLP. You haven't identified those here nor there. Jytdog (talk) 15:08, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

The Griffin article is NOT the place to discuss or debunk laetrile claims. Those references which do not explicitly mention Griffin have been removed as WP:SYN. – S. Rich (talk) 16:37, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

But if amygdalin as a cancer cure is mentioned, we are obliged to point out it's ineffective to remain neutral, rather than leaving the suggestion unqualified. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:40, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

The ineffectiveness of laetrile is properly discussed. 1. It is described as unscientific in the lede ("scientifically-unsupported view"). 2. The ineffectiveness of laetrile is discussed in the laetrile article. Griffin also has comments about AIDS, Noahs Ark, and the Federal Reserve – we do not and cannot debunk those ideas in the BLP. PSCI says "Thus, when talking about pseudoscientific topics, we should not describe these two opposing viewpoints as being equal to each other." This has to be followed in conjunction with WP:SYN which requires explicit mention of Griffin's own material, not the ideas he holds. The topic of the article is Griffin and not the various ideas he expounds upon. – S. Rich (talk) 16:55, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Jytdog, it appears Srich32977 has done a nice job correcting most of the BLP violations. I hope that what he did and why is understood by you and the other editors who kept reverting my edits and/or had difficulty recognizing the violations. Regarding your reference to WP:NODEADLINE, you probably weren't thinking about DYK, and the short timeframe editors have to work in from expanding to nominating an article. Disruptive editing, POV pushing, and edit warring in the face of blatant BLP violations is a terrible waste of time, and only serves to spoil the chances of getting an article in the DYK line-up.

• As the OP, I request closure of this issue. Atsme☯^Consult 23:43, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Maral Ibragimova

Maral Ibragimova (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I'm not sure where to take this, but since it involves a BLP I'm bringing here. The recent history of Maral Ibragimova is of a relatively-important-looking bot reverting itself repeatedly, over a long period of time. I'm not aware of sources to fix the underlying issue with the article. The talk page of the bot redirects to a user on wikibreak. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:57, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I removed the only link on that page, as it looks like an unusable social-media/UGC link. The bot looks like it was a beta version and it was out of control! (You may have saved all humans.)__ E L A Q U E A T E 02:22, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Overuse of Template:911ct

This nav template for 9/11 conspiracy theorizing is dropped on a lot of BLP pages, and lists (in my opinion) more people than are warranted. can we talk about reining this in? Mangoe (talk) 20:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Well clearly the template should not be used on any BLPs unless there there is a relable source linking the subject to one or more 9/11 conspiracy theory, because that would be a viuolation of BLP. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Sonja Morgan

Interns

Sonja claims to have as many as "no less than 35 people" in Team Sonja, including her interns. In Season Six Sonja is seen working with the interns such as Tyler Mills, Naomi Meulemans (whom Sonja nicknamed Pickles), Rachel McMahon and Rachel Kirkland — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.255.12 (talk • contribs)

References

• I don't really understand what it is that you want to report or have us do. I don't see where Morgan currently has an article and I also don't see where any of this would be anything that should be added to the main article for the RHoNY. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 01:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Apostle Lebo

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

---

Apostle Lebo born 1986 18 August, was born in the famous hospital called Natal Spruit @ 2:00am he than lived with his mother and other family members Apostle Lebo attended 5 different primary schools due to the traveling job's his mother had, he than finished his standard 5 @ Khayelihle primary school as a prefect and one of the best public speakers the school every had, he than moved to his higher learning @ Erusumas Monareng High school, @ Age 17 he was made youth paster @ his church than age 19 he became assistance to his paster in church in the community he played a big role when it come to Students Church Ministry, where he was part of the leadership of a movement that changed the cause of salvation among's students all over the Ekuruleni district, he since has been ordained as a prophet of God and is working as a Tent revivalist, hosting crusades with Gods presents mighty and Miracles taking place every second, God has favored him in this generation, his currently working in the kingdom of God! As a full-time minister and the Lord is using him mighty for more inform on this living legend in the making visit his page on face book Lebohang Noah Tshabalala shalom — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apostle Lebo (talk • contribs) 06:40, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Bill Cosby allegations not yet proven

I don't know that the facts about Bill Cosby's case have emerged yet. While I can appreciate the intensity and seriousness of the allegations, there is a glut of sensationalistic hearsay and speculation on the Bill Cosby wiki. It does not belong there, as per the rules for a living person's biography. Can someone please clarify next steps? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galactiger (talk • contribs) 08:17, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, it does belong there. Per WP:PUBLICFIGURE, "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." Only those allegations which are not supported by multiple reliable independent sources should be left out. Msnicki (talk) 09:05, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

To qualify its inclusion - it belongs in the article PROVIDED All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation., it does not violate the 3 core principles of BLP, and is presented in a neutral manner. Atsme☯^Consult 14:28, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

The allegations and denials might belong in the body of the BLP, but that does not mean it is of sufficient nature to warrant being placed in the lead of the BLP as we are required to edit BLPs conservatively. Collect (talk) 14:30, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Andrew Harvey and Andrew Harvey (journalist)

Can someone take a look at the BLP articles on Andrew Harvey and Andrew Harvey (journalist). There are discrepancies in some dates and, looking at both articles together, it seems that what is written the Early Life section of Andrew Harvey (journalist) may be based on the life of the other Andrew Harvey. Rather unlikely that both share so much more than a name. Chris Fynn (talk) 09:26, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

America: Imagine the World Without Her

Is

Commenting on the reception, Breitbart editor [[Ben Shapiro]] said “It is absurd to have [leftist] movie critics critiquing the politics of documentaries professionally; they seem unable to separate their artistic sensibilities from their political ones.”<ref>{{cite web|last1=Shapiro|first1=Ben|title=7 Movies Critics Like Better Than D'Souza's 'America'|url=http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2014/07/15/7-movies-critics-America|website=Breitbart|accessdate=16 July 2014|date=July 15, 2014}}</ref>

"contentious claims about third parties from a questionable source which is against WP:QS, WP:Aboutself, and WP:BLP" or is it a proper use of a source using opinion properly cited as opinion about a large group not aimed at a small group of identifiable individuals? Talk:America:_Imagine_the_World_Without_Her#RFC_-_Is_Breitbart.com_a_reliable_source_for_its_own_film_review? is an RfC on the same source which has the closing statement Consensus is yes/acceptable/reliable in response to the question. Samsara 06:50, 29 October 2014 (UTC). Collect (talk) 12:31, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:FORUMSHOPPING. This is the same question asked at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Breitbart_again, which was a repeated thread as well. A claim about people who review movies is different than a movie review. Different context, different subject.__ E L A Q U E A T E 13:21, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Nope. This is about a specific cavil just raised in an edit summary, for which this is the proper and only noticeboard. The question about Breitbart being a "reliable source" was settled in the affirmative -- here the person is asserting that it is a BLP violation, which was not the issue at the RS/N noticeboard. Is this quote a BLP violation? Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:21, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Breitbart was not determined to be a reliable source for all claims. It's questionable for claims about living people. __ E L A Q U E A T E 14:35, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

It was specifically determined now several times to be a reliable source for opinions cited as opinions. Are you saying that an opinion about unnamed film critics cited as opinion is a violation of WP:BLP? That, indeed, is the question here. I would point out that opinions cited as opinions about groups of unnamed people has not, heretofore, ever been considered a BLP violation. Clearly your mileage differs in this. Collect (talk) 14:42, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

The citation of opinions from questionable sources about living people is still subject to BLP and RS. An opinion about a movie is simply a different thing than an opinion about people. If the source is questionable, then there is no difference between adding "Mr X eats children" and adding "It is the opinion of Questionable Weekly that Mr. X eats children." In context, that quote is referencing six named critics. __ E L A Q U E A T E 14:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

(The opinion piece goes on to imply that one of the reasons Transformers: Age of Extinction received widespread bad reviews because people don't like Kelsey Grammar's politics. Is this a self-referential use of "unable to separate their artistic sensibilities from their political ones "? This does not look like a high-quality source for article material. It's political invective from a minority source aimed at named people.)__ E L A Q U E A T E 15:11, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

You seem to aver Shapiro makes "contentious claims" about specific living persons. Pray tell, which specific living persons are he referring to? I suggest the group of "film critics" is so broad as to make the argument risible. And the "Mr. X eats children" example you proffer is a few thousand miles off the mark. Collect (talk) 15:22, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

The article names names. The "they" in that quote is not talking about anonymous critics; it's talking about the specific critics who reviewed this movie, and they are named immediately previous to the quote.__ E L A Q U E A T E 15:30, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Elaqueate, it appears that Ben Shapiro has provided extensive conservative commentary about film and television for National Review here. Reviewing WP:BLPGROUP, the "group" in question is not formal, meaning that Shapiro is collectively critical of film critics who are not colluding in any active sense. I think these separate opinions contribute to its largeness. I've delved into the issue more on the talk page, and I've added content to the article so that this political opinion is marginal among a large set of mainstream opinions. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:48, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

That could be a good approach, but it should be noted that the material is not about "all movie critics that review all movies". We are talking about a much smaller group, namely the smaller set of critics that Shapiro disagrees with, and names, in relation to specific reviews to a single movie. This is the article for the specific movie, not a general essay on movie critics. If the quote is offered as his general comments about all critics, then it's inappropriate as out-of-scope for a specific movie article; if it's offered as commentary on specific critics, then it is a small group of people. __ E L A Q U E A T E 15:59, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Shorter: If the quote is essentially a blanket "Liberal movie critics can't be trusted to review any political movie" then it's not appropriate or specific commentary regarding this film; it's a general belief.__ E L A Q U E A T E 16:04, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I feel like this is overly restrictive. It is common for there to be collective criticism of film reviews. Conservative outlets have criticized how critics receive films with political messages, and there has been a different kind of collective criticism toward film critics that speak favorably of jingostic films (Zero Dark Thirty comes to mind). Surely when the scope is wider, we summarize that politicians criticize those of other parties on both general and specific issues; do we avoid this kind of criticism in political articles? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:08, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we avoid it if it's coat-racking a specific article about a much narrower topic. Opinions about critics in general could arguably be included in general topics, if from high-quality sources, but not as coat-racked commentary in a specific article. This is like saying "Transformers was a film with a budget. Budgets are often used by businesspeople......[long rant against capitalism in general]" This is an article about a specific film, it shouldn't be used as an opportunity to include quotes complaining of the biases of "liberal" movie critics in general (even setting aside that specific critics are named.)__ E L A Q U E A T E 16:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:COATRACK only applies to coatrack articles, and this article is far from being a coatrack. "Coat-racked commentary" is just another term for biased/opinionated sources, and these are acceptable if the source is considered reliable in the specific context. Ben Shapiro is a noteworthy conservative voice, as evidenced by his commentary being scrutinized in mainstream media, as well as his pieces in National Review. As I've stated on the article's talk page, explicitly conservative and liberal opinions are appropriate as long as they do not overshadow the mainstream opinions. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:01, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

You linked the essay, not me. Coat-racking is a concept that applies beyond the bare existence of articles. It's about whether material is being included that is tangential to the topic of the article. Coatracking can be any bias (positive, negative or neutral), so it has nothing to do with whether a source has a bias, only whether it's using the article to stray from the article topic. It's similar to using an article about Ronald Reagan to include tangential opinionated complaints about Obama or Bush. If this is a comment about how liberal Breitbart thinks these named editors are generally, then it's not suitable material for an article about a specific movie. It's a tangential point.__ E L A Q U E A T E 19:01, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Proper use - For one thing the segment isn't a "Biography" of a living person. It's a very widespread (see noteworthy), subjective opinion about the state of a profession, particularly regarding explicitly political films. What's more, the BLP states that the policy doesn't even normally apply to specific legal "persons" like "corporations, companies," or other such entities. It adds that a harmful statement about "a small group or organization comes closer to being a BLP problem than a similar statement about a larger group." Even harmful statements about a very small group don't necessarily fall under BLP, and this is a very large group, plus the statement is an opinion, not libel or defamation. Certainly no one has tried to sue over it. The sleazy comments personally attacking D'Souza on legal issues (and marital ones in the sources) from partisan Huffington post bloggers currently in the same section come far closer to being a BLP problem. VictorD7 (talk) 06:41, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

This is an article about a specific movie, not a place to opine about "the state of a profession" generally, or adding material criticizing named movie critics because the questionable source, breitbart.com, doesn't like their politics. (And BLP applies everywhere, not just in specific biographies.).__ E L A Q U E A T E 19:01, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

What an absolutely absurd argument. By your logic, most of the negative reviews should be removed because they are BLB violations against D'Souza. Are you going to argue against the others as well? Arzel (talk) 19:19, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Those are reviews of the movie, not reviews of movie reviewers. The article's about the movie, not the state of movie reviewing.__ E L A Q U E A T E 20:27, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Not relevant to the argument you are making. A BLP violation is not dependent upon the topic being discussed. Furthermore you are basically saying that if a reviewer makes a BLP violation against a movie maker it is fine, but if a defender of that movie maker makes a BLP violation against those reviewers in their defense of the movie maker it is not fine. The tone of the reviewers is far worse than the tone of the defender, thus it is hard to take your argument at face value. Arzel (talk) 19:23, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

You say: A BLP violation is not dependent upon the topic being discussed. What does this even mean in this context? The article we're citing singles out Rafter Guzman, Martin Tsai, Peter Sobcynski and others. I think movie critics that write for RS are considered quotable in articles for the contents of their movie reviews. If they're not published by RS, then the same standard should apply to them as Breitbart. I just don't think Breitbart has a reputation for accurately reviewing the people who happen to be movie reviewers, or other people for that matter. If this was a source with a better reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, there would be no issue about using its published opinion about third parties. But everything I see in the archives makes me think this is widely considered a challenged source. __ E L A Q U E A T E 22:07, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Robert P. McCulloch (prosecutor)

Robert P. McCulloch (prosecutor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

ChrisGualtieri is deleting [9] well sourced material about the role of McCulloch in the grand jury proceedings related to the Shooting of Michael Brown. He is arguing WP:COATRACK and that the material is a grossly negative an attack on McCulloch made by Huffington Post and other low grade sources, while the material is sourced to reputable media sources such as CNN, USA Today, Fox News, St.Louis Post-Dispatch, Washington Post, and others. I would appreciate comments from uninvolved editors. Note that and this is the single most notable case in this prosecutor's career and deserving of a full representation in his bio. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:44, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

The main problem here is that ChrisGualtieri is taking a very novel interpretation of NPOV and BLP, stating that the material sourced to these reliable sources, is mostly sensationalist and opinions by people about McCulloch instead of the plain disinterested facts, which understandably, with that kind of interpretation, a mass deletion of content would be warranted. I'd appreciate some experienced BLP/N patrollers to weigh in. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:33, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

• Just a note, Cwobeel added the sum part of the content to Shooting of Michael Brown page in numerous edits.[10][11][12][13][14][15][16] Then he copied it over to Robert P. McCulloch's page.[17] After I removed it he reinserted it again.[18] Then he "removed the Huffington Post piece" as if that was the sole issue and added it again.[19] So 10 different opinions with a negative slant to 1, Rudy Giulani, is WP:NPOV? You are taking a bunch of so-called reliable source opinion pieces surrounding a sensationalist event and actually copy and pasting the "controversy" to a subject's biographical article. The negative comments comprise the bulk of the text and most are just parroting the same exact thing with different wordings. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:51, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I have made considerable trims to the original content,[20] as a compromise to find middle ground. Just note that it does not matter if you think the NYT, the WaPo, USA Today,CNN, SCOTUSblog and all the other reliable sources are "sensationalistic". - Cwobeel (talk) 20:15, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Death of Eric Garner

Death of Eric Garner: Anonymous editors keep entering info in a vandalistic fashion that I and other editors believe probably violates BLP. Example change here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Death_of_Eric_Garner&oldid=637812036. Concern is regarding the statements about the police officer. I and several other editors have removed these changes because we believe them the be BLP violations and not NPOV; however the users keep replacing them. I suggest semi-protecting the page. GoddersUK (talk) 20:09, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Eric Carmen

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

Someone using an IP address has been deleting cited info about Eric Carmen's personal life which includes linked citations regarding his DUI arrest and his divorce. Steelbeard1 (talk) 20:14, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Given that almost half the 'personal life' section was devoted to the DUI incident, maybe the IP has a point. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:40, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

San Buenaventura de Potano

San Buenaventura de Potano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An editor has accused a living person of plagiarism in an edit summary: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=San_Buenaventura_de_Potano&diff=637807109&oldid=637519092 As I am involved in editing the article, and have tried to remove any possibly contentious material about living persons (see Talk:San Buenaventura de Potano), I will refrain from further editing for now. -- Donald Albury 22:12, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Olga Holtz

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

No Proof of notability, article is poorly cited. Recommend that steps must be taken to prove or improve such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpruck (talk • contribs) 09:04, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

It looks well sourced to me. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:25, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Angelique Boyer

Myself and McVeigh are in a revert struggle over the "Partner(s)" section of the article subject's infobox. I am trying to remove a reference in the "Partner(s)" slot to the article subject's recently-ended three-year dating relationship. I don't think Wikipedia should be deciding and declaring that such non-committed relationships rise to the level of "Partnership" because of mere duration. If they'd gotten married or had some other strong indicia of lasting commitment, I'd think differently, but I haven't seen evidence of that. McVeigh obviously disagrees with me. He can state his own case here if he so chooses. But at this point I don't want to violate WP:3RR, so I respectfully request advice from this noticeboard. Thank you. Townlake (talk) 18:15, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

• @Townlake: I would not characterize anyone's significant other, boyfriend, girlfriend, etc., as a "partner" unless one or both persons have publicly characterized the relationship as one of "partners." If the subject is married, fine, say so. If the subject is not married, we should be extremely careful how we as editors characterize relationship of an article subject per WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:RS and WP:OR. As I understand the term, "partner" is the equivalent of husband, wife or spouse -- or its very near equivalent of a person in a committed, long-term relationship. In the absence of reliable sources that use that term, or first-hand commentary from the subject using such term, I would avoid using it. It's not our job to define the relationships of article subjects, when they don't. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:03, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Dirtlawyer1. Your understanding matches mine. (That said, I'll wait a bit longer to change the article in case anyone, including McVeigh, wants to contribute their thoughts.) Townlake (talk) 19:51, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
• I agree that it should be removed per Dirtlaywer1's remarks. I've always heard the term used to describe someone that is the equivalent of a spouse, not just a boyfriend or a long term lover. Unless she has repeatedly described him as a partner in this aspect, it shouldn't be in the spouse/partner section of the article. Length of a relationship isn't really a factor in this- it boils down to what Boyer has said about her ex-boyfriend and I can't see where she's ever called him a partner. Labeling him a partner because they dated is kind of the equivalent of saying that because they dated for a long time, he's her fiance or husband. It doesn't work that way. This is pretty much why we have personal life sections in articles, because the partner/spouse section is supposed to be reserved for the ones labeled spouse/partner and so on. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 22:35, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

• • • According Townlake, it said its most notable couples should be added. In this case it was three years with José Alberto Castro. The problem is that every day comes from different ips add that has a relationship with Sebastián Rulli. I think that should be allowed to add their relationship with José Alberto and so far has been one of the longest relationships. in 2009 he had an affair with Sebastián Zurita, but that only lasted months, however hard years is. Then I ask myself; Why there is a parameter to add romantic relationships, if nothing else will be allowed to add, for those who are married ?. I wish I read more reviews. Because if you are not going to permiter these relationships, then the parameter "partner" should not exist. For now I can not answer quickly because I do not have internet.--McVeigh / talk 16:35, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

• Pardon my impoliteness for saying so, but it is evident that your first language is not English, McVeigh. In modern English usage, the word "partner" used in the connotation of a romantic relationship implies a great deal more than a simple dating relationship of significant other, boyfriend, or girlfriend. In LGBT relationships, it often implies a marriage-like relationship that does not have the sanction under law of being a legal marriage within the jurisdiction; in heterosexual relationships, "partners" are often the functional equivalent of husband and wife without the benefit of a marriage license, sometimes sharing property and children. Per WP:BLP, Wikipedia editors should not include material about a living person that cannot be verified by reliable sources -- and that includes classifying or characterizing the relationships of Wikipedia article subjects. If the subject is married, and that marriage has been verified by one or more reliable sources per WP:RS and WP:V, then it may be included in the article -- that's easy. We should not, however, and are arguably not permitted to, characterize a relationship for the subject, which the subject (or multiple, independent, reliable sources) has not characterized as that of "partners." That is unsupportable under WP:BLP and WP:V. Whether you do it, or some IP user does it, does not matter; it's not out job to put a label on a relationship that may or may not reflect the realities of that relationship. Use the generic word "relationship" -- if it is verified by reliable sources -- and leave it at that. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

• Ok, but in this case there are references that speak, that they have had three years of relationship. Why can not put that relationship ?. So far it has been the single most significant relationship Angelique Boyer.--McVeigh / talk 22:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Marianna Hill

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

Dear Wiki Volunteer editors,

At the behest of Mrs Marianna Hill, please remove the details about where she lives in the world. You have kensington London, - there is no reason that any fans need to know where she lives. As a famous actress she must be careful that she is not stalked by fans - such as those of startrek or the God Father II. Furthermore, Mrs Hill is still active as an actress and you are damaging her ability to be hired as you have posted her DoB. Please remove this, not only is it inaccurate according to her own birth records, she doesnt wish it to be posted on line.

Best regards,

Mr J.Rees, assistant to Mrs M. Hill. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.92.16 (talk) 11:19, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

• Done. Not necessary nor desirable to include such information, and it was unsourced. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:27, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
• DOB and some extant personal information (such as birth name) also removed, as they were supported by primary sources. Once more the actress-doesn't-like-her-DOB-advertised situation, so I advised user that if a reliable secondary source is found for that, the removal would not be so simple. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:32, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Bart Sibrel

I think the section on the vandalism incident is inappropriate. We do not include information on minor crimes when it is unrelated to notability, with the exception of people who are major public figures where there is great public interest. That the person is notable only for fringe does not justify making an exception to his discredit. I'm bringing it here because on the basis of discussion on the article talk p., removal is sure to be resisted. DGG ( talk ) 00:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)