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

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 02:27, 14 March 2008

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.

This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference.
Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump.

Please edit the main page of the noticeboard.

This discussion has been archived. Please do not modify it.

The following is an archived debate. Please do not modify it.

Ongoing WP:BLP-related concerns

The following subsections may apply to any or all Biographies of living persons.

Unreferenced BLPs

There are over 8300 articles on living people that have the {{unreferenced}} tag. This is a list of them. (warning: pretty big page) —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 00:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh shit, that's worse than I thought.--Doc^g 00:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just looking through a few of them, they have the unreferenced tag at the top but with no indication in the text what the problematic unreferenced material is. It would be good if people could be encouraged not to use the general unreferenced tag, but to add the fact/citation-needed tag to the contentious issues. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, {{fact}} should NEVER be used on contentious issues on BLPs. Uncited contentious material should simply be removed.--Doc^g 02:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, and originally the list was going to include {{fact}}-transcluders AND {{unreferenced}}-transcluders but the latter is a bigger priority, so let's do that first. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 11:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For now, I have completed my search. The result: 17 lists of articles (16 of which contain around 1000 articles) on living people that contain {{unreferenced}}, {{unreferencedsect}}, {{more sources}}, or {{fact}}. Over 16,000 articles on living people that are not completely referenced. Let's get working. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 16:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the policy has morphed again, an {{unreferenced}} BLP that contains no controversial statement is not a violation; many of these probably qualify. {{fact}} is probably more serious. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This list was updated again recently; as of May 19, 2008, there were 14,679 totally unreferenced biographies and 13,405 biographies with the 'fact' tag. Let's get to work! -- phoebe / (talk to me) 00:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Working mainly in visual arts articles, I come across a lot of unreferenced BLPs. The majority are written by a new user, whose only contributions are to that article and related, i.e. most likely either the subject of the article or an agent for them. It would be interesting to see how many unreferenced BLPs fit this category. Ty 10:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a FYI, BLP's with insufficient sourcing should preferably get the template {{BLPsources}} (Category:BLP articles lacking sources), while completely unsourced BLP's should get {{BLPunsourced}}. The latter is brandnew so the Category:Unreferenced BLPs is nearly empty. I hope these can be of help! Fram (talk) 15:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of some form of triage to look at harm mimimization given the huge number of unreferenced bits and pieces. Would it be helpful to have two extra templates - one which ran along the lines of "This highly controversial material needs to be referenced" and one for "moderately controversial...". The idea being the unreferenced sections within BLPs are then given some form of rank in terms of urgency? Does this already exist? This may make the list somewhat more manageable as editors can find an easy place to figure out what to prioritize. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the first ("highly controversial") needs to be removed asap, not templated. The second is debatable. I don't think it can do any harm, but I'll focus for now on tagging the completely unsourced BLP's. Fram (talk) 09:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, good point - I was musing on ones where it is/was common knowledge maybe. I will try to think of/look for some. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sohh.com

Similar to whutdat.com (see below), I'm seeing an alarming number of hip-hop biographies attributing SOHH.com as a source. It claims to be a magazine, but it really looks like an over-sensationalized blog to me. At the time of this writing, there are 310+ biographical pages linking to this site. Nearly all of the links are either dead or redirect to a blog site which contain highly questionable tabloid-like articles. Example headline: "Courtney Love Needs to Shut Her “Hole”! Junkie Grunge Queen Thinks VMAs Too "Urban”" Community input is requested here. JBsupreme (talk) 08:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are indeed looking at an over-sensationalized blog with your example headline. That blog post clearly contains the text [Editor's Note: The views of this blog do not necessarily reflect those of SOHH.com]. So draw a distinction between blog posts and sohh news articles.

Special:Linksearch/blogs.sohh.com gives a more manageable 24 cites that probably could stand some scrutiny. 86.44.24.76 (talk) 05:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whutdat.com

Special:Linksearch/*.whutdat.com

I'm witnessing some hip-hop biographies being sourced to a website called "whutdat.com". The site looks like a blog to me but I can't really be too sure these days. Is this a reliable source or should it be thrown out? My senses tell me its the latter but I'd like a second or third opinion. Thanks, JBsupreme (talk) 08:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NNDB Notable Names Database

Special:Linksearch/*.nndb.com

Is the National Names Database a reliable source? The Talk:NNDB page discussion leans against using it. One editor mentions that Jimbo is very against it, especially as a primary source. It seems to be used quite frequently on biographies. I've challenged it on the Paul Wolfowitz page, but would appreciate more input from others. Notmyrealname 20:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not a reliable source for any sort of controversial or disputed information. FCYTravis 22:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this an official policy or just an opinion? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Notmyrealname (talk • contribs) 19:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

From WP:RS: "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." We do not know who the authors of the NNDB are, and thus we have no way of knowing how credible or trustworthy the information is. What we do know is that many of the articles (c.f. the NNDB article on Michael Jackson) are written from a clearly-biased perspective with the intent of generating maximum lulz. Our biographies of living persons policy demands the absolute strictest standards of sourcing and neutrality when we maintain a biography of a living person, and further requires that we use great caution in sourcing any claim which may be controversial, derogatory or disputed. Citing NNDB for something like a birthplace is one thing, citing it for a claim that someone was arrested for <insert scandalous crime here> is entirely another. Even then, it shouldn't be cited unless it's absolutely the last resort - and if it is, we probably shouldn't have an article on the subject anyway. FCYTravis 21:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I ran into one case where the NNDB said a person was born in 1954 but his WP article said he was drafted into the army in 1962. Steve Dufour 00:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the quote from Jimbo Wales-Why on earth should we consider it a valid source? It seems to me to be riddled with errors, many of which were lifted directly from Wikipedia. To my knowledge, it should be regarded like Wikipedia: not a valid source for anything in Wikipedia. We need to stick to REAL reliable sources, you know, like newspapers, magazines, books. Random websites are a very bad idea.--Jimbo Wales 18:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC) Notmyrealname 02:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NNDB is definitely an unreliable source, especially when it's about sexual orientation, risk factors and trivia. As for the newspapers, their reliability is often questionable. By principle, the tabloids must be considered most unreliable sources... Bachibz, 04 August 2007

The NNDB contains reams of errors and misclassifications (calling all world leaders "heads of state", for instance, or calling all cardiac deaths "heart failure" - that one's inexcusably stupid). There's no way to correct the errors (most corrections end up thrown out from what I can see) and the database owners seem to care more about sensationalism than fact. For some years they reported the Catherine the Great horse story as if it were gospel truth. If the NNDB said the sun rose in the east, I'd verify first. Entertaining but wholly unreliable. --NellieBly (talk) 09:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish Virtual Library

Special:Linksearch/*.jewishvirtuallibrary.org

There seems to be a similar problem as above with the Jewish Virtual Library, especially as a source for biographical information. Sourcing seems to be very vague and often cites wikipedia itself. A few examples: [1], [2], [3], [4]. As with the NNDB, if a source is determined to be unreliable, shouldn't it be prohibited from being listed in the references section as well? It seems that this might be used as a way to sneak in information that otherwise wouldn't make it into the wiki article. (I've tried to raise this issue on the Talk:Jewish Virtual Library page and the Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources pages as well but this seems to be a particular problem for biographical info).Notmyrealname 12:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would treat it as a convenience source, with great care taken about POV. The sponsorship is by "The AMERICAN-ISRAELI COOPERATIVE ENTERPRISE (AICE) was established in 1993 as a nonprofit 501(c)(3), nonpartisan organization to strengthen the U.S.-Israel relationship by emphasizing the fundamentals of the alliance — the values our nations share." The material posted there is only as authoritative as the source or poster may be authoritative--it always gives the source, but only sometimes the exact link. Looking at their index [5] of biographies, the individual ones link to a variety of useful sources of varying reliability. It obviously cannot be used to prove anything contentious--but since it usually omits negative information, little contentious is likely to be found.DGG 21:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, one concern is that it's a back-door way of implying a person's religion when there isn't a proper way to do it that complies with WP:BLP. It's extremely rare for them to site any of their sources with specificity (I haven't seen any cases of it other than "Republican Jewish Committee" or "Wikipedia"), so there's no easy way to fact check them. I don't see how this resolves any of the concerns that Jimmy Wales raises above about the NNDB. Notmyrealname 22:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Notmyrealname on this, we should not be citing the Jewish Virtual Library for any living person biography. JBsupreme (talk) 08:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we also agree that for similar and even stronger reasons citing http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-entertainment-folder.html is deprecated? Ϣere Spiel Chequers 17:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oy, vey. Thanks for introducing me to THAT little slice of heaven. :) I agree, it should not be a source for info in any BLP. David in DC (talk) 18:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've now searched for Jewwatch and only found Jew Watch, Google bomb, Steven Weinstock and Zionist Occupation Government, all of which makes sense to me. But I don't think that wiki search finds links such as the one on this page or the one I reverted. Anyone know how to search for Websites being quoted in references? Ϣere Spiel Chequers 10:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I raised this at the London meetup and have been given a couple of techniques; googling this way gets reassuringly only 40 hits, one in Hebrew which I doubt needs translating and most of the rest in archives and discussions on user pages about hate sites. But on Special:linksearch jewwatch.com comes up 69 times including some that I think need checking out. Ϣere Spiel Chequers 17:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

f1fanatic

Special:Linksearch/*.f1fanatic.co.uk

This site is being used as a reference on a number of Formula 1 biographies. It appears to be fan-run and self-published site, without the fact-checking and editorial oversight WP:RS requires, and as such may not meet standards outlined in WP:BLP#Sources. Most, if not all, of the links were added by the site's owner(s) and/or author(s), which raises additional WP:COI issues. The site has other problems, for instance displaying images with no copyright info (http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/wallpapers/) and linking to copyvio Youtube clips (http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2006/06/18/100-greatest-f1-videos-part-i/). There has been some prior talk page discussion about the link's appropriateness (f1fanatic.co.uk as a reference, External link - F1F biography). --Muchness 10:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WhosDatedWho.com

Special:Linksearch/*.whosdatedwho.com

Not a lot of links so far, but watch for this site to be used as a reference supporting celebrity relationships. I've started searching for reliable-source verification for the information (some of it is no doubt accurate) and removing the link and any relationships that can't be reliably verified elsewhere. From the editorial policy of the site:

“

Information contained on the WhosDatedWho.com website listed has not been independently verified by WhosDatedWho.com. WhosDatedWho.com does not and can not review all materials posted to the WhosDatedWho.com Web Site by users, and WhosDatedWho.com is not responsible for any such materials posted by users.

”

--Risker 04:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am a representative of this site and appreciate that wikipedia needs accurate sources for its information. I acknowledge your concerns and will ensure these are taken into account in our future site update. We are working to improve the accuracy of the information posted on our site and are introducing a verification mechanism in the near future. We recently gave editors the ability to post links to sources for every relationship published on the site. I would also like to state that like wikipedia, all of our content is edited by editors, with our senior editors having ultimate control over what is published.

--Aamair (talk) 07:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No matter how reliable the information on the WhosDatedWho.com website is supposedly made, it doesn't change the fact that the website is a tertiary source, like Wikipedia. This means it definately can't be used to assert notability, and will probably never be reliable enough to cite content either. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 13:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we still have a representative of the site watching this, is there any way its domain name can be changed to WhosDatedWhom.com? For the impressionable kids out there? :) MastCell ^Talk 19:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that WDW can't be used as a source itself, but it might be used to find sources that can be included. —Ashley Y 00:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP#Reliable sources policy section itself

Edit warring, protection, unprotection, non-consensus changes, edit warring, protection by administrator ~~involved in previously editing this project page~~. For contexts of problems affecting the protected current version of this section of the project policy page, please see Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons (and archives). Thank you. --NYScholar 00:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC) [strike out in response to reply below. --NYScholar 18:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)][reply]
- As the protecting admin, I'll leave a quick note regarding the part about "protection by administrator involved in previously editing this project page". First, there are probably relatively few admins who haven't edited a policy page, including WP:BLP. Second, although the page is on my watchlist, I have for the last month or so stayed away from the constant disputes that seem to plague it. My last edit, and the only one affected by the dispute which led to this page protection, was made 10 days ago (on August 18). It consisted solely of a minor rewording and did not constitute a change in meaning. As far as the two issues currently under dispute ... I don't feel strongly about either of them. Third, the version I protected, inevitably The Wrong Version, was the one that happened to be there when I noticed the escalating (both in the nature of comments and frequency of reverts) edit-warring. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I appreciate the reply here. The problems do not seem, however, to be the kind that further discussion is going to change. Discussion of the same problems has been ongoing for over three months. I think some degree of non-editorial intervention may be necessary. So many of us commenting on the policy statement have strong views about it that it is hard to reach what Wikipedia calls "consensus" and changes to the page have not, in my own and some others' views, improved it, so that the currently-protected version does not state what it used to (pre-August 12) even though there is clear disagreement about some phrases that have been deleted from the current version. Many editors (including several administrators) have expressed the view that the phrases deleted should remain. --NYScholar 00:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Possibly (the length of the "External links" section on the talk page, combined with the absence of any tangible result, is certainly not a reason for optimism). However, continued discussion (even if it leads nowhere) is undoubtedly more productive than edit-warring. Perhaps it may be useful to invite some new participants to the discussion by posting notices to the talk pages of other policy pages? — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Following your suggestion above, I have posted a message about these concerns in Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Re: WP:BLP#Reliable sources (talk page of WP:V); Wikipedia talk:No original research#Re: WP:BLP#Reliable sources (talk page of WP:NOR), and Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view#Re: WP:BLP#Reliable sources (talk page of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view), and in WP:RSN#Re: WP:BLP#Reliable sources (WP:RSN). Thanks for the suggestion. --NYScholar 18:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Porn actors' birth names

This discussion has been collapsed.

The last several days worth of edits at Lukas Ridgeston, Tim Hamilton (porn star), and the March 14 entry for Johan Paulik raise serious BLP issues. Would someone review them please? David in DC (talk) 01:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I will address them. When an actor's real name is reliably sourced and widely disseminated it may be placed on the article. Addresses and phone numbers should not be placed on the article. Repeated removal of well sourced and widely disseminated names should be regarded, in my opinion, as vandalism. John celona (talk) 13:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about the BLP policy of presumption in the favor of privacy, especially when it doesn't help the WP project in any way. BLP policy states that respecting the basic human dignity of the subject is essential, and other editors have noted that "outing" these people's birth names (it's ok to use their public stage name) assists in stalking and potential danger to the subjects. There is no real benefit and there is real potential for harm. This is straight from BLP Policy: "When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated OR HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY CONCEALED **which is the case for these subjects**, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context" --Jkp212 (talk) 14:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This surely must not be the first time such matters have been discussed on Wikipedia. Does anyone have pointers to previous threads? I could imagine making the answer depend on whether a large, mainstream publication had revealed the persons' real name. If the real name has already appeared in the New York Times or Newsweek then keeping it out of the article is probably not worth the effort, and has little privacy value. EdJohnston (talk) 17:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you well know the phrase OR HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY CONCEALED which you so helpfully capitalise is immediately followed by AS IN CERTAIN COURT CASES. Since there are no court cases and the actors names are VERY widely disseminated they belong in the article. They are actors which is as much not a "non-public" occupation as can be imagined. John celona (talk) 18:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The names have not been mentioned in any large, mainstream publication and are NOT widely disseminated. Widely is certainly more than 5 obscure gay porn blog sources for Tim Hamilton (the interview in question published twice!) or one source only for Lukas Ridgeston plus about 14 gay porn listings with no real value at all. For Lukas Ridgeston the name has been intentionally disclosed in the review of that gay magazine. This has been done against the expressed wish of the actor and production company Bel Ami. AS IN CERTAIN COURT CASES is NOT a concluding enumeration but an example. Even with English not being my native language I can read the difference. So no need for a court case here either. There is no real benefit in publishing the names and no significant loss of context in not doing so. On the contrary revealing the names in this or in any future case violates the WP principles mentioned by Jkp212. Putting them back in repeatedly should be regarded, in my opinion, as vandalism. Just as John celona said "an actor's real name ... may be placed on the article". But it does not have to be placed, which is in accordance with the BLP policy of presumption in the favor of privacy. (Jamesbeat (talk) 19:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"As in certain court cases" is one example of where a name has been intentionally concealed. Actors such as these who choose to have stages names are also intentionally concealing their birth name, which they have every right to do. --Jkp212 (talk) 20:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Brandy Alexandre page is the model. Please look at the code. If you hit "edit this page", the first thing you see at the top is code from Jimmy Wales asking that her birth name not be revealed. Need a better authority than that? David in DC (talk) 21:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say User:EdJohnston makes a good point. Where is the prior discussion on this? I don't see any for Brandy Alexandre, even on the talk page. Was it archived? What about for Hamilton or Ridgeston or any of the others? Viewing the prior consensus on the subject would be most helpful in this discussion. Thanks. --Ebyabe (talk) 23:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What it actually says is "As a courtesy while we discuss the issues surrounding this article". In other words-temporary. Plus, what wikipedia regulation says Luke Ford is not a reliable source. He is on dozens of other pages. provide the source please. as you have been told on many other issues: this is Wiki-pedia not David-pedia. John celona (talk) 00:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For everything that needs saying, read the archive here: It sets forth the views of Anon E. Mouse, Jimbo, and SavvyCat (Ms. Alexandre) as fully as necessary. About outing porn actor's names AND about the reliability of Luke Ford as a source. David in DC (talk) 03:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I know that a number of the participants in WP:P* (myself included) routinely pull out uncited names from porn star articles on simple WP:BLP issues... what if the name's wrong? And there are other stars besides Brandy who have had their names pulled from the article at the star's own request... Sasha Grey is one I remember offhand. Beyond that, the principles that John Celona mentions above ("an actor's real name is reliably sourced and widely disseminated") apply, and no, IMDB is not a reliable source for the name! Now if we can only get all the various editions to follow that last point; I know of one porn star complaining about a foreign language Wiki that has their real name on it with IMDB as a "source", and her parents were getting hassled on it as a result of it (it's Katja Kassin & the German version)... unfortunately the Wiki in question doesn't seem to be responding to her complaints. Tabercil (talk) 06:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some insight into User:John celona's attitude towards privacy and harm reduction may be gleaned from a Deletion Review a year ago, specifically this comment, this comment and this comment. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 14:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outing people is bad. I dealt with porn star names (e.g. Tawnee Stone, Jordan Capri) way back in the dark ages before BLP even existed and even then we all agreed that Wikipedia should not be the primary venue for locating information such as this. If the mainstream media has published someone's identity, then okay, but we shall not rely on the blog of the guy who claims to have gone to high school with the actress. Nor shall we rely on the name that appears on the obscure trademark filing for the "character" (yes, this seriously came up). If you are going to publish information that may have real world consequences for someone then you ought to have sources that are at least as reliable and as visible as Wikipedia itself before doing so. Dragons flight (talk) 15:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we change this policy we need to change it universally, or not at all, and have admin deletes of history of reference to birth names. --BenBurch (talk) 17:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is going to come up repeatedly in the future. In the Brandy Alexandre case, some editors seemed to think that we were just applying the reliable source policy to birth names, and only including those that were reliably attested. But the above discussion tells me that some editors *still* don't want real names included even when published in sources that would be accepted as reliable for other purposes. If this is the case, we should know. EdJohnston (talk) 18:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is really disturbing to me. Someone really needs to explain to User:John celona that Wikipedia isn't just a place that reports every lurid detail about sexually related articles. He's strongly argued for the inclusion of all material related to underage sex crime victims multiple times (as evidenced by CalendarWatcher) and now he's trying to disseminate private details about porn actors because marginally reliable sources (and frankly some unreliable sources) report them. Ugh. No. If he wants to start a wiki of his own that exploits these people he is welcome to do so, but I don't think that kind of attitude is appropriate here. Ani Mate 18:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that a name attested by a reliable source should still be suppressed at the request of the subject? We need to know if you are asking for a policy change or not. EdJohnston (talk) 18:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would say a policy change is in order. If someone's lone claim to fame is pornography and they want to reclaim some of their privacy, then absolutely we should remove their real name. In fact, I would argue that more often than not, real names shouldn't be used unless they are widely used by the mainstream media. For that to happen, I'm thinking most porn stars would have to have some other claim to fame besides having sex on film. Ani Mate 18:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am in agreement with a policy change. There is no gain to "outing" people like this. --Jkp212 (talk) 19:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So let's throw an hypothetical example out to see how this proposed change works... say Savanna Samson comes to us and says "I don't want my real name used in the article". If you look at the article, there is a reference for it which points directly to an article in the New York Times, which is probably one of the more reliable sources out there and also one of the more visible ones (the third highest circulation according to List of newspapers in the United States by circulation). So... do we pull the name or not? Tabercil (talk) 20:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In that case I would say probably not, though that would ultimately depend on why she wanted her name removed. The argument for removal of real names is that these people use pseudonyms to obscure their identities. While she will always be better known as Savanna Samson, I think it's clear with that interview and her other projects that she has no intention of obfuscating her identity anymore. Ani Mate 21:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I lean toward yes. We take her birth name out, but use the NYT article as a source for some other fact, if it backs one. NYT has it's editorial discretion and we have ours. Ours protects the privacy (and safety) of living persons more than theirs does. That's not censorship, it's editing.

I can imagine a case where the answer is no. If Savanna ever kills someone on a porn set, the names are gonna be linked. Or if she testifies before Congress, under her birth name, in support of branding strippers and porn stars' with a Scarlet X. But we ought to set the bar pretty high in favor of omitting birth names. David in DC (talk) 21:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My own personal thinking is probably not to remove the name in this instance. Why? Because of the visibility and reliability of the source of the name, unless it can be shown to be in error, removing the name would be akin to closing the barn door long after the horse has disappeared over the horizon. However, if the source was much thinner, then I can the name being removed. However, we should clearly have a requirement that the real name must be sourced; I know the the guidelines for WP:P* (which perhaps is the work group closest to the subject) are clear as seen here. Tabercil (talk) 21:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because something is verifiable and well sourced, doesn't mean we include it in articles. WP:BLP often trumps reliable sources and verifiability. Ani Mate 21:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If that's a policy change, what is the limitation on it? Any subject of a biography can ask for their real name to be excluded, no matter how well known it is? EdJohnston (talk) 21:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) Is it specifically laid out in policy? No, but there is a presumption in favor of the privacy of marginally notable people. Exact birth dates are routinely removed for the marginally notable (and that is policy), and (generally speaking) porn stars real names aren't very well known. Looking through the links supplied by CalendarWatcher above, you'll see a case where two minors who were victims of sex crimes had the majority of personal information about them removed from the encyclopedia. All of the information about them was ridiculously well sourced to major and undeniably reliable news agencies. Still, the information was removed and the articles redirected (if I'm not mistaken). I think the removal of real names is definitely up for interpretation, but in the case of a porn star with very few or no other accomplishments... I think we should remove without prejudice unless a valid argument can be made to include them. Ani Mate 22:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm agreeing that we could follow a rule where such names are sometimes omitted. I just need someone to give the scope of the rule so that we don't need a lengthy discussion every time the subject comes up again. If the existing policy is too vague in this area we could ask for the policy to be made specific. You could even ask for a change in policy that is limited to porn stars, to avoid widening the debate too much. (Comparing to the example given by AniMate, porn stars don't seem to have much in common with minors who are the victims of sex crimes). EdJohnston (talk) 01:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right that there is nothing in common between the two, and I hope I didn't imply that there was. I'm not sure that there is a clear cut line that can be determined other than saying "err on the side of privacy". Savanna Samson, for instance, has clearly made an attempt to market herself to a more mainstream audience outside of porn. The same goes for Jenna Jameson and Jeff Stryker. Tim Hamilton, Johan Paulik, and Lukas Ridgeston don't seem to have any encyclopedic accomplishments outside of pornography. There is no benefit to revealing their real names, and there could in fact be great harm to them in doing so. Ani Mate 02:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing it back to Paulik, Ridgeston and Hamiliton. It's poor judgment to out any of these three. We need the opposite kind of rule than the one EdJohnston suggests above. We need a rule for when a porn actor's birth name should be included. The presumption should be against inserting these birth names, except in the most extraordinary of circumstance. People act in porn under assumed names for reasons of privacy and safety. We should honor the request for safety and privacy that acting under a stage name clearly requests. David in DC (talk) 02:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that David in DC's idea would leave us with a clear rule to follow. I like AniMate's last comment because I can deduce a rule from it. How about:

Give the real names of porn stars only when the names are reliably sourced, and only when the stars are noted for some activities outside of pornography.

This would cause us to include the real names of Jenna Jameson and Jeff Stryker, and omit the names of Lukas Ridgeston, Tim Hamilton (porn star) and Johan Paulik. EdJohnston (talk) 02:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well the first clause I have no problems with, and the second one shouldn't be a problem because anything that'll cause them to be mentioned by a reliable source will most likely be for outside of porn. Tabercil (talk) 03:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like both clauses too, and I personally feel it's essential to include the second part so that there is clarity on that point. --Jkp212 (talk) 05:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Section break

Give the real names of porn stars only when the names are reliably sourced, and only when the stars are noted for some activities outside of pornography.

This seems to be a popular and rational choice. Are there any objections? If there are, how would they be beneficial to building an encyclopedia? Ani Mate 07:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "objection" is very simple. If an actor's name is widely disseminated and reliably sourced it should be in the article. If one can google the actor's stage name along with the words "real name", "birth name", etc. and come up with a reliable source on the first page than the proverbial cat has escaped the bag. John celona (talk) 13:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your "objection" is of course not as simple as you try to tell again and again. It makes a BIG difference if you read a WP article about people in the porn business, which includes the real name, or if you read the same article without the real name and having to do an additional Google search on your own, which most people have no interest in at all except they have some ill intentions. As said above regarding Lukas Ridgeston and Tim Hamilton widely disseminated and reliably sourced are different from what Google is coming up with for both cases. To avoid any future discussions about this IMO the second part of the statement above in italic is very crucial. (Jamesbeat (talk) 15:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

It's important for WP to take a stand that, as many of the other editors, have mentioned above, WP should not be the primary vehicle for the spreading of this information unless there is a special reason (like activities outside of porn).. In Celona's example, he mentioned a situation where someone is actively seeking out a birth name of the actor's name (like a stalker); however, most people will come to the WP article not actively seeking out the actor's birth name, and therefore WP becomes the primary vehicle for the spread of this information. In other words, it's more complicated than just being reliably sourced, as Animate points out above. Secondly, without taking a firm stand you open up the door for irresponsible edits, such as this one by Celona [[6]] where the "reliable source" he cited was a porn site. --Jkp212 (talk) 16:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Widely disseminated? Here is a google search for Tim Hamilton with the "real" name you added to his article. John, you need to understand that we have to edit responsibly. It is something you seem to fight every time someone tells you that information isn't appropriate for the encyclopedia. You fought bitterly for all possible information to be written about two minors who were victims of sex crimes. You really have to start understanding WP:BLP and that when it is applied is not censorship but editors acting responsibly. Ani Mate 16:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both clauses make sense to me. Responsible editorial discretion is not censorship. WP:BLP is a more restrictive policy than many other institutions follow. It's one we should be rightly proud of. We should enforce it against indiscriminate, ill-advised, mean-spirited or careless editors. David in DC (talk) 20:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per this discussion, I've deleted Ridgeston's birth name.David in DC (talk) 20:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surely no one can argue Ridgeston's real name is not widely disseminated. I think it is more than absurd to say people with interest in celerities real names are "stalkers" John celona (talk) 22:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a google search with the real name you provided for Ridgeston showing that it is also not widely known. Again, you really need to read WP:BLP because you really don't seem to understand it... or at least you don't want to. Ani Mate 22:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is on almost every google hit! John celona (talk) 22:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

21 google hits is a joke when you compare the 78,000 google hits returned for his stage name. If there are only twenty or so places on the web that report his name, then it is not a widely known fact. From WP:BLP When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed... This name is not widely known and it has been intentionally concealed. Let it go. Ani Mate 22:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am disengaging from this issue-for now. It is sad that a handfull of pro-censorship editors can twist Wikipedia rules that compel boldness and inclusiveness and make them look like they compel a rather infantile, self-righteous censorship. For the record, for anyone reading this as an archive: There is NO regulation on Wikipedia distinguishing porn stars from any other actor or celebrity. If any actor's real name is reputably sourced and widely disseminated it SHOULD be in the article notwithstanding an actor's or a studio's wishes or alleged wishes. If a google search instantly reveals the actors real name through a reputable source the name belongs in the article. Don't be tricked by some sophist making the completely absurd argument that "20 sources isn't enough". Be bold and put the real name in. This is an encyclopedia not a game of "who can censor who" --many editors don't realize that John celona (talk) 00:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blah, blah, blah....Celona, I am glad you reach out to those who are "reading this as an archive" -- clearly you will be remembered and looked back as the noble sole who fought hard for the right to "out" the private names of porn stars. --Jkp212 (talk) 00:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I intend to catalog and revert all attempts to remove real names from porn star articles as the removal is blatant violation of WP:POINT. Sorry, but when you decide to be a porn star, you are relinquishing your right to hide your name. This is not a matter of opinion, since it is necessary to comply with the COPPA law. Anyway, as with any actor or author, when a pseudonym is used it is conventional to give the legal name as well. There is no consensus to change this policy and no rationale other then more hysterical WP:BLP hand-wringing. I will take a stand on this issue because I'm sick and tired of the extremists decimating our biographies. Fix obvious BLP errors, but do not remove verifiable information because you have some personal beliefs on privacy. WP:NOT here to be your privacy battleground, so take it to discussion boards if you want to gripe about it. Again, their choice to become a porn star invalidates their right to keep their real name secret. Accuracy and NPOV always trump WP:BLP; we are here to write informative articles for our readers, not play PR Firm for the subjects of biographies. No harm is done by listing the legal name other then fringe concerns invented by concern trolls. --Dragon695 (talk) 22:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. And a lot of what you've typed is put pretty incivilly. "[W]hen you decide to be a porn star, you are relinquishing your right to hide your name" is irrelevant. Getting the real name from a COPPA filing is the archetype of the behavior WP:NOR bans. And, as noted above, WP:BLP gives us pretty clear instructions on what to do if someone has purposely obsured their name, porn star or not. I think we're wise to be guided by the folks from the WP porn project, who have stated a pretty convincing case above, in my opinion, for removing porn actors' birth names unless they are known for something outside of porn.David in DC (talk) 22:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was rude, but my frustration is borne from seeing well intentioned fans of WP:BLP go to extremes to reduce our biographies to crappy stubs. Somebody has to stop this nonsense. WP:BLP is not a be all and end all to this project. The point of this project is write accurate, verifiable articles. Including the legal name is part of the accurate part and poses very minimal privacy concerns for those who have chosen to become actors. What industry they act in is irrelevant. --Dragon695 (talk) 23:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"I intend to catalog" is very different from "I am unilaterally reverting". The recent edits to Tim Hamilton's page are a disruption. Please stop. David in DC (talk) 22:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon says "fix obvious BLP errors"...One such obvious BLP error is including a poorly sourced name, the way Celona did above (source was a porn site)....You have encouraged him to engage in this type of behavior, which is not according to WP policy. --Jkp212 (talk) 22:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I will locate more reliable sources, including COPPA filings, and then re-insert the name. I will refrain from reverting any removals where the source was not reliable. But I reject this absurd notion that we must remove all legal names of actors because of privacy concerns. --Dragon695 (talk) 23:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am WP:IAR because 3 or 4 biased editors do not get to reinterpret policy. Citing reliable sources, such as a COPPA filing, is not WP:OR. This is SOP for all actors, we list the pseudonym and the legal name. We do not make exceptions for pornographic actors. Again, WP:BLP is not part of the WP:FIVE and it does not trump reporting accurate, verifiable information where there are no REASONABLE privacy concerns. A legal name is not a valid privacy concern for an actor; their decision to be an actor disqualifies them from this right. --Dragon695 (talk) 22:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BRAVO to you! As General Macarthur said-"I have returned!" John celona (talk) 23:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. You are not correct in stating that WP:BLP does not trump verifiable research -- it does. 2. You are, in fact, the one reinterpreting policy, which is pretty clear in terms of editing conservatively and trying to maintain privacy of semi-notable subjects. Especially when there is no clear benefit to the project to do otherwise. --Jkp212 (talk) 23:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jkp12 is correct. WP:BLP does trump verifiability. It's there because not all available information is appropriate for Wikipedia. If you disagree, then I think you should go about trying to have WP:BLP rejected by the community, Dragon695. Ani Mate 00:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree on this. WP:BLP is fully respected here and violation of WP:POINT is utter nonsense. In his statement Dragon695 has clearly expressed that his real intentions are everything but neutral. But that is how articles should be written on any encyclopedia and on WP and not in a biased, ill-minded and ill-intentioned way. I apologize if I sound rude, but I am really upset about people like John celona and now Dragon695 spinning words and rules that are agreed upon by the community just to appear as victims of censorship when in fact they are the 'culprits' vandalizing established rules. (Jamesbeat (talk) 12:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Care to make a point that is actually valid? WP:BLP is not universally accepted and there are still very contentious issues that still exist. The debates that happen on its talk page are rancorous and often very divisive. So I reject the notion that it has universal support, but that is besides the point. The bottom line is that actors in films, whether they be pornographic or not, do not get the same level of privacy that an average person does. It is their choice to become a notable subject. All of our biographies of actors who use pseudonyms list the real name. WP:NPOV does trump WP:BLP in that one class of actor will not be favored over another. Since you will not be successful in eliminating the real names in actors like Marilyn Manson, you can not justify eliminating it a pornographic actor's biography. --Dragon695 (talk) 22:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. And irregardless of BLP, I fail to see how adding the real names of people who are notable for their work in pornography under another name helps create a good article based on notable information about (their work in pornography under another name). If someone was notable for acting in pornography in the past and had now become an activist under another name and was engaging in activities that might become notable, then perhaps that other name would be suitable for inclusion to add research. But for the majority of these articles? Hell no. John Nevard (talk) 15:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry John, but we have plenty of pointless information. All actors using pseudonyms also have their real names listed. This is the default for just about every biography. The reason you and others want it removed is why? Why should porn actors get special treatment? WP:NPOV is very clear, we do not play favorites. There are no privacy concerns, if the information is reliably sourced, in it goes. It's a matter of consistency and accuracy. I'm sorry if the person is ashamed of being a porn actor, but perhaps they should have thought of that before they willingly chose to enter that profession. In light of that, I have already been busy making requests for COPPA documentation where only non-reliable sources document the real name. As these are official, government mandated documents, their accuracy cannot be disputed. Lastly, if you want to see just one of hundreds of biographies where the real name of actors with stage names are listed, please see Marilyn Manson. Note, nobody calls him by his real name in the media, but it is still a very factually relevent part of a biography. --Dragon695 (talk) 21:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you inform the rest of us what a COPPA filing is and how does one go about requesting this information? I mean is it a government document or database that's publicly available? Can you also explain to me how and why pornographic actors must disclose their real names to the public under COPPA when the law is aimed to protect the privacy of children when they surf the internet? I'm asking these questions because I believe you are advocating a point based on a misunderstanding of the law. Perhaps you're thinking of another law? Vinh1313 (talk) 17:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No BLP says:

“

Caution should be applied when naming individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed (such as in certain court cases), it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context.

”

— WP:BLP, Privacy of Names

I reinterpret nothing. It clearly leaves it open for discussion and the intent of preserving name privacy, as noted by the example court cases, is mainly to deal with people who are victims or otherwise in positions of great danger. Porn actors are not inherently victims and thus should be treated like any other actor with a stage name -- we should list the real name. WP:NPOV demands that these class of actors get no different treatment than those who are non-pornographic actors. If you can argue why non-pornographic actors should have their real names listed and why pornographic actors should not, without violating WP:NPOV, I am willing to listen. However, the discretion is clearly on a case by case basis and is left to the editor. I am willing to compromise in that I will endorse a temporary removal if there is documented evidence that an actor's live is in direct danger. What I will not accept is a blanket policy to omit all real names of actors with stage names. --Dragon695 (talk) 22:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus?

Does this represent a consensus now?:

Give the real names of porn stars only when the names are reliably sourced, and only when the stars are noted for some activities outside of pornography.

It looks to me like it does. David in DC (talk) 17:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I need clarification on the "notable activities" outside of pornography. Like say a family law dispute that makes the papers like the Racquel Darrian example [7]. It's clear even from the newspaper article that she is trying to protect her privacy. What if the actor willingly discloses his/her name in a porn publication like Dana DeArmond? Vinh1313 (talk) 16:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I can't see the Dana DeArmond example as being an issue as her actions make it clear she is voluntarily forgoing her privacy by deliberately and publicly using her real name. It's when the porn star is not acting to reveal their real name that's the crux of the issue here, such as the Raquel Darrian example, and I honestly can't imagine a messier situtation to use to try and figure out how the new policy works than the Darrian example. Tabercil (talk) 21:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No David you do not have a consensus. My own guideline would be to merely look and see if Answers.com gives there real name. You may have had a consensus a day ago but now you don't. I reserve the right to proceed without the consent of some extremely small group on some Wiki noticeboard. Please take note that Answers.com does not give out Brandy Alexandres real name. All of these cases must be taken on a case by case basis. You do not have consensus here. Sorry David but your interpretation of Blp and wiki is redolent of that of someone who has an agenda. These cases must be decided on a case by case basis or not at all. Albion moonlight (talk) 20:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid answers.com is a Wikipedia content mirror. They take our content for many of the articles there. Best to not discriminate and just do like we do for all biographies of actors with pseudonyms. --Dragon695 (talk) 22:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose. Like I said above, WP:NPOV demands that we give no favoritism to certain classes of biographies. Actors are actors, they choose to be in the spotlight even if they use a stage name. Being a porn actor is not a crime nor is it done unwillingly. The sense I get here is concern trolls who feel that porn actors are under some sort of extraordinary threat. I would argue that they are no more threatened than Marilyn Manson. We must have reliable, factual biographies so, like in the case of Marilyn Manson, we will list the real name once in the lead section once a very reliable source for the name is found. This is standard biography writing 101 people. Again, WP:NPOV demands that we treat them no differently then any other actor with a pseudonym. --Dragon695 (talk) 22:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if there is a consensus or not, but I think everyone can agree that these names need to be impeccably sourced. So far the names that were being fought over had awful sources. Most likely if really reliable sources have their names, they are notable for something outside of porn. It's not hard to find Marilyn Manson's real name in a reliable source, or Tom Cruise. If we're talking about hunting down COPPA filings for Eastern European porn stars, then yes, that is a BLP violation. Ani Mate 22:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources are in the eye of the beholder. No one gets too arbitrarily declare a source as unreliable, not even an admin can do that. Content disputes can and sometimes do go on forever. :Albion moonlight (talk) 23:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately, in this case the majority of the sources were blogs and lukeford.com which aren't considered reliable sources. There's nothing arbitrary about this, and if you'd investigated the background of this you'd see they're not reliable just like you'd see answers.com is a mirror of wikipedia. Ani Mate 23:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think (LOL) Washington Post is a pretty good source. That hasn't stopped the pro-censorship trolls. see [[8]]. John celona (talk) 00:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose To censor well-sourced (NY Times, washington Post, etc), widely disseminated names of actors is a rule only in David-pedia, not Wikipedia. Somebody needs to block this guy from manufacturing his own pro-censorship rules, falsely claiming "consensus" and then censoring all over Wikipedia with that spurious "consensus". An encyclopedia is about INCLUDING facts not censoring them. Save that for David-pedia. John celona (talk) 00:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an idea. Stop focusing on other editors and start focusing on the issues. "Pro-censorship trolls" and "David-pedia" don't help your argument at all. Ani Mate 00:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The case that I referenced above is here : Albion moonlight (talk) 23:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actualy AniMate I have seen many examples of the opposite wherein Answers.com does not mirror Wikipedia. But even if I am wrong about that, reliable sources are in fact in the eye of the beholder. You can wikilawyer until you are blue in the face and quote wiki rules adinfinitum but the fact of the matter is that the arbitration committee does not decide content issues. and mediation is not binding. The only rules that are enforced by admin are ones pursuant to behavior. You have heard of the ignore all rules rule on wiki have you not.? It all comes down to consensus and civility. Excuse me now while I go and collect examples pursuant to the mirror theory. Albion moonlight (talk) 04:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does mirror Wikipedia, but unlike Wikipedia, it's not a Wiki that evolves in real time. That will allow for variations between the two platforms; however, each time this happens, answers.com catches up, and mirrors a more current Wikipedia version. --Jkp212 (talk) 05:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually arguing against Jkp212 about letting a porn star's name being allowed in an article. Ty Fox has had extensive coverage in reliable sources like the Washington Post, sourcing birth names to blogs is just sloppy. Ani Mate 05:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In general I agree with AniMate that sourcing birth names to blogs is sloppy, I do however think that there could very well be exceptions to any rule of thumb. Here, is an example of what I have been trying to say. It is one of the Pillars of wikpedia. I prefer it when we all agree to adhere to it. :Albion moonlight (talk) 08:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Related case Talk:Calpernia_Addams#Calpernia.27s_wishes and the fact that should the subject of an article express concerns about their birth name being included in their article the edits can be deleted and oversighted. Birth names of performers are encyclopedic information and if they can be reliably sourced then they should be included, unless there is demonstrable harm on a case-by-case basis. The notion that this particular type of performer requires some extra notability beyond that of their chosen profession is untenable. I am aware of no other class of articles, biographical or otherwise, that are required to meet this burden either for inclusion in the encyclopedia or for the inclusion a particular piece of encyclopedic information. Otto4711 (talk) 18:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not including in articles the real name of porn actors is in full compliance with WP:BLP and the other cited rules. It is utter nonsense to argue it is censorship. Censorship would be to delete those articles. It definitely makes a difference if people are acting in mainstream movies or in the porn business. Adding the real name of porn actors does not make a better article but is doing stalker's business like the Johan Paulik case has proofen. An encyclopedia has to be responsible and not to be like a tabloid. Therefore it should respect the privacy of people and not serve ill minded people like John celona, who use unreliable and bad sources to add real names. As the consensus above shows there is no arguing about publishing the names when the criteria are met. Again it is just spinning words and rules that have been agreed upon by the community to make editors appear as victims of censorship when in fact these editors are trying to 'vandalizing' established rules. (Jamesbeat (talk) 22:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Washington Post or a mainstream US Tv station are "unreliable and bad sources" only for self-appointed censors like you. John celona (talk) 11:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear John, you neither gave Washington Post nor a mainstream TV station as source in the two cases that led to this discussion. Both I certainly would not have questioned as unreliable and bad sources and we would have argued about ethics and not about sources. What made the difference was that your sources then were a gay guide and a gay porn blog.

Well James, you seem to misunderstand what wiki means by consensus I will assume good faith and remind you that consensus does not exist until everyone either agrees or agrees to disagree. That is clearly not the case here. Second of all you should really avoid making personal attacks by calling people ill minded or vandals. That kind of behavior can get you blocked from editing wikipedia. I am not an ill minded person James nor am I a vandal. So please take it easy on the insults. OK ?? They are not helpful. :Albion moonlight (talk) 05:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe I used the word "censorship" in discussing this situation, but as long as you bring up that politically charged buzzword, I would point out the Wikipedia is not censored. There is a process in place on a case-by-case basis for dealing with the real name of anyone, porn performer or not, appearing in the article and that is to delete the edits and oversight them. I have not followed the alleged Johan Paulik "stalking" case but since Wikipedia requires reliable secondary sources the notion that his name not having been included in a Wikipedia article would have prevented a stalker or anyone else from finding his name is ludicrous, since to be in a Wikipedia article it needs to be available elsewhere already. There is no consensus that I see here that including real names of porn stars (or anyone else) is acceptable only if they are notable for something other than being a porn star. The requirement of reliable sourcing proposed here is redundant to existing policies and the proposed requirement that they be notable for something outside of pornography is stupid and I cannot support any suggestion that there is consensus for this requirement. Otto4711 (talk) 21:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would not have prevented a stalker from finding the name. But it makes a BIG difference if you have to search the net on your own or you just go to Wikipedia as your primary source. Again. This is straight from BLP Policy: "When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed as in certain court cases, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context". The real names of porn actors have intentionally been concealed AND omitting them does not result in a significant loss of context. Both these WP criterias are met when dealing with this issue. But to avoid significant loss of context it was proposed that when these persons are notable for something outside of pornography the name couild be added if properly sourced, of course. So this requirement is anything but stupid. (Jamesbeat (talk) 22:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

By the way, is there a single reliable source that Johan was stalked by someone because his real name was on Wikipedia? How can you stalk someone without their address or phone number neither of which appear (or should appear) on Wikipedia?John celona (talk) 23:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering that myself. I did some looking around and couldn't find any indication that Johan has ever been stalked, either based on his Wikipedia article or otherwise. Even if he had been, the notion that Wikipedia is responsible for protecting people against stalkers is ludicrous. Anyone could decide to stalk any living person; should we remove all biographical information from all living people out of the fear that someone somewhere might stalk them? I completely support the notion that on a case-by-case basis, where the person (regardless of his or her occupation) can demonstrate that having their birth name in a Wikipedia article is causing them actual harm, then Wikipedia should restrict the inclusion of their birth name. "Someone might do something mean to me" is not a legitimate excuse for omitting encyclopedic and verifiable information. The notion that Wikipedia is responsible for the consequences of being a one-click stop for biographical information as opposed to forcing a hypothetical stalker to do a little extra work is silly. Otto4711 (talk) 23:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amen to that. I think IDMB is a good enough source for birth names but perhaps not for gossip. But that does not mean I think any of us have the right to try and vilfy those who disagree with us. Wikilawyering can be very disruptive. All Blp cases need to be regarded on a case by case basis. It is not up to us to declare IDMB or any other source as unreliable for the whole of wikipedia. Jimbo and a few others have that right but we don't. :Albion moonlight (talk) 00:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For sourcing BLPs, all sources in an article must be proven to be reliable for the information they represent. If there's doubt, leave it out. That's what our policy says. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 17:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia and do have fun while you are learning about how things really work here. Albion moonlight (talk) 00:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome. As a longstanding Wikipedian who has contributed significantly to most areas of Wikipedia policy, I'm surprised to find that I'm still considered a newcomer. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 01:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well to be fair, unless someone knows to look for the link to your previous username, then you do appear to be relatively new. Still, the idea of using shoddy sources for controversial BLp issues is appalling. A ni Mate 01:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Above, a couple of folks questioned whether Johan Paulik has, in fact been stalked. One has called trying to make sure WP doesn't become The Stalker's Handbook a silly endeavor.

But there is a Slovak ice hockey player with the same name that is alleged to be Johan Paulik's birth name. He plays on an Irish ice hockey team and is listed here on WP. I can find no online source that indicates this ice hockey player has been stalked on the assumption that he is Johan Paulik. But it's not hard to believe. And Jamesbeat has reported to us that Johan Paulik HAS been stalked. There's no good reason to think JB made this up.

First, do no harm. Not Silly. Err on the side of caution. Not Silly. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Very Not Silly.

Irish soccer hooligans can be pretty vicious. It's hard to imagine that Irish ice hockey fans would be less so.David in DC (talk) 03:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you are saying David but I don't think wiki is responsible for the actions of soccer fans or hockey fans. I do not believe that JB made it up I just think his or her rationale is not all that compelling. Albion moonlight (talk) 05:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC) Albion moonlight (talk) 05:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. We can agree to disagree. On another note, thank you for the chuckle. Your greeting to the new editor above made me laugh out loud when I followed the link to his talk page and understood your joke. David in DC (talk) 15:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason not to assume the "stalking" was made up. When asked for a RS the user dissapeared from the discussion. John celona (talk) 00:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no reason except for WP:AGF anyway. But assuming JB's good faith is pretty important.David in DC (talk) 11:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for having 'disappeared'. But sometimes unexpected things happen and WP becomes the least important concern. The Johan Paulik stalking happened about ten years ago. It was reported over here at the time in a TV feature about the Prague gay scene. During a short interview Johan Paulik mentioned having been victim to a stalker because his real name had been published. The incident was also shortly discussed on a forum. The forum went offline around 2000. So there is no trace to be found any more, which leaves me of course with no real evidence to proof this story. But it was not made up.

What I was trying to say about "to make sure WP doesn't become The Stalker's Handbook" is that contrary to the IMDb the real names are available on WP to everyone sometimes even accompanied by a picture for easy identification whereas the IMDb has no head shots. The IMDb even requires additional steps to view adult content. The name is also not on the first page. Call it nit-picking but it makes a big difference. For the reliability of the IMDb and the use of real names you should give this a try [[9]]. Although adding data to the IMDb is monitored and has some restrictions for contributing a fair amount of unreliable and unsourced data gets published.

Regarding COPPA filings. These are confidential documents mandated by the government but not intended to be published. So using them is a violation of BLP. (Jamesbeat (talk) 10:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Re COPPA filings. Using them as a source is pretty much the archetype of what WP:NOR prohibits.David in DC (talk) 12:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does not really matter what any of us think about IDMB or any other source unless we have a consensus. And even then consensus can change at the drop of a hat. The link provided by Jamesbeat that declares that IDMB is is unreliable for real names provides no proof of its allegations and still would not be binding even if it did provide such proof. But now that I know that thus may be the case I would be more inclined to look for additional internet sources that provide the same name that IDMB does. Arguing about the reliability of sources is all too often used as a way to promote ones agenda. Each Blp must be taken on a case by case basis. It is as simple as that. The Ignore all rules pillar is a very powerful rule. :Albion moonlight (talk) 22:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless a source is known to be reliable, we don't use it for biographical information. imdb is far from being known to be reliable, and we should never use it for biographical information that is at all sensitive. For such purposes we must demand unimpeachable sources. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 23:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb is not a reliable source for one reason: It uses user-submitted, unverified content. That is the definition of a non-reliable source. End of story. FCYTravis (talk) 00:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The story ends when a consensus says it ends. If someone wants to contest a sources reliabity they are allowed to do so by making a complaint to the Blp noticeboard. There is also a mediation committee but neither they or the arbitration committee decides content disputes. So here we are stuck in conundrum. There is no sense in Wikilawyering. Wiklawyering is disruptive. 00:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC): Albion moonlight (talk) 00:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "consensus" about it - IMDb is not a reliable source for the purposes of sensitive and personal information. FCYTravis (talk) 01:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FCYTravis is an administrator. What I now reccomend is that anyone who wants to use IDMB as a source should first check with another administrator before they do so. I just reread the section on Blps and realized that admins are given too much power in dealing with sources. So in cases where admins insist that a source can not be used one would be foolish to use it without checking with another admin first. Albion moonlight (talk)

It's not about whether I'm an admin or not :) It's about the simple fact that IMDb is composed of user-submitted content which is not necessarily verified or fact-checked. That means the information it contains is not necessarily accurate and there is no system of editing and supervision that works to ensure only truthful information is published. It would be like using Wikipedia as a source for a Wikipedia article. For biographies in particular, we need to take our information only from reliable sources, such as newspapers, reputable magazines and television programs, edited and fact-checked Web sites, etc. FCYTravis (talk) 08:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please tell us where you get your information about IDMB ?

One way to get the birth name information in without ultimately needing the permission of admin('s) is to simply say something like,it is widely believed that such and such's real name is, and use several references to back it up. I have seen this done when referring to hate groups as hate groups. The fact that a member of the arbitration committee was actively involved in that case, suggests to me that it it is OK to do that. : Albion moonlight (talk) 23:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The case that I referenced above can be found here : Albion moonlight (talk) 23:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is acceptable for an organization, is not necessarily acceptable for a living person. It is not acceptable to use such unverified speculation in biographies. FCYTravis (talk) 01:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is awful. You're actively trying to figure out ways to skirt policy. Policy isn't in place to hamper editors, it's here to help editors and protect the encyclopedia. I think you should re-read BLP and attempt to explain your understanding of it, since you and John celona both seem to have any idea why the policy is there and what it actually means. A ni Mate 02:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am pointing out ways to get around what I and others view as a too narrow an interpretation of Blp policy. If Jimbo or one of those people in the upper most echelons want to keep the real names of pornstars a secret they have the power and the right to do so. The rest of us are stuck with business as usual. :Albion moonlight (talk) 05:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If BLP disallows something, the solution isn't to try and find a back door way to sneak around the policy - it's to leave the material out. Trying to Wikilawyer BLP is not a smart idea. FCYTravis (talk) 05:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely not a good idea to try to circumvent our policies. Although I've no doubt you don't intend anything underhanded, it's difficult for an administrator viewing your edits to work out whether or not you are engaging in a disruptive form of editing known as Gaming the system. Even if an administrator doesn't take action, other editors may begin to lose trust in you and, ultimately, in Wikipedia. Readers will see the weasel words in an article and lose faith. It's better to search for solid, unimpeachable information, if it exists, and cite it when you find it, being prepared to change your mind if your judgement is overruled. We all submit to this standard, nobody is asking you to do something that isn't expected of all of us. --Jenny 05:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NB: Until recently I edited Wikipedia using the account "Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The" --Jenny 05:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Section break, again

I must agree with Jenny (at least that's the current signature). Why you think this is such necessary information, I don't know, but you do. Again, WP:BLP is here to protect not only the subjects of articles, but it's also here to protect us. When it comes to real people, we have to be careful, thoughftul, and patient. It's really all summed up by this:

I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons.

–Jimmy Wales [10]

Pseudo information includes spurious claims from questionable websites. Clear enough? A ni Mate 06:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So go ahead and delete them where you find them and lets see what the rest of wiki has to say about it. I can live with a wiki that disallows all mention of a pornstars real names. But for some reason some of you seem unwilling to live with a wikipedia that does allow it. Anyway I am through with this discussion because it only seems to be going in circles. I assure you that I will not edit war with you or encourage others to do so. If one of those articles goes to an Rfc or to mediation or even arbitration I may join in. But as for this discussion if I am the only one blocking consensus (and I am one of 3 or 4], I hereby withdraw my dissent and agree to disagree. Best wishes to everyone.: Albion moonlight (talk) 07:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't particularly like the idea of censoring real names of actors commonly known by their stage names based on what type of film they perform in. That doesn't follow me as particularly logical, and it seems to me like a gross violation of the principle of a neutral point of view toward which we are supposed to be striving toward.

Naturally, if there's only sketchy information available (like citations on blogs), then it should be removed, just like any information that can't be reliably sourced should be; but the idea of removing information that can be reliably sourced simply because someone doesn't like it and tried to hide it really rubs me the wrong way. This isn't a case like Genie (where I also argued for the inclusion of the real name), where the subject at least didn't have a choice about the things that made her notable; this is a case where someone has intentionally sought notability and has had to suffer the consequences of living life that way. Having your identity known widely can be one of the prices of that, and it isn't our place to be unnecessarily sympathetic towards peoples' problems at the expense of the usefulness of the project. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 06:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right people make choices and have to live with the consequences. If someone chooses a career and tries to hide their name but it comes out in multiple reliable secondary sources, then so be it. But the question is, should we at wikipedia be spreading information that isn't already widely available? The answer IMHO is no. And actually I for one don't care whether they are porn actors, scientists or internet celebrities. It is not our job to dig out information from primary sources and tell the world because information wants to be free (or whatever). It does get a little more complicated when we have a person who has been widely covered but who's name is only sourced to one albeit reliable secondary source and I won't discuss this sort of case for now. And definitely if the information is widely covered in secondary sources, then I would have no problem with the information being included, whatever the wishes of the subject. But using primary sources to uncover information not already cited in secondary sources reaks of OR and a privacy violation to me. P.S. I agree the Genie case, which I argued against inclusion of the real name is different in character and doesn't add much to this discussion Nil Einne (talk) 16:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How then to square that with the part of WP:BLP that says this, and especially this:

"Caution should be applied when naming individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed (such as in certain court cases), it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context."?

And how to square it with this, and most especially this:

"Wikipedia articles that present material about living people can affect their subjects' lives. Wikipedia editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm". It is not Wikipedia's purpose to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. BLPs must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy."? David in DC (talk) 17:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd much rather see something referenced by primary sources than something by secondary sources, especially with regards to things that may be controversial; using a primary source allows us to look just at the facts; not at the biases, the prose of people another layer disconnected from the facts, but just the relevant facts. Primary sources are fine for simple, descriptive claims; i.e, some presidents have made their tax returns publicly available, "This person claimed this on their taxes"; there is absolutely nothing wrong with citing a publicly-available tax return for that; I think it would be preferable to do that than to cite a secondary report on it, since we're closer to the information that way and less open to re-reporting bias, which should always be avoided. It's only a problem when you have to use synthesis to get an article out of it.

If something is available in a database and it straight-out tells you what someone's name is with zero or near-zero doubt, then it shouldn't matter whether it's a trademark application or an article in the New York Times; they both serve the same function. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 22:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But then the database has to be reliably sourced, hasn't it? The IMDb for instance is anything but a reliable database when it comes to adult films. Wrong data and stage names on movie pages, actors incorrectly listed in films they don't appear in, wrong ID connections as well as no source given where the biographical data originates from. So why should this information be accepted when it is in fact based on the same sketchy information that is not regarded as a reliable source by Wikipedia standards? (Jamesbeat (talk) 09:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I don't think that using Imdb is what Celanor is talking about but I do know that there are ways of covering wiki's butt and still using IMDb and or other such sources. The question then becomes should we do so? I think that each case should be taken on its own merits. But there are others here that strongly disagree. Albion moonlight (talk) 11:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I was referring to. First, the IMDB isn't a reliable source; it accepts user-generated content. Second, it isn't a primary source. With regards to film, a primary source would be the film itself (i.e, using the film's ending credits as a source for who was in the film or something else that is very, very obvious restatement of fact). I was talking about public (read: government-maintained) databases of public information, like lists of non-profit charities, trademark applications, and the like. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 16:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes thats what I thought you were saying. I think your idea is a good one. Albion moonlight (talk) 00:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon 695 is right in one way. We should not have a special policy for porn stars. WP should not reveal the real names of any persons who use pseudonyms to conceal their identity. The pornstar case should be cited merely as an particular example of this policy.

My proposed wording: Where a person uses a pseudonym to conceal their identity (e.g. whistleblowers, political bloggers, pornstars) then Wikipedia should respect their privacy and not reveal their real name. This policy even applies where the pseudonym is used to conceal criminal activity (revealing a real name in such a case is accusing that person of being a criminal - possibly slanderous). Where the real name has not been concealed or is widely known (this is a more onerous requirement than being merely verifiable) then it can be included.

Note that most actors do not use pseudonyms to conceal their real names but for other reasons such as another actor already using that name or chosing a name that sounds more macho, more American or whatever.Filceolaire (talk) 14:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

==Talk: John Michell (writer) 91.84.204.125|91.84.204.125 was warned by 4 editors of vandalism and flame warring a month before my edit of his non-neural words like "fascist" "follower of fascistr", "admirer of Hitler", "Forty Years of Involvement with Fascism" plus collusion with a distateful editor and author. All untrue terms which I attempted to neutralize in accordance with POV and civility Wiki policies. 91.84.204.125|91.84.204.125 has called the editors of the talk page idiots. My gripe is that his facts are untrue and distorted. This user has a personal grudge against this well-regarded, highly respected living author. 91.84.204.125|91.84.204.125 has also posted threats as if he was an administrator on my User pager (see History). He blanks out his own User Talk and often refuses to sign his anonomous posts in an attempt to thwart undo. My first course of action to him was a polite note and a copy of the Wiki notice about living authors on the top of the talk page which only served to encourage his loaded terms. Thanks for your time. SageMab (talk) 00:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Section break, one more

Once a performer gives up a pseudonym in an interview, or even writes something like an autobiography to sell in mass media ads, one could argue that there is no point in concealing the birth name on Wikipedia. However that is the sole exception. How many "Jenna Jamesons" with pop star status are there in porn valley? I think AIM health care tests more than 1,200 actors monthly. Sure not everyone reaches the notability to be included on Wikipedia (although with 300 AVN advert nominations a year many will find their article stub pop up here sooner or later) Anyway, how many of them do you think will want to get another job maybe two years later on? The long careers are pretty much a thing of the past as many rush through the biz in months. With XXX web content on the rise most production companies don't build up stars anymore. So does it have any real world consequences to have your name revealed on Wikipedia by some asshole best boy or webmaster who makes a copy of your passport and later adds cast lists at imdb? You bet!

"that most actors do not use pseudonyms to conceal their real names but for other reasons" as stated by Filceolaire couldn’t be farther from reality.

(Sorry. I wasn't clear.This sentence refers to non-porn actors, many of whom have pseudonyms. I added this sentence to my post to show that the policy I proposed would not stop us revealing that John Wayne's real name was Marion Morrison.Filceolaire (talk) 19:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

There's a usually respected codex not under any circumstances to reveal the civil identity of another performer even if you are friends with. The story of a fan "who just tries to help" out Wikipedia by adding some alleged birth name found somewhere on the net, on any kind of blog, online forum, social network where people sign up with stolen identities etc. or even completely unsourced is just too hard to believe. In my opinion you can entirely forget about the assume good faith policy in such cases.

Pseudonyms are used to partly escape the social stigmata any sex worker will experience, unless s/hes already a trademark in pop culture. That's just one side to this story there's another. Wikipedia lists many performers from European countries, and what Jkp212 said about "Actors such as these who choose to have stages names are also intentionally concealing their birth name, which they have every right to do." pretty much hits the nail in the coffin.

Take for example France or Germany. In these countries you not only do you have a right of informational self-determination, you can even sue people over it. While every foreign language version of Wikipedia may have it's own set of rules the Wikipedia editors living in these countries can't escape their law system pointing to some "that's how we do it on Wikipedia" babble.

So with the purposed policy change you not only protect Wikipedia but also editors in these foreign countries who won't believe they will be traced and fined until it's too late.

The analogy with some politicians(!) public charity or tax returns used as primary sources for birth names just doesn't cut it. Limitations to this informational self-determination are allowed only in case of overriding public interest. This would be a given in case you run for major in some town, however with some regular porn star performer an European court would always let the right to conceal your identity outweigh public interest. It's pretty much a no brainer even some one without legal education should get just based on ethical values alone. This holds true for the majority of performers in the adult biz! Of course in such discussions people often cherry pick the few(!) super stars, some of which even released autobiographies featuring their real name.

Then this notion about how Wikipedia does not contain telephone numbers and addresses, hence no risk for a performer to be stalked. Heck, if an anonymous editor posts something like "today Madam Kristyna Zmrznlina lives in..." some random American village" . Now how many Zrmzlinas might live there? This is not Bel Air. I think you get the idea.

There seems to be a terrible bias among some admins in foreign wikis that it has to rain OTRS tickets before a performer gets what is basically a fundamental right.

How about whoever adds a real name to porn stars biography gets banned immediately? No I'm serious, I mean such a zero tolerance policy would be way simpler than trying to explain most porn fans how to balance private interests versus public interests. To handle such thing on a case-by-case basis binds unnecessary human resources and frankly most editors don't have what it takes to make such decisions on a level a real world judge would do it in a court.

and even in the few(!) cases where the birth name has been sourced with consent by the talent in question (e.g. autobiograhpy, interview) it wouldn't affect the article quality in my eyes.

"My own guideline would be to merely look and see if Answers.com gives there real name" Albion moonlight

As stated above answers.com is just one of many commercialized mirrors of Wikipedia. They just seem to have some time delay on the updates, and sometimes articles are editorially edited, most often not. Before making your own guideline try to think about where your freedom to make any such guideline ends. It sounds easy but it ain't, since we're not just talking sources here but personality rights. You might be able to generate thousands of Google hits for some source and it's worth nothing if you infringe the personality rights of a performer. In worst case scenario they might engage a lawyer and rightfully shred you to pieces.

" I would argue that they are no more threatened than Marilyn Manson" Dragon695

Marilyn Manson is a world famous rock star, he doesn't need to work anymore, it's nothing like the plain Jane 30 year old ex performer who just ended her valley career in favor for a little family. The word pornSTAR is pretty much misleading, they don't play in the same league, it's not even the same sport dude ;)

Who pays for the kids to visit a private school just because some clown thought it was a good idea to publicly spread real names of their parents via Wikipedia?

NEVER reveal any real names of adult actors unless they have disclosed these names themselves in autobiographies, interviews or other activities outside porn they became notable for.

So once again:

Everyone has a right of informational self-determination, in many European countries this is written law.

Limitations to this informational self-determination are allowed only in case of overriding public interest. For example a porn actor becoming a politician (think Ilona Staller) or some mega success outside the biz (like pulling a Hilton, as you can't have it both ways) or releasing an autobiography and cruising through talk shows in mass media, or becoming a mainstream actor using your real name.

The majority of porn actors uses stage names for the sole reason to conceal their civil identity, this should be reflected by the policy change. Further all references to birth names have to be wiped from the article history as well as all entry fields in the adult actors info box. Consistently all links to databases using unverified user submitted information which might infringe personality rights of the articles subject have to be removed too.

It makes no sense to remove a name from the article and then backlink to it later on. Just as an aside there have been cases where even mainstream Hollywood actors have fought with imdb, however it goes without saying that most people in porn just can not afford such legal battles. My advices for adult actors is to enter a wrong name at imdb yourself. Sooner or later some creepy fan will import such names to Wikipedia anyway. Pretty much the same goes for birth dates...

One of the worst arguments brought up is "they" can't stop anyone from finding whatever questionable source was used to put in a birth name first place. It just doesn't matter, since Wikipedia is one primary source of information for many people and it's content is copied in hundreds of smaller special interest databases all over the internet. So there definitely is a reason for some one who wants to conceal an identity to remove any such data from Wikipedia.

In borderline cases, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm", so now act accordingly and act consequent. A little note for European performers: You should get that you don't live at the mercy of some honorable OTRS helpers, in many European countries it's entirely possible to take Wikipedia down with a preliminary injunction, until Wikipedia starts to protect personality rights with some special peer group of members (a legal education background would be great) that can react to such edits in time.

If such a thing can not be organized Wikipedia will have to adapt, like freezing all biographies and let every edit by an anyonymous editor be watched over by some other experienced editor BEFORE becoming visible in the article or the article history, by treating biographies on living persons like that, such articles would loose the possibility to be updated in real time in favor for protecting the personality rights of the subject.

For this idea to become reality it would only need a small change to the review system which gets currently tested on the German language Wikipedia. Those of you regulary patrolling porn star bios for vandalism might even agree with me that such a thing could save them huge amounts of time. Mean-spirited people would loose interest in adding crap to biographies real quick with such a system in place.

In the overwhelming majority of cases you will not be able to source that a name has been released with consent of the subject in question. Why is this consent important at all? You can derive that from the right of informational self-determination which preempts and limits the rights of any public interest group. As to why a porn star has to be treated much differently from some mainstream actor living a sheltered, bodyguarded Hollywood media life should be obvious. Such persons get listed in the credits of blockbusters with their real name. Whenever Hollywood stars would decline to get credited with their real name and sign the contracts accordingly from the very start of their professional career, they had to be treated in the same way as porn stars on Wikipedia.

That holds also true in the Savanna Samson case brought up by Tabercil, where there was an article in the NYT featuring her birth name. There is no "the cat is out of the bag thing", if the NYT would publish a name without consent they would be liable. Get a decent lawyer and you could be looking at big $$$.

Conclusion: Although I much favor a zero tolerance policy I could live with what was purposed above. But you absolutely need to change this "other activities outside porn" sentence to something like "other activities outside porn they became notable with" to make any sense at all. Otherwise you might get adds in the likes of Madam X ranked second in the ice skating finals in junior high, her real name is blah blah and she entered porn in...

"There is no real benefit in publishing the names and no significant loss of context in not doing so" Jamesbeat Exactly. Of course there is a real benefit in NOT publishing the birth names of adult performers, apart from the fact that such a decision should be left to the performer first place and this fundamental right of informational self-determination is protected in many countries ;)

"Responsible editorial discretion is not censorship. WP:BLP is a more restrictive policy than many other institutions follow. It's one we should be rightly" proud of. We should enforce it against indiscriminate, ill-advised, mean-spirited or careless editors."

David in DC

Now this is something I can truly rally behind. xoxo 3vil-Lyn (talk) 18:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoo-boy, this is the most cogent and thorough treatment of this topic I have seen and it warms my heart. I hope it becomes the basis for real, consistently enforced, definitive policy on this topic. (Except that quote from that David in DC guy. He sometimes comes across as awfully self-righteous.) David in DC (talk) 15:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aww, *blush* thank you so much for starting my morning off with a laugh! :)

I'm no native English speaker, but I do hope I could give those of you who struggle to find some arguments to bring what common sense should tell you in line with the Wikipedia policies a helping hand - either legally or ethically. I think it can't hurt the wiki-community to take a look at those European countries with some of the more advanced privacy and publicity right laws. We can learn something from it by trying to understand their intention and looking at the long history of OTRS tickets on porn star bios.

I am convinced that ultimately the pornography portal would gain from such a strict enforcement on porn stars biographies when it comes to birth names and vandalism. Once news about such a policy change goes out, some actors might even be less hesitant to supply pictures of themselves ;)

C'mon every talent really interested in having their picture on Wikipedia could supply one, it doesn't come as a surprise almost no one wants to do it when anonymous posters are allowed to use their namespace as a piece of jotting paper for their mental blackouts and you can be almost sure some so-called fan adds a birth name every month to update the article history no matter the endless efforts of the guys currently trying to enforce WP:BLP. Let's put an end to this. Give names only with sourced consent of the actor unless the real name was used with notable activities outside porn, just like we do it for copyright stuff on Commons.

We should also establish a flagged revision editing system on biographies of living persons just like it's done on the German Wikipedia, maybe with a twist that is no publication without oversight of an experienced editor (registered user with an X amount of edits, who's account is then responsible for the approval, that should put an end to anonymous WP:BLP violations). As for a nicer wording I'd humbly like to request the help of a native English speaker. ;) 3vil-Lyn (talk) 00:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for a vote

There appear to be two views here. One that porn stars' real names can and should be added to all articles, the other that they should not be added except in specific circumstances.

I am of the second opinion, however I believe this is a particular case of a more general issue and I believe we should draft a policy for the general issue of when to reveal the real name of a person notable under a pseudonym.

My proposal is to add the following section to the BLP page, after the Well known public figure section and before the People who are relatively unknown section.

It should read as follows:

Pseudonyms

Where a person uses a pseudonym to conceal his or her identity (e.g. whistleblowers, political bloggers, pornstars) then Wikipedia should respect privacy and not reveal the real name. This policy even applies where the pseudonym is used to conceal criminal activity (revealing a real name in such a case is accusing that person of being a criminal — possibly libellous). Where the real name has not been concealed or is widely known (this is a more onerous requirement than being merely verifiable) then it can be included where it will add to an article.Filceolaire (talk) 19:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I support this idea. People should not have to worry about being "outed" by Wikipedia. That's not our job. Kaldari (talk) 04:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on the grounds that all WP material must be wp:verifiable, so the person's real name is actually on the public record already. If the WP editor could find it, then so could anybody else. Also, generally, it is unwise to stifle information. As an aside, the definition could be edited to be more accurate — e.g., his or her identity, not their identity, and libelous, not slanderous. Yours in rather spirited defense of freely available information, GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edited to incorporate these changes. Thanks. Filceolaire (talk) 09:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This provision is already covered by verifiability and BLP, since any "outing" would have to be sourced to strong reliable sources, in which case the person has been outed anyway. I don't think it hurts to emphasize that compromising BLP information must be extremely well sourced, but I can see some being concerned about instruction creep. --Gimme danger (talk) 06:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The issue arose where WP editors were getting real names from minor blogs and from legal documents (such as age declarations and trademark registrations) to out pornstars real names. This change to BLP would make it clear that even if the person has been outed before on some obscure source that does not make it appropriate to out them on WP.Filceolaire (talk) 09:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)\[reply]

Those editors were blatantly violating reliable source standards for BLPs and conducting original research then. The issue of using legal documents is a good point. Perhaps a statement indicating that compromising information, such as true identity, may not be tied to original sources, but instead must appear in a reliable, synthetic source like a magazine or newspaper. Wikipedia editors should leave the investigative journalism to the professionals. Gimme danger (talk) 14:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose... respecting their privacy should not be our concern. The only thing that should concern us is that it has been reported in a reliable, verifiable source. Perhaps the wording in WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:BLP needs to be strengthened in that respect, however the fundamental problem is inevitable. People think "ZOMG1!1 I can edit this, guess what I just heard... everyone needs to hear this." What needs to happen, in my opinion, is more of a strict application of current policy in excising information that cannot be reliably sourced. Maybe add a section to WP:BLP stating that a person's connection to their pseudonym needs an inline reliable source, and it should be removed without one (as opposed to adding {{fact}} to it). --Storkk (talk) 10:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - If their real name can be verified by strong independent sources (not forums and blogs) and is already publicly known then it should be added. However, if they are only notable under their pseudonym and their real name cannot be verified then it should not be added. Ғїяеѕкатея^talk 12:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely strong oppose - If information can be verified, it should be included. Wikipedia is not a PR agency. We need to drop this self-important sense of being mighty gate-keepers of knowledge and only letting the little people know what it is appropriate for the little people to know. If it can be verified, it can be included! We're certainly not "outing" anyone if the information has already appeared in something we consider a reliable source. How is it even possible to make that argument? We are an encyclopedia, not a private security service. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 01:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion

Hello Filceolaire :) Let me say, first, that I do like your idea of a more general approach, however I'm afraid your wording in the second part ("Where the real name has not been concealed or is widely known then it can be included where it will add to an article") doesn't help much, it might make things even worse. Look, you at no point have the right to make such a decision for a perfomer.

Not you, not Jimmy Wales ;), not even a hundred Wikipedia editors who might vote here can decide about whether or not a certain adult actors privacy rights should be abrogated.

Just look at Katja Kassin's case, some German admin made a Google search and said voilà a thousand hits for her birth name, so it's widely known and the name should be restored. What this particular editor overlooked was that he never was in the position to decide such matters according to the law of his country. Apart from the fact that neither IMDb nor any of the other fan databases are reputable sources and a birth name often adds nothing to a porn stars biography at all, since they are usually not known by their birth names.

What some people try to do here is transfer the privacy right of an individual to the community, that won't fly with me ;)

It doesn't matter whether a name has been concealed somewhere nor if it's widely known according to Google or similar search engines (anyone can spread such a thing all over the internet in no time - in hours even) given that Wikipedia is one primary source of information for many people.

The one thing that does matter is whether or not a birth name has been spread with the permission of the adult actor and that's about it. (as long as the birth name wasn't used in other notable activities outside the porn industry, as you can't have it both ways, see, e.g. Sibel Kekilli).

So even if the New York Times or any other paper or online zine for that matter would publish such a name without permission and the case goes to court, Wikipedia would not be allowed to cite the source as soon as it becomes clear that the name wasn't cleared. To prevent any such scenario right from the start it would be best to have a zero tolerance policy on porn star bios and work on the proposed changes to the Wikipedia editing system. Such a special treatment to biographies of living persons would make sense anyway, whenever dealing with articles at high risk of vandalism (porn stars, politicians during a campaign,...).

I do get a feeling though that article histories and back links to birth names are deliberately neglected all across the Wikipedia project (no matter the language), as if some people would think the actors are somewhat not technical savvy enough to realize how they are taken for a fool.

So to push this policy change, ALL article histories (including discussion sites) which contained birth names at some point of their revision history that got removed due to WP:BLP or OTRS tickets, should be flagged and then wiped by a bot. Same goes for the birth name field in the adult actors template. The links to filmographies should be checked on a case-by-case basis, sometimes people try to include birth names as pseudonyms. You could even organize a team in the pornography portal that flags articles. 3vil-Lyn (talk) 13:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. There has been enough creep in BLP. BLP is intended to prevent unverifiable or poorly sourced information from going into BLPs. This is a good goal. This should be its only goal. It should not, ever, be used to suppress information which is verifiable from reliable sources. That's an editorial decision to be made on an article-by-article basis. BLP is a powerful tool. It needs to be strictly limited in scope and under no circumstances allowed to expand. Considerations of "privacy" and the like, when information can be verified through reliable sources, should be considered article-by-article. Legal concerns should be addressed by this guy here, not by armchair lawyers. And BLP should stay within scope. Period. It may not be our job to "out", but it is similarly not our job to "preserve privacy" of information already available in reliable sources. The very concept is almost laughable, how could one preserve the privacy of information already available to the public? And if unsourced or poorly sourced, BLP already covers immediate removal. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Real names that are reliably sourced should be included in every BLP, period. Jclemens (talk) 19:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - why vote for something that doesn't reflect anything from the discussion above? - first read up on the discussion before posting a one liner in here

Comment That was a rather rude comment. I read enough of it to know that I completely reject the notion of "consent" when it comes to the publication of people's real names. The fact that Wikipedia fails to publish real names in certain cases (a la Star Wars Kid) in the name of sensitivity undermines its credibility. Admittedly, there are bigger fish to fry first, but that's a separate matter. Jclemens (talk) 00:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I didn't meant to be rude, in fact this sentence was there before I even read your post. ;) I thought a moment about moving your post under mine, but decided against it because I was too lazy. I'm still not really fond of polling before there is at least some kind of stub with the input of as many as possible editors that joined the discussion. Voting like I've seen it on Wikipedia often attracts people with blanket statements and discourages consensus between those who value arguments. -- 3vil-Lyn (talk) 04:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guys! You can still cite reliable sources to include a birth name where consent is implied. A published autobiography? A publication in the NYT and no one complaining -> consent implied. No biggy.

But a TV reportage coverage immediately followed up by a verified OTRS ticket? -> NO consent, name has to be removed by LAW in many European countries and (at least) by ethics in the States on the grounds of Wikipedia's own "do no harm" policy. Responsibility is a keyword here for any OTRS helper, as Wikipedia demands little or no responsibility from those who are given the power of publishing information on perhaps the world's largest reference source. To dismiss any calls for responsibility and restraint as censorship or solely focus on a publication though there is a justified objection from the subject in question doesn't do biographies of living people justice. Most large publications (just don't count private TV stations in here) are restrained by journalistic codes of ethics in addition to legal advisers. I fail to see how this one guy has any influence on some anonymous editor messing up article histories of porn stars with unsourced stuff. We should work on a policy that doesn't rely on complaints (by the way the complaint email address is really well hidden from a casual Wikipedia visitor who has no starting point).

"The very concept is almost laughable, how could one preserve the privacy of information already available to the public?" Seraphimblade

As stated above Wikipedia content is automatically spread all over the internet, therefore it's perfectly reasonable (but not nice! should be the last resort) to enjoin Wikipedia from including personal data that infringes personal rights of an actor.

To give you an (rather simplified) example. Say an European newspaper publishes a birth name without consent and some judge issues an injunction to prohibt the newspaper to publish the name on their online websites or print media because it might infringe personal rights of the complainant.(there is also a possibility for monetary compensations in some countries but such things are usually taken care of later on due to exigent circumstances)

Let's say a fellow Wikipedian has cited the accused newspaper as source for the birth name of the actor in question, so that e.g. the German language Wikipedia also gets a notice of distringas. Would the involved Wikipedia editors now say "we don't care - yadda yadda" and not comply with the request, then the German language Wikipedia servers in Europe would be cut off with an injunction. Such things already happened in the past. You can read about it here. Wikipedia.de access gone for a whole country just because of one "possible" privacy right violation. So you can see how they take these rights serious and this poor guy was already dead. A postmortem personality right. Nifty :) While it still might be possible to visit Wikipedia under a different domain, this wouldn't help someone who uses the leaked name in some other publication in this country nor would it help the persons who added or restored the private data as they would be legally liable.

Seraphimblade, in my previous posts I've tried to address a lot more than just BLP issues, but of course it's entirely up to you how much time you spent to read up on the discussion.

Nevertheless, according to your own logic, you might want to explain us on which grounds birth names that have been identified as unsourced BLP violations should be kept in the article's history rather then being flagged for a bot?

As for creep? in BLP, one could summarize my proposal regarding porn stars in one or two sentences (just not not the argumentation). However this might not be the best place to propose the introduction of flagged revisions, as we're still on the BLP noticeboard, and such a change would be quite substantial. I do admit, though, that I have no idea where to go with the later proposal.

By the way, one thing you learn pretty early at law school :P is that even if for example a "right of public interest" is argued, every right is limited when it infringes upon the rights of others, as there are no absolute rights. At Wikipedia we have no "laws" but we use policies. However we do follow the same principle, as every policy established by consent might find it's limits in other policies that we then weigh against each other. Of course every foreign language Wiki tries to not act against the law of it's country though some editors fall for the trap of privileging wiki-norms over real-norms. Don't.

Here we often find a conflict between personality rights versus public interest, and aside from WP:BLP also WP:HARM. In my humble opinion the complications an adult actor or their families might experience with stalkers or even finding a future job outside porn, clearly outweigh any information gain a real name has to an adult actors article. Luckily in most European countries we don't need this discussion at all as people have a right of informational self-determination and it is enforced. Thanks to the insight and intellectual rigor of many OTRS helpers in most cases NOT by order of a court. ;)

With my proposed (need work!) changes no one would have fun adding WP:BLP violations anymore as they either never appear (editorially-reviewed articles) or get wiped from the articles history anyway (preferably by a bot once an article gets flagged, just like we do it with pictures). -- 3vil-Lyn (talk) 00:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you think Wikipedia should favor the possible future reputation of porn stars ahead of telling reliably-sourced truth? You might want to go reread WP:5 and go find a project which has core values more in line with your goals. Jclemens (talk) 00:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose We don't need to set a precedent of imposing 'consent' determination steps on BLPs. It isn't our job to out anyone, but it isn't our job to protect people from the internet, either. BLP means keep defamatory material off and nn-bios OUT. It does not mean roll back the clock to a point where pseudoynms obscured identity from all but the most determined searchers. The information will be concatenated somewhere. We can't stop that. We should not author a policy that makes us act as though that transparency doesn't exist. (Oh, and for the eventual comment that A: votes don't substitute for discussion or B: I'm just doing a drive by I have two things to say. Enough discussion has occured that it won't hurt to get a straw poll and just because I haven't opened my mouth above doesn't mean I haven't read it). Protonk (talk) 00:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Fortunately consensus will never be reached on this matter and Wikipedia will remain an experimental encyclopedia that anyone can edit.

Albion moonlight (talk) 12:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? It take then that this prior post is no longer operative:

So go ahead and delete them where you find them and lets see what the rest of wiki has to say about it. I can live with a wiki that disallows all mention of a pornstars real names. But for some reason some of you seem unwilling to live with a wikipedia that does allow it. Anyway I am through with this discussion because it only seems to be going in circles. I assure you that I will not edit war with you or encourage others to do so. If one of those articles goes to an Rfc or to mediation or even arbitration I may join in. But as for this discussion if I am the only one blocking consensus (and I am one of 3 or 4], I hereby withdraw my dissent and agree to disagree. Best wishes to everyone.: Albion moonlight (talk) 07:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

David in DC (talk) 17:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. No David my offer still stands. If I am the only one blocking consensus then I will agree to disagree and thus allow the vast majority to have there way. This offer was and is a rhetorical gesture in the sense that such a consensus is highly unlikely. I do intend to participate in the discussion from time to time and vote in these proposals but I do not value my opinions enough to block consensus over them. Be well. Albion moonlight (talk) 10:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Personality rights as granted in Europe protect the personal life of an adut model better

than even this first proposal as worded by Filceolaire

Since these are basically privacy rights mandated by law, they are not up to discussion for Wikipedia editors living in Europe.

We can and should assume consent in cases where we have publications in reliable sources

(questionable or vanity press sources do not qualify (->IMDb, fan databases)),

consent is usually implied when citing sources like autobiograhpies, big name newspapers or verifiable interviews

(unverifiable podcasts on low profile fan sites migt be problematic though, also material from third-party primary sources should not be used

unless it has first been published by a reliable secondary source).

Should a subject wish to have a birth name removed and a complaint is received, we will comply following the "do no harm" policy

(see, e.g. -> Katja Kassin, Katsuni, Brandy Alexandre, even Star Wars kid)

as long as it can't be sourced that the subject in question voluntarily used a birth name in other notable projects outside porn.

(-> Sibel Kekilli, Ilona Staller, Michaela Schaffrath) -- 3vil-Lyn (talk) 13:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Whether or not the legal names of pseudonymous actors should be included in their biographies has to be based on a better standard than whether their work is "pornographic" or not. That's obviously a matter of moral and artistic judgment that no editors should be making. To set up these special rules for pornstars gives them privacy protection that isn't being automatically offered to others. What about writers, for instance? Some authors may publish under pen-names because they don't want to be mistaken for someone else or because they want a sexier-sounding name, but most do it solely to conceal their identity. Their reasons for not wanting to be identified as the author of a particular work may be very real and every bit as personally important as those of any pornstar. The same could be true of artists (e.g. Banksy), political activists, musicians or anyone else who chooses to assume an alternate public identity. We can't make assumptions about the person's reasons for using a pseudonym, how much money they make, nor what the consequences might be of including their birth name or not. Editors' squeamishness about the porn business has already already led to a lot of what Jenny rightly calls "weasel words". For example, Ryan Idol has Idol describes himself as "the creation of Marc Anthony Donais." Apart from being embarrassingly coy, this is a smokescreen that wouldn't be offered to a non-porn celebrity like Kid Rock. The policy has to be consistent for all BLPs, and obviously never identifying a pseudonymous person under any circumstances isn't going to make the encyclopedia more useful to its readers. The only policy that can be consistently applied as a guide here is WP:RS– if a person has been identified by a reliable source, then that name is public information about them which shouldn't be denied from Wikipedia on the basis of an editor's moral judgment. --Proptology (talk) 03:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think you're missing the point of the Ryan Idol wording. Comparing it to Kid Rock is fairly pointless. In Marc Anthony Donais's opinion, Ryan Idol is a character he created and plays. Ryan Idol is therefore not a pseudonym but the name of a character. I see no reason to presume this is because Marc is somehow embarassed by his creation or wishes to distance himself from the character, it's simply the way he has chosen to potray Ryan Idol. One excellent example of this is Dame Edna Everage. I don't think anyone is going to resonably suggest Barry Humphries is embarassed by Dame Edna Everage. However Edna is clearly intended to be a character rather then a pseudonym of Barry and confusing the two makes absolutely no sense. It's as silly as calling Lord British in the Ultima universe a pseudonym of Richard Garriot. Or heck evem Princess Leia Organa as a pseudonym of Carrie Fisher Nil Einne (talk) 06:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think I'm missing the point of the Ryan Idol wording, and trying to argue that black is white doesn't change anything. We all understand the difference between an on-screen character (eg. Brenda Walsh), an actor's pseudonym (eg. Woody Allen and a stage persona (eg. Larry "Bud" Melman). But it doesn't matter because all of their WP bios list their birth names anyway, while Idol's does not. --Proptology (talk) 02:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Than you for proving my point. Ryan Idol is considered an, as you say, on-screen character or persona. Therefore the article is worded appropriately. And his article also mentions the name of the person who plays that character/persona "Marc Anthony Donais. So really, I have no idea what your complaining about Nil Einne (talk) 08:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The birth name of a notable public figure is considered encyclopedic information and is included in traditional encyclopedias' biographies, and it is equally encyclopedic in Wikipedia. Someone who launches a career as a movie actor is inherently seeking to be a public figure, and their life story (where and when born, birth name, education, life experiences) are as relevant to their story as those of Marilyn Monroe being born as "Norma Jean" was when she was alive. But any information about a living person must be verifiable via reliable sources. A blog generally does not qualify and IMDB does not qualify. Wikipedia is not an "outing" site to make public that which is not easily obtainable public knowledge. If the actor's birth name is published in Newsweek or the New York Times, it is readily available public knowledge, and no one can undo the ringing of the bell. It should be added to the article, unless there are unusual and compelling reasons not to. I can't think of any, except legal process. If someone claims to have found it from an adoption record, an obscure court document, a baptism record in a church. a real estate transaction, a property tax record, or similar records which are not widely available, and which are original research, it should not be included. We should not act as amateur private detectives, rooting out obscure information and publishing it, and we should not mirror little known blogs which do the same thing. Many such associations have been found to be incorrect, and are as dubious as much genealogical research. This falls under the "do no harm" notion, while adding a New York Times reference in fact does no harm beyond any done when the name was published there. There is no general policy of allowing the subject of an article to edit it, so as to leave in text which increases video sales or pay for appearing in films, but leave out text which includes reliably referenced biographical details in what purports to be a biography. That sounds more like a vanity biography site where people pay to have the desired biographical details published. I have questioned the notability of porn actors in several AFDs, and see many of the "bio" articles as unjustified efforts by the actors or the video producers to use Wikipedia as a promotional medium. If someone leaves the porn actor trade and requests deletion of their article, I would in some cases favor the deletion in AFD, unless they are truly notable as is Harry Reems. Their notability in some field outside their porn actor career seems totally irrelevant as a deciding factor for whether their birth name should be included. Edison (talk) 03:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
oppose as written Among other issues it isn't at all clear to me that all porn stars use pseudonyms to keep their real names hidden. I imagine a name like Bertha Bergensteinshwaltz just wouldn't go over well in porn (I just made that name up, I really hope no one has that name). Moreover, when a name is given in many easily accessible reliable sources there's no good reason for us to cover it up. There may be occasional situations where there is some obscure reliable source for the real name. Those cases can be dealt with in a case by case basis. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we refocus the discussion?

Comment I don't believe a 'vote' is helpful here and in any case the issue seems to be distracting from the original point. This discussion original arose (I believe) and definitely it was resurrected for a second time because several edits, including me, are against the use of primary sources, particularly stuff like trademark documents & unreliable secondary sources like blogs, to identify the real name of someone (for me at least, I don't care whether they are pornographic actors or politicians or whoever) when that real name has not already been published in reliable secondary sources. To me, this reeks of OR and is likely a privacy violation and therefore a violation of BLP. While I think we have consensus on the blog part, several people in particular Celarnor and Albion moonlight feel that there is nothing wrong with using primary sources of this sort ("public (read: government-maintained) databases of public information") to identify the real names of people who's real name has not yet been published in a reliable secondary source. While I appreciate what Filceolaire & 3vil-Lyn are trying to do and in fact I'm mildly supportive of the idea I've never advocated it since I've suspected and this discussion confirms that there is unlikely to be much support of the idea (in any case, I"m not sure if this is the best place to discuss a BLP policy change). I suggest we get back to the original point. Nil Einne (talk) 06:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to lead the way. I'm just here for the popcorn. and the occasional chat Albion moonlight (talk) 09:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nil and Albion. I saw this discussion link at the community portal. This[11] says that "any material challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source". So it seems you just need to challenge the material to cause the need for a reliable source. This[12] talks about reliable sources and says they are "third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". The section does not list trademark documents or blogs. I think you need only (1) challenge the real name to cause a requirement for a reliable source and (2) if the source provided does not fall into this[13], then you should be able to keep the name out. Suntag (talk) 01:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion bears directly on recent edits at Clyda Rosen and Suzy Mandel. In both cases, I deleted birth names whose only source was IMDB. My edits were reverted, with no edit summary. (At Mary Millington the same editor called my editing pointless and possible vandalism, so he/she may not have felt compelled to elaborate.) What do y'all think? David in DC (talk) 15:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve answered your query regarding Millington at her talk page, but to summarize in her case there are several sources beyond the IMDB that verify both her birth and married names, there is also no sigma attached to these names being revealed in public and therefore no reason why wikipedia should be denied this information. The same is also true of Clyda and Suzy, and I can also elaborate on their cases if need be. --Gavcrimson (talk) 05:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well David considering the fact that Jimbo wrote you a note your talk page to laudit your good sense and patience pursuant to this discussion. I quite honestly do not know what to think. I know that you definitely are not a vandal. Your edits are also not pointless but merely at variance with the view of many other wikipedians. Perhaps mediation is the answer. There are many wikipedians who agree with you. Albion moonlight (talk) 07:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo's note to me was reassuring. But more compelling still is his comment on his own talk page, archived here. The most significant quote, it seems to me, is this:

...In this particular case, I think it quite clear that the names in question should not be in Wikipedia. I wonder what agenda is being pushed by the desire to include them, because it's a hell of an obscure thing to fight for, for no reason..--Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

David in DC (talk) 22:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo.s opinion holds a lot of weight with me, but his opinion does not outweigh consensus or lack of consensus until he explicitly says it does. That is to say that I will continue to vote as I choose to vote unless I am the only one blocking consensus. At that point I would remind people to go ahead and have their consensus. Consensus is very unlikely at this point but perhaps Jimbo's opinion will cause others to rethink their position . Albion moonlight (talk) 06:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Clyda-Rosen A reliable source ?

It looks like one to me, but let us hear from some of the others before I add it to the article Albion moonlight (talk) 02:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC) It has recieved laudits from The NY Times. Albion moonlight (talk) 03:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that a Wikipedia mirror? A ni Mate 03:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yes it is. From approximately this verson. Dragons flight (talk) 03:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will take your word for it. If there is a version of it that is not a wiki mirror then perhaps it could be used. I am not going to get my hopes up on that one. I was doing a google search when I found it. Thanks for the info. Albion moonlight (talk) 06:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB and Luke Ford's blog

Suzy Mandel's article has two sources for her birth name: Luke Ford's blog and IMDb. Neither is a WP:RS. I've reverted her birth name on that basis. Even if we can't agree that intentionally obscured birth names should not be posted, surely we can agree that, if they are to be posted, they must be reliably sourced. David in DC (talk) 23:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed (unsurprisingly). Any controversial claim, and revealing a birth name that has intentionally obscured is controversial, must have an excellent reliable source. A ni Mate 23:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And then again, what if this claim is true. It will be interesting to see how Jimbo and on the other elites handle that one. Perhaps Ms Mandell will know of a source that will satisfy eveyone. Albion moonlight (talk) 07:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources, such as trademark documents and COPPA filings, are WP:RS

We are not here to protect the potential future of adult actors nor are we here to take a position of whether one should be ashamed of being one. They, like any other live performer, will have their real names in addition to pseudonyms if WP:RS are available. That includes official legal documentation. Period, end of discussion. As to Jimbo's question, well it is a matter of consistency and a matter of correctness. This whole thing smacks of some attempt by the forces of chastity and prudery to somehow insert their contention that it is wrong and bad to be a pornographic actor. We are not here to make such determinations, therefore we will publish the facts as best can be determined through proper sourcing. --Dragon695 (talk) 22:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:PRIMARY please. A ni Mate 22:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-read WP:PRIMARY; especially the second set of bulleted points. There's absolutely nothing wrong wrong with taking primary sources at face value. Using a primary source as a source for the existence of itself (i.e, citing a primary source as evidence of the existence of said primary source) is a perfectly acceptable thing to do, as is using a primary source to make descriptive claims of the information found therein (i.e, "So and so filed whatever document whenever"). This isn't a sourcing issue; we can and do use this practice elsewhere for other purposes. This is a morality and privacy issue. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 23:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We are not here to reveal information that people have taken pains to conceal. This is not a judgment about someone's line of work. WP:BLP includes a presumption in favor of personal privacy when dealing with obscure facts, regardless of the reason that it has been obscured. If the only source for a personal detail, such as a person's true name, is a poorly known primary source then it should be omitted. We are writing an encyclopedia, not engaging in investigative journalism. Dragons flight (talk) 23:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this really an issue? Is Dragon695 really going to find the COPPA filings and enter them into an article? Likely, he will not, as he almost never actually edits articles, and tends to focus on the drama of the day according to his edit history. Secondly, if someone is actually able to obtain the COPPA filings, how can we verify that they are accurate? If the information hasn't been published in a reliable secondary source we have to take the word of a contributor that the document they have is legitimate and that isn't enough to satisfy WP:BLP. A ni Mate 00:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Investigative journalism is a very good description of filing FOIA's to get birth names out of COPPA filings. It is original research and it is prohibited. If you want to do that, go work for a newspaper, not as a voluteer trying to build an encyclopedia. Other, secondary and teritiary reliable sources are a necessary, but not sufficient, condition to putting something in a Wikipedia article. After you've gotten over the hurdles of reliability of sources and notability, you're still faced with all of the editorial judgment that must attend decisions about what details to include. That's editorial judgment, gang, not censorship. Things like WP:NOT, WP:BLP, WP:HARM, and WP:WEIGHT, to name a few.

This whole thing smacks of some attempt by the forces of chastity and prudery to somehow insert their contention that it is wrong and bad to be a pornographic actor....--Dragon695 (talk) 22:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Way to assume good faith big guy! For the record, I'm not aligned with any forces of chastity or prudery. I am aligned, I hope, with forces of editorial discretion. Forces for adult judgment. Forces of perspective. In the face of Wikipedia's uncomplicated-to-understand presumption of privacy where personal data has been purposely obscured, especially in the case of biographies of living people, it must take a near-infinite personal reservoir of what Steely Dan used to call Pretzel Logic to sustain fervant crusading to out living porn actors' birth names. This next is not an original observation, but still: it's one hell of an obscure cause. What agenda fuels it? David in DC (talk) 01:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the agenda maybe this statement might help:

Sorry, but when you decide to be a porn star, you are relinquishing your right to hide your name. --Dragon695 (talk) 22:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Although written out of frustration this does not need further comment. But of course I still do assume good faith.

And just for the record. A few weeks ago the German wikipedia has resolved the „Katja Kassin“ case mentioned above. The real name has been removed from the article as a blatant violation of WP:BLP. The name has even been deleted from the history in this particular case and the page has now been semi-protected because of repeated tries to insert the name again. (Jamesbeat (talk) 09:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

It's good to hear about how this has been dealt with by our German cousins. It sounds to me like the right result. David in DC (talk) 15:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not only is using their employment records to find birth names Original Research, it's incredibly unethical. I'm pretty sure fraudulently obtaining their 2257 for publication is also a good way to enjoy a stay at Club Fed. I don't like the idea of requiring OPRS action to resolve birth name disclosure, because wikipedia is used to fill in background by reporters. Usually without attribution it seems, but mistakes in articles do seem to show up elsewhere and we do put ourselves in the position of outing people by not mandating the higher standard. So far we've had driver's licenses, high school yearbooks, and falsified references used by cyberstalkers to get people's birth names into articles. Most were quickly removed but the falsified reference managed to stay in for about 8 months because nobody ever read the entire reference to find out the name wasn't there. Once we're used for background by a WP:RS, it's really hard to resolve the damage we've caused. I don't see what we lose by bumping the standard up to "widely reported" before violating people's pseudonymous privacy attempts. Horrorshowj (talk) 11:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon I think your completely missing the point. I don't care whether someone is a porn star, a normal actor who plays in family films, a carpenter, a scientist, a politician or a whatever. If they are known by a pseudonym and their real name is not published in a reliable secondary sources then you should not be using primary sources to disclose that real name. Period. This has nothing to do with prudity or whatever you want to come up with but wikipedia policy and respect for LPs. Nil Einne (talk) 09:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that living people are former terrorists

A question under WP:BLP arises in Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC regarding whether it is okay to repost in the biographies of William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, election-related articles pertaining to Barack Obama and the Obama-Ayers controversy, and in the Weathermen article itself, characterizations made by some that the 1960s and 1970s actions of the Weather Underground Organization constitute terrorism. This affects a number of people who are productive members of society today but who participated in radical US youth movements in the 1960s and 70s. Some feel that calling living people former terorists is a pejorative epithet that is inherently subjective (absent being on any official list) and a BLP violation; others that these people are well known and the accusations of being terrorists are well sourced (i.e. they fit the BLP exception). At the RfC there has been some question (e.g. here as to what BLP really means, so any guidance there would be helpful. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 18:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We wouldn't want to recklessly toss epithets as if they were mere bombs used to make a political point, would we? Edison (talk) 19:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Using the word fraudulent, and third party sources

At Grand Orient of the United States of America there is a persistent wish to insert the word "fraudulent" about claims made by the founders about the membership of the group. It is sourced from another, personal, web page. The claim, that they have fewer members than they claim, is common and perhaps should be reported, but the way in which the word "fraudulent" is used - particularly when used about identifiable individuals - disturbs me. Could we have an opinion on this? JASpencer (talk) 16:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To give you more info, here is the situation: a noted and respected masonic appologist website (masonicinfo.com) has stated that the website of a particular breakaway Masonic group contains statements that "are extraordinarily misleading and, we believe, fraudulent". As this accusation goes directly to the notability of the breakaway group, I wish to report this opinion in the article on the group, using those same words (clearly and neutraly attributed as being the opinion of the author, in quotes and fully cited). JASpencer seems to want to remove the word "fraudulent", saying that to quote the author is a BLP violation. Please note that the article does not say that the group has committed fraud as a statement of fact... it simply quotes the author's opinion. The author has stated that he believes that the group's website contains statements that are "extraordinarily misleading" and "fraudulent". Is it wrong to quote him? Blueboar (talk) 16:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The word fraudulent is only mentioned in the original source once, and there is no explicit link with the founders. This is not the case in the original Wikipedia wording which did single out the founders, did mention the word fraudulent twice, including in the heading. It has toned down, by why is there such an insistence on using this term? I have no link with either side of this fight, but I find the use of this word ugly and needing a very high level of sourcing which is simply lacking. JASpencer (talk) 19:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The insistance is due to a desire to accurately quote the source. Blueboar (talk) 20:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why has the quote changed so much from then and now? Is this bit really the most important part of the piece rather than the claim that there are very few active members? JASpencer (talk) 20:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unsure if this is the right board and section for this dispute, as generally this section is for broader and more complex ongoing issues relating to several articles rather than a specific case. It's also fairly hard to get outside opinions, when disputants continue arguing rather than stating their opinions and waiting for responses. That being said... my opinion, you should file an RfC to get some more outside opinions or go to WP:3O to get a new perspective. Even better, find some reliable sources to back up the claim or refute it, as I'm frankly not sure the website necessarily holds up as reliable or notable. A ni Mate 20:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JAS, my most recent wording was posted to the page about 8 minutes before you took the issue to this noticeboard, here is the diff ... after that you reverted saying it had BLP issues here. Perhaps you did not notice that I changed the tone and removed any reference to the people and focused on the webpage... So let's be sure that we are discussing my most recent wording. Do you think that my most recent wording is a violation of BLP or not? Blueboar (talk) 21:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I still think that the word is insufficiently supported connsidering the implications and I am disturbed by the persistence in reinserting it. JASpencer (talk) 21:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this is not the correct place to ask whether an article has BLP issues, would someone please point us in the correct direction? This has to be resolved. Blueboar (talk) 21:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you want more people to look at it, generally a report of this nature would go at the bottom of the noticeboard since this isn't an ongoing persistent problem. Have you filed an RfC? Have you asked for a third opinion? Have you tried finding other sources to support your claim? All steps yous should take and try to be patient. A ni Mate 21:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AniMate, thanks for your time and patience on this... I see from your comments at the article talk page that you cut through the issue of BLP, and address a more fundamental issue... that (masonicinfo.com) is not a reliable secondary source. This should settle the issue, if the source is not reliable then it would be improper to quote the source, and thus there is no BLP question. Blueboar (talk) 22:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disappeared versus dead

Harold Holt is categorised as in the mutually exclusive Category:1967 deaths (which doesn't get BLP protection) and in Category:Disappeared people (which does get BLP protection). At what point of certainty (apart from waiting until 1908 + 123 = 2031) do we consign someone from disappeared to dead? Was there another article a few months ago that faced this dilemma? Andjam (talk) 10:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

templates for new editors?

Forgive me (and point me in the right direction) if someone has done this before, have we given thought to a nicely worded welcome template for newish users who are editing BLP articles, explaining why reliable sourcing is important, and if they have any can they please add, or otherwise not add the material, with sorta nice wording like "imagine this was wirtten about you/your sister/brother etc" and highlighting the imporantce of referencing? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Individual articles

Prem Rawat

Several editors keep inserting a Google Earth photo of a house that they claim is owned by Prem Rawat into the article. They offer no source to back up their claim that the house in the photo is in fact owned by Rawat.Momento (talk) 02:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An unusual BLP notice in that the concern here is that a number of editors (of whom, I hasten to emphasize, User:Jossi does not currently appear to be one) are insisting on a bizarre interpretation of WP:BLP whereby no criticism may enter the article (there also appear to be some editors who would like the article to be a blatant BLP violation, but they're losing). The result is that the article is a blatant whitewash. This is especially problematic given the publicity this article has received recently, since people are going to read the article, see that it's a whitewash, and lose all regard for Wikipedia. I started participating at the article today for the first time, but people like me and User:David D. still seem to be outnumbered by the zealots on each side. Experienced BLP-types' participation would be very much appreciated. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 10:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Prem_Rawat#Brief_history_of_editing_principles_used_for_this_article for an explanation why the article has become one sided. Mediation between me and Momento had been rejected by the mediation committee. Andries (talk) 11:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no indication that house belongs to the person. It is clear from Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2008_February_9#Image:Prem_Rawat.27s_Property.jpg that the image does not have a neutral impact and as it is possibly WP:OR or a complete fabrication it must be removed per WP:BLP pending verificaion. I have removed the image. Jeepday (talk) 04:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is patently false. If you go the the article's talk page you will find that the image is verified by the LA Times. Also, the image is undergoing its most substantial review here and I think this is the best place to voice your concerns. Onefinalstep (talk) 04:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to this edit "An L.A. Times article: "Ex-Guru Seeks to Expand His Heavenly Rights" JUDY PASTERNAK, Los Angeles Times Apr 11, 1985; pg. WS1, includes a blurry photo of the house taken from a road leading to it. It doesn't look quite like the photo now in this article, but after 22 years it may have been remodeled." and you would you be arguing that is the reference to support that a Google satellite image is of the same house owned by the same person but from a satellite rather then from a road, 22 years later? Have you read WP:OR? Jeepday (talk) 05:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are other sources, including other L.A. Times articles, which report that the Prem Rawat property is owned by Seva Co. (doing business as "Anacapa View Estates"P, and that report in detail about efforts by Prem Rawat to expand the use of the property's heliport. Because heliports are a form of airport they are included in various databases that list the exact coordinates and provide aerial photos that match the Google photo. There is no legitimate reason to doubt that the photo depicts the house in Malibu where Prem Rawat stays. The house is not owned by Prem Rawat in his own name, but many people of wealth use corporations to hold their properties for various legal and financial reasons. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "house" has a name, and it is the only privately owned heliport with that amount of overflights permitted. Seva Corp owns it. Onefinalstep (talk) 05:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the house is not owned by Prem Rawat, why the hell have you been inserting into the Rawat article?Momento (talk) 10:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am fairly sure you are aware of the reason, as almost all of your last 1000 edits have been to Prem Rawat and related articles. Relata refero (talk) 11:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And because regardless of the corporate nature of the owner, PR lives there, it is his home, and is an indicator of his lifestyle, which is directly relevant to the article. Obviously.(original caption when I first saw the image, "Prem Rawat's home in Malibu, CA")Maelefique (talk) 11:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summaries - "minor addition to my response to the zealot" and "response to Momento's assinine question" are inappropriate. Please do not make personal attacks. Thanks.Momento (talk) 11:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The summary is exactly that, and while you may question the asinine nature of your comment I was replying to, I doubt others do and I certainly do not, and your zeal has never been in question. Perhaps you should read what the word means before you get cranky about it? The edit summary seems descriptive and accurate to me. If you need a definition I will be happy to provide. It might be best if you try and refrain from inappropriate asinine questions (when are asinine questions ever appropriate?). I doubt your zeal can be tempered, so I won't suggest that. However, your mention has made me notice a typo in the word "asinine", if the additional "s" that was in there made you think I was making some kind of "ass" joke about you, then I can see your point, and I apologize, but I can assure you that was simply a typo caused from being up much too late and no such suggestion was intended.Maelefique (talk) 16:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BLP concerns aside, the image is clearly a violation of our NFCC policy and should hopefully be deleted soon Nil Einne (talk) 16:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prem Rawat links

Editors - Onefinalstep, Francis Schonken and others continually add links to anti-Prem Rawat websites in clear violation of BLP policy = "In biographies of living people, material available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all, either as sources or via external links". Avoid "any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research" or "links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority". It may be necessary to block some editors.Momento (talk) 00:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, there appears to be some ownership issues rather than BLP violations. Shot info (talk) 01:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The matter is being discussed on the article talk page. It has not been determined that the sites in question are derogatory, and that linking to them violates policy. Let's find a consensus on the article talk page. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you bring this back to the discussion page Momento? Onefinalstep (talk) 03:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is debate over two external links on Prem Rawat and whether or not they are acceptable external links for a BLP. The links are:

Feedback and review of this situation would be appreciated. Vassyana (talk) 05:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments: Talk:Prem_Rawat#Discussion and Talk:Prem_Rawat#External_links_disputes ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BLP policy is absolutely explicit - "In biographies of living people, material available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all, either as sources or via external links. External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and in full compliance with Wikipedia official policies". The links to the anti-Rawat sites must go. The EPO site accuses Rawat of aiding a paedophile, adultery, greed etc. and is full of OR from questionable sources. Prem Rawat Critique calls Rawat a liar, a fraud and claims that Rawat has a doctrine of egomania, it is full of OR from questionable sources. Does anyone have an argument why this article should be exempt from conforming with perfectly clear BLP policy?Momento (talk) 03:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correcting some info given above:

There are more than two external links involved:
- Ex-Premie.org Website of ex-followers of Prem Rawat
- Prem Rawat Critique Website that seeks to provide critique of Prem Rawat and his various organisations
- Prem Rawat aka Maharaji Prem Rawat aka Maharaji Information Resource
- Prem Rawat, at Open Directory Project
The two links to the talk page discussion given above are no longer correct, at least: one of them isn't any more. The current correct links are:
- Talk:Prem Rawat#External links section...
- Talk:Prem Rawat#External links disputes
  And a third has emerged just now:
- Talk:Prem Rawat#External links

--Francis Schonken (talk) 07:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC) – updated 11:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is heading down a very slippery slope by adding links to sites which violate BLP policy. Ex-premie.org archives many hundreds of apostate forum pages containing rabid attacks on Rawat and others, hearsay and gossip, some of which is expressed in terms that are unfit for publication. Ex-premie.org and prem-rawat-critique.org both include very negative, hyperbolic content that would certainly violate BLP policy. There are also at least two web sites which purport to "debunk apostates' propaganda." One such site is www.one-reality.net

Linking to any of these sites would merely encourage an edit war while making no contribution at all to the quality of the Rawat article. Note that I am trying to set a precedent here by not providing links, only URLs for the benefit of editors who wish to obtain information about a dispute which appears to be ongoing.--Maximango (talk) 10:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Separate articles?

We have a separate article on Catholic Church compared to the person currently leading it, same goes with Scientology and other groups. Such an article would not fit under 'living person' guidelines and may deal better with some of the material dealing with a claimed 'cult' or former 'cult'. Links to separate articles should be easy to find from the living person one.

As well I would love to see a discussion on the Inquirer article in another talk page or article (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/06/the_cult_of_wikipedia/), the accused should be allowed to face the accuser in a clear/uncluttered way, the author of that article and others could be invited to contribute.

From looking at that Inquirer article and then following some of the discussions here, without ever hearing about the 'living person' in question before, I currently am embarrassed for wikipedia, I hope something can be done to present a better image to the public.198.53.235.197 (talk) 09:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom of Information Act (United States)#Barbara Schwarz

The subject of this article is the Freedom of Information Act in the United States. Several sources describe the history of a woman named Barbara Schwarz and her usage of the FOIA in the United States. The primary source describes her nationality/legal status in the US thusly:

One of the other aspects of the FOIA law -- which has gained increased scrutiny in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks -- is that it may be used by citizens and foreign nationals alike. In some cases, fugitives of federal justice have filed FOIA requests and received responses, since only the courts may declare that a person who has flouted the laws of the land may not benefit from them. Schwarz says she entered the United States on a visitor visa in the late 1980s and tried unsuccessfully for years to adjust her status with the Immigration and Naturalization Service before giving up. She says she has a German birth certificate but claims it was doctored to conceal that she was actually born in Utah. Fighting INS: "I have tried to get it worked out with the INS," says Schwarz. "They could probably arrest me or throw me out of the country for filing FOIA requests, but I'm not easily scared."-S.L. Woman's Quest Strains Public Records System 2003 article form the Salt Lake Tribune.

The fact that she is an undocumented immigrant/illegal alien/whatever one wants to call non-citizens living in the US despite not following the rules seems to be the cause of concern regarding WP:BLP, so I have a couple of questions. First, since it's both true and relevant (discussed in a source) how is stating that she's an undocumented/alien/whatever a violation of our rules about biographical information? Second: Assuming it is a violation, and we self censor to avoid her being deported, how does that square with the law? Anynobody 07:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my - worms, meet can opener. Here's some useful initial reading on the subject. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, I'm dumb: you initiated the deletion review; with that in mind, do you really want to re-open discussion on this? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because these biographical details are COATRACK-y in an article on FOIA, and have been given virtually no coverage (goes to WEIGHT), and because the community decided to delete that biography. Stop trying to re-litigate this. Cool Hand Luke 08:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sarcasticidealist: Yes I do, otherwise I wouldn't have posted here :) There is a difference between having enough information for an article and being notable enough to be mentioned in one. (The FOIA thing and her suit against the Tribune are what I've always maintained her primary notability is. The Scientology stuff I could care less about)

Cool Hand Luke how much weight would you say is necessary for inclusion in our project? Anynobody 08:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(The Coatrack identification is just plain wrong, if it were to be one then much more personal and unnecessary details would be mentioned, if you have access then read the deleted Barbara Schwarz page and talk to find out.) Anynobody 08:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, how about more than, say, three sources when we're accusing BLPs of crimes. The main reason this should be excluded is that this has nothing to do with her notability in re FOIA.

Look, I used to read the Trib every day. I remember this article, and I read it in hard print. It was amusing, but it was not the basis of an eternal attack on her immigration status in an encyclopedia article about FOIA.

You lost the deletion debate, please move on. Cool Hand Luke 08:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, you seem to be making your assertions based on the idea that having her article deleted means that there shouldn't be any mention of her anywhere: You lost the deletion debate, please move on. I'm sorry to say that's totally incorrect, I'm not talking about recreating her article, having enough to create an article is not necessary when mentioning her in the context of FOIA. Secondly you appear to be under the impression that this is an attack; ...an eternal attack on her immigration status in an encyclopedia article about FOIA... and as I asked in the initial post here, how exactly is it an attack? (And please don't forget my second question, are there legal ramifications for us by self censoring on a legal issue?) I assure you I'd be happy to move on, if you or someone could answer my questions citing some policies or guidelines. (If you just don't like the idea of providing accurate info about her legal status then please say so.)

I'm sure there are dozens of people who would rather not have articles here, but do. If at least three sources are needed, then I suppose you should get to work proposing these for deletion: Margaret Holloway, Brianna Stewart, Antoinette Millard, and Kaz Demille-Jacobsen. Since WP:BLP doesn't give a minimum number of sources, I doubt your assertion of at least three will carry weight with editors working on some of these articles. Anynobody 00:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Her supposed illegal status is not relevant to FOIA in any obvious way, which probably explains why multiple source don't mention it. And yes, a claim that she's violating the law is an attack (a "negative or derrogatory claim," if you prefer), so demands the highest scrutiny from BLP and for topicality. This just isn't relevant and is thinly sourced. It shouldn't have a place in an article about FOIA. Cool Hand Luke 00:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Her supposed illegal status is not relevant to FOIA in any obvious way, which probably explains why multiple source don't mention it. I'll address this in more detail on the article's talk page but she's violating one federal law and taking advantage of another ...a claim that she's violating the law is an attack (a "negative or derrogatory claim," if you prefer), so demands the highest scrutiny from BLP... We aren't making any claims, we're citing a source which is in turn quoting Schwarz.

Cool Hand Luke if her illegality in the US hadn't been discussed specifically by a source you'd be absolutely right in that it'd be an attack to say she's not in the country legally whether true or not. However since a source does discuss discuss her legal status this isn't simply Wikipedia asserting she's in the country illegally. Anynobody 02:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Scientologists, notably recently Tom Cruise, have been rightly criticized for personal attacks on people who disagree with them. Why would Scientology critics want to do the same thing? Steve Dufour (talk) 12:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Dufour with all due respect, Scientology isn't the issue so let's focus on the point here. The original questions were: First, since it's both true and relevant (discussed in a source) how is stating that she's an undocumented/alien/whatever a violation of our rules about biographical information? Second: Assuming it is a violation, and we self censor to avoid her being deported, how does that square with the law?

You said on the talk page: The way I see it the issue of her visa has been used as a threat against her, to notify the INS about her alleged illegal immigrant status. This would be the best forum to explain that perspective. Anynobody 02:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be the obsessed anti-Scientologists (who seem to outnumber the Scientologists themselves BTW) who are attacking Barbara. In my opinion it gives their cause a bad image to do so. And we only have Barbara's word in a 2003 interview for info on her status, which might have changed since then. It is also not related to her (questionable) notability. I think I have been more than fair in my attempts to compromise on the article. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Dufour I'm not going to address your Scientology concerns, since this issue barely even relates to it. I will address the parts of your post that are related though.

And we only have Barbara's word in a 2003 interview for info on her status, which might have changed since then. It may have, but unless we have another source to reference as far as we are concerned it hasn't.
It is also not related to her (questionable) notability. There was an extended discussion about just that between myself Cool Hand Luke and Stan En where not only was it established to be relevant but anti-defamatory.
I think I have been more than fair in my attempts to compromise on the article. I think you have tried to be as fair as possible to, however your conflict of interest between what you promised Barbara Schwarz and our rules has made your efforts destructive rather than constructive. Anynobody 03:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason she was only mentioned in the media in 2003 is an indication that she is not really notable.Steve Dufour (talk) 05:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even if that were a valid argument, which I honestly don't think it is, she wasn't only mentioned in 2003. The AP article also used as a source is from May 04. Anynobody 05:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still we should not make a statement about her condition in 2008 based on two articles published in 2003 and 2004. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, her immigration status is off topic in an article about the FOIA. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 16:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. Anynobody's current offering is less defamatory than originally offered, but it's still off-topic. Cool Hand Luke 16:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, as I've said several times, it's not about what we think is or is not on topic if the source puts it on topic. I notice I didn't mention here specifically how the source does that, however I did on the talk page.

She's trying to use FOIA to prove her US citizenship, which she can't because she wasn't and she thinks the government has more information about that and other subjects she's researching relative to her believed past.
A blueprint for open democracy and government accountability in other countries, the FOIA has been stretched to its limits by a reclusive woman who, by her own admission, is in the country illegally. This quote is directly from the Tribune source.

I assure you it is indeed most on topic. Anynobody 02:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Lupica

Ongoing disagreement from Wknight94 about whether other sportswriters' criticism of Lupica is germane. Sizeable edits have already occurred in response to Wknight94's concerns, but he/she is adamant about having the material entirely removed. The "Colleagues' criticism" section neither overwhelms the article nor sides with Lupica's critics. As per the "Criticism" section of Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons, the comments are relevant to the standing and reputation of Lupica (whose style is described in the intro as "provocative"). All of the comments come from qualified professionals in the same field. The comments have gotten the attention of major media (i.e. Sports Illustrated, USA Today, NY Post, Globe & Mail, etc). Each is sourced, and further third-party published sources are available. The negative accounts and appraisals are carefully intermixed with pro-Lupica counterarguments and praise to foster neutrality (i.e. Lupica as "excellent on baseball"; "ESPN's Josh Krulewitz disputed Whitlock's characterization"; "These are personal attacks that went too far"; "Despite any criticism, Lupica remains one of tabloid journalism's most prominent sportswriters"). Lupica himself is given the last word. The disputed content takes up a fifth of the article or less. A previous Noticeboard listing of this article in early January was sparsely discussed. Other Wiki editors' opinions about whether the section violates Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons would be much appreciated here. Thanks.208.120.225.14 (talk) 09:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is back at BLPN because I found it in exactly the same piss-poor shape that it was in before the first BLPN. Doesn't overwhelm the article?! Just look at the last few reverts in the history list - the size of the article jumps from 5,959 bytes to over 11,200!! And it was 12,101 before that. That's more than half the article taken up with a couple stray comments - with full quotes = from disgruntled jealous colleagues. Most of the sources are either a blog with an agenda - http://thebiglead.com - or little editorial paragraphs. The key is Jason Whitlock who made some comments about Lupica and others at thebiglead.com that were so over-the-top that ESPN fired him. This event had no bearing on Lupica's life and doesn't warrant over 6,000 KB in Lupica's article. Whitlock's? Sure. ESPN's? Maybe. But Lupica's?! Come on. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the actual article, rather than just counting its history of byte totals, shows that the page's increase is also due to the additions of a full bibliography, a NY Times book review, praise for Lupica's work, rebuttals to the criticism under dispute, an enlarged reference section, and a statement of purpose by Lupica. The sourced criticism is certainly not "more than half the article." Again, it's about a fifth of the page; scroll down and see. Moreover, the sources include USA Today, the New York Post, AOL Sports, New York Press, Sports Fan Magazine, the Globe & Mail, and Lupica's own agency. The "Big Lead" blog is only cited at all because two pertinent quotes originated there before they were picked up by wider mainstream media outlets. That surely "has a bearing" on the subject. Why the inexact hyperbole?208.120.225.14 (talk) 18:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not inexact in any way. This version is over 12,000 bytes and includes books, career, bibliography, categories, intro, and "Colleagues' criticism" and "Controversy". This version is less than 6,000 KB and includes books, career, bibliography, categories, and intro. The only thing missing - as seen in this diff - is the criticism and controversy sections. Do the math: that means the criticism and controversy sections were more than every other section I just listed combined. You really think that's a fair representation of the man? To me, it should be all be whacked on WP:UNDUE concerns alone. Then, comes the even larger WP:BLP concerns where the sources for the removed sections all suck. This is a good source for "In 2008, Lupica allegedly instigated fellow columnist Lisa Olson's resignation from the Daily News"?! Come on. Which part of the source is reliable - referring to Lupica as "the lilliputian loudmouth" or the part about Lupica "effectively screwing Olson"? Be serious. That blog doesn't even try to hide its agenda and doesn't deserve a mention in this article - let alone to be cited as a source. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Lisa Olson account was not part of the last revision I'm addressing. I agree with you that that is inappropriate without further media attention and reliable sourcing. As for the rest, the exclusively critical comments take up less onscreen page space than the bibliography (which I added a month ago), although they may surpass the bibliography in total bytes. You've complained more than once that Whitlock is "jealous," and that his comments "don't affect Lupica's life." But as we're neither psychoanalyzing Whitlock nor editing Lupica's personal life, you still need to demonstrate why a professional dispute that ended up in Sports Illustrated isn't an aspect of Lupica's public reputation. USA Today is not "a blog with an agenda." The Toronto Globe and Mail is not a source that "sucks." The New York Post even used to employ Mike Lupica. It's apparent that you're sincere and disciplined regarding Wikipedia, and I respect that. Forget Lisa Olson, you're right. But the other material abides by Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:UNDUE, and I believe you're erring on the side of delicacy.208.120.225.14 (talk) 19:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you didn't add the Lisa Olson stuff, then I'm glad - and I apologize for my misdirected horror. Now, looking more closely at the remaining sources... http://www.sportsfanmagazine.com/sfm/articles.html?id=1384 is another blog - "wiping baseball’s appreciation off his chin after fellating the sport for two televised segments" is all I needed to read before dismissing its reliability (and making a mental note to check Wikipedia's other dozen or so links to that site). http://www.newyorkpress.com/20/6/news&columns/russsmith.cfm is some non-notable editorial site using naked women images for ads and featuring other article titles as "Naked Cowboy Not So Candy-Assed". Reliability near zero again. The next few sources are indeed reliable - to source the Whitlock vs. ESPN fight. As I've said before, this fight merits almost no mention in an article about Lupica - the target of the tirade that apparently got Whitlock fired. After that, we're back to a couple more blog sources. Again, terrible representation of Wikipedia as a neutral and reliable encyclopedia. The blog stuff should go. The quotes should go. The Whitlock stuff only makes sense if it's stated in a single sentence properly counterbalanced - along the lines of:

Lupica's stature among sportswriters' elite has made him a target of both positive and negative commentary. Former The Sports Reporters pundit Jason Whitlock made news in 2006 when he targetted Lupica in an invective-laced blog interview which resulted in Whitlock being fired from ESPN shortly thereafter.

Gets the story out but makes clear that Lupica did nothing wrong to provoke Whitlock or ESPN. He was simply an innocent bystander. This is about the only way the Whitlock mention seems appropriate to me. Otherwise, it can be left out with the rest of the "criticism" house of cards. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I realize you were just floating a prospective edit there, but you're being absurdly deferential to Lupica. You're hung up on Lupica being a "target" of criticism, rather than the subject of it. Jason Whitlock is a sportswriting peer, not a crackpot blogger. The fact that they shared airtime establishes relevance, even if Whitlock's negative opinion was Whitlock's opinion only. (And it isn't.) I intend to add a 2007 critique from ESPN.com's Bill Simmons. Your characterization of "innocent" Lupica who "did nothing wrong" being "targeted" by a "disgruntled jealous" coworker's "tirade" would never pass Wikipedia's NPOV standard. The deleted section is much more evenhanded and counterbalanced. You're also mistaken about the New York Press; it's an established alternative weekly paper and you can read about it on Wikipedia.208.120.225.14 (talk) 09:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you're wrong about WP:NPOV because you're forgetting about the WP:UNDUE part. (And I'm repeating myself now). Your criticism section is larger than the entire rest of the article! Categories, intro, etc., etc. - all dwarfed by a monstrous criticism section. That's a blatant violation of WP:NPOV and you've said nothing to prove otherwise (I'm going to try to get more attention here so you can hear that from more people than just me). And now you're talking about adding another individual criticism to increase the noise - and let me guess, you're planning on including the entire quote. What's the source for that? Moreover, where are you seeing articles here regressing into individual lists of "A says this about X, B says this about X, C says this about X, D says this about X, ..."? Those aren't encyclopedia articles - they're agenda-pushing articles. We should fix those instead of imitating them. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The criticism section did seem long compared to the rest of the article, and also compared to its substance. For example, there's a long quote from Mike Vaccaro, and yet his criticism doesn't really amount to much. Perhaps the section could be edited down to one paragraph? I agree with Wknight that the "A says this about X, and B says this, and moreover C says this" format isn't encyclopedic. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Wknight94 - there is rather a lot of criticism and while the sections shouldn't be removed completely, they could certainly be slimmed down. Stifle (talk) 12:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Further responding to IP) My suggestion is above. If the bridge to the Whitlock mention is too deferential, then suggest something else. I was simply trying to avoid an awkward non sequitor in just jumping into the Whitlock mention. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, I want to be clear that I agree with User:Wknight94 completely with respect to the problems he's highlighted with every prior revision of this article. They all were WP:BLP violations of various degrees. However, I take anon's point that the proposed summary doesn't quite capture the criticism. I propose something along the lines of this:

In 2006, former The Sports Reporters colleague Jason Whitlock editorialized against Lupica in a blog entry. Whitlock claimed that Lupica's criticism of professional athletes who used unauthorized performance enhancers was disingenuous when compared to Lupica's previous writings on baseball. Whitlock's entry also denigrated Lupica personally, and resulted in Whitlock's dismissal from ESPN.

Xymmax (talk) 15:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with this. But, if it is to be put in a section by itself, it should be titled "Whitlock criticism" or "Whitlock episode", etc. To have a section simply called "Criticism" implies that the person is a frequent subject of criticism and I have not seen a reference to back that up. (Piling up individual instances do not total up to "frequent" as the IP seems to think). Howard Stern is a frequent subject of criticism and there are references to support that. Lupica? I haven't seen it. —[User:Wknight94|Wknight94]] (talk) 17:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. I'll cross post this proposal on the article talk page and see what anon and others think. Xymmax (talk) 18:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to call out sympathetic editors over this and ask them to amend their watchlists, but WP:UNDUE says None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view..is the correct one... Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions... the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. The neutral point of view policy is often misunderstood. The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view". The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV"."

Wknight has invoked Howard Stern multiple times, but it happens that Stern's Wikipage contains almost no instances of negativity. The salient difference is that criticism from or against Stern would be commonplace by the usual standards of his profession. Whereas disputes of the Lupica-Whitlock-etc. nature are much rarer, and are therefore notable by virtue of being public. You often read broadsides against sports reporters and announcers' on-air styles, but complaints of this nature which receive a wide airing in numerous mainstream sources are highly unusual. Though Wknight has determined for himself that the rhubarb only happened because Whitlock is jealous, surely the rest of Wikipedia users are equally capable of judging Whitlock's words for what they are or are not worth.

I agree with the merit of SlimVirgin's observation, that the Vaccaro quote is less compelling. In the interests of proportion and slashing space, let's lose that.

Wknight preemptively dismisses the upcoming edit, but here's the meat of it: ESPN's Bill Simmons advised his ESPN.com readers to "...reread Mike Lupica's gushing book, "Summer of '98." (Note: Lupica now argues that Big Mac doesn't belong in the Hall. He never says anything about returning the profits from his book, however.)" Is he another rogue complainer?

Here's Yahoo Sports' Dan Wetzel: "I get that people roll their eyes when someone such as Mike Lupica screeches each Sunday morning about Bonds and fails to note he wrote a schmaltzy tome on McGwire and Sosa called "Summer of 98" ("a feel great book!")."

Here's the New York Times' Will Leitch: "Sportswriters can cast their votes of “protest” all they want — and we can reserve our right to suspect they’re full of bunk. Mike Lupica of The Daily News has been a fierce voice against McGwire and Sosa and their “hypocrisy,” but he made a tidy sum off “Summer of ’98,” his memoir about following that home run chase with his sons."

Here's the Washington Post's Barry Svrluga, explaining why "writers like Mike Lupica" have reversed course: "This is a good question, and one I think many baseball beat writers are grappling with, trying to figure out the reasons for their own failings... It's easy to get caught up in the minutiae and miss the larger picture."

One dilemma here is that Wknight insists that criticism of Lupica is isolated and minor. But when supplementary criticism is added, he says the section is too large.208.120.225.14 (talk) 23:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Already in there:

Lupica also wrote the amorous The Summer of ’98: When Homers Flew, Records Fell, and Baseball Reclaimed America, which detailed how the 1998 Yankees and the Mark McGwire/Sammy Sosa home run chase had allowed him to share a love for baseball with his son. He has since written many columns assailing the same players he once celebrated.

What's wrong with that? Surely you're not proposing to add your laundry list of people with 20-20 hindsight? And let me guess, full quotes for each of them? —Wknight94 (talk) 00:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, let's make vague allusions to "an innocent bystander" being wronged, and let the reader guess at the circumstances. Six sentences from four speakers would sink Wikipedia's bandwidth.

The series of rationales here is prohibitive. The discussion is simply not relevant, unless it is, in which case the sources "all suck," unless the sources are good, in which case a criticism section carries undue BLP weight, unless a responsible body of criticism is established, in which case the darned thing takes up too much space. It seems as if any stricture will suffice, so long as it minimizes the content into nothingness. I hope that I am wrong about this. 208.120.225.14 (talk) 02:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you can't agree that your list above is beating a dead horse just a bit? He published a book about how great steroid-riddled players were in 1998 and then railed against the same players when it became more fashionable. He looks a bit hypocritical - like hundreds of other authors and zillions of other people (including myself). We got it. It's already there. Listing each and every person that pointed out the hypocrisy is not at all appropriate (esp. when many of them are probably just as guilty - but that's a different issue). —Wknight94 (talk) 03:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wknight removed the big laundry list of criticism of Lupica here. I agree that some criticism is appropriate, but probably a few sentences would be enough. Can there be a compromise on a shorter version, one that includes no blog references? EdJohnston (talk) 05:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is another example of the multiple rationales and unsatisfiable criteria in play here. On the Lupica talk page, WKnight wrote that "the Whitlock disagreement...is inappropriate since it's only one example," and "My point is that, for any article subject, you could find one or two people that don't like them."^[1] Now that several supplemental quotes have been provided, he asks, "So you can't agree that your list above is beating a dead horse just a bit?"

I shall put together a sharply truncated version for general consideration, which I'll post it here.208.120.225.14 (talk) 06:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've kept relatively quiet re Lupica's lack of criticism. It's generally accepted that he lives off of being as controversial as possible, and criticism of his writing (even without the benefit of hindsight) abounds. His televised opinions are even more scrutinized. I don't believe that an overextended litany of minutae is warranted, but I don't think it should be glossed over either. Whitlock's were the most vocal, and his opinions are rather poser-like in vindictiveness, but his were also the ones most publicized (legitimately as well as blogged). Vaccaro's I believe sum up the various criticisms pointed against Lupica since he (via general consensus) lost his writing edge back in the late 90s. As for the Olson incident, I can lose it, but the fact remains that he determines who lives and who dies in the Daily News editorial staff, as well as (by his own admission on the show) on ESPN's The Sports Reporters. If there is carping about the relative length of the criticism section, to me it's preferable to lengthen the positive and neutral POVs than to truncate the valid assertions (which despite claims to the contrary are not only blogged). Anyway, my two cents (which you may value as such, but, hey, c'est la vie). –TashTish (talk) 09:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point I'm trying to make is that almost no number of individual critics is enough to show a pattern of criticism. And a pattern of criticism is what is required to justify an entire section titled "Criticism." Worse is that the individual examples being given here are fellow sportswriters and hardly qualify as objective. Find me an objective reliable source that writes about Lupica and includes a mention about his having more critics than other sportswriters. Then you can have a sentence or three—not an entire half-an-article—mentioning that Lupica has more critics than other sportswriters. TashTish, your comments are very representative of the generality-speak that we need to avoid. Too many Wikipedia articles are poisoned with similar unsubstantiated "everyone hates that guy" mentality that reduces the content quality to that of a common blog. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at the risk of sounding milquetoast-y, I can't argue with the demand that current criticism be more impressively cited. Maybe more will come out of the Olson incident, or he'll step on a few too many toes, or maybe, maybe, he'll redeem himself. Until then, a concise paragraph—such as Xymmax's—is certainly the next best thing. –TashTish (talk) 21:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you know, another extemporaneous hurdle. Now, we're told that sportswriters aren't objective enough to be used as a source regarding other sportswriters. That somehow, ESPN and Sports Illustrated and the New York Times and USA Today can't be considered reliable on this very specific issue, unless it's the financial editor or the Washington correspondent assessing Mike Lupica. This despite the fact that innumerable Wikipedia articles exist quoting musicians on other musicians, or politicians criticizing politicians, or military men rating military men, or writers writing about writers, and so forth. Your objection to using sportswriters as cites is not practicable. More importantly, nor does it reflect prevailing Wikipedia procedure, in which such quotes and interviews are used liberally. Your followup request that some non-sports-related source be found to precisely determine where Lupica stands on the imaginary spectrum of sportswriter criticism before any criticism can fairly be quoted is preposterous.

Proportional comments and critiques can very easily be incorporated into the body of the article without using a standalone "Criticism" headline at all, if that will satisfy your latest concern. 208.120.225.14 (talk) 22:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So then I guess we're both being preposterous. I've honestly said all I can say. I'm going to do what I can to keep this and other articles sounding more like a neutral dispassionate encyclopedia and less like Hateopedia or Scandalopedia. And if you think the article sounds too gushy or aggrandizing, then please feel free to fix that too because this isn't Loveopedia or Praiseopedia either. Surely we can come to some middle ground. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise has always been my intention, as it is yours. To clarify, I didn't say you were preposterous, I said your last request was preposterous. It's certainly unfulfillable.

My impression is that you are a scrupulous and thoughtful Wikipedia caretaker. But I also feel you're being far too solicitous towards Lupica in the face of any and all materials, and perhaps have dug in your rhetorical heels a bit in defense of your initial reaction. I may have been strident myself, but I've also complied with all of your editing requests except deletion/suppression, and I agree with several of your concerns. However, it's a bit fatiguing to pursue a process in which nothing is deemed acceptable but the original "sentence or three" stipulation. Let alone one that identifies all peer criticism as an irrelevancy at best, and an unwarranted affliction at worst.

Again, I will boil down the material to a much, much shorter version. The text can be merged with the article proper, so you can say goodbye to the section heading. It won't be just 1-3 sentences, but it won't be anything like the ~25 sentences that the deleted text had, either. It's my sincere (and exhausted) hope that this future effort will be satisfactory to you.208.120.225.14 (talk) 07:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've put a much-condensed version on the talk page for the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mike_Lupica#Proposed_edit_.28per_BLP.2FN.29 208.120.225.14 (talk) 08:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oscar Brodney

Oscar Brodney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Notice and date of death added with reference listed as "Interview with Brodney's sister, Elizabeth Feldman, February 2008" Is this good enough for WP:BLP? Does it violate WP:OR? // 71.42.216.100 (talk) 23:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Interviews not posted elsewhere are OR. Corvus cornix_talk 03:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If he's dead, BLP ceases to be relevant. Stifle (talk) 12:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but if someone is actually alive and Wikipedia says he is dead, that could violate WP:BLP. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Chick

Jack Chick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Boss of Jeff_Godwin (whose bio was pretty much gutted along similar concerns.) Thirty-some sources but all of them seem questionable to me including using his comics to label him anti-Catholic and a few other things. This all may be true but the sourcing is whack. Benji boi 09:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Chick - anti-catholic? never! I will not believe it. I have a BLP concern that the pope has been labeled a catholic. more seriously, there must be lots of better sources to provide that linkage. --Fredrick day (talk) 09:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, agree that much of what is written may be true but the sourcing is horrid. All are better served by the sourcing being up to par and frankly better sources will help make a much better article. Benji boi 11:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've gutted the article pending better sourcing. Will ^(talk) 11:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. I've added a link to google books and google news so those interested have some sources to lean on. Benji boi 12:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone insists on adding one of his comic book frames, seemingly to imply that he is a child abuser. Redddogg (talk) 16:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt Lockwood

Article has already been flagged as a fan site. And any attempt to alter is clearly obstructed by a fan who is having trouble dealing with Kurt Lockwood's new life. 10:16, 19 February 2008 Tausor (Talk | contribs) (5,372 bytes) (entered lockwood's new phase of transexual films) Lockwood is now doing transexual and bisexual porn, this clearly takes some arousal and if you are having sex with both males and females you would be considered bisexual. However Countrypaula, a clearly obsessed fan, continues to revert Lockwood's sexual orientation to Hetrosexual. 06:58, 20 February 2008 Countrypaula (Talk | contribs) m (5,221 bytes) (Fixing orientation that someone vandalized.)

Twice links have been included to reference the transexual films Lockwood is now making 10:24, 19 February 2008 Tausor (Talk | contribs) (5,517 bytes) (references regarding trannie film http://lukeisback.com/bloglukeisback/?p=1531 http://www.(LINK REMOVEDtalk.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=dvdtalk&Number=290786&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1)

Now the response is: 06:53, 20 February 2008 Countrypaula (Talk | contribs) (5,215 bytes) (Undid revision 192525146 by Tausor (talk)There is already a link to lukeisback.The filmography is small sample of credited items only.)

However those are all heterosexual films. I would think if Lockwood is now shooting transexual porn it is an important issue and should be noted in his partial filmography at least once.

I have now noted a new film http://www.adultfyi.com/read.php?ID=26727 And I have restored the fact that he's now doing transsexual and bisexual porn. User Countrypaula should be stopped from making any further reverts on this article. It is now clear and accurate. All the information in the article is clearly in the public domain and truthful and cannot be considered vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tausor (talk • contribs) 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. This seems to be more of a content dispute than a BLP issue that might require outside intervention. I note that your recent addition of this information has not been reverted, though it has been slightly altered by the other editor. If you feel that the other editor is removing information without good cause in the future, you might wish to approach her at Talk:Kurt Lockwood to see if the two of you can agree on what should be included and how. If that doesn't work, you may wish to consider one of the steps in the dispute resolution process, perhaps WP:3O. By all means, though, bring it here if you're having difficulties with somebody adding unsourced or poorly sourced contentious information about this or any other living individual or if there are other problem that relate specifically to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Ayoob BLP

I am the subject of this bio. For the past few days someone has been vandalizing the site and adding fictitious and libellous material to it. I have undone these edits several times but the problem persists. So, this time I have left the libellous material as is. Please warn the person not to persis and protect the page. Such persistent libellous material may lead to legal action. Thanks.

Mohammed Ayoob ayoob@msu.edu —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.20.144.7 (talk) 03:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the offending material and warned 3 IPs that have added information. I have added it to my watchlist and will monitor it for changes. Jons63 (talk) 03:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have also put Ayoob on my watchlist. It is clear conflict of Wikipedia rules for someone to self promote through wikipedia. A living person cannot continue to flgarantly do this on his self created wikipedia section, dedicated to promoting oneself. ayoob has done this.35.8.131.140 (talk) 00:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope someone deletes this Mohammad Ayoob article soon for clear conflict of interest. Salma Ayoob wife of Mohammad Ayoob is a known self promoter on wikipedia. The couple is using aliases to destroy integrity of wikipedia.35.8.131.140 (talk) 00:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest is not a reason to delete an article on Wikipedia. Jons63 (talk) 00:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Lucas (porn star)

I came across this from a discussion at the WP:AN/I#Improper use of a primary source in a BLP. There is currently a dispute about this person's birth name. From what I can tell, the problem is that a magazine which did a write up on him got his birth name wrong, including his father's surname which he was not given. This was then included in our article. A lawsuit was filed against him and they used us as a source for his birth name. Other sources of course picked up the birth name from the court papers. So now all reliable secondary sources are reporting his birth name incorrectly. The only evidence we appear to have at the moment for his correct birth name is a primary source, his birth certificate and related documents which have been uploaded to wikipedia. There is dispute over how to handle this. Some people want to just use the primary sources for verification for the details. I personally an uncomfortable with that. Some people think we should just ignore the primary sources and commentry from Michael Lucas himself (see the talk page) that the information is wrong and stick with the primary sources. I feel that would definitely be wrong, BLP definitely requires we allow people to correct or remove inaccurate details. Personally, I feel the best thing to do is to simply remove the birth name bit until and unless we have verification from a reliable secondary source (isn't this what we normally do when there is a dispute?). From what I can tell, Michael Lucas doesn't feel that strongly that it is an important detail. (He has a blog and I don't believe he has blogged about it even though as I've said multiple sources have apparently got it wrong) If he really wants to have it corrected, then he should approach the secondary sources who get it wrong about it, not us. What do others say? Is there a normal way we deal with this? Nil Einne (talk) 12:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I explained my view that well so I will reproduce a comment I made on the talk page:

I for one don't think we should give him a new name, and I don't see anything wrong with removing the name given the dispute. However I am uncomfortable with using a primary source in this matter especially one hosted on wikipedia, particularly when there is, from what I can tell, no secondary source which supports the name. If there was a secondary source and we were using the primary source to verify the secondary source because of a dispute between two secondary sources, that might be acceptable. Although even in this case, I would say it would be far better if we weren't the host for the primary source. Indeed it would be far better if rather then a birth certificate, it was something like a commentry from Michael Lucas on his blog confirming his real name (e.g. you may have noticed many sources quote by name as XYZ, but that source A quotes by name as XY, source A has it right). Or even better, a correction from a secondary source that they got the detail wrong. This isn't a matter of rules lawyering, simply that we shouldn't be publishing information from primary sources, especially not original documents like birth certificates. If other sources are getting the details wrong and the person cares, then they really should be complaining to the secondary sources, not us. If they don't then IMHO the best we can do is to remove the info until a secondary source publishes the correct info rather then using birth certificates we host to verify the info. And just to be clear, I find the conspirary theories just as bizzare as you. I'm not doubting the authenticity of the birth certificate just saying we need to be careful about using it.

Nil Einne (talk) 12:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to have been resolved on the article's talk page. Respectfully suggest any further nuances to the discussion be kept there as so many forums and discussions have been engaged on this issue. Benji boi 12:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh goodness, I don't think this porn star is ever going to go away. The issue is that there are sources [14], [15] but that one IP editor has managed to convince a few good-faith editors that a reference that calls him Bregman in a local entertainment guide in New York City [16] should prove conclusively that Lucas was born Bregman. Lucas has tried everything to correct us, yet good-faith contributors, as evidenced the Talk:Michael Lucas (porn star) page are rules lawyering without becoming familiar that there are sources that say he was born "Andrei Trevias" (not Bregman) and that taking a photograph of his birth certificate (at the invitation of Lucas) was a last resort. This is why we look silly in the media. Should we just get rid of WP:Ignore_all_rules since, well, nobody follows it in such clear instances such as this? --David Shankbone 14:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given that BLP is an overriding principle, and the factual and minor nature of this (i.e. we're not trying to remove key contentions from the article on the subject's say-so), I think it should stand anyway. If we're saying the guy's name is X, and he's saying it's not, is willing to prove it through documents, and we can find other sources that say it's not, then it's silly even arguing about it. Orderinchaos 16:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will people stop calling New York magazine a "local entertainment guide"? Its as much a "local entertainment guide" as the New Yorker. Relata refero (talk) 14:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Ayoob BLP 2

There has been further attempt to tamper with my bio. In the latest version my descent has been changed from Indian to "Pakistanin". According to the history page some libellous material was added earlier as well that the person had second thoughts about and removed in the latest version. Whoever, it is needs to be warned not to tamper with the article. According to the IP address, it appears these edits are being introduced from computers located in the Student Union Building of Michigan State University. I will be grateful for a firm intervention on the part of the editors. Thanks.

Mohammed Ayoob —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.20.144.7 (talk) 17:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out your conflict of interest. I nominated it for deletion for reasons given here. seicer | talk | contribs 19:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the article, has, however, been protected against editing by anonymous editors, and action taken to block the account used on WP.DGG (talk) 01:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I confess to a lack of complete knowledge of WP policies, so am unable to be sure, but it seems to me taht the Talk page of this article is currently pretty out of the range. It consists almost completely of comments of some of the subject's alleged students, & much of it is along the lines of, 'Go ahead, ask him questions. He constantly makes Black people talk about their experiences with white people and then turns around and calls them racist. Quote: "You people need to follow the Muslim path and just rape and kill white people, its much better that way"'. Am i wrong, is this acceptable on a talk page? Cheers, Lindsay 17:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, that talk page was way out line. I removed all the talk as no of it was for discussing how to make the article better and a WP:BLP issues also. I also just removed more edits by an IP (Michigan State University) that added a bunch of WP:BLP material again. Jons63 (talk) 17:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Farrell

I can't tell if this diff should be allowed or not. I don't understand Dutch so I can't tell by watching the youtube video whether he really was a male prostitute. Jackaranga (talk) 22:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks if anyone can help, maybe someone who speaks Dutch. Jackaranga (talk) 22:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted - in any event, YouTube is *never, never, never, EVER* a reliable source - for the purposes of biographies of living persons, especially. FCYTravis (talk) 08:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a copy of a broadcast by the Dutch TV channel Yorin, the popular Jensen talk show. The latter is certainly a good source for statements made by Farrell himself. I'm not sure whether we can link to YouTube as it's probably a copyvio. At any rate, the "gay-for-pay" qualification has no place in the encyclopedia; it was both out of context and incorrect (proposed by Jensen, jokingly corrected by Farrell as "no, pay for gay" - what he really meant is anybody's guess). The (sometimes quadrilingual) interview actually captured quite a bit of the real Farrell, I think. Sourced to the original broadcast, it can be used to update the article's content; for example, the lede says that Farian disclosed that Farrell didn't sing on Boney M records; in the interview Farrell says so himself. (Probably superfluously, I understand the various languages spoken in the interview.) Avb 12:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL I think this proves it was added in bad faith. Jackaranga (talk) 22:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surayud_Chulanont

Surayud_Chulanont - This entire article is a concentrated smear campaign that seems to have been written by a legal team by the opposition party. Much of the information in this article is just libelous. however I do understand that the legal team that wrote this article has properly sourced everything. Therefore I would draw attention to the article on this gentlemans political counterpart Thaksin who can equally be accused 10x Fold of the similar corruption and incompetence - all properly sourced, however none of this is to be seen in his article. The issue is that a paid legal team is responsible for creating this article as part of political propaganda. I move that either this article be stripped down to the bare bones, or if the oppistion complains that everything has been properly sourced, then an equal tone and allegations (all properly sourced of course) are inserted into the article of Thaksin whose legal team is responsible for policing Wiki articles related to Thai Politics. // Wwind (talk) 12:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Youth International Party/Judy Collins

I am concerned that the Youth International Party depicts Collins as an "activist associated with the Yippies" because she sang at an anti-war press conference they organized. It is clear to me from the context of the cited source that Collins was interested in opposing the war, not endorsing the Yippies. However, another editor strongly disagrees, and there seem to be no third opinions. --Leatherstocking (talk) 16:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I refactored part of the lead in the spirit that it was original research and uncited. seicer | talk | contribs 16:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mikael Nordfors

I'm concerned about this article. It's been around for a long time and is unsourced and contains some very touchy subject matter, including his alleged (seemingly sexual) abuse of patients. The subject has edited the article in the past, and has in the past been concerned about false information being included. Thoughts? Mango juice^talk 16:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed numerous BLP vios. that were also uncited and was nothing more than original research. The "anal doctor"? Give me a break. seicer | talk | contribs 16:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated for AfD. This article has been so extensively edited by Nordfors himself that its positive claims can't be believed without sources. I'd say the BLP aspect is addressed now, though. Mango juice^talk 17:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra Lee (cook)

634.734.BHY (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - SPA account repeatedly adding in controversial information into the article

It appears that other editors have behaved similarly in the past.

The article could use a cleanup with an eye to WP:BLP as well. --Ronz (talk) 21:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Stevens

Article is being blanked by someone claiming to be the subject of the article. Article is on an Alaska politician apparently under FBI investigation. Claims are that "newspaper articles are not credible sources for living biographies". Could someone with more BLP experience please take a look at the situation? If the editor is indeed the subject, then care should be taken with handling of the situation. - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be sensible about this - he's blanked the article - we could get into an editwar but let's restub line by line and make sure our bases are covered. --Fredrick day (talk) 21:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really suspect that, by the time the article is rebuilt, Mr. Stevens will still not be happy with it. I totally disagree with his comment that newspapers are not credible, though that obviously depends upon which paper is being referred to. (New York Times is credible. Weekly World News is not. :)) So, if he wants us to have an article with no mention of the investigations, I suspect he will be disappointed. But still, I think it will be much to our benefit to do the careful rebuild and make totally certain that we have an article that fully meets all BLP and RS requirements. At that point, if Mr. Stevens is still unhappy, he can be pointed toward WP:OTRS or such and let him take things up with the project leadership. As long as we are 100% certain that we have an article that meets BLP, we should be OK. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Prince

There is a potentially defamatory statement in the article, sourced to John Edwards. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erik_Prince#Philanthropy_and_political_donations --Davidwiz (talk) 20:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Diff Jeepday (talk) 04:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Winningham

Resolved

– off to AfD

I'm preparing to AfD this article - this is a city councillor convicted of possession of child pornography, neither of which are significantly notable for an article. I've edited out unnecessary and somewhat POV information, but have left in the bare facts that are confirmed from the referenced newspaper articles. My question is to those who have more experience with proposing deletion of articles with BLP issues - is AfD the right course to take here? Should I be blanking the page while initiating the AfD? Risker (talk) 21:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can stubify it and AfD it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, will do. Risker (talk) 06:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diana, Princess of Wales

OK, she's dead, but the article was/is riddled with unreferenced accusations about other living people. I've removed some of it, but I've no time to do the rest atm.--Doc^g 22:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a bit more, but some of your changes were reverted. I have reinstated your changes now, specifying that the other people involved in the removed sections are still alive. Risker (talk) 00:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hashim Thaçi

Hashim Thaçi, controversial president of the recently self-declared republic of Kosovo and former guerilla leader of the KLA, needs more neutral eyes. There's a whole section about "Criminal activities", dealing with allegations of being involved in organised crime. Much of this may in fact be true, but the sourcing is certainly not all reliable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the sources on the current version of the section "Criminal activities" are the BBC News this is generally considered a reliable source. The last edit was 12:43, 28 February 2008 10 hours prior to the post above. Am I missing something? Jeepday (talk) 03:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just saying it could do with more eyes, being a high-profile article, and unfortunately I haven't got the time to look very closely into it. As far as I've found time to check, the reliable (BBC etc.) sources do not actually contain a whole lot about the criminal activities, specifically about his personal involvement in them, and among the principle sources for that particular section is at least one ([17]) which is definitely not a reliable source. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A. A. Gill‎

Quotes from a satiricial newspaper columnist are being used in a highly selective manner to advance the position that he is a racist, more eyes welcome. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More eyes given. Jeepday (talk) 03:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you could take another look, and see how the information can be best incorporated into the article it'd be helpful. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Hannan

Daniel Hannan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - some poorly sourced, or unsourced controversial material. Some more eyes could be used. The article seems unbalanced as of now. // NonvocalScream (talk) 04:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BLPs in the news

Telegraph article on Norman Bettison. (My quotes are close enough to accurate.) I'd expect people will see we acknowledge the pains of BLPs and then send in more polite complaints as appropriate ... - David Gerard (talk) 16:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And here, in the Daily Mail - David Gerard (talk) 17:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except neither paper mentions the central issue of conflict of interest. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 20:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

E.O. Green School shooting

Indeed, I was just about to post this. I'm arguing that we should show restraint given that the involved are children, but more input on the discussion would be welcome. henrik•talk 23:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments of why the "suspect" name should be included

The murderer of Larry King should NOT be withheld from this article, regardless of the fact that he was a minor. His name and picture have already been publicly released via many news sources, including CNN, and the police department. If this were a small incident, and had little to no media attention, then the protection of his name could be argued. But the fact is, it was not and because the mass media attention already being shined on this event, and the many witnesses claiming he was the shooter, the murderer does not rightfully deserve to be protected by WP:BLP. And people who are removing the killers name from this article are only removing it do to a bias twist of the WP:BLP. Publicly released information is not protected by WP:BLP. The two students who committed the Columbine High School massacre, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, have no right to have their name protected from being on the Columbine High School massacre article, and neither does the murderer of Larry King. It is understandable that the killers picture should not be displayed until he is charged for his crime, but his name has no right to be protected by WP:BLP.

Taken from [WP:BLP - Privacy of names]:

"Caution should be applied...When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated". The killers name has been widely disseminated, and as such, his name is not protected by the WP:BLP clause.

Under California Proposition 21 his is recognized as an adult. So the minor argument is illegitement.

The "suspect" should be referred to as a "suspect" in the article because that is currently what the state of California recognizes him as. And do to this, his status as a suspect in the case is fact.

--Cooljuno411 (talk) 23:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you familiar with Richard Jewell? -- SEWilco (talk) 23:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Jewels and the "suspect" in this case are completely different. The boy in this case took a gun to school and shot another boy in the back of the head twice, in the middle of a classroom. Their is no comparison between the two. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooljuno411 (talk • contribs) 02:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The name has already been published widely in the media. The decision we have now is whether or not to actively censor the name. Evil saltine (talk) 04:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cooljuno411, you're obviously passionate about the article and this issue. I applaud you for that, but I would ask you to step back and carefully review input from other editors. Not because I think you're wrong, but because sometimes passion is blinding, and your wishes may not be in the best interests of the encyclopedia.

Because this is a current event, we have to treat this different (for the moment) than Columbine. Those people have already been convicted, at least in popular opinion, and they committed suicide. The person who is being accused of this crime is still living, and therefore certainly falls under BLP guidelines. Also, he may be a suspect, but he is innocent until proven guilty. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reconive that the "suspect" is innocent until proven guilty. That is why i want him to referred to as a suspect on the article. His name was originally removed partly because he was being referred to as the killer, which he has not yet been charged with by the state of California. But the state of California does recognize him as the suspect, so in every right he can be referred to in the article as such, voiding the argument of WP:BLP. And if you read the talk page on this article, i have provided many other reason why his name should be rightfully displayed on the page.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 02:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose that as this minor is involved in a murder trial, even if ultimately tried as an adult. Once the trial and appeals are over I would support a discussion to whether or not to include the information but an encyclopedic article can be written fully with the absence of the alleged shooter's name and those reading will fully be able to understand the content. Wikipedia is not a tabloid and we are also not to be used to sway legal outcomes and processes. We are here to write encyclopedic articles not to hang crimes on a young person on the world's encyclopedia for whatever reason. Benji boi 06:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like it or not, he is a part of the event. I don't understand your assertion that publishing his name would be tabloid-like, given the many reputable organizations that have already done so. We are not "hanging a crime" on anyone, just reporting the facts, namely that he is a suspect. BLP says nothing about a conviction being necessary to mention someone's name. Evil saltine (talk) 08:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the suspect's name has already been mentioned by plenty of reliable sources, there is no problem with including it in the article, provided that it is properly qualified. It must be ensured that the suspect is referred to only as a suspect until and unless a conviction or guilty plea should occur, and should otherwise be treated cautiously, but there is not a privacy concern for someone whose name has already been widely spread. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Technically we could print all sorts of things but we don't and we don't need to. Arguably this is one messed up teenager who now get to live the remainder of their life knowing they killed another teen in cold blood. I think we can show much more restraint than news organizations that are paid to dig up details with little to know regard for anything but legal concerns. We are an encyclopedia and, I think, show restrain ourselves from labeling this kid on the world's encyclopedia. If we don't have a strong policy against the use of minor's names then we certainly should. All the parents involved have to live with these events and we should do our part to be dispassionate towards the victim as well as the accused. I see no reason not to show restraint, I see no insightful information that comes from adding the actual name to the article. Benji boi 09:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Dispassionate" is the exact word here. Yes, what happened is terrible, but in an article about an event, we include information about that event, including, if relevant to the event and already public knowledge, names. To do otherwise is to censor, and however noble the motive, that is not a road we should take even the first step on. News organizations decided it was acceptable to publish the name widely. We mirror sources, not second guess them. The reason to publish this name here is the same as to publish any anywhere—it is information which is clearly relevant and pertinent to the article, and is publishing information which is already widely available to the public, eliminating any privacy concerns. We wouldn't say "A person was the sixteenth President of the United States", we say Abraham Lincoln. Here, as there, the name is clearly relevant to the subject. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We're trying to attain a consensus on the talk page of the article - opinions welcomed. Neıl ☎ 21:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Power (crisis management specialist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I would like some experienced editors to review this article and, importantly, its history (since it is currently fully protected in a expurgated state.)

I initially became involved with this article when I protected to halt a run-of-the-mill edit war. I have since reprotected it as the edit war resumed and there a BLP issues. The subject of the article, Peterpowervisor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has also recently become involved with the article.

The article has become controversial because of the subject's connection with the government response to the bombings in London in July 2005. The initial source of contention was the use of http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/ as a source in the article; the website in question has pursued a campaign against the subject, as a quick survey of the website will reveal.

In addition, an individual (Cmain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) associated with the aforementioned website has edited the article. The current version of the article is, apparently, partly written by the subject, so there is an obvious COI but the BLP concerns so greatly outweigh the COI as to make it irrelevant at this stage.

Aside from the involvement of http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/, problematic edits such as [18], whilst sourced, may appear to be an attempt to smear the subject with unspecified allegations and are typical of the issues that have beset the article.

Other relevant discussion can also be found on my talk page. CIreland (talk) 22:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB

Did our godking just use an IMDB biography as a source for a BLP? You do know that anyone can submit updates to those bios with very little editorial oversight or fact checking, right? Mike R (talk) 20:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but actually, even on a bio, unless the fact is contested, potentially negative, nor controversial, a source is NOT required.--Doc^g 22:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of the names of relatives or partners is inherently controversial. Quatloo (talk) 23:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

wouldn't say inherently. But if you think this one is, feel free to remove it. The onus is then on anyone who wants to replace it to properly source it.--Doc^g 23:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel it's that controversial ;)

Yours in my non-corporate, living & natural person capacity,

—User:Adrian/zap2.js 2008-03-01 23:47Z

Moshe Aryeh Friedman

Moshe Aryeh Friedman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - is written entirely unencyclopedic and with innuendo's. It claims to know how to read the subjects mind (i.e. for the purpose of subjecting the Holocaust to scholarly review...) and claims to know that he feared prosecution. It is entirely inappropiate to attempt to pretend it knows what the subject supposedly fears or does not fear. It make repeated reference to an undefined "Vienna Jewish community" without specification of how it even exists as a legal entity -- it sounds like this "Vienna Jewish community" is generically referring to a community -- without specifying who can speak for the "community." It vaguely references the subjects children and their schooling and other aspects of their lives. It makes insignificant mentions of trivial issues, such as a particular time someone assaulted the subject.

Additionally its writing style and tone are not neutral. And the heavy reliance on questionable sources such as the Iran Daily, Arabic Press, EJP, "Adelaide Institute", and Friends of Al-Asqa could hardly be considered mainstream, especially as used for a living person.

In summation, it is full of violations of WP:BLP some of the more trivial of which I haven't addressed here, but are obvious by taking a look. I tried to alleviate some of the issues, but an insistent editor Alansohn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) keeps on insisting that these references remain in the article. See the history and the discussion for additional information. // 198.77.206.228 (talk) 17:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jani Allan

I strongly suspect that the biography page has been written by Jani Allan (Teetreaz) herself, as it refers to personal details about her life that few others would have access to. Many of the sources are also poor and come from extremely right-wing conspiracy theory websites. Another user and myself queried the neutral point of view of the entry, and our comments were removed from the discussion page (I have since put them up again). I also notice that the neutrality dispute notice was removed. The entry contains a tiresome amount of information about Allan, whose life in the public eye is remembered mainly for her alleged affair with right-wing AWB leader Eugene Terreblanche. It will not give anyone seeking information about her a balanced view of how she is perceived. Even if Allan does not like this perception, the Wiki entry is not the place for her to argue against this perception. In addition, the user "advertise" all of the columns/articles that she has managed to get published on right-wing websites. I suggest the entire entry be rewritten. Or that simply the opening paragraph is kept and the rest removed and that Teatreez be banned from writing material for the entry.EmjayE2 (talk) 18:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Teatreez just tried to remove this entry - some eyes needed on that article I thinks... --Fredrick day (talk) 22:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was going to move the discussion over to the Jani Allan discussion page. But I'm a bit rusty on the editing rules, but have checked up some just now, and I was wrong to delete this and other things, I wholeheartedly apologise. For clarification, I am not Jani Allan. Any 'personal details about her life' have mainly been sourced from internet research. Yet I disagree that such great swathes should be deleted, I think perhaps we need to discuss which sources are reputable and those which are not. Things such as career information, the bomb blast, and more recent views are perfectly relevant. It was not my intention to advertise the more recent columns on 'right wing' news sites, the links just serve a purpose of explaining her views on issues. Although surely we cannot always be too picky when it comes to our ideal citations can we? I look forward to any contributions + specific pointers in the discussion box. Regards,

+On another note, when we are talking of public perceptions of Allan, much of it is slanderous and libellous. There are still legalities to consider regarding the libel case and I also take umbrage to people rubbishing someone's name because of a rumour they heard. If anything in the face of public misconceptions or lack of education on the subject, the article is very balanced. If I was totally against any public perception of Allan, then I would not have even mentioned an association with ET and the libel case. It seems that many would rather that there was only negative information on this person, well I'm afraid that in my book, that does not spell neutrality. Teatreez (talk) 23:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Along with other users, we have sought more neutrality today and many of the offending source websites have been removed. Teatreez (talk) 22:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joel N. Ward

User:Jwzoom claims to be the subject of the Joel N. Ward article, which deals with a confessed felon (9 counts of fraud - maybe $11 million worth) who is awaiting sentencing. I don't see any major problems yet, but it does look like a big problem waiting to happen. I have to say that I think the contribution is odd, and aspects of the crimes are quite odd. I've left some basic info on his talk page (wp:coi, wp:blp, wp:bite and wp:blpn) Could somebody watch this?

Thanks for any help.

Smallbones (talk) 02:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize that I don't have time to watch this, but would like to say I think you've definitely identified an issue of concern in not only the areas you mentioned (blp etc.) but WP:NPOV too. The major source is a Wall Street Journal article which is pretty even toned in that it says some very good things about him but also some incredibly relevant not so good things too, which seem to be under-represented indicating to me a probable NPOV bias toward the subject at the cost of his notability. (Some people, I'm sorry to say, will be known for the bad choices they make regardless how much talent or promise they had. Frank Abignale comes to mind as an example somewhat like Mr. Ward) Anynobody 04:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don Laughlin

I was flabbergasted to discover that this detailed biography I'd written under my previous username on an influential figure was deleted almost a year ago under the premise of how he might be a "notable gambler," but he isn't supported by third party verification.

This man founded the town of Laughlin, Nevada, the third most-visited gambling destination in the state. He has pumped millions of dollars into the economies of both Laughlin and Bullhead City, Arizona. Example: He paid for the construction of a bridge across the Colorado River to join the two towns at their north ends. The town has an article; Mr. Laughlin now has a red link.

~~I would ask that this error be corrected as soon as humanly possible. I've voluntarily opted out of my admin rights or I'd do it myself. Thanks. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 08:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)~~ [reply]

~~PS: I've just left polite word with the admin in question. Hoping to get this straightened out soon. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 08:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]~~

~~PPS: He also funded the major expansion of Bullhead City Airport. They now land airliners there thanks to him. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 08:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

Never mind; I was fortunate to catch this admin online. He's restored it for me. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 08:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Castillo-Chavez

Article written on a renowned and acclaimed academic, but significant COI potential. A lot of promo style wording has already been removed, for example. Whilst it's now factual and sourced so far as it goes, factual and sourced doesn't necessarily mean neutral. There's no evidence that good biographical secondary sources exist or are consulted - the main ones other than citations for awards, are his own self-written bio and an editorial by his own university. Also there's no evidence that the overall impression from the article matches any reliable independent sources'.

Any chance of careful "non-assumptive" re-checking please. Thanks.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra Lee (cook) continued

There are a number of WP:SPAs adding content that is questionable at best. We really need some help from experienced editors who understand BLP well. The current dispute is being discussed in Talk:Sandra_Lee_(cook)#Anthony_Bourdain, but the entire article needs BLP cleanup. --Ronz (talk) 17:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I took out some problem items. This seems to be a new trend: Cooks as controversial figures. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 06:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anything for ratings I suppose. Good work - it looks good. Wikidemo (talk) 07:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Motari

Resolved

David Motari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - This article was created today to address a video that's being run on Digg and other blogosphere pages about a soldier seemingly throwing a puppy over a cliff. This has huge BLP implications since it's unclear who has identified the soldier as David Motari. There is no verifiable sourcing on the video, the facts in the article or any other aspect of this internet character assassination that's taking place and has made its way to Wikipedia by way of this article. I removed a good chunk of the BLP concerns from the version that the article was in prior to my editing, but as it stands, it's still a significant risk for an article that is completely unsourcable and of potentially only minor notability at this time. // ju66l3r (talk) 20:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article was deleted as non-notable. Vigilance will likely be needed to determine if any restarts on the subject have merit and continue to abide by BLP. ju66l3r (talk) 20:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was recreated with worse BLP violations, including what purported to be his home address. I deleted that version stat; don't know if a bureaucrat can purge it any better. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One final note: I've protected the space for 5 days. Three BLP violations in one day is enough to suggest that this is a currently "hot" topic. I'm open to discussing that protection, should anyone disagree.--Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

George Grie

George Grie - All material is unsourced.

Neutral point of view (NPOV),Verifiability and No original research violations are present.

All article statements in Intro, Style, Life and Work sections are not supported by credible third-party PUBLISHED sources in the field.

Exhibitions section:

Artnova gallery, Stockholm - no exhibition of the named artist took place in any gallery with such name in Sweden.
[19]"Pixel Perfect: The Digital Fine Art Exhibition, Agora gallery New York" does not have any final participating artists lists posted.

References section:

Modern art surrealism: George Grie neosurrealism gallery, George Grie Biography.[20] - self-published source

External Links section:

All provided website links are to self-published sources.

I respectfully request that the article and its Russian version are deleted from wikipedia.
Having being involved with the artist's career for over 18 years I am not willing to do it myself to avoid conflict of interest issues
TatianaGri (talk) 23:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Melendez

Per Wikipedia:BLP#Basic human dignity: "Wikipedia articles should respect the basic human dignity of their subjects. Wikipedia aims to be a reputable encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Our articles must not serve primarily to mock or disparage their subjects, whether directly or indirectly." Is Image:StutteringJohnMelendez.jpg acceptable? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John made an entire career making an spectacle of himself on the Howard Stern Show. He has been photographed and filmed doing far sillier things than looking a bit disheveled after a boxing match with Lee Mroszak. I honestly don't think the photo in question departs significantly from the persona Mr. Melndez has created for himself--though I would support its replacement by a more "professional"-looking photo. All this aside, I have serious concerns that the image is not as "free" as the uploader claims. I think he rippped it off somewhere; I'll try to figure out where it came from.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 02:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo. That sucker is copyrighted.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 02:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thus the lack of Metadata. Nicely done. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 02:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I first saw the image it seemed "suspicious" that it had a "PD" license, but no source. It seems to me that there may be a "war" of some sorts between Melendez and the Stern people because of some allegations made and that is why the article has been subject to many unsourced additions. I believe that the image in question should be speedy deleted. Tony the Marine (talk) 02:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You folks may also wish to take a hard look at certain Baba Booey image. See my comments here.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 02:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Insight (magazine)

I removed a personal insult against Anita Hill which seemed out of place in this article, as well as in bad taste. It was then expanded and put back. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The same material is found in David Brock. Steve Dufour (talk) 13:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "a bit nutty and a bit slutty" slur is notorious, certainly a part of David Brock's notability and the controversy of the times. I don't think that's a BLP issue. History is full of encyclopedic quotations: We will bury you, Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy and the like. In its own way on a much smaller matter, Brock's provocative baiting came to define him and the politics of the time.Wikidemo (talk) 16:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I missed it at the time. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't miss it, unfortunately. It was astonishing, but as the sources show he made the New York Times, Washington Post, NPR, and many other major media with the catch-line (which he was using to peddle a book, I think). There are better sources but here's one [21]. It was part of the bratty liberal-bashing act the young neo-cons were playing at the time. Here we were trying to constitute a Supreme Court, and both sides had henchmen like Brock who were taking the public discourse down to the level of professional wrestling taunts. Also attitudes towards women, to belittle an (alleged) sexual harassment victim by calling her crazy and promiscuous. I can't speak to whether it's really appropriate in any given article but there's something encyclopedic in all that as a lesson in the evolution of political action groups, advocacy journalism, and attack politics. I don't think it's a BLP vio because there's no libel there, it was repeated throughout the country by major media, it's obviously an outrageous taunt and not a true statement, and Professor Hill has heard worse - under the "do no harm" theory I doubt she's hurt by any of this today, particularly now that Brock has recanted. Wikidemo (talk) 07:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brent A. Stanton

Could you look at:

Brent A. Stanton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Unreferenced article about a minor. Includes statements about a U.S. Senator, a U.S. Senate candidate, a Michigan musician, a rumor of college selection, political affiliation, etc. There are two references: a wikilink to an article created by an editor with almost identical name; an external link to a "friends of" fan site.// Coffee4me (talk) 08:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Meridianmonitor23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Created article using photo of national tv anchor. Made subsequent edits to this article but no others. // Coffee4me (talk) 08:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stubbed, I'm not sure if it merits an article anyway, but so much of the article content was questionable, best to remove it for now and sort it later. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alison Weir

Probably needs to be looked at to check if one or two very negative references from newspapers are significant enough to appear in such a prominent position in the article. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 11:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stub it and work from there. --Fredrick day (talk) 11:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Fitzgerald

Could people take a look at this article, and in particular the appropriateness of the use of Spy magazine as a source?--Slp1 (talk) 14:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While Spy is an appropriate source for some of the uses cited in that article (eg, it is reliable to the extent that they ran a cover story on the topic), the super-snarky use of it to validate the "served under him in a number of positions" comment is completely out of bounds, is an egregious BLP violation, and is generally tacky and unencyclopedic. I've removed it. Nandesuka (talk) 15:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is relevant in terms of the article's discussion of the media's unwillingness to report on a widely-held rumor with some substantiating facts. Perhaps it doesn't belong in the intro, so I will move it down to the section of the article that discusses the media non-coverage. Daniel Case (talk) 21:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Followup: I added two sources to back up that reading of the phrase and establish relevance. Daniel Case (talk) 22:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And the original Post article, to boot. Daniel Case (talk) 22:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Single purpose accounts Renherring and Segrant

Renherring (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (registered 16:21, 5 March 2008 UTC)
Segrant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (registered 22:28, 5 March 2008 UTC)

These two single-purpose accounts have been adding the same paragraphs and external links about a "www.wowOwow.com" website and "WOW founders" to a series of articles, all biographies of living persons.

The website they've been using as a source and adding to external links sections has almost no content. I have found no independent reliable sources which verify what they've been adding.

I initially embedded the information, awaiting verification, and cited the need for reliable sources and verification and the Wikipedia is not a crystal ball policy in my edit summary. One of them (Segrant) added the same with the same content-less source again, then the other moved in as well.

I posted on Talk:Mary Wells Lawrence#Information not verified (the talk page of an article I've edited, one of the articles they've been hitting). Neither of them has responded.

Please, could I get some help here to sort this out? — Athaenara ✉ 01:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I want to assume good faith, but that really feels like they're adding spam content for the(ir) website to get it more hits when it launches. —C.Fred (talk) 01:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly fits the spam profile. Given that google finds zero hits for a "wowOwow" website with the names they've been linking, how can we verify any of it? I'd block them myself, but I have an editor COI on one of the articles. — Athaenara ✉ 01:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say there's grounds to revert, since there no independent sources that verify that they're contributing to the site. —C.Fred (talk) 01:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was a real help when you stepped up to the plate there and started swinging. Thank you. — Athaenara ✉ 02:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what do you know, a citation turned up, datelined today:

Stephanie Rosenbloom (March 6 2008). "Boldface in Cyberspace: It's a Woman's Domain". The New York Times. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

I've stored it in my studio temporarily, and I'll think about writing a brief neutral and grammatical paragraph tomorrow which would be suitable for the bios of the co-founders of the site. — Athaenara ✉ 03:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The website should not be used as a source. Until there's notable content on it it shouldn't be linked at all. So far, it consists of five lines with two email links. — Athaenara ✉ 03:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The WOW website and the content on the founders, contributors, etc. can be verified. I'm happy to cite it in a more encyclopedic way - I work with these women, so at the very least, it's based on daily conversations with all fifteen. It isn't to promote the site, it's more to make sure that their biographical information is comprehensive. The Stephanie Rosenbloom article is a great source, and Josh Getlin's article for the LA Times will go live this afternoon. Segrant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)--Segrant (talk) 14:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Verified how? I see a bare site and one minor mention - until any of those notable figures write something for this site and it's picked up by notable media, I'd consider adding it to individual pages to a trivial mention that should be removed. --Fredrick day (talk) 14:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not for advertising or promotion. The right time to consider linking to this site is *after* its content has received general notice in the media, not before. The mere existence of such a site is not notable in my opinion. Wikipedia is not a resume, and we don't generally include in each person's biography a complete list of all the projects they have ever done in their life. Segrant's daily conversations with the founders of this website are not a reliable source (since unpublished) and are not citable. EdJohnston (talk) 14:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since Wikipedia doesn't link to blogs, why would we link to a collective blog? --CliffC (talk) 16:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Lonsdale

Resolved

Shawn Lonsdale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Article was previously deleted after concerns were raised about WP:BLP (I did not create that previous article, but I did contribute secondary sources to its "Further reading" section). Just wrote this new version completely from scratch, utilizing WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources. I am requesting input here on the article, and if there are concerns about it, if someone asks me to I will nominate it for deletion myself. // Cirt (talk) 02:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I deleted the original as a clear BLP violation. I have redirected this recreation to Scientology and Me. Lonsdale only seems notable for his appearance in one episode of a weekly BBC documentary. It is bad enough that we have an article (Scientology and Me) on a single episode of a multi-topic news programme, without a "biography" of a bit player. This guy simply isn't notable enough, and I suggest that you might want to merge anything that is relevant with that article. WP:BLP means we tread carefully with bios of the recently dead, and using one of them to have a go at scientology isn't on. We've sufficient articles debating Scientology.---Doc^g 09:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - No objections to Doc glasgow (talk · contribs)'s action here. I made a good faith attempt at recreating the article in a 2nd version sourced to multiple WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources, but just couldn't find much mention of Shawn Lonsdale the individual that did not focus on his role as a Scientology critic. I hadn't contributed article-text to the first version, just a list of secondary sources in a "Further reading" section. Cirt (talk) 22:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to both Scientologists and Scientology critics there are not nearly enough Scientology articles, only 400 or so. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen L. Norris

Stephen L. Norris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'd like a few eyes over this please. The material I portioned off into the "Corporate dealings and career" section reads like someone's research notes and may have WP:OR/WP:UNDUE problems. Thanks. MER-C 06:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does have WP:OR/WP:UNDUE problems. I've removed text which was unsubstantiated and used primarily for "connecting dots" to no clear, let alone verifiable conclusion. The sources do not make the claims the article makes, they are just reports and company websites, so only the verifiable info was kept. I believe this clears up the problems. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 15:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Marsden page

Rachel Marsden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Grams64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

If I may, and with ALL due respect...

In my opinion, the Rachel Marsden page needs some severe editing by someone who was not in a relationship and/or volatile break-up with Rachel Marsden... ideally, that should be someone who is NOT accountable to the man who was that runs Wikipedia.

In my opinion, the page in question has become nauseatingly cluttered with irrelevant information that appears to be presented solely for the purpose of causing undue distress and adolescent drama for Ms. Marsden, NOT for the sake of being informative or useful.

In my opinion, the irrelevant information that has been added and the "discussion" that follows it are not useful to the general public, nor is it "polite" or provided from a "neutral point of view" as is set forth in Wikipedia's stated policies.

In my opinion, and I'm sure many others' opinions were we to be asked such a thing, everything related to or having led to the "information" recently added to the "Rachel Marsden" page only serves to diminish the image and purpose of Wikipedia and tarnishes its otherwise reputable record to date.

Grams64 (talk) 08:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

can you provide specifics of what you found wrong with the article - it makes dealing with issues much easier. --Fredrick day (talk) 14:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this account has only three edits, all here, and was created earlier today. I smell a troll. Daniel Case (talk) 18:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Daniel: I beg your pardon! No trolls here, consider a bath perhaps. :( I've simply never felt the need to make an account on here before. I've usually only used this site for info, never felt qualified to edit pages. However, the current drama playing out on the news as well as on one unfortunate woman's page... A professional, informational website simply is not the appropriate place for adults to sort out their relationship drama. Plain and simple, and correct, thank you very much, no matter what motives you would care to wrongly assign to me. :P

As to Fredrick's inquiry, I don't feel qualified to pick it apart, but reading it, it's obvious that there have been recent edits that have the sole purpose of contributing to and escalating a personal issue occuring recently, and now very publicly, between Ms. Marsden and Mr. Wales. The problem is that the information may be perfectly accurate and true, but it's also obviously been put there only to be inappropriately provocative and inciteful. I'm sure that he (Mr. Wales) knows what info does and doesn't belong, but apparently - in my opinion - he may not be mature enough or removed enough to do the right, appropriate, and proper thing in this case.

Grams64 (talk) 23:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So do you have anything specific to us to go on? or should I just blank this for breaching our BLP policy due to the potshots you are taking at someone we have an article on? this page isn't a soapbox, if you have specific issues with the article tell me what they are and I'll look into them, otherwise there is nothing further to be said - we are not mindreaders. --Fredrick day (talk) 23:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not taking potshots at anyone, including Mr. Wales, or especially Ms. Marsden. I don't know how to suggest addressing this. I'm not good with excessive drama. I'm simply stating that - from what I was reading on Ms. Marsden's page the night of 3/5/08 - I think Mr. Wales has taken this article beyond "informational" as part of his personal situation, and I think that someone removed from his drama should look the page over in general, objectively, so that the information and tone of it would be more appropriate to the medium rather than the media. I didn't know exactly how or to whom to address my concerns, and it took me a while even to find my way to this forum. Whoever is in charge can do what they feel is best with my comments... I just wish that someone (preferably other than Mr. Wales considering his position with Ms. Marsden) might be able to objectively address the issue as far as it's spilled onto Wikipedia's pages.

Grams64 (talk) 23:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your concern, Grams64. Please be assured that several very experienced editors, completely independent of Mr. Wales, are checking over that article and making sure that anything that's not well justified as being in complete accordance with our biography of living persons policy is removed. Your thoughts on this are very much appreciated, .. dave souza, talk 00:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, Mr. Souza, for considering my concerns and taking me seriously. I guess I just felt for Ms. Marsden's situation... Not a good position to be in, having one's life picked apart publicly by someone with the power to do so, and having no power to do anything about it. Your impartial assistance and intervention is very much appreciated, and accepted on behalf of Ms. Marsden... I don't suppose she'd mind, as we all need a kind champion now and then. :)

Grams64 (talk) 00:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alycia Lane

Alycia Lane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - BLP of a local newscaster with what seems to be an overly-aggressive controversy section. My plate is rather full so if someone else would be willing to sort it out, it's not that long of an article but seems to be a bit non-NPOV. // Benji boi 01:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She seems to have lost her job because of a couple of stupid things she did, but not otherwise notable. I tagged it as non-notable. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I trimmed down the coverage of the two incidents, which had taken up 80-90% of the page to a couple of sentences. I have a feeling some people will not be happy with that however. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 17:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed notability tag & made some minor changes . . . otherwise I think your revision cleans the article up quite a bit. - Mitico (talk) 18:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The footnotes are still there for people who want to read about the "scandalous" incidents. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Moores

Simon Moores (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - This article is largely unsourced and appears to have editors too close to the topic (including the subject himself who has extensively written the article), myself and others working on the topic. I could really use the input of neutral editors to decide notability of details. Furthermore the style of writing is not the best but there might be cries of "foul play" if I edited directly as we both blog(ed) in the same location niche. // Lord Matt (talk) 10:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I offer myself as a neutral conflict resolver if the majority of those involved are interested. Jeepday (talk) 16:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Yoo (again)

John Yoo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - the article on John Yoo previously had uncited nazi comparisons, which were removed. New nazi comparisons, which were poorly cited, had been added (and reverted). The article was previously mentioned by me on this noticeboard (old revision). Some extra eyes would be appreciated, so any problematic text can be dealt with more quickly. Thanks Andjam (talk) 12:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Restored it[22] as there is no reason to delete sourced material. To claim that Scott Horton (lawyer), Marty Lederman, The Guardian, Heinrich August Winkler, (to name but a few), fail WP:RS and WP:V is ludicrous to to popint of being surreal. Also, you fail to mention your previous attempt at removing sourced material was dismissed by an uninvolved editor. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 13:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is a BLP violation but it seems to give undue weight to someone's opinion comparing Yoo's positions to those of Nazi lawyers; and indirectly Bush to Hitler, and the war on terror to Nazi Germany's invasion of the USSR. The comparisons were made by a commentator, however the article should be about Yoo himself. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide me with a hyperlink to the dismissal by an "uninvolved editor" please? Thanks very much, Andjam (talk) 12:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Henderson (writer)

Michael Henderson (writer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Subject of article has complained about article accuracy [23]. I have added requests for cites, but the issue requires further examination. // Mangoe (talk) 01:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eh ye gads! Stubbed - please watchlist. That was terrible.--Doc^g 15:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Darko Trifunović

Darko Trifunović (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has recently been the subject of intense edit warring between Bosnian and Serbian editors. It was also discussed a few days ago at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive380#Edit warring and BLP issues on Darko Trifunović. I've intervened to do a complete rewrite to resolve some major BLP problems (see [24] for the previous version). I would be grateful if uninvolved editors could review it and provide any feedback about the new version. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great job, ChrisO. I will comment in talk. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Motari David (closed)

User:88Soldat88

Resolved

Barack Obama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
88Soldat88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - New user has been adding Obama's middle name, twice; he created a false article about an alleged bastard half-brother, and has been tagging articles for race, religion, homosexuality, etc., without any sourcing Bearian (talk) 21:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a look. In the future, please post disruptions at WP:AN/I ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User warned. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bjork

Resolved

As a relatively new editor (and one who prefers to avoid stressful situations unless being paid to be there), I'm reluctant to engage in direct conflict with other editors. However, as I look at the relevant Wikipedia policies, this appears to me to be a situation where I should be relatively aggressive in removing inappropriate material The underlying situation is simple and undisputed. At a concert in Shanghai, singer Bjork performed a song with political content, then followed it with a series of exclamations that generally interpreted (and correctly interpreted, to my mind) as supporting the independence of Tibet. The Chinese government has reacted unfavorably, allowing limited news reports of the vent after some dalay, announcing plans to more strictly regulate appearances by foreign performers, and claiming that Bjork's comments had "hurt" the feelings of the Chinese people. Some of this is accurately reported in the Wikipedia article. However, a nontrivial amount of derogatory material regarding Bjork has been inserted into the article by QuickTime, raising BLP issues. The derogatory material is sourced only to blogs, presumably violating WP:RS reliable source policies. Some of the derogatory material is quoted in English, but the blog sources are all predominantly non-English language (I infer some form of Chinese-language, since the character set does not display properly), raising even further issues under WP:RSUE. I did leave some similar, less controversial material in the article, since it appeared plausible, was not really derogatory towards Bjork, and since I assumed the good faith of the editor who inserted it, but I deleted the controversial and dubious material in accordance with the BLP instructions at the head of the discussion page, explaining my action on that page. While the material I deleted may not entirely be an indisputable violation of any of the individual policies involved, looked at as whole, I could see no justification for including the material. QuickTime then reinserted the material, with minor alterations, saying it was necessary to use blog sources because Chinese media are censored, and because not allowing comments from those blogs "is unreasonable because it does not allow unbiased writing of this entry." I suspect that User:QuickTime does not really understand the requirements of the policies involved. I expect to shortly delete the dubious/controversial material again, with more detailed references to the policies involved, and would really appreciate any suggestions as to how to promote civil resolution of the matter. Because BLP calls for such material tobe "removed immediately," I believe it is appropriately for me to act quickly. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 00:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted that material and commented in talk. I'll keep the page on my watchlist for a while. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 00:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Epstein page

My name is Jeffrey Epstein, web developer and songwriter, and I am trying to disassociate myself from the Jeffrey Epstein who is the subject of this page. There are many other people in the world, even in New York City, named Jeffrey Epstein as well. At the very least, a disambiguation page of some sort is needed.

21:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)21:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)Jeep15603 (talk) 21:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jeffrey. A disambig page is useful only when other "Jefferey Epsteins" are notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. If you know of other notable individuals with that name, I will be happy to create a disambig page. Just ping me on my talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to a note left on the talk page for this article here. I probably wasn't as diplomatic about it, but I wasn't rude either. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trace Adkins

Resolved

The Wiki bio purports that Trace was "born a girl". There is no footnote to support this. Please remove it or provide a reference that will support the claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tracefan (talk • contribs) 02:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Claim removed Soxred93 | talk bot 03:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Neshek

Pursuant to OTRS requests I would appreciate it if folks could keep an eye on this article, specifically the qualitative tone and opinionated statements. - TheDaveRoss (talk) 02:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Baggs

I've been recently having BLP problems with the Amanda Baggs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article. Some recent edits to the article have either added potentially damaging material using a blog as a source, or have added the non-notable blog to the external links section. [25] [26] [27]. I have also been concerned with some of the content that has been added to the talk page in the past few days [28] and I am not sure if some content on the talk page should be removed for BLP concerns. It seems to me that the talk page mentions too much of the poorly sourced, potentially damaging claims when discussing whether or not to include those claims in the article. However, I am involved in an ongoing discussion with someone about these things and I don't know if I should remove talk page content during an ongoing discussion. Someone has asked how to dispute the article and I don't know what I should do when/if the person tags the article if the only dispute is that information from an unreliable blog is not included. I also anticipate that this will be an ongoing dispute and that problems with this article for the next several days. Q0 (talk) 07:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like my explanation was longer than expected. Here is a more brief description of my concern:

Does any content on Talk:Amanda Baggs (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Amanda Baggs|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) need to be removed for BLP concerns?
If someone puts a POV tag on an article because it excludes material that has been excluded because it violates BLP and is poorly sourced, what should be done?

Q0 (talk) 08:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Off-wiki autism-related disputes

Admin eyes on Amanda Baggs and Donna Williams (author) would be helpful. It appears that an off-Wiki blog dispute is spilling over to Wiki, and one editor has attempted to out another's real life identity. There is potential for BLP violations on both articles, and there are WP:COI issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk)

I am wondering if this person's article isn't an example of WP:ONEEVENT and WP:NOT#NEWS. It is also concerning that her article is largely quotes by or about her, which suggests a lack of reliable sources and therefore possibly her real notability? --Slp1 (talk) 22:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Murphy High School

Murphy High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - User insists on including information about a crime allegedly committed in August of 2007. The fact that the attack occured is cited, but there is no info available about a conviction/acquittal. I'm not sure how to handle this given the time passed since the attack and the lack of a conviction. Also, I'm not sure how unique an attack like this is and how that affects things. // Evil saltine (talk) 17:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it belongs in the MHS article.Momento (talk) 23:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scarlett Keeling case

Scarlett Keeling case (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Egregious WP:BLP and WP:BLP1E violation. Should have been speedy deleted. Corvus cornix_talk 23:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Biondi

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

The final sentence of the introductory paragraph purports:

"He also has never had sex before, thus making him a virgin."

This assertion is not cited with a footnote and appears, at least superficially, to contradict the final sentence in the Biography section:

"They married in 1995, and their son, Nathaniel (Nate), was born in 1998." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.252.251.47 (talk • contribs) 04:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simple, I removed it, (you could have also), cited as unsourced. I will watch to see if it is put back. Jons63 (talk) 18:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Normal Bob Smith

Normal Bob Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Normal Bob is an "artist" who operates under a pseudonym. His real name is Robert Hain, which has been verified by WHOIS. User:Darbyshmr and several anons are trying to remove his name, because it they believe that it poses a risk to his safety, being that his website has received millions of hate mail. I think this is ridicilous, because if he was really concerned about being in danger, Hain wouldn't have made himself such a public figure and attend so many speeches. // CyberGhostface (talk) 18:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that that can be gained from WHOIS is not relevant; that's about the definition of OR. The fact that his name is given in the New York Times is more relevant (which it might have helped if you had mentioned here). There doesn't seem to be an issue here given that. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to think that reference to the individual's putative birth name should be omitted. To quote WP:BLP, "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm"." It seems evident that the individual has taken steps to try to prevent the publicizing of any alternate names, particularly given the recent revision to whois and what looks to be a request by the subject himself on the article's talk page not to include that information. The NYT article mention is quite brief. The other reference is a primary source, which should not be used to obtain this information per specific instruction at WP:BLP. If the name were widely publicized, it would be appropriate to include it, but I think given that it can evidently be traced back only to a single paragraph in the NYT, we should instead keep in mind the following (also from BLP): "Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability...." His birth name is not widely publicized and not relevant to his notability. Given that and expressed concerns over physical safety, I believe it is better omitted. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how posting his name based on information from a reliable source (brief as it may be) constitutes as being "sensationalist...titillating claims about people's lives". I'm aware that the subject doesn't want his name published, but he's made himself a pretty public figure on the internet by posting photos and videos of himself with and without makeup. If he was some anonymous figure who kept himself secret that'd be a different matter. It'd be one thing (and I'm being hypothetical here) if it was a public rape case with the victim trying to be anonymous, or something in a similar vein.--CyberGhostface (talk) 23:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Death threats from religious fanatics are not something that should be ignored simply because the subject is not hiding under a rock. It is a lot harder to find someone by looking for their face in New York City than it is to look up a name in a directory.

The NYT article is not really reliable. He has not given out his name, most certainly not to a periodical read by millions of people. They may have gotten it from the article on here for all we know.

Also, he has not published a single piece of work under his birth name. This greatly effects the relevance of the name to his article. Normal Bob Smith is an artist in NYC, Robert H is some guy from Milwaukee. Darbyshmr (talk) 00:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP notes that we work from a presumption in favor of privacy. I don't see that the inclusion of this name is beneficial enough to the article, given the obvious desire of this individual to separate his public persona from his private, to outweigh that concern. This is not an issue of libel, obviously, but as the BLP reminds us, "Wikipedia articles can affect real people's lives." Our responsibility is not only legal, but ethical. While I agree with you that this case is not as clear-cut as it would be if we were discussing a victim of a crime who wanted to stay out of the media, I think that removal of a name that has not been widely disseminated of an individual who seems to be at risk and has evidently taken efforts to remain private certainly falls within the spirit of conservative editing, with regard for the subject's privacy. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Thorburn

Doug Thorburn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is an unreferenced article beginning: "Doug Thorburn is a researcher who became romantically involved with an alcohol and other-drug addict, survived, and vowed "never again." To protect himself, he decided he'd better learn something about the disease. Stumbling upon open AA meetings, he decided that was an excellent place to start."

There is one link at the end to his book selling page. However, no supporting references as to his personal life. Mattisse (Talk) 19:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Adding to the interest of this situation is that those edits were purportedly created by the subject, here. I think some severe pruning may be in order. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So pruned. Also, contributor warned with COI tag, and I have placed a COI2 tag on the article's talk page. I'm not sure this individual meets the notability guidelines and have put a notability tag on the article. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Courtney

Jon Courtney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I'm uncertain of appropriate policy here. In an AfD for Jon Courtney (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jon Courtney), Justpassinby (an editor with some history of problematic edits in this area) claimed that a song by Courtney entailed plagiarism. Such a comment in an article, I'd immediately remove under WP:BLP, but how should one deal with such a comment made within an AfD discussion? // Bondegezou (talk) 22:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An anonymous editor at 78.105.130.169, a previous sockpuppet of Justpassinby, added the plagiarism claim to the Pure Reason Revolution article. I've removed it. Bondegezou (talk) 09:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Pipes

Daniel Pipes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Editors are continuing to reinsert defamatory material about Pipes from an article written by a writer with no apparent credentials whatever, in an opinion piece appearing in a highly partisan souce. There is already plenty of negative material on Pipes in the article, I don't think poorly-sourced potentially libellous stuff is necessary. Thoughts? IronDuke 16:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User claiming to be subject of article blanking content

Could someone who has experience handling BLP blankings by article subjects please respond to this (now blocked) user and their concerns. They may be a troll, or they may legitimately be the person who is the subject of the article in question. Either way, it needs to be investigated given the nature of the problem:

Langfordps (talk · contribs) is the user
Peter Stickles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is the article.

Thanks! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the sources, and Stickles acknowledged that he was gay in this interview and discussed it in this interview. Both interviews are more than six months old. I'm finding it a little implausible that the person who removed the information with the edit summary, "I am Peter Stickles. It is being posted that I am gay. I need this to be deleted from this site" is the same person who, six months ago, said "It's unfortunate, and I do understand how people can have a problem with that, but in the same respect, I just want to be publicly out anyway, because in ten years it will all be different" in relation to his coming-out. He was asked in December to clarify the difference between those interviews and his edits, and made no response. I normally am all about helping the subjects of biographies be made happy if at all possible, but I am very skeptical that User:Langfordps is really Peter Stickles. Of course, if it's really him and he's decided to go back into the closet, that's his business, but it isn't what the sources indicate. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, there's also apparently a podcast in which he discusses his gayness in audio. Sorry I couldn't review it from work, but folks on the talk page seemed to find it believable. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Bok

Francis Bok (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Bok was held as a slave in Sudan for ten years before escaping to the US. The primary sources on his experiences for the article are an autobiography he wrote (published by St. Martin's Press) and various interviews which have appeared in reliable newspapers and magazines. The basic question (which has been discussed some at his talk page already) is what material from his autobiograpy and these interviews can be cited in the article - for example, could the name of the man who was his owner as a slave be included? Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, yes it can, since it has been published in a book by a major publisher and at least some of the interviews, I believe. It should probably be qualified as to 'According to Bok', perhaps. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 04:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, my thoughts were similar, but I am not a BLP expert. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added three "according to Bok"'s to the article. Should more be placed? Dincher (talk) 15:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quartz Hill High School

Someone with a dynamic ip keeps inserting the name of a person and claiming that she is the porn star, Tyla Wynn, under notable alumni. This information has not been verified by a reliable source, and I suspect that it may be original research by a former classmate. As the name is unverified, this may be libel if the "real name" is not Tyla Wynn, because there are people that seem to object to being misidentified as a pornographic actor. I would like to ask for a semi-protect of the article. Vinh1313 (talk) 21:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also suspect that the person making the edits (with the dynamic ips) is User:King Mop based on his his prior edits. I'm assuming that he is resorting to editing outside his account to evade accountability. Vinh1313 (talk) 21:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Semi protected.--Doc^g 22:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sally Kern

Sally Kern (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Substitution [homosexuality is] in a direct quote is possibly inaccurate and certainly subject to interpretation. Another view is that it should be [homosexual agenda]. This other view is backed up by other references. Stststst41 (talk) 23:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But wouldn't adding such an emotionally loaded, negatively biased term to an article actually make it less compliant with WP:BLP? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dawn Wells

Can someone please, take a look at the Dawn Wells article? There is a very agressive editor who appears hell bent on portraying Wells as a pothead and criminal. The editor, in question, User:Proxy User appears to be aggressively edit warring on the article via a host of annonymous IP addresses. Among other things he has inserted a sourced statement that claims Wells served jail tme for a recent "marijuana related" traffic stop. Wells' attorney has issued a formal statement claiming that she served no jail time and that the incident has been misrepresented in the media. To my mind, this violates WP:LIBEL, but I'm hesitant to remove the statement due to the aggressive and confrontational nature of the editor in question. I've added the attorney's side of the story, in the interest of balance and fairness and he has acused ME of POV pushing! LOL! The article now contains an entire section titled "Marijuana Incidents" which is taking up a disproportionate amount of article space and IMO creating a WP:WEIGHT issue, not to mention WP:BLP issues. A second set of eyes would be much appreciated. Thanks! Cleo123 (talk) 02:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mike_Lupica

[1] ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mike_Lupica

[1]

Revision as of 02:26, 14 March 2008 edit Cleo123 (talk \| contribs) 1,494 edits →‎Dawn Wells: new section ← Previous edit		Revision as of 02:27, 14 March 2008 edit undo Cleo123 (talk \| contribs) 1,494 edits →‎Dawn Wells Next edit →
Line 882:		Line 882:
	== Dawn Wells ==		== Dawn Wells ==

	Can someone please, take a look at the [[Dawn Wells]] article? There is a very agressive editor who appears hell bent on portraying Wells as a pothead and criminal. The editor, in question, [[User:Proxy User]] appears to be aggressively edit warring on the article via a host of annonymous IP addresses. Among other things he has inserted a sourced statement that claims Wells served jail tme for a recent "marijuana related" traffic stop. Wells attorney has issued a formal statement claiming that she served no jail time and that the incident has been misrepresented in the media. To my mind, this violates [[WP:LIBEL]], but I'm hesitant to remove the statement due to the aggressive and confrontational nature of the editor in question. I've added the attorney's side of the story, in the interest of balance and fairness and he has acused ME of POV pushing! LOL! The article now contains an entire section titled "Marijuana Incidents" which is taking up a disproportionate amount of article space and IMO creating a [[WP:WEIGHT]] issue, not to mention [[WP:BLP]] issues. A second set of eyes would be much appreciated. Thanks! [[User:Cleo123\|Cleo123]] ([[User talk:Cleo123\|talk]]) 02:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)		Can someone please, take a look at the [[Dawn Wells]] article? There is a very agressive editor who appears hell bent on portraying Wells as a pothead and criminal. The editor, in question, [[User:Proxy User]] appears to be aggressively edit warring on the article via a host of annonymous IP addresses. Among other things he has inserted a sourced statement that claims Wells served jail tme for a recent "marijuana related" traffic stop. Wells' attorney has issued a formal statement claiming that she served no jail time and that the incident has been misrepresented in the media. To my mind, this violates [[WP:LIBEL]], but I'm hesitant to remove the statement due to the aggressive and confrontational nature of the editor in question. I've added the attorney's side of the story, in the interest of balance and fairness and he has acused ME of POV pushing! LOL! The article now contains an entire section titled "Marijuana Incidents" which is taking up a disproportionate amount of article space and IMO creating a [[WP:WEIGHT]] issue, not to mention [[WP:BLP]] issues. A second set of eyes would be much appreciated. Thanks! [[User:Cleo123\|Cleo123]] ([[User talk:Cleo123\|talk]]) 02:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

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