Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

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

Hina Rabbani Khar

Hina Rabbani Khar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have been trying to edit the article "Hina Rabbani Khar" to reflect the facts correctly. Hina Rabbani Khar has been apointed as Junior Minister i.e. Minister of State for Foreign Affairs - Paksitan, in February 11, 2011.

The article, instead, shows her as Foreign Minister, which is a federal ministry. Currently that ministry is with Prime Minister and there are hundreds of verified sources about this fact.

There is a user "Therequiembellishere" who perhaps is a die-hard supporter of Hina Rabbani and does not believe in neutrality of articles. I have made edits twice but he has reverted my edits. I have even given links to prove my edits but he is not ready to agree. Its funny because this is not even a controversial fact we are talking about. She has been appointed as Minister of State - period. I don't know why "Therequiembellishere" is doing this. Is he being stubborn or what? I believe his account should be closed or atleast he should be warned that he is misleading readers and should stop doing it anymore.

Thanks mjzafar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjzafar (talk • contribs) 04:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• I notified User Therequiembellishere about this thread. Off2riorob (talk) 11:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
• I reminded User Therequiembellishere.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Raymond Allen Davis diplomatic incident#Davis' background

Raymond Allen Davis diplomatic incident#Davis' background (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I wonder if editors with a little more experience w/BLP issues could take a look at this section. It seems to be largely a synthesis of local reports, and, in some cases, downright OR. My concern is mainly with all the speculation that is occurring, even in the valid sources. By the nature of this incident, it could have real world consequences if the person identified in the article is not the person involved in the incident. But then again the sources are saying this, not Wikipedia. So I'm not sure what action, if any, is appropriate. Fascinating story though. I put a notice on the articles discussion page as well. David Able 20:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Might be a case of BLP1E in any case ... already is an article at the National Enquirer level for WP. Does nayone else think this? Collect (talk) 22:27, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Nope. Today's New York Times reports he is CIA and confirms a lot of the details about his background. According to the article, his arrest and detention have "inadvertently pulled back the curtain on a web of covert American operations inside Pakistan, part of a secret war run by the C.I.A." This is a big deal on many levels: the capture of a CIA operative at work (even if truly a contractor, at the agency those distinctions are never very clear); American-Pakistan diplomacy; the far reaches of diplomatic immunity; the ethics of using embassies to run spies; among other notable issues. Jonathanwallace (talk) 00:57, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, the incident is definitely notable. Davis himself may not be, aside from one event. I was mainly concerned that the focus of the article remain on the incident, and not the person. I removed his wife's name from the article (it listed still lists the State she lives in and place of employment), and asked for discussion on the talk page before reinsertion. She (if she is indeed his wife) could face real life consequences over this, and I don't think WP should be facilitating the availability of her personal info to millions. The other stuff is, I suppose, debatable. David Able 03:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Saw this article mentioned on Twitter [1] so might get an influx of more new editors who could be partisan or not understand about BLP. --Aude (talk) 15:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Antonin Scalia

Resolved

 – vandalism reverted

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

not born a buddhist, did not serve prison time in Cleveland, not named most corrupt republican of the 20th century —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.93.60.1 (talk) 22:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Do we have any reliable source that says he did not serve prison time in Cleveland?  :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Rick Santorum

I'd like to get additional opinions about the articles on Rick Santorum and santorum (sexual neologism), as well as the dab page, Santorum. The history is quite complicated; I can provide details if there is a need, but it may be enough to summarize the current state of affairs.

(Note: Santorum controversy should have been included in the list; I've posted a notice of this discussion there too. Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:33, 24 February 2011 (UTC))

The sexual neologism, as you'll see if you click on it, is a very explicit reference to gay sex that was coined in a (successful) attempt to embarrass then Senator Santorum. There have been failed AfDs; it seems fair to say that there is consensus it's notable. At one time Santorum took you to the article on the Senator -- that was the result of an AfD, since reversed by discussion on the talk page. Recently someone has added the definition to the dab page, and reinstated it when I removed it.

There are multiple issues here, but the one that concerns me most is the difficulty of assessing good faith. The coinage was an act of political activism, and it's fairly clear that of the many people who dislike the ex-Senator, there are some willing to dissemble to extend the sabotage. For example, several editors have supported making santorum go to the dab page, where (now) the definition can be seen: no doubt some of these editors are acting in good faith, but it would also be entirely consistent with the Googlebombing campaign that successfully placed the slang term as the first result in Google if some of these folks were making comments in the hope of increasing the visibility of the definition. I am pretty sure this has in fact happened. For example, several people have said that they know the term but have never heard of Rick Santorum; this just seems unlikely to me, though it could certainly be true of a couple of people. People have indicated that the term is in wide use, but no usable citations have been given -- all the citations are about the original coinage and the successful Googlebombing. So it seems reasonable to be sceptical

I think the way to address this sort of concern is both to give the question as much visibility as possible, so that experienced editors outnumber any !vote-stacking, and also to make sure that decisions are reached in accordance with policies and not with number of voices.

Given the above background, here are the questions I think we should be concerned about.

• Should santorum lead to the ex-Senator's page, or to a dab page?
• Should any mention of the neologism be made on the Senator's page?
• Should the definition of the neologism be given on the Senator's page?
• Should the definition of the neologism be given on the dab page?

There have been multiple discussions of these issues on those pages, but for the reasons given above I feel that's not a sufficiently broad group to get true consensus. If this page is the right forum for this discussion, I'll leave a note at those talk pages to let those folks know. I could also post an RfC instead if this is not the right forum.

I should make it clear I am not expressing any political opinion about Rick Santorum, and I hope nobody could detect my politics from my comments; I am solely concerned with WP's policies. Mike Christie (talk – library) 00:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems like Santorum should redirect to Rick Santorum, undoubtedly the most popular meaning. However, in such cases it'd be normal to place a hatnote that said something like This article is about the U.S. Senator. For the article on a sexual neologism, see Santorum (sexual neologism). Having that at the top of the biography might not be ideal either. The dab page, if it's kept, doesn't need that much detail. I'm not sure the best way of resolving the overall problem. As for mentioning it in the bio, it does seem noteworthy. The subject has discussed it as a factor in his future political career. However it should be a short, neutral discussion, like it is now.   Will Beback  talk  00:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Since there's a third entry in the dab page, the hatnote in the Rick Santorum article can just point back to it.   Will Beback  talk  01:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Will, don't you see inclusion of such material in a BLP as a major BLP violation? A pundit involves himself in activism to try to humiliate a political opponent and that activism is rewarded by inclusion in a BLP? Correct me if I'm wrong, but my guess is that you would have serious problems in including in BLPs the designations given to certain public figures by the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin (who by the way have many times the listeners that Dan Savage has readers). Drrll (talk) 02:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Drrl, I think the cases are much different, here you have a substantial body (not a couple, but a metric ton) of reliable sources discussing the controversy over the neologism and its political ramifications. It would be NPOV to exclude the discussion, I believe, but perhaps I'm misunderstanding your suggestion here.

Will, and everyone, I do agree that it doesn't make sense to have "Santorum" point to the Senator, although I think it's less clear-cut (someone searching for the Senator is likely going to be searching for "Rick Santorum", not "Santorum"). However, I don't support having the hatnote go to the dab page, though, as two of the three entries in the dab page return you to Rick Santorum, the hatnote should go to the only other possible target page of the query. I think "sexual neologism" is fine for the hatnote. --j⚛e decker^{talk to me} 02:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Joe, I did a search for "santorum" & "dan savage" in Lexis-Nexis on 'major world publications' and only 4 results mentioned the controversy--3 of which talked about Santorum's 2006 Senate opponent returning a contribution from Savage (and one of those from the Washington Post gossip column). I bet I could easily find examples in that neighborhood of results for monikers that Limbaugh assigns to various public figures. Does that mean that they merit a mention in the BLPs of those public figures? Drrll (talk) 03:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The same search on "All News (English)" returns 207 articles. Gamaliel (talk) 04:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Drrrl, I'd be with you if the numbers I found myself doing other searches, and I don't have N/L access, were of the order of "4." Instead, when I look for sources myself I get results closer to Gamaliel's (although those 207 surely include some unreliable sources.) But I agree with your approach here if not your numbers, it's a matter of sources, of reliability of sources, and weight of sources. BLP doesn't prevent us from ever saying anything negative, it does restrain us to speaking of things with due weight based on those sources. And measuring the number of real sources and their reliability is the right approach, in my opinion. Note too that I don't think the Rick article should be the target of "Santorum" or should define the term, something like textual treatment we give the somewhat different cases of Tricky Dick and the coverage of Billary at Hilary Rodham Clinton (note that Billary Clinton goes to a page that doesn't actually mention the term, whoops.) For me, what's persuasive is that the term is something that the candidate himself has had to answer questions about, that it's being raised in news coverage years past--it's that effect, not really the specific and I'm sure troubling definition that's pertinent, I feel. And it's an effect that is, as near as I can tell from sources, more significant than the effect of either "Tricky Dick" or "Billary" in terms of political force. --j⚛e decker^{talk to me} 05:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

[2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. Meh. That's hardly everything out there, but it's representative. Fewer than I expected, broad enough that I'd still support a mention in the article. *shrug* --j⚛e decker^{talk to me} 05:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Joe, that's a fair point about the effect that the term has had on Santorum. Can't we agree, though (Gamaliel included), that giving the explicit definition directly in his BLP is a little over the top? The term is already wikilinked within the BLP. The 200+ figure does represent many non-reliable sources, sources that discuss Savage and Santorum without mentioning the coined term (the two of them do have a history with each other), as well as opinion pieces in reliable sources. Opinion pieces may be questionable within BLPs in general (they certainly are for facts in a BLP). Drrll (talk) 05:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Drrrl, we do agree on that! See my response below, but yeah, I do not support the inclusion of the definition of the neologism in the Senator's BLP, merely a tidy recap of the controversy and its political effect. What the term was defined by Savage's readers as is utterly unimportant, save that we convey it was pejorative/sexual or such.--j⚛e decker^{talk to me} 05:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll add my agreement to what Drrrl and Joe are agreeing on, if I understand that correctly. Presentation of the matter in the BLP without defining it there, and a hatnote to a page that does define it and discuss how it arose, etc.  – OhioStandard (talk) 14:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Btw, as I understand it Americans aren't used to hearing personal slurs in political discourse, but this really is much less of a big deal ( just rather more creative ) by world standards. People might like to look at some of what's considered normal political speech down under. Cheers,  – OhioStandard (talk) 14:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Mike, to answer your other three questions, I'd say "yes, the neologism should be mentioned on the Senator's page". It's a substantial weight around his ability to run for President, it's sourced, it's inappropriate to consider not including mention of it. However, I don't think we need to give the definition of the neologism on the Senator's page, I don't think the specifics of the definition are relevant to the Senator, I'd mention that the term was sexual and considered offensive, or something to that effect, using words taken from reliable sources describing the neologism. (In short, the existence of the term and the history around it tells us a lot about Santorum's life, the specific definition of the term, not so much.) No strong opinion about defining it on the dab page. --j⚛e decker^{talk to me} 02:20, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

(undent) Per WP:Neologism: "Articles on neologisms are commonly deleted, as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term. As Wiktionary's inclusion criteria differ from Wikipedia's, that project may cover neologisms that Wikipedia cannot accept. If you are interested in writing an article on a neologism, you may wish to contribute it to that project instead."Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome to send it to AfD again, but before you do, I'd recommend reading all of WP:NEO. The relevant sentence, I feel, is To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term. Pretty much all the interesting coverage of this meets this test. I'd be hard pressed to find a reliable source that uses the word with it's made-up definition, it's the whole story of the pattern of usage of the word that's notable. I would support a rename of Santorum (sexual neologism) to Santorum neologism controversy or some such. --j⚛e decker^{talk to me} 05:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Looks to me like a virtually one-man campaign by opinion-meister Dan Savage to promote use of the neologism. I'll leave it up to others whether to do another AfD. It looks like WP:NEO was not mentioned or recognized in the previous AfD.

My inclination would be to reduce and merge into Dan Savage.

But regardless of whether the article about the neologism remains (I don't think it should), santorum should lead to the ex-Senator's page, instead of a dab page, because most users by far will be looking for the Senator's page. The neologism can be briefly mentioned at the Senator's page but not in a hatnote (that would be undue weight), and the definition of the neologism ought not to be given on the Senator's page (nor in the dab page if the dab page is retained) for the same reasons; defining it in the article about the neologism is more than adequate.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I have posted notices of this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Politics and government, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Congress, Talk:Rick Santorum, Talk:Santorum, and Talk:santorum (sexual neologism). I picked those WikiProjects because they are listed on Santorum's talk page; if there are other projects that should be notified please go ahead. Mike Christie (talk – library) 10:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

This is a blatant attempt to whitewash the ex-Senators article. Politics can be dirty and Rick Santorum chose to jump in the mud. Joe Decker's comment at 02:20, 23 February 2011 sounds like a pretty neutral treatment: mention it on his page, don't define the term, discuss the controversy. That the Senator and his aides have to spin it as his "google problem" show it is quite clearly a notable obstacle to his future political aspirations. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

I don't you see inclusion of such material as a BLP violation. I see big problem with the overall tone of the articles that sound that Santorum said something bad about gays but no problem with inclusion information about Santorum (sexual neologism). It is notable information about some of his political enemies and their behavior. Of course, it should be included in unbiased and "un-UNDUE" version. --Dezidor (talk) 11:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Keep the sexual neologism article as notable but, as Joe Decker and SchmuckyTheCat suggest, reference it in the Rick Santorum article without giving the description. Anyone who wants more info can follow the wikilink.Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

It's all notable. The current status quo is fine. It's not our job or business to play favorites. The media itself made this notable and it predates (2003) Wikipedia being used under "neologism" notability. Merrill Stubing (talk) 15:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia reports on the world as it actually is. In the real world, living people are sometimes subject to smears, unfair attacks, distortions, outright lies, nasty nicknames, etc. Sometimes, things like that become significant enough to merit inclusion in their bios and/or discussion in a separate article. That's not a BLP violation. There are also some factors that don't matter:

• The attack on the motives of the critic(s) ("A pundit involves himself in activism to try to humiliate a political opponent and that activism is rewarded by inclusion in a BLP?") is irrelevant. The fact is that various pundits, politicians, and other entities have some power to shape the public discourse about living people, and it's inevitable that that power will occasionally be used in ways that some Wikipedians dislike. Our goal is to get information to our readers, not to decide who deserves to be "rewarded" or punished.
• The concept of "reliable sources" needs to be applied in context. We report facts, including facts about significant opinions, so it's not necessary that an opinion (favorable or unfavorable) be backed by a reliable source. There's no possible reliable source that could confirm a statement like "Rick Santorum is a bigoted homophobe who deserves to be mocked" or "Rick Santorum is a staunch defender of the family against the onslaught of the evil homosexual agenda."

The neologism must certainly be discussed and wikilinked on Rick Santorum's bio page. The more difficult queston is whether to give the definition. The problem with saying only "sexual neologism" or the like is that it obscures the connection to anal sex. Presumably Savage thought the term would be even more embarrassing to the anti-gay Senator for that reason. While some readers may find it distasteful to encounter the definition, I think we should include it; Wikipedia is not censored. JamesMLane t c 19:31, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I can see how including the definition would be repulsive, even offensive. I cannot conceive of how including the definition better informs the reader than the previous text did. Leave it out. - Haymaker (talk) 21:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The neologism should be findable, but it'd be wrong to link it on Rick Santorum's page (unless there's sufficient sourced discussion of it in relation to an election, etc). Instead, I suggest linking to the disambiguation, which would link to the neologism. This prevents it being mentioned on his page, while making it findable. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

As others have pointed out, there is plenty of sourced discussion of it in relation to Santorum's political profile, the 2012 election, etc. Beyond that, "findable" wouldn't mean much if the reader were given no indication that going to the dab page would generate additional information about Santorum. JamesMLane t c 22:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Why would you link to a dab page when the term has it's own page? We should not be obfuscating. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

In my opinion, it all turns on the question of whether "santorum" sensu Savage has become a "real" word or not. That ought to be the deciding factor. The fact that Dan Savage wanted to insult Santorum does not rise to a sufficient level of importance for inclusion. On the other hand, I'd expect the article on Sir Isaac Newton to mention that the newton was named for him--and it does. How about unflattering references? Does the article on Nicolas Chauvin mention chauvinism? Yes. Does Joseph McCarthy mention McCarthyism? Yes. So the question is how to figure out, as objectively as possible, whether Savage succeeded in coining a word that has taken on a life of its own, or whether he merely hoped to. I don't know the answer to that, but that's what needs to be discussed. My personal feeling is that the criterion should be its appearance in a printed dictionary of the American language--or a formal statement by the editors of a dictionary that it is scheduled for inclusion. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

As far as I am aware no sources that have been found to be reliable have yet been provided to indicate that the neologism has any currency. Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

this jumps to mind. We can mince words about mo-jo's slant but the article approaches a factual issue, quotes experts, and does actual reporting. Protonk (talk) 02:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear. The neologism has received lots of coverage, and yes, that's a reliable source you give, but there's no evidence that the term is in use as a word -- as part of the language. Mike Christie (talk – library) 13:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I guess if you are waiting for a grammarian to chime in I can imagine that. Protonk (talk) 17:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

[Refactored] Not sure where my comment should go (either here or in the preceding section), but couldn't another possible title for santorum (sexual neologism) be "santorum (political neologism)"? The term, while coined obstensibly as sexual terminology, was political from its birth and continues to be used as such. Just a thought. Shearonink (talk) 03:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Merge with article titled "Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality"

I've looked into this a little bit more, and would like to revise my opinion described above. Right now, there is an article titled Santorum controversy Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality describing the controversy from which the neologism arose. So, I support merging Santorum (sexual neologism) into Santorum controversy Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality. It's unusual for Wikipedia to have an article about a word, as Wikipedia is not a dictionary, etymological or otherwise (see WP:NEO). We could, of course, divide this controversy into a hundred different Wikipedia articles, each delving deeply into some facet of this matter. But, really, one article seems like plenty.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, agree with Anythingyouwant, more than plenty, keep it focused. merge these two. Off2riorob (talk) 00:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree, and then discuss further. It is impossible to avoid a prejudicial title for the separate article. And at the very least, the illustration of the man at the page of the neologism is highly prejudicial, and adds nothing to the understanding of the subject. I have removed it as a BLP violation. Whether the illustration is needed at the controversy article is perhaps a little more defensible. DGG ( talk ) 01:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

It should be noted that the proposal to merge was discussed and rejected at the last AfD, though the target suggested there was Savage Love. Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

We've got a much better target now. Moreover, not only is it unusual for Wikipedia to have an article about a word, but that goes triple for a word that vulgarizes the name of a living person (regardless of whether it is deserved or not). It's also worth mentioning that WP:NEO says: "Neologisms that are in wide use but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia." In this case, there may be treatments in secondary sources, but wide use is not happening (probably because the frothy substance in question is something that people never have occasion to discuss).Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:31, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Disagree with merge proposal. The controversy over equating homosexuality with incest, child rape, and sex with animals a few years back is a related but different and separately notable controversy from the still-continuing discussion about the mind-bogglingly gross neologism and its political ramifications. All recent coverage is about the latter, not the former, they really are treated as separate events in sources. --j⚛e decker^{talk to me} 01:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Only four of the 34 references in Santorum (sexual neologism) are more recent than 2006.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

In my view, that reflects the history of the article's development, not my observation of sources. I've provided more sources than that from the past year in the discussion above. And *none* of the sources that I presented above, so far as I recall, recount the incest/pedophilia/bestiality stuff. Different controversies, different but related brouhahas. Heck, the good Senator discussed the political ramifications of the neologism in the last week or two. --j⚛e decker^{talk to me} 02:04, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The neologism is already discussed briefly in the "Santorum controversy" article; that material is appropriate and no one is suggesting that it be removed. Moreover, the title "Santorum controversy" is broad enough to cover expansion of that material (though we may eventually want to consider a more descriptive title than "Santorum controversy", e.g. "Santorum gay brouhaha"). In any event, like I said, in order to qualify for a separate article, a neologism must be both covered in secondary sources and in wide use. You really think this particular neologism is in wide use to describe some kind of frothy substance?Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant, I think you misunderstand my view, and given how long this discussion has gotten that's nobody's fault, a lot of what I've said has been scattered over many sections, so let me start from the beginning. When I read the "neologism" article, I find that what's covered in the article describes a controversy, a political event, not so much the word itself (although a definition is provided). I believe the "neologism" article would be better renamed "Santorum neologism controversy" or even "Santorum googlebombing" (although I think the former is possibly a better choice in terms of accuracy). I think that event has separate notability from the original controversy, which is my argument for opposing the merge, but I think that is a fair question, and in fact I was suprised to find that the Rollcall link I provided above actually does reference what I would call the "original controversy." While it is not my sense that the two are generally both included in recent sources, the Rollcall link is certainly counterevidence (e.g., evidence for a merge), and I welcome an actual examination of all the sources (in the article, that I've provided, and that are available through searches and such) with an eye to that question. --j⚛e decker^{talk to me} 02:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, Joe, I guess we disagree for the time being, but maybe that will change. Please keep in mind that a Wikipedia article will almost always contain stuff about different events. For example, the average BLP covers lots of different events in a person's life, and many of the cited sources in that BLP will only mention one or two of those events while omitting all the other events. Anyway, thanks for explaining further.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

No problem, ever in the San Jose (CA) area, I'll be happy to buy ya a beer or whatever your beverage of choice is. Thanks for working through the discussion with me, I think it's good to hash it out. All the best, --j⚛e decker^{talk to me} 02:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. I believe, especially in light of things like the recent episode of The Colbert Report, that there is still attention directed at the term, somewhat outside the original controversy and so there is reason for a separate article. Rivethed (talk) 05:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Boner soup. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.58.156 (talk) 06:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to have to oppose the merge as well. Politico reports that the site which originally popularized the term is relaunching ([9]), Roll Call featured an interview with Santorum about the problem which even blamed the meme for his defeat in the election ([10]), and with Slate magazine recently commenting that googling just "Santorum" shows almost no immediate results about his long term success as a representative. Perhaps the article should be re-named, but there are easily enough sources for this to be a separate article. I'd suggest we either keep it at this name or move it to, "Santorum (meme)". Personally I think the current title is a bit more accurate, but I'm not too partial. Nomader ^(Talk) 08:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

It is what it is, as they say. The neologism (or whatever you would call it) self-consciously promoted by Dan Savage is a distinct, unique subject quite apart from either Santorum's biography as a politician or the controversy over his public statements about gays. Let's not pull punches here, those public statements are homophobic in nearly any reasonable conception of things, and if that reflects poorly on him that is a mirror of the world as it exists, not the sort of poorly referenced or opinionated material about living people that BLP covers. So too this particular attack on him by some aggrieved supporters of gay rights. It happened, and we cover what happens in the world, not an imaginary world where everybody is nice to each other. The term has lots of currency in certain circles, perhaps not all of America, but in those circles there are lots of people who know the term either as a sexual neologism or an statement of defiance but have no idea who the actual person is. Incidentally, the current language in the disambiguation page, "a slang term named by columnist Dan Savage for Rick Santorum", hardly offends any sensitive ears. - Wikidemon (talk) 11:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

(undent) I have moved the article Santorum controversy to Santorum problem regarding homosexuality. The latter is a more descriptive heading. The contents are entirely about a homosexuality problem. The trend at Wikipedia is to avoid general "controversy" articles about living persons, which often become POV forks. So, the present proposal is to merge Santorum (sexual neologism) into Santorum problem regarding homosexuality.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

It's a controversy, right? Calling it a "problem" seems more POV. Is there a neutral source to say that the main issue over the public flap is that it's a problem? - Wikidemon (talk) 13:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

He has a problem regarding homosexuality. Roll Call reports: "Santorum’s Google problem began in 2003, when gay sex-advice columnist Dan Savage sought to mock Santorum’s comments on homosexuality. Then the third-most-powerful Republican in the Senate, Santorum told the Associated Press that April that gay sex could 'undermine the fabric of our society.' The interview touched on a Supreme Court case related to sexual privacy, and Santorum compared homosexual acts to allowing for 'man on child, man on dog' relationships." Let's have a vote.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Any such articles about political attacks seem quite unworthy of WP articles, especially since they are used to introduce contentious claims about living persons. I am a tad tired of seeing articles on "sexual neologisms" which are simply attempts to connect politicians of any stripe with such practices. Might we simply stick to actual common usage material at some point? Collect (talk) 13:33, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Whether they're worthy doesn't matter. If they're notable and verifiable, they're worthy. Even if they're the most distasteful or rude thing in the history of mankind. Merrill Stubing (talk) 14:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Straw poll about merging "Santorum (sexual neologism)" into "Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality"

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

---

• Support - I support merging "Santorum (sexual neologism)" into "Santorum problem regarding homosexuality" "Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality". Having two articles about this particular kerfuffle is unnecessary. Per WP:NEO, a separate article entirely about a neologism is unusual at Wikipedia. This neologism is reported by secondary sources, but it is not in wide use as a term for the substance it refers to. This neologism also vulgarizes the name of a living person. The material is already mentioned in the article Santorum problem regarding homosexuality Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality, and that's the best place to move the rest of this material. The two articles are extremely closely related, per Roll Call: "Santorum’s Google problem began in 2003, when gay sex-advice columnist Dan Savage sought to mock Santorum’s comments on homosexuality."[11]Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• Another solution. "Santorum problem" sounds like POV or original research. I think we should have 3 articles Rick Santorum (biography), Rick Santorum's views on homosexuality (more detailed article about his views, who agree or disagree with him, who attacked him...) and Santorum (sexual neologism) (about neologism and that it was created by activist who hates Santorum for his views on homosexuality and state rights). --Dezidor (talk) 13:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

We follow reliable sources. He has a problem regarding homosexuality. That's a neutral statement that follows the sources. Roll Call reports: "Santorum’s Google problem began in 2003, when gay sex-advice columnist Dan Savage sought to mock Santorum’s comments on homosexuality." I don't care if we use "controversy" or "problem" but the latter is fully supported and neutral.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:39, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The textual version of the article is mainly about his views on homosexuality and who agree or disagree with him. And in http://www.rollcall.com/issues/56_84/-203455-1.html is written The site’s completely gross. But I don’t think it’s a problem politically for Rick running for president. Quite the opposite. "Problem" is not neutral descripton. --Dezidor (talk) 13:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The word "problem" is in the title of the Roll Call article. If we change "problem" to "controversy" would you support the merge?Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The word "problem" is in the title of the Roll Call article. ...and in the content is that it is not problem for his team and they can say: "Look who are are enemies".

If we change "problem" to "controversy" would you support the merge? - No, I wrote that I support s Rick Santorum, Rick Santorum's views on homosexuality, Santorum (sexual neologism). Maybe Santorum (sexual neologism) can be short paragraph or few words in Rick Santorum's views on homosexuality. --Dezidor (talk) 14:31, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Dezidor's proposal, but the indentation here is getting awfully jumbled, with everyone creating new sub-headings on the fly. Can we refrain from that, if possible, please?  – OhioStandard (talk) 14:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I have changed "problem" to "controversy" in the article title, per objections of Wikidemon and Dezidor. I do not support Dezidor's idea of having three articles. The present proposal is to merge so that we have two articles. Please indicate "support" or "oppose". Thanks.

OhioStandard, do you think the neologism in question is in wide use as a noun to describe a substance, or do you think that's irrelevant per WP:NEO?Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support (pro forma as I still think the neologism does not belong on Wikipedia) Collect (talk) 15:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC) The "sexual neologism" is a "neologism" and not in common use - hence (unless we are to place all of Savage's comments about all poilticians in some sort of special exempt category) does not belong on WP in the first place as an article. Hence the merge issue is moot. Collect (talk) 14:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Regarding common usage, there is no such requirement for the term to be commonly used for it to merit an article. If the term was Google bombed all over the internet (it was) and it had a strong effect on Santorum's career (it did) then the term is notable. It stands as its own article. Binksternet (talk) 17:04, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. With respect, I feel the neologism actually is in common use, but I think it might be best if the article is renamed. I think it should probably go to "Santorum (meme)" or something of the sort, but there's definitely more then enough sources to keep this separate from the controversy article. Nomader ^(Talk) 15:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. To merge the two is to say that his policy positions and the sexual positions are one and the same. I personally fail to see the connection between the notoriety of the two types of positions. Hcobb (talk) 15:31, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Roll Call reports: "Santorum’s Google problem began in 2003, when gay sex-advice columnist Dan Savage sought to mock Santorum’s comments on homosexuality." If you fail to see the connection between Santorum's comments and the subsequent mocking, then perhaps it's worth another look?Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

To claim that the notoriety is linked is to imply that the mockery is equivalent to his political views. That is to become a Savage agent and reduce the man to a punchline. Rather unNPOV IMHO. Hcobb (talk) 16:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Not seeing your point. The article Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality is not just about his views, but rather is about a controversy that arose about his statements of those views. The controversy included mockery. It's very unusual to split this into separate articles, kind of like having one article about a joke up until the punchline and then another article about the punchline.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• I support this as there is very little worth saying about the "neologism" that you can't say in the other article. I am at least somewhat mindful of the idea that Wikipedia should do no harm and to the extent that we are contributing to the alleged "Google problem", it seems a more than reasonable exercise of editorial discretion to move this content off of the word "Santorum". --B (talk) 16:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose merger. Underlying the proposal is distaste for this particular political maneuver ("Any such articles about political attacks seem quite unworthy of WP articles....") That's irrelevant. The issue isn't whether it's "unworthy" but whether it's significant. A political attack can be significant regardless of its merits. (By analogy, we have an article about one of the Nazis' most prominent lies, the Stab-in-the-back legend, and an article about a favored piece of Communist propaganda during the Cold War, And you are lynching Negroes.) It's also a mistake to apply the "neologism" standard. This is indeed a political attack (through a Googlebombing) and that's it's significance, regardless of how many people use the term independent of any reference to the Senator. JamesMLane t c 16:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • If you acknowledge that it's a political attack, then isn't it at least reasonable for Wikipedia to stay out of the fray? Whether the article is merged or it is renamed to "Googlebombing of Rick Santorum's name" or some such thing, it would have the same effect, that being to do no harm. --B (talk) 16:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
    • No, we don't "stay out of the fray" as much as we report on the fray in a neutral manner. The harm to Santorum is all in the past, making it easy for us to do no further harm. We report neutrally on what happened. Binksternet (talk) 17:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • That quote ("Any such articles about political attacks seem quite unworthy of WP articles....") was not something that the proposer said; the proposer is me, and I don't agree with that quote. If a political attack is notable, then it is generally Wikipedia-worthy. Of course, that doesn't mean we should contribute to the attack.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. The topic of the neologism by itself handily meets notability guidelines, more than enough to stand on its own. There is no reason to push backwards and try to merge the material into another article. Binksternet (talk) 16:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Does it? Does anybody actually use the term in real life? The thing that is noteworthy is the Googlebombing. The article is about the Googlebombing. The article is NOT a scientific analysis of the composition of the "Santorum" mixture. --B (talk) 16:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Yes, it does meet notability; you can see for yourself that it has survived two deletion attempts. The neologism does not have to be commonly or recently used for it to continue to merit an article. It simply has to have been widely discussed in mainstream news, which it was. Binksternet (talk) 17:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
      • I only see one deletion attempt listed at the article talk page, and looking through that deletion discussion I see no mention of (or allusion to) WP:NEO. Anyway, no one is now proposing here to delete anything.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support We have an established policy that discourages articles solely about neologisms. Neologisms that are deliberately constructed to discredit a living person should be especially suspect. If the Tea Party decided they were calling child rape "Obamaism" from now on and some state legislature introduced a bill to rename the state sex offender registry the "Sex Offender and Obamaism Registry", and it got lots of press, would we allow an article on Obamaism (sex offense)? I think not.--agr (talk) 16:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support. This is a proposed neologism, not one for which there is much evidence of actual use. I searched in Google Books and was unable to find a single instance of use in fiction where any character used the term with the purported meaning, outside of a reference to the person. If this term had taken hold, we would expect to see such use. bd2412 T 16:51, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support per Anythingyouwant's arguments. I suspect that few people supporting the separate article for the neologism would take the same position if someone like Rush Limbaugh had waged a successful Googlebombing campaign to assign a new meaning to someone like Hillary Clinton. Drrll (talk) 17:04, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - the term is in common usage and should be given its own entry. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 17:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support - as per "We have an established policy that discourages articles solely about neologisms. Neologisms that are deliberately constructed to discredit a living person should be especially suspect." - agr. - Off2riorob (talk) 17:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose We don't need three articles, or a new article mashing together comments about Santorum's views on homosexuality with the notoriety inherited because of those views. It is perfectly reasonable to have an article about the neologism and an article about the former senator. I'm also unseasy using the BLP noticeboard to help a potential presidential candidate scrub his google results. Protonk (talk) 17:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

My intent was to treat this article as we would any other article, rather than allow the subject to be handled especially badly because of who he is. Protonk, are you suggesting that we delete Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality? That article's been around for quite awhile (since 2003). Where would we put the content?Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think my opinion matters much but my prior on this is that I don't like "controversy" articles. Ideally we should be able to put the controversy about santorum's retrograde opinions in his article and weight them appropriately. The term itself (encompassing as it does the controversy, the response and the googlebombing/problems) can and should be given its won article because it is a cleanly delineated subject. I'm not advocating treating the subject poorly because of his views or his actions but we need to be aware that this discussion is quite literally part of the "rehabilitation" of santorum's online image. It is emphatically not the same as a non-public figure scrambling to deal with 15 minutes of Internet noteriety and should be dealt with differently. Protonk (talk) 19:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I agree with you that having two whole articles devoted to this same basic issue is wrong and unusual. If you come up with a way to fix that, then I'll try to be supportive. If you want to reverse the merge proposal (puttting the controversy material into the neologism article), and perhaps broadening the title of the neologism article, then that would be fine by me.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose: actually, I don't care about the actual merger. But BLPN is not the correct place to be having this discussion. It belongs on the article talk page(s). -Atmoz (talk) 18:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Per WP:Merging, the discussion "will usually occur on the proposed destination page's discussion page,[1] but multiple proposals may be grouped in one place, such as a relevant WikiProject." Having the discussion here seems like a valid option. Notice that various proposals have been made here besides merging. Would you please change your comment from "oppose" to "comment"?Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose I was going to support in principle until I saw in what detail it was covered in the neologism article. Any sort of merge would produce undue weight in the controversy article. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • More than a dozen of the footnotes in the neologism article are opinion pieces by Dan Savage, and several of the other footnotes are also opinion pieces instead of news reports. So, the article is due for a trim. But even at its current length, merging it into Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality would not result in a particularly long article. Is there another article at Wikipedia devoted to a neologism that is almost never used for descriptive purposes? This really seems like a gross exception to normal practice here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose -- putting material from the "neologism" article would cause BLP problems and result in insufficient coverage of the "neologism" itself. (In reality, there's more to that article than "neologism".) Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose There is a rather large push to whitewash Rick Santorum on Wikipedia. I don't like it. The slang article is well-referenced as standalone. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
  • Thanks for the WP:AGF Schmuck. But since we're in that mode, I'll say that it's more likely a large push to smear a politician, than a large push to whitewash anything. Have we become a political action committee?Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:50, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• - comment - clearly there is no consensus for this merge and imo we should close the straw poll down and return to discussion as an extended no consensus poll will likely add more heat than light. If there are no objections I will close the polling down. Off2riorob (talk) 19:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Close.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

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

Alternate proposal: rename the article

The BLP problem here, I think, is that Wikipedia is making itself an active participant in the Googlebombing campaign. If you Google "Santorum", the article about the neologism comes up ahead of the article about the former Senator. So I'd like to propose an alternate idea - rename the article to something that doesn't start with "Santorum". It could be "Googlebombing of Santorum". It could be "Dan Savage-Santorum dispute". It could be "creation of the word santorum". This would satisfy both the desire for it to have its own article and the desire for Wikipedia not to participate in the Googlebombing campaign. --B (talk) 19:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I support such a renaming, as the primary subject of the article as written is the controversy and political effect of the word, I would like the title to better reflect the article contents. I don't have any problem with "Googlebombing of Santorum", "Santorum Googlebombing", or "Santorum Googlebombing controversy." I prefer these to "Savage-Santorum dispute", which seems to convey less information, but I don't actually oppose the latter, I just prefer it less. I don't care whether it's called a controversy or dispute, although I think the prior term is more accurate. I actually oppose "Creation of the word...", which suffers the same descriptive issues as "Santorum (neologism)" but is worse for not following WP naming habits. --j⚛e decker^{talk to me} 20:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

PS: I believe that User:B is mistaken, as a pure point of fact, on the question of WHY Santorum (neologism) preceeds the Senator in Google results. It is my understanding of PageRank that the primary factor in that ranking is the source of and text associated with incoming links to that page. To the extent that what the rest of the world doesn't change, us renaming this article will not, as I understand it, have a significant effect on Google search results. --j⚛e decker^{talk to me} 20:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I support that. My understanding of Google's ranking formula is that it's second only to coca cola in secrecy. Moreover, having more than one article about a single controversy is itself a BLP violation (which may also be contributing to the high Google rank). But having said that, yes, it might improve things to do as B suggests, though it would be better to rename it to something broad enough to cover the stuff in Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality (e.g. "Statements by Santorum and the Googlebombing response").Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment. At the second AfD, I posted a comment about the possible names for the article; here is a slightly edited version (follow the link if you want to see the whole discussion). "A separate article should (a) be clearly titled in a way that makes it about the political action by Dan Savage, and not titled in a way that makes it appear the word has gained real currency, and (b) make clear in the title that the content would be offensive to some. This latter criterion is important for the following reason. Suppose that we title this article "santorum (political act by Dan Savage)". Then on the dab page, someone might click on the article who might be very offended by the content. This is precisely the goal intended by Savage's campaign: to present Santorum's supporters with this offensive material as a jolt. We should present this information in such a way as neither to further nor unfairly hinder Savage's campaign. WP is not censored, so that's not the issue: the issue is that we should not mislead viewers with the title. The current title accurately meets criterion (b), but not (a). A title such as "santorum (political act by Dan Savage)" meets (a) but not (b). The only way of ensuring both would be some title such as "santorum (sexual slang term coined as political act)". That would work for me, but a merge back to Savage Love seems more sensible, because given that the entry is really about a political act, it fits naturally within that article." I also want to add two related comments: (a) there are (so far) no reliable sources in durable media that indicate this is actually a neologism that is in use in the language, and (b) that makes no difference at all to the notability of this article, so long as we agree that the article is about the politics and not about the word. Mike Christie (talk – library) 23:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't accept criterion (b). The reason given for it can be satisfied just as well by indicating the term's offensiveness within its dab page entry. E.g. if santorum (sexual neologism) was renamed Santorum Googlebombing, the dab page entry might read "Santorum Googlebombing, a campaign promoting an offensive definition for Rick Santorum's surname" or something similar. So there is no need to contort the article title to avoid possibly causing offence. --Avenue (talk) 00:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• Renaming the Santorum political slang article is a good idea, because the term is really not a neologism. Possibilities: Santorum (political attack), Santorum (political slang), Santorum (Google bomb), etc. Binksternet (talk) 00:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

  How is it not a neologism? --j⚛e decker^{talk to me} 03:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose as nonsense. By this rationale we're going to rename everything someday offensive to one person or group? This predates Wikipedia mattering anyway and dates to 2003. What next, rename kike or nigger? Merrill Stubing (talk) 01:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The article's already been renamed more than once. Maybe someone could figure out how to list the prior article titles. Renaming it again would be no biggie if that would remove Wikipedia from being an active participant in the Googlebombing campaign. How about a compromise: we make it more offensive, but not useful for googlebombing? Like Naming of anal sex byproduct after former senator. Kind of catchy, don't you think?Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Most of the previous titles likely redirect to the existing article, the current redirects are "Frothy mixture", "Santorum (fluid)", "Santorum (neologism)", "Santorum (noun)", "Santorum (sexual slang)", "Santorum (slang)", and "Santorum (word)", so previous article titles are likely a subset of that list. Please note that renaming this article will not keep Santorum (neologism) from being a valid search target. It would be wildly inappropriate for us to actively break incoming links into our encyclopedia. --j⚛e decker^{talk to me} 04:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. Anything we do here won't affect BLP as it's already out there. That's what the name is, that's what the controversy is; that's what it's been for 8 years now in the real world. We're a tiny bump in the road and anything we do here will zero effect on the wider Google search results in any way. Anything we do WILL be played up by one side or the other, so it's best to just leave well enough alone. We change anything here to 'benefit' either Santorum OR Savage and we've become participants. Lets stay Switzerland. Merrill Stubing (talk) 04:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Joe, I hereby offer to bet you a hundred bucks that if we rename the article to something that doesn't include "Santorum" in it (e.g. Naming of anal sex byproduct after former senator), and convert the current title to a redirect, then neither the article nor the redirect will be one of the first ten hits in a google search for "Santorum". Care to wager?Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Why would we do that? This isn't our concern and even if we never mentioned Rick Santorum + lube or whatever, it won't vanish off of Google unless Google themselves vanish it. Merrill Stubing (talk) 05:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP, "the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment". So the question is whether one title or another for this article will do more harm to the subject of the article. Whether the subject of the article deserves harm is supposed to be beside the point. A title like Naming of anal sex byproduct after former senator would do less harm to the subject, because the Wikipedia biography of this person would then be higher in the Google hits than this article about the neologism. It's our concern, because our article is the second hit in a Google search for "Santorum", and that is due to the title we have given to an article about a byproduct of anal sex. Whether we did it intentionally or not seems beside the point. Personally, I would not want my last name to be in the title of an article about anal sex, or any other kind of sex. Would you? Would anyone?Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:45, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Strongest oppose. Your logic falls south. The outside world created the phrase. We can't change reality. Merrill Stubing (talk) 11:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Nope - one person created this. Suppose he decided that "Stubing" should mean sometthing grossly offensive, and it were linked to your name directly. And that the only connection was this one person who then Googlebombs the new word "Stubing" across the Internet. You would not object just because "this is reality"? I would hope not. Collect (talk) 11:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you deny notability? Merrill Stubing (talk) 17:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

One person created it in 2003, it caught on, and now it's openly discussed in major news media on and off for YEARS. What again is our responsibility to cover up what is out there in reality? Merrill Stubing (talk) 11:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the key point is that Savage's actions were intended to generate coverage; that's their point. Groups that voluntarily post information about the neologism (e.g. on blogs) are furthering his goals; groups that consciously decide not to, even though it might be within scope for their coverage, are hindering his goals. I think we have take extra care that we neither unfairly hinder Savage's goals by limiting coverage, reducing visibility, or deleting links, nor unfairly damage Santorum by adding undue coverage, expanding visibility, or adding links. It's precisely because of the nature of Savage's actions that we have to be careful to match the weight of the sources with the weight of our coverage, and we also have to be aware that there are likely partisans of both sides who will chip in, at least partly motivated by their political biases, because commenting here is political action. I should add (since I started this) that I haven't supported or opposed any position, and don't intend to; my goal was to raise visibility in the hopes of getting a broadly supported outcome. Mike Christie (talk – library) 13:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

__________________________________________|

V

For better or worse, this began as a pure act of political speech in regards to gay politics, in response to political speech in regards to gay politics. To do things like add Santorum's photo to the sex article pr expanding (except in DIRECT RESPONSE TO MAJOR ONGOING OUTSIDE COVERAGE OF THE PHRASE, which we are beholden to) rewards the pro-gay side; to remove mention of what the sex act is and it's impact from Rick Santorum or to rename the sex act article rewads Rick Santorum. We can't rename the article to "minimize" it's impact as that is a political act, the BLP damage is outside of us and done for eight years in real life. The best and most single appropriate course of action is to do not a thing. Leave the articles as-is:

• Rick Santorum gets the controversy covered equal to the weight of coverage in real life of the Santorum phrase--which, as the articles mention with sourcing, IS a cultural staple now. His detriment, NOT our concern on that. We have no business influencing culture. We're observers.
• Santorum (sexual neologism) should stay as-is, but keep out pictures of him (uh, by the letter of our laws, free images of "Santorum", the 'mixture', are fair game), and report on the bits of the controversy that fit better there or in Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality.

Anything else makes us active participants in a political fight. To be rough, and again, we're Switzerland. The Google BLP impact has no meaning on this one, since it's been external to us for years already and since (I just had to Google research this) we do "nofollow" on Google links we don't influence Google anyway on this except our lone hit. Do we want to be caught in the middle of another media storm from EITHER side if we play favorites? Do we want to make Jimmy Wales of the Wiki Foundation have to discuss frothy lubes of fecal matter in the media if we play games to benefit Santorum? Don't you think that would drive EVEN MORE ATTENTION to this? Streisand effect people. Unless that's the intention, in which case--let's rename it to cover up for Rick Santorum's benefit so the entire blogosphere can explode this in even worse fashion. We've seen this time and time again. Cover up Wikileaks? It explodes. Cover up police actions? It explodes. Cover up PS3 or Blu-ray hacks? It explodes. It always does, it always will. All we can do is stay in the middle--like we were the day before Santorum finally gave an interview about this after 8 years. Your call. Stay as is, or make it worse for Rick Santorum? Changing this would be like pouring gasoline on bloody red meat, tying it to a fuze, and holding it over the side of a boat in shark-infested water as you wave a lit torch in the direction of the fuze, when it comes to WP:BLP violations. Lighting that fuze with trying to hide or minimize this will ignite everything. Merrill Stubing (talk) 14:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Why do you think it's important for the title of this article to not mention "anal sex"? And why do you think it's important for the title of this article to not mention that a "senator" is involved? Both those things would be accomplished by changing the title to Naming of anal sex byproduct after former senator.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The entire focus and controversy is that the word "Santorum" is no longer just his own. It's a name for a part of a sex act now. Why are you so hell bent on unleashing a storm of attention on Santorum by trying to rename this? Whats your agenda? Renaming it won't help BLP. BLP isn't our problem here since the STORY AND NOTABLE TOPIC is that Santorum now means the sex phrase as a general word. Merrill Stubing (talk) 16:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Nope. It is a "political statement" and not in common usage for a sex act otherwise at all. And political epithets make for poor articles. Collect (talk) 16:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Can you find any examples of the word actually being used, as opposed to someone just reporting the controversy/googlebombing/definition/whatever? If nobody actually uses it, it's not a neologism, it's a googlebombing. It's no different than in 2000 when somebody bought carpetbaggingbitch.com and redirected it to Hillary Clinton's campaign site. Nobody actually thinks that "carpet bagging bitch" is a neologism for Hillary Clinton. Contrast it, for instance, with Democrat Party (phrase). Not only can you find reliable sources defining the term, but people actually use the term in real life. Nobody in real life actually uses the term "Santorum" for this.--B (talk) 18:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose as mildly absurd. Protonk (talk) 16:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support as the current wording rewards an overt act of political activism by a political opponent. Again, consider whether you would support this if the person promoting it were a conservative activist trying to associate a liberal public figure's name with a crude meaning. Drrll (talk) 16:45, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support There are two topics here: the effort to associate a disreputable substance with a politician's name and the substance itself. The effort seems notable enough but an article about the effort should have a title that reflects that activity. Whether the substance is notable is another matter. I would expect some mention in the professional literature or at least a dictionary for a bodily secretion to be notable, not some publicity stunt. See WP:SPIP. But if the substance is to have an article, I think NPOV would require a neutral name, such as "anal sex lubricant residue" or whatever it was called before this effort. And if no one ever had a name for it before, that casts strong doubt on the substance's notability, again per SPIP. --agr (talk) 18:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Tasteless

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

Tasteless looks like a very strange bio to me. Especially the links to the page are strange, for example from Glossary of fuel cell terms.--Stone (talk) 01:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

He is possibly not notable under our standards. The bio has an air of WP:AUTOBIO and contains a lot of unsourced information. Only one reference is to a possible reliable third party source, and the others to self published material. Jonathanwallace (talk) 05:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I was going to PROD this but deferred to a several months old entry on the Talk page from another editor asking for time to work on it. I contacted him via his User page to see if he still intends to do so. Jonathanwallace (talk) 14:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I was trying to prod it or afd it last night but twinkle wouldn't let me. Let me have another look see. I get to use a new template made by User:cymru.lass - Off2riorob (talk) 14:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

{{lafd|Tasteless}}Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tasteless (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Made some significant changes. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 00:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Bobby Franklin

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

Libelous, unsourced, and biased —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.186.52.74 (talk) 03:39, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted the last (attack) edit, but I think this article needs more attention from someone more familiar with US politics. Any volunteers? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

That's just who the guy is and what he believes. Its all reliably sourced. From an essay he wrote cited in the article: "Until we, as Christians, repent of our own sins, I am much more concerned about God’s coming wrath on America than I am about Osama bin Laden — whether he is over there or over here." There may be WEIGHT issues if he spends substantial time reading to sick people or helping old folks with their groceries. I'll search a bit to see if there's anything else to say about him. Jonathanwallace (talk) 04:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I went some distance into a Google search and couldn't find anything else to add to his bio. The stuff on gays, the gold standard, drivers licenses and rape victims is what he is notable for as a U.S. politician. He is also on record as saying George W. Bush worshipped pagan gods. Jonathanwallace (talk) 14:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Asia bibi

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

I believe the section titles "the case" has been posted/edited by a person with extremist views, is inflammatory, and is seeking to adversely influence international understanding of the case. The reference source for reference 7 thru 11 is clearly in contravention of the vast majority of reports by respected national and international media. Please remove/correct this section. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.178.93.157 (talk) 11:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree and removed the material sourced to www.deeneislam.com as it appears to flunk WP:NOTRS which says: "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional, or which rely heavily on rumor and personal opinion." I will watch the article. Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Alexander Reshideovich Dyukov

Alexander Reshideovich Dyukov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:Galassi is repeatedly pushing an unsourced POV that Alexander Reshideovich Dyukov, a living historian, is a "Russian nationalist." This is done through edits disguised with edit summaries like "more precise definition" and edits marked as minor. (The edits appear designed make the nationalist label appear as a sourced claim, when it is not.)

He has been reverted with the edit summary WP:BLP, but just keeps on edit warring. This is an egregious violation of WP:NPOV and BLP policy. 24.47.122.199 (talk) 12:33, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I cannot find the term "Russian nationalist" at the article talk page. Why not explain there what the term means, and why you think it's inapplicable?Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

bryan adams

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

Bryan Adams has activities in more than 30 years of musical career, has sold over 100 million copies of albums and singles, her albums have sold more Cuts Like A Knife (1983) with over 4 million copies worldwide, Reckless (1984 ) With over 13 million copies around the world, Into The Fire (1987) sold 4 million copies worldwide, Waking Up The Neighbours (1991) with more than 15 million copies around the world, The Collection So Far So Good (1993) with over 13 million copies worldwide, 18 Til I Die (1996) more than 5 million copies worldwide, Unplugeed (1997) 5 million copies around the world, On Day Like Today (1998) sold more than 3 million copies, these are the most commercially successful album that even today some still good sales, the single most successful on all Everything I Do, I Do It For You, which rose to about 10 million copies holds the world record of staying in the UK charts with 16 weeks in the lead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.30.219.120 (talk) 17:39, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Is there anything wrong with the Wikipedia article about him?Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Raymond Allen Davis Incident

The Raymond Allen Davis incident article covers the current event where an American with connections to the U.S. gov't is accused of killing two Pakistanis and is currently in prison in Pakistan. There are very many violations of RS, NPOV, and OR in the article. The question is, because the article describes both the person and an incident in the life of that person, how does BLP apply? If it applies strictly, much of the article may need to be removed, which would be unfortunate for some hard-working editors. guanxi (talk) 19:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLP applies in full even though this is not a biography. A discussion of this was already opened above at "Raymond Allen Davis diplomatic incident#Davis' background". The article certainly needs some clean up and has a few unreliable sources, but the information in broad strokes has been confirmed by reporting in the New York Times and elsewhere: he is apparently CIA, there is some conflict between reports of his being a consular or embassy employee, it was originally denied he is named "Ray Davis" but is now being confirmed, he is former Special Forces, etc. The assertions I saw in the article which are not backed up in the reliably sourced reporting include that he was peddling nuclear material to the Taliban (which seems wildly unlikely), and that the two men he shot were members of the ISI (Pakistani intelligence). Jonathanwallace (talk) 20:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I think a simple browse through the references will find many, many inappropriate sources. I haven't spent the time to see what is supported in 'broad strokes' by RS and what isn't. guanxi (talk) 21:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

From the responses I got when making inquiries on the talk page, it seems a few regular editors have the view the BLP issues do not apply since the article is about the "incident" and not the "person." That view is incorrect. I removed IMO the most egregious of the violations (his wife's name, location, etc), but I agree that some BLP problems are slipping through the cracks on this article. I think the main problem is that it is focusing on both the person and the incident, and not just the incident. David Able 00:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

This page continues to be a problem. I had removed the CIA-nuclear material section, but it was restored by an editor raging with personal attacks. [12], [13], [14]. Discussions have also degenerated into insults. Progress is very time-consuming, and I don't really have the time. guanxi (talk) 16:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Kay Hymowitz

Kay S. Hymowitz‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Section at the end of this article contains unsourced personal opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.229.186.142 (talk) 20:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Interesting history at that page. You are correct that the contents of the last paragraph were inappropriate, particularly since they were unsourced. I have removed them. Active Banana (^bananaphone 21:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of the weird edit history, the subject seems clearly notable, with significant third party coverage. I added several refs and removed a PROD.Jonathanwallace (talk) 22:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, the article looks much better now. Active Banana (^bananaphone 22:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

David H. Koch

Could anyone reading this who feels like it please add David H. Koch and Charles G. Koch to your watchlists? The articles are attracting attention. Abductive (reasoning) 21:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Ardashir Vakil

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

Someone is making nasty and untrue comments about my daughter Tara Vakil (17) on my page. I have edited them out as far as possible, but i would like to report to the editors of Wikipedia that this abuse/bullying is taking place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.156.59.19 (talk) 21:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I've put this on my watchlist, for now. This looks like an isolated incident of vandalism, and unlikely to recur. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Possibly someone should consider RevDel on these several edits by two different IP addresses (note the immediately following edit is ClueBot only reverting part of it). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:31, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Barry Chamish

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

I was forwarded an email complaint from someone, apparently Mr. Chamish, that we call him a "Holocaust Denier" when he isn't. I took one glance at the article and I am horrified by it. It is full of BLP violations. I am taking an extreme step right now and stubbing the article. I think every single claim in the article should be carefully checked and only re-inserted if it is sourced to a reliable source. As it stands now, the article is absolute crap.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

When I see crap articles, most of the time I rewrite them. I urge others to do the same. --Moni3 (talk) 22:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Me too, but in BLP cases it is important to remember that our first obligation is to remove the crap. Building back up something better is important too, as a later step, but the first thing to do - immediately - is to remove the crap.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

For the most part, I agree, and said so here. However, I came into conflict with another editor who took it upon himself to blank Anita Bryant's page. It was not crap. It was mostly accurate. Mostly unsourced, too, but for the most part, accurate. I wrote Save Our Children, so I don't think I should be the person to filter material about Bryant's life. Instead, there it sits, waiting for someone to rewrite it. And waiting.... --Moni3 (talk) 22:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

(undent)What's the deal with WorldNetDaily cited in the Chamish article? Is it considered reliable for direct quotes but unreliable for everything else?Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Moot.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

WorldNetDaily has been held unreliable for fact assertions, at WP:RSN, but I think a direct quote from an interview passes muster under WP:BLP#Using the subject as a self-published source as long as it doesn't infringe the five criteria given there. Oh, and by the way, the WorldNetDaily ref is currently back in the article. Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I would consider it a source to be treated with caution. Confirmation in other sources would be generally useful I think. Speaking generally, using them as a source for a fact which is not found anywhere else *and* is not particularly controversial would seem ok in some cases. If the fact can be found in a better source, that source should be used instead or in addition. If the fact is controversial, I'd be very careful.

My primary beef with this article is that it did something absolutely outrageous: it accused the man of being a holocaust denier when the closest thing to a reliable source, and a source which plainly hates the guy, absolved him of that charge. This was in the article for more than a month.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, I may end up proposing the article for deletion for lack of notability. Even Daniel Pipes writing about him was in his blog. There seem to be a few news mentions, most of which treat him as a conspiracy theorist in passing, but it is not at all clear that he is notable. The only reason I'm not nominating right now is that I asked an Israeli friend and she said "Of course I've heard of him, he's a famous <unflattering term>". If he really is famous, perhaps there is enough to write a proper biography.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

There is a history of abusive vandalism of this article by the Runtshit vandal. See in particular Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Zuminous, though several other edits by Runtshit socks also make such edits. Many of the recent abusive edits share similar characteristics, and I strongly suspect that these too are Runtshit socks. I am looking through the page history, and making an SPI submission. RolandR (talk) 22:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

And most of the accounts which made the abusive edits have now been confirmed by Checkuser as sockpuppets of Runtshit. RolandR (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Sean Hayes (actor)

Sean Hayes (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This Wikipedia biography asserts that Sean Hayes came out of the closet in The Advocate, April 2010. I've read through the Advocate's article and while it certainly strongly implies that he is gay, I'm not sure that Hayes did actually assert that he is a homosexual. Could someone please take a second look at it? - Richard Cavell (talk) 00:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The interview includes the followng: "'Really? You’re gonna shoot the gay guy down? I never have had a problem saying who I am,' he states....'I am who I am. I was never in, as they say. Never,' he insists." Given that he never says "I am gay" in the interview, I would think about quoting this response in the article instead of making the assertion. Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Although it's strongly implied that he's gay, he hasn't actually said it. - Richard Cavell (talk) 21:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Wow, I find myself in the unusual position of being less cautious about sexual orientation assertions than others. Just about every source in the news and on the web interpreted the Advocate interview as Hayes coming out, as did the Advocate in the interview. The article should absolutely say he came out AND quote him. Crazily, the article now reads "appeared to imply that he is gay". Now if that's not WP:WEASEL, I don't know what is.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:55, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• SEAN HAYES, a Tony nominee for "Promises, Promises," ... came out in The Advocate in March, weeks before his Broadway debut opposite Kristin Chenoweth, who plays his love interest.
  • HAYES WILL GRACE THE TONYS AS HOST JOE DZIEMIANOWICZ. New York Daily News. New York, N.Y.: May 25, 2010. pg. 58
• It was a departure from the typical celebrity coming-out, which goes something like this: find a sympathetic publication, say, The Advocate (Sean Hayes), Time (Ellen DeGeneres) or People (Lance Bass, Clay Aiken and Neil Patrick Harris); give a soul-baring interview; and watch the story land at the same time you are promoting a new show, album or book.
  • Ricky Martin's Personal Spin on His Own 'News'; [Style Desk] Laura M. Holson. New York Times (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.: Apr 4, 2010. p. ST.8
• Sean Hayes, left, who recently came out as gay in The Advocate and has been playing straight in the revival of "Promises, Promises,"
  • What's On Sunday; [Metropolitan Desk] Kathryn Shattuck. New York Times. (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.: Jun 13, 2010. pg. MB.11
• The actor who played the flamboyantly gay neighbor on the groundbreaking sitcom "Will & Grace" has come out of the closet himself - though he insists he was never in. Sean Hayes, who played Jack McFarland on the show - a huge hit on NBC that placed its gay leading characters squarely in the mainstream culture - appears on the April cover of The Advocate to Anally discuss his sexual orientation. The magazine had been critical of Hayes, 39, for never before addressing the subject, though he never denied he was gay.
  • 'Will & Grace' star is 'out' Jason Fink. AM New York. New York, N.Y.: Mar 9, 2010. pg. 3, 1 pgs

It looks like secondary sources say Hayes "came out" in the Advocate article, regardless of what we think.   Will Beback  talk  04:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that was my point. I'll wait a bit, but unless someone objects, I'm going to change the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Wait a sec - did that really say he was "Anally" discussed his orientation??? Echoedmyron (talk) 16:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I dunno, maybe Will can answer. As double entendres go, it's so-so.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

That's what the source says, as archived in Proquest. I assume it should have said "finally". But it wasn't my work.   Will Beback  talk  03:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

This is an interesting one. From a practical standpoint, I think saying Sean Hayes is gay in the article is fine, in that its probably correct and does not harm him. However, as a sometime Wikipedia formalist, I think its incorrect. When you read the statement he made in the interview, "I was never in", you have to go through a short mental effort to conclude, "Ok, he's gay". That mental effort is what is known here as synthesis. The fact that other secondary sources have read the same interview and gone through the synthesis, does not really make it acceptable. There is a difference between "The New York Times reports Sean Hayes is gay based on their own research and information" and "The New York Times read the same interview I did, in which he never quite said it, and concluded he is gay". In other words, I don't think we can source an assertion about a living person to a secondary source which relies on a publicly available primary source which does not say exactly what is being reported. Again, the stakes are really low here, and if the consensus is he self identified in the article, I am fine with it. Jonathanwallace (talk) 21:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Jonathan, but I do think that on a sliding scale, the amount of synthesis is very low. I favor saying he is openly gay in the article and including the quotes. If I were forced to pick a second choice, it would be not to say he is gay and just put in the quotes (certainly not the "appeared to imply" phrase).--Bbb23 (talk) 21:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I think just the quotes now. Play it safe. Even in a verbatim article, context is always in question. He didn't say it, so any assumption (however obvious) is still synth. Thankfully, we here at WP do not jump to conclusions as easily as maintream media these days (at least, we're not supposed to) David Able 04:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Alright, well, can someone change the article to what you think it ought to say? - Richard Cavell (talk) 23:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I was waiting for a mini-consensus. I'm in favor of gay + quotes. David is in favor of just quotes. I think Jonathan is neutral, and I think Will agrees with me; however both are free to correct my thinking. Do you have a view, Richard?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I was the one who changed it to "appeared to imply that he is [gay]", and that was regarded above as weasel wording. I thought that was the most accurate and factual way to present it. I will go with whatever others here decide on. - Richard Cavell (talk) 03:27, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Brian Bruce

Resolved

 – wrong location - advice given

Brian Bruce the son of Jackie Bruce(Dezee) and John Bruce born in 1975 is a american lacrosse player and coach as well as United States Navy Seabee. Bruce first gained athletic noterighty in 1990 as the result of a injury. While a member of the Glen Cove High School football team he was injured in a one on one tackleing drill. Bruce drove his head into the torso of a team mate and was paralized from the neck down. After being airlifted to North Shore University Hospitol he was given a experimental steroid teatment to stableize his spinal column. 72 hours later he regained all movement and fully recovered. He went on to a standout lacrosse and wrestling career at Glen Cove High School being named all division in wrestling his senior season.

He went on to briefly play college lacrosse at Goucher College and Nassau Community College. While playing at Nassau he tore the acl in his right knee and missed the season.

Bruce made his name in club lacrosse specificly in the USCLA with the Duke Tobay and Reebok lacrosse clubs. The USCLA was nations premire lacrosse league prior to the MLL(Major League Lacrosse). In 1997 Duke Tobay advanced to the USCLA final four loseing to Team Toyota in the semi finals. While a member of Tobay Bruce played with such legends and pro players as Brian Piccola, Chris Lamonica, Brian Okeefe and others. Bruce then moved to the Syracuse based Reebok lacrosse club as thier starting goalie. He led them to the empire division championship and another final four appearence where they lost to the future champion Long Island Lacrosse Club.

At the same time Bruce worked for debeer lacrosse under the leadership of legend and hall of fame member Paul Gait. While working for debeer he was part of the development team that produced the revolutionary apex womens lacrosse stick as well as being the lead designer of the icon goalie chest guard. He worked and lectured at many top lacrosse camps durring this time including Top Gun, Cornell, Players Choice and Johns Hopkins lacrosse camps.

On the coaching front he was a assistent womens lacrosse coach at CW Post University in 2002. The Pioneers advanced to the NCAA final four losing to Stonehill College by one goal in the semi finals.

In 2005 Bruce joined the United States Navy as a Seabee. As a member of NMCB 4. He delpoyed to both Iraq and Afganastan as a member of NMCB 4. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bribruce3 (talk • contribs) 01:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

You are proposing the creation of a new article, apparently on yourself. This noticeboard is not the right place for that. There is a WP:Articles for Creation page. WP:FIRSTARTICLE also contains useful information about editing your first article. However, please be aware that our WP:AUTOBIO policy says, "If your life and achievements are verifiable and genuinely notable, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later...Creating an article about yourself is strongly discouraged." Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Albert Capraro

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

An anonymous editor is violating the Wikipedia Biographies of living persons policy by posting contentious material that is poorly sourced. I have removed the information immediately four times but the user (represented only by an ISP) is continuously re-editing the article and re-inserting the material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Badreputationguy (talk • contribs) 13:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I watchlisted the page and will help out if the IP re-inserts the tendentious material. Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I've left a not-so-friendly note for the IP address as well. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Chad Spann

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

Backbycommittee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This article could use some eyeballs. Backbycommittee, who is likely the subject or someone acting on his behalf, originally created this article as a puff piece with flowery language. The player is pretty unquestionably notable (player of the year for a I-A conference), but some users watching it to keep it neutral and keep it from being used for promotional purposes would be appreciated. --B (talk) 13:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I made some copy and POV edits and its now on my watchlist.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --B (talk) 16:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Shahid Malik

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

SPA Truesayer (talk • contribs) and his now banned sock DAVIDBrave (talk • contribs) have repeatedly added UNDUE material to the article of former Member of Parliament Shahid Malik. This included a very detailed description of boundary changes in the constituency (usually added to the lead!). The editor also repeatedly adds an entire section with a high level heading dedicated to Malik winning a non notable Parliamentary Pool competition which also falsely implies he donated his prize money to charity when in reality the money had to go to charity all along. Myself and others (including administrators) have undone the edits and made the article more balanced and explained why the material is undue and explaining we have an article about the constituency itself for detail on boundary changes but Truesayer/DAVIDBrave simply restores the material (sometimes improving it slightly or sometimes making the problems even worse). The problems have gone on for a number of days now. Truesayer / the sock have also repeatedly removed tags from the article, removed sources (therefore leaving material unsourced), has made some unpleasant attacks / unsubstantiated allegations about other editors in the talk page following being caught socking and posted false information. He has also posted untrue information regarding MP Denis MacShane's religion on more than one occasion.--Shakehandsman (talk) 16:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I made a few edits at the article dealing with WP:COATRACK, WP:WEIGHT and WP:WEASEL issues. It is on my watchlist. Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:10, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.--Shakehandsman (talk) 16:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Doc Corbin Dart

Resolved

 – article removed, redirect installed

Doc Corbin Dart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This BLP could use some TLC. The unsourced material includes these gems:

“ Doc's excruciating vocal stylings have been described as harsh, whiny, and "like paint-stripper".... Doc Dart has recorded several solo projects: Patricia (1990, Alternative Tentacles, LP/cassette only) and 'Black Tuesday' (1991, self released, cassette only). Patricia is named after Doc's therapist, who treats him for borderline personality disorder. ”

Of course, it may all be true, but it's unsourced.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Dr. Charles Steele, Jr.

Charles Steele, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Dr. Charles Steele, Jr. has been misconstrued with a Charles Kenzie Steele born in 1914. They are two entirely different individuals. The name Chalres Kenzie Steele appears when Dr. Charles Steele, Jr. is googled; in addition, Dr. Charles Steele, Jr.'s biography and data have been applied to Charles Kenzie Steele. Please remove Charles Kenzie Steele from information pertaining to Dr. Charles Steele, Jr. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.201.10.245 (talk) 01:09, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I've set up a disambiguation page, and put hatnotes on the articles to clarify who's who. If the article content is messed up, please specify what needs to be changed, or feel free to change it yourself. I looked over the articles quickly, and didn't see the errors. The Google results are out of our control (pretty much). Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced list of Hutus

List of Hutus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi. Just to inform you of a discussion taking place at Talk:List of Hutus about whether it is legitimate to remove unsourced entries from that list. At present, the list is completely unsourced and includes a number of living people. Cordless Larry (talk) 04:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I've just deleted the lot. Given the political context, this list is downright dangerous. Lists like this can get people killed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad someone agrees. Cordless Larry (talk) 05:28, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The unsourced entries are back again. More outside input would be appreciated. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I reverted. Jonathanwallace (talk) 15:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Couldn't we nominate this for deletion based on the BLP considerations and on the fact that its a trivial or unencyclopedic intersection? Jonathanwallace (talk) 17:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that 'trivial' is quite the word - Hutu would seem to meet the criteria of being a recognised self-attributed ethnicity, and as such as 'real' as any social construct - that doesn't address the BLP issues of course, nor the very real concerns over the consequences of (mis)labelling in a context where ethnicity (or supposed ethnicity) has led to killings on a genocidal scale. It may well be the case that from a strict interpretation of Wikipedia policy, a properly-sourced list might be valid, but from an ethical perspective it should be disallowed. Simply put, should we be making a list of potential victims for the next round of killings? Though the Hutu-Tutsi conflict seems to have subsided, there is no guarantee that it won't flare up again at some point, and a list could have real consequences. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's not really an intersection (except people "Hutu" and "people", though that doesn't really count since all Hutus are people) but I agree that there are ethical concerns. I'd be interested to see how an AfD went. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't saying that the Hutu ethnicity is trivial, just that the list is. It is in effect an intersection, of notable people who happen to be Hutu. Jonathanwallace (talk) 18:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Understood. Like I said, I'd be interested to see how an AfD plays out. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:09, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Nominated here. Jonathanwallace (talk) 19:28, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hutus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - Off2riorob (talk) 21:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• I was writing a comment about this, but I've put it at the AfD. DGG ( talk ) 22:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Line of succession to the Ottoman throne

Line of succession to the Ottoman throne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am concerned about this article and would like others' opinions. On the one hand, the information it contains about each person listed is fairly minimal. On the other, that information—connecting them to a family still rather controversial in the world—is possibly contentious, and none of it is cited (the only citations are regarding non-living people, and most those are to ancestry.com, not really a reliable source). Removing all uncited information would leave only the "list of pretenders," which seems to be outside of the scope suggested by the article. Thus, I think this needs a massive cleanup, and without one deletion seems like an option. Chick Bowen 20:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The list of pretenders seems especially problematic, though I'm no expert. Doesn't a "pretender" mean that the person is claiming a right of royalty; i.e. claiming that the current government is illegitimate? By listing living people as pretenders, isn't there sort of an implication of treason, in the sense that pretenders are denying the current government's legitimacy? Labelling someone as a pretender would seem to call for the strongest possible sourcing. Maybe the term "pretender" applies to persons on whose behalf a claim to a throne is advanced, regardless of whether that person himself actually makes an active claim, but still it suggests at least that the person has not renounced a claim to the throne (and we would need sourcing for that fact).

As for citations or other info regarding non-living people, this noticeboard would probably not be the right place to discuss removing those entries from the list (maybe WP:RSN would be the best place). The focus here is on the living. For the living people on the list other than "pretenders", it seems to me like a "citation needed" tag might be enough, unless there's some real proof that being on the list is contentious.

The title of the article is very questionable. There is no Ottoman throne anymore. Maybe something like, "Line of succession to the Ottoman throne if it still existed"?Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I've just edited the article. See what you think.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

That addresses the BLP problem for the most part, but as you say, there's still ambiguity about what exactly the article is about. Chick Bowen 20:29, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Ethan Hawke correction

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

Please note that Ethan Hawke's son's name is Levon Green Thurman Hawke. It is NOT Ethan Roan Thurman-Hawke, even if the New York Times once published it that way. There is no hyphen in either Maya or Levon's last name: Thurman Hawke. And as long as we are on this subject, Maya's name is Maya Ray Nenna Thurman Hawke (the Nenna is after her maternal grandmother). I am the paternal grandmother, Ethan's mother, Leslie Hawke. Thank you.Lesliehawke (talk) 19:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'll look into it, and will be back soon.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

(undent)We cannot make changes to Wikipedia articles without reliable sources. However, in this case, I find one:

"Obituaries", Fort Worth Star-Telegram (2005-10-14): "Howard Green, 84, passed away Thursday, Oct. 13, 2005…. Survivors: Wife, Mary Utley Green; daughter, Leslie Green Hawke of Bucharest, Romania; grandson, Ethan Green Hawke and his children, Maya Thurman Hawke and Levon Green Hawke, of New York, N.Y…."

I'll insert this info into the article.

Note that Wikipedia policy on living persons says: "The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons. The names of any immediate, ex, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject." So, we can mention the names, but I have deleted the precise birth dates.

If there's any further controversy about the childrens' names, then I suggest we just provide their first names, and not mention anything about their middle names.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I've been corrected. An expert says to just remove the childrens' names.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The guidelines as regards childrens names and details has been changed at least once while I have been an editor. Its kind of a judgment call as to the level of notability and coverage of the children, if the children have not been covered for any independent issues then their names are basically worthless trivia. The actual date of their birth is so celebrity trivia as to be intrusive. There has been many discussions while I have been here with differing ideas, I used to remove all of them on sight but from the discussions I have been involved, if there is a lot of coverage of the children then they can be and are included. John and Sally have two children is fine imo and errs on the side of privacy in regards to not notable minors. Off2riorob (talk) 13:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Generally, kids of celebrities will have a hard enough time, without having their info plastered all over Wikipedia. Thanks for the correction.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

You were not in need of a correction, it just a matter of interpretation of the comment "subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject"- Here is as I remember the last of the perennial discussions from 8 months ago with some insight into community thoughts - Wikipedia_talk:Biographies of_living persons/Archive_28#Children of biographical subjects - ultimately on individual articles if they are removed and get replaced, its off to the talkpage to make a case for exclusion, but in cases of minor notable people clearly details of their children's birthdays are a issue of privacy even if the date can be found in some obscure citation. Off2riorob (talk) 13:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Liberty School (Blue Hill, Maine)

Some attention to Liberty School (Blue Hill, Maine) would be appreciated. There are accusations about child sex abuse added, with two related sources establishing that there was some concern by some parents about a teacher, but I think not establishing any abuse at this school. This is out of my area of expertise, what is policy/practice for coverage of sex abuse accusations in connection with a school? --doncram 19:42, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

One teacher later pled guilty to a misdemeanor sex charge - but the sources do not link the allegations and civil lawsuits to the decreased enrollment. Nor was the abuse linked directly to the school. If there were an article on the teacher (which is unlikely as he is BLP1E) then the allegations would be usable about him. Collect (talk) 20:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Rick Donovan and anatomical part sizes

• Rick Donovan (porn star) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article about a porn performer contains the performer's birth name and penis length sourced only to a site which sells video on demand porn. I bring this here because this isn't the only article which makes claims of penis length, information which is of dubious value since the sources generally seem to be related to promoting the performer. In this case, I can easily remove the information until it is properly sourced, but can this be properly sourced and should Wikipedia be including this type of information? It is perhaps relevant to the appeal or notoriety of particular performers, but I doubt we would include this type of information for other types of performers even if they had reliable sources and were relevant to the performer's image (Dolly Parton's breasts for example). Any thoughts? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Donovan's penis length (how is that measured anyway?) might be appropriate in the article if a third-party reliable source stated that it was relevant to his notability as a porn star (not just citing it as a statistic). And even then.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• Human penis size#Measuring the penis - Off2riorob (talk) 22:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I guess I should stop being surprised at the number of ridiculous, I mean useful, articles on Wikipedia. I guess I need to rethink my instruction manual.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I've removing that entire section per WP:NOTHOWTO. I expect a vigorous discussion will likely follow. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

It will never stand up. – ukexpat (talk) 20:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• note article is under discussion at ..

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rick Donovan (porn star) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - Off2riorob (talk) 15:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

discussion about this topic's original title

I changed the section title - sorry, but there's no need for that to show up in someone's watchlist just because the person has this noticeboard watched. LadyofShalott 22:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thanks I almost did it myself. Off2riorob (talk) 23:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Really? Somehow he topic heading "Rick Donovan an his 10 inch penis" is offensive, but including that information in his biography is not? Even without reliable sources? What's wrong with this picture? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I though about removing it and then decided against it, personally here imo the article title is enough in the header and dramatic headers and suchlike is something I and other regulars have been working to improve. The other point is that editors that are interested in porn content can go to those articles and read all about it but other more uninterested editors should not have to have it presented to them in non porn locations, anyways, if a user was a little offended by the header and wanted to remove it I think we should support that and as I said I considered it myself. Off2riorob (talk) 10:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The point of starting this discussion here was to open up the general question of including penis sizes in BLPs and I chose the title to draw attention to what was being said in the article. This is a BLP issue and the suggestion that "editors that are interested in porn content can go to those articles" is more than a little dismissive. I am not going to change the title back to the original, but I think the overmoderation of this noticeboard by one or two editors is beginning to be detrimental to its function. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Its good practice to keep section headers as npov as possible and the title of the article is a very good option - you can state your worry or issue in the section body, its not a big issue unless you want it to be. I would say you are being pointy and have nothing much to do it you think this is a good place to discuss penis size in articles in general - in porn articles they may warrant inclusion, so what, its not even an issue for this noticeboard. Off2riorob (talk) 20:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll side with Delicious carbuncle. Except in egregious cases - and this is not one - we shouldn't be changing headers picked by the OP, particularly when the OP is an experienced editor. In the case of an IP or a newbie, I can see doing so for clarity but not for the reasons offered here.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, just keep your headers as WP:NPOV and as WP:BLP compliant as possible and there will be no need to moderate it, if your desired additions are considered on the edge of guidelines, we will create an WP:ANCHOR for you. Off2riorob - we attempt to stay close to BLP policy here and we do not accept dramatic titillating sexual or attacking headers to attract additional attention. (talk) 01:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

My better judgment tells me to let this go because it's an isolated case, but I'll ignore my better half and speak up. The original header was factual - it clearly stated the problem in the header. To the extent it's titillating, that's in the mind of the reader. It's no more titillating than a Wikipedia article on penis size. And certainly it's not an attacking header. If anything, one assumes it's a "fact" that Donovan would find complimentary. In sum, I don't see how it was a violation of any policy that justified changing it.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

<--(outdent) I was the one who changed it, and as far as "overmoderation of this noticeboard by one or two editors" goes, I don't think I've ever done anything at all similar here before. If you can find that I have, I'll stand corrected, but I really don't think you will. I can appreciate that you wanted to draw attention to the issue. I think what I moderated it to leave the topic under discussion easily identifiable enough, especially once one read the text of the concern. However, I really did not want to see that title in my watchlist. I'm not accusing anyone of breaking any policy with it (I don't think it does), but it was distasteful to me. I tried to preserve the spirit of the concern, but not the distasteful (IMO) wording. LadyofShalott 02:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I understand why you did what you did, but there was an issue that I had hoped we could have a serious discussion about and I think that your change lessened the chances of that (although it is a more reflective of the general case). When I spoke about overmoderation, you were not the person I had in mind. Let's put all of that aside and see if we can't get back to discussing the real issue. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Kirk Douglas

Resolved

 – User:Fox protected Kirk Douglas expires 14 March 2011 (Persistent WP:vandalism)

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

There's been almost continuous vandalism of the name, dob, etc. tonight...can someone please lock the article to anon edits? Pegship (talk) 02:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

FYI, it was protected one minute before Pegship posted here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Shahram Amiri

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

Just happened to glance at this article, and it appears that editors have turned a simple BLP into a quote farm, double-agent, cloak and dagger adventure. I would like to get some opinions from the editors on this board, but it appears that this BLP has exceeded the bounds of its topic. Viriditas (talk) 03:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Could you be more specific about your concerns? This is a really complex and confusing story, full of accusations and counter-accusations, as reported in the New York Times and other reliable sources. Jonathanwallace (talk) 03:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Complex and confusing, rather than a simple BLP about the subject. That is exactly my concern. Viriditas (talk) 03:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes its not possible to write a "simple BLP" where the information is complex and contradictory. Since this may be a single event situation, I suppose you could argue the article should be renamed "Defection and repatriation of Shahram Amiri" or some such--but that seems to me mainly a semantic difference. Our BLP rules apply in either situation, and are not violated. Jonathanwallace (talk) 19:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I do not agree. The current article is a classic example of a coatrack and needs to be trimmed down to a basic BLP. Further, per WP:QUOTEFARM the article overuses quotes, and gives undue weight to incidents and disputes that occurred in June 2010. This article is problematic in every way and does not meet our basic BLP policy and guidelines. I am very close to reducing it to a stub. The article is currently 18,953 bytes, contains ~1,972 words, and has around 30 quotes! Only 140 words are devoted to his life and career, with entire paragraphs quoted from news sources about an incident that occurred in June 2010. The article is clearly being used as a coatrack to continue a political dispute. I recommend reducing it to a stub or to merge whatever is salvageable into Nuclear program of Iran and/or Iran and weapons of mass destruction. Biography articles should not be used under any circumstances to continue political disputes between nations. Viriditas (talk) 20:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I am an uninvolved editor with no axe to grind here, and I also assume your good faith, but I really don't understand your concerns. A WP:COATRACK is along the lines of "He studies minks. Minks are really nasty animals which...." What are the coatrack elements here, in your view? I personally think WP:QUOTEFARM is one of the more over-cited Wikipedia essays (in situations where it wasn't meant to apply), and really refers only to articles which consist of little more than collections of chunky block quotes. Here, I think the quotes are a side effect of careful sourcing of the article, and at worst, a very trivial problem, easily dealt with by a paraphrase. The June 2010 events, of dueling videos, were reliably reported in the New York Times. Finally, people who get in the middle of political disputes between nations will have bios here that discuss political disputes between nations, so I really don't understand your last point. I hope some other editors will jump in here, so we can get to something like a consensus. Jonathanwallace (talk) 21:27, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I think my points have been fairly clear and to the point, so I don't understand your confusion. There are entire paragraphs taken from sources like ABC news[15], in this particular example three whole paragraphs, just plopped into the "June 2010 videos" section[16] straight from ABC. You can't be serious when you say that you don't see a problem, can you? We don't use sources in this way, we don't quote like this, and we don't write BLP's like this. The entire article should either be reduced to a stub or merged into the relevant political/government/weapons articles. This is not acceptable. Viriditas (talk) 21:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Let me come at this from a different angle. I suspect you think this article is what I call a "POV quilt". Editor 1 adds a statement that X, the subject, is one of the smartest people in America. Editor 2 then adds an equally reliably sourced assertion that X is dumb as a plant, etc.

I am always on the look out for POV quilts but IMO, this is not one. It is instead an ambiguous and contradictory story, in which the full truth may not yet have emerged. It is our duty in such cases to report the opposing sides neutrally. You say "POV", I say "NPOV". Jonathanwallace (talk) 21:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The only problem is that's not what I said at all. Please look up to the very first edit I made to this thread and read it again: "it appears that editors have turned a simple BLP into a quote farm, double-agent, cloak and dagger adventure..this BLP has exceeded the bounds of its topic." Not a word about POV. The quote farm is extensive, and in the example I gave you above, we have an anon IP adding 180 words from ABC news.[17][18] That's only one example. This is not how we write articles, let alone BLP's. Failing any other substantial input that addresses the problem, I'm going to begin removing the quote farm and the undue weight. The fact that a single quote from ABC news about the incident is 180 words long, 40 words longer than all of the material about his life and career, appears to have escaped your notice. This is not how we write BLP's. Viriditas (talk) 22:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Part of what you're complaining about seems to be a rather trivial editing and style issue, not really a topic for this noticeboard. If you want to trim a 180 word quote, great. But we're dealing with someone whose actual life is a "double agent, cloak and dagger adventure". What exactly is the BLP issue, if not neutrality? Jonathanwallace (talk) 22:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Please stop continually misrepresenting my report as focusing on POV and "complaining". If you can't respond to the problems I've listed above (and there are plenty), then I'll wait for someone else, keep listing additional issues, or attempt to fix the article myself. At this point, I am actually far more concerned by your inability to see a problem with the article than with the problems in the article. Viriditas (talk) 01:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

No reason to make it personal really. My only concern is that I don't think relevant, reliably sourced, properly weighted information should come out of the article. I also would welcome the involvement of other editors. I suggest if there's anything more to say, we take it to the article's talk page. Jonathanwallace (talk) 04:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Israel, Palestine and the United Nations

Israel, Palestine and the United Nations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Many Western countries have expressed criticisms about the record of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. Does our above article go too far in how it applies those criticisms to individual leaders of the body: Richard Falk, John Dugard and Doru Costea? Are the sources of sufficient quality for them to be used for commentary on the individuals? Itsmejudith (talk) 08:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I looked at the assertions and sources regarding Richard Falk: Haaretz, the BBC, and an article he wrote himself for Znet. The Haaretz link doesn't work, but the other two are both reliable and confirm the assertions. In the Znet piece, Falk said: "Is it an irresponsible overstatement to associate the treatment of Palestinians with this criminalized Nazi record of collective atrocity? I think not." Distasteful and disturbing for some of us, but certainly reliably sourced. Jonathanwallace (talk) 19:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks on that one. I will try and find the right links. Are there any responses about the other two? Are we sure we are giving sufficient context? Itsmejudith (talk) 19:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I assume one sentence in question is: "John Dugard, who has compared Israeli policies with South African Apartheid, was replaced in 2008 with Richard Falk, who has compared Israel's treatment of Palestinians with the Nazis' treatment of Jews during the Holocaust." This is absurdly gratuitous. Falk indeed said what he is reported to have said -- but the idea that Wikipedia would highlight this statement and make it the primary element of his identity in this passage is the result of POV-pushing and nothing else. Note that I am not saying there is a BLP problem here -- there's no reason to think that Falk would object to being associated with this statement or consider it "negative" (he was happy to reiterate it on subsequent occasions). But whoever added it surely did so in an effort to discredit him among certain types of Wikipedia readers -- again, the problem is POV-pushing. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see that. His views on the similarity of Israeli actions in Palestine to Nazi behavior is completely relevant to an article entitled "Israel, Palestine and the United Nations". Taking it out would effectively protect him against the dissemination of opinions he would (as you point out) stand by, if asked. So what exactly is the problem? The motive of the editor who inserted it is irrelevant if the information passes our standards (weight, NPOV, etc) which it does. FWIW, I am an uninvolved editor who happens to be Jewish and personally finds the assertion to be overstated, trite, and in violation of Thingumabob's Law. However, as a Wikipedia formalist, I think it belongs in the article.Jonathanwallace (talk) 20:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it is relevant -- but I'm also saying that it's an NPOV problem for the information to be presented this way, as if it is the only or most noteworthy think about him. If it is to be included, it should appear in a more nuanced and thorough treatment of his views and actions. If that sounds like it would be too much for this particular article, then perhaps it belongs only in his own BLP (where I have no doubt you will find it already present). On that basis, I retract the assertion that there is no BLP problem here -- the NPOV problem is a BLP problem. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks both for your considered comments. One thing that seems minor but I find relevant is the "has compared.... I tend to replace all description of statements with simple past. Otherwise, it sounds too much like compiling a case against the speaker. I find it sometimes when the sources are advocacy groups, less often when reference is to the mainstream media. Jonathan, I think I probably share your view that these statements are notable, and public figures making public statements must expect them to be widely circulated. Is there any objection to rewriting, following the secondary media sources more closely? So that we would have a subheading for the UN official's statement and response to it, treating it as a notable development in international relations, a few words of context for when, where and how the statement was made, a summary of the international response taken from a media outlet such as the BBC. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. Jonathanwallace (talk) 21:17, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm confident that would be an improvement. If you the time and the stomach for it, perhaps also have a go at the Richard Falk article itself -- it's quite a hatchet job. My stamina for dealing with that sort of thing isn't what it used to be. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

moritz, landgrave of hesse

There is some vandalism of this article, under the patrilineal descent and in the box detailing successors and predecessors, which has somehow been hidden from the page editing history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.222.216.104 (talk) 13:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Moritz, Landgrave of Hesse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I removed the section on patrilineal descent because no source is cited and there's already a section on ancestry with a huge family tree. As for the big box at the bottom detailing successors and predecessors, it's certainly different than it used to be. It would help if we have specifics about what the errors now are (it looks like Alexia Brandram is a real person[19]).Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

plan b

Plan B (British musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Plan b ( Ben Drew) his mother is Erica Drew not Georgie Atherton as stated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sexbomb1 (talk • contribs) 19:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I fixed the vandalism, it occurred on 27 January. ~~ GB fan ~~ 20:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Daniel Maynard

Daniel Maynard (physician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

It seems this article is defamatory with no links to any verifiable sources. There are no working links or citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrATStill (talk • contribs) 22:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

There are three such named articles I assume you mean this one, he is the only one still alive. It is really poor indeed and can someone have a look at it please. Off2riorob (talk) 22:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• note - very poor, no access to any of the externals - stubbed right back - the previous content is in the history for users that want to improve it, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 23:02, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Two Pete Perrys in one article

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

I know this guy and don't choose to edit his article (which he heavily edited in the past). But since then someone else has added info about a second Pete Perry there! There are few real WP:RS for either and if I didn't have a WP:COI I'd AfD it. (Same to a lesser extent with his friend Malachy Kilbride whose article he has edited quite a bit.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I removed the 2nd Pete Perry added onto the article. ~~ GB fan ~~ 00:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Cecil Taylor

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

Someone claiming to be his official biographer has been editing his personal life section to remove notes about his sexuality, see WP:AN#Cecil Taylor Biography. It was such a mess that I removed the section; please weigh in on the talk page to discuss rewriting a personal life section using reliable sources. The previous section was pretty gossipy, so I didn't just want to restore it. Fences&Windows 00:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Joe Moore (television journalist)

Joe Moore (television journalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have been working on this article for several years, and each time I go back someone has undone the edits I have made.

The issue is Moore's play "Dirty Laundry" in the controversy section. I referenced an article in the Honolulu Advertiser from several years ago listing about a dozen similarities with a CBS made-for-TV-move. I have tried to maintain a neutral tone. The author of the Advertiser article is listed as "anonymous" when, in fact, there is a by-line. The controversy is labeled as "manufactured" when a reasonable person would note the number and type of similarities. Neither the article nor I have made a claim of plagerism.

See the diff here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joe_Moore_%28television_journalist%29&diff=416510386&oldid=411740677 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Electrorev (talk • contribs) 05:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the controversy section, as being unreferenced. In fact, it seems the entire article is unreferenced, and could really use some reliable sources and a good rewrite. Dayewalker (talk) 06:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg

Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• - Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg affair and demission

Is not going to be pretty, the article should be swiftly pruned of superfluous personal information and trivia. Richiez (talk) 10:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Michael Chamberlain

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

Someone has added rude distasteful comments to this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.15.170.124 (talk) 12:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know - now fixed (and watchlisted). Remember you can edit the article yourself to remove material like this, if you want to. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Simon Coleman

Simon has the 1996/97 First Division Championship with Bolton Wanderers listed under his Honours. As he did not play for the first team during that season he would not have been recognised as being part of that achievement or receive a medal for it.