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

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 03:55, 10 June 2011

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.

Ray Lewis

Section 4 titled Arrest for Murder uses speculative information and a testimony as factual information. References 25 specifically. The section suggest Ray Lewis is guilty and presents him in a negative light. The section should read like this:

Lewis gained infamy through his involvement in a much-publicized tragedy in Atlanta after Super Bowl XXXIV. Lewis, along with Reginald Oakley and Joseph Sweeting, were charged with two counts of murder and four other felony counts in the deaths of Richard Lollar and Jacinth Baker, after a street brawl left two young men dead outside a nightclub. [12][25]

On June 5, a plea bargain was struck, and murder and aggravated assault charges against Lewis were dropped in exchange for his testimony against his companions. He pled guilty to one count of obstruction of justice and was sentenced to a year of probation. NFL Commissioner Paul Tagliabue fined Lewis $250,000 for conduct detrimental to the league, a penalty aimed at the obstruction of justice. [12]

Lewis' testimony didn't help the prosecution in the four-week trial, which ended in acquittals for Oakley and Sweeting. [12]

The following year, Lewis was named Super Bowl XXXV MVP. However, the signature phrase "I'm going to Disney World!" was given instead by quarterback Trent Dilfer.

In 2004, Lewis reached a settlement compensating then four-year-old India Lollar, born months after the death of her father Richard, preempting a scheduled civil proceeding. Lewis also previously reached an undisclosed settlement with Baker's family. [28] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burnsy1627 (talk • contribs)

Lee Rhiannon

There is presently a discussion at Talk:Lee Rhiannon#"Hard-line pro-Moscow communist" regarding the inclusion of content about her alleged involvement with the Communist Party of Australia, and that of her parents. The proposed addition is mainly sourced to blogs and the publications of the Sydney Institute, a conservative thinktank. There has been a slow burning edit war over this content in the past weeks, and I feel the discussion would benefit from the participation of uninvolved editors. -- Lear's Fool _mobile 04:05, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Alleged" involvement? This shows what I am up against. Her mother joined the CPA in 1936, her father in 1940. Her father was editor of the CPA newspaper Tribune. She herself grew up in the CPA and was a member of its successor, the SPA, for at least a decade, as she has said herself. These are not "allegations", they are widely known and incontrovertable facts, fully sourced, yet Greens editors continue to delete them because they find it embarrassing that one of their Senators was a communist. This is nothing but suppression of facts for partisan reasons. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 04:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I welcome Lear's Fool's request for additional objective oversight. Chrismaltby (talk) 06:46, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The large addition that User:Intelligent Mr Toad is desirous to insert is imo totally undue and coatracking lots of stuff about her parents and appears a partisan attempt to assert she is a communist a claim she strongly denies. She has been a green party member for 21 years. Please also remember the article is about her and not her parents. Mr Toads usage of such external blogspots at this http://kurtrudder.blogspot.com/2011/05/greens-and-fundamentalism.html - is also against all wikipedia guidelines and policy.Off2riorob (talk) 09:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Rhiannon is more than capable of lying about her family's communist past in order to shore up votes. Members of the Australian or state Greens should not be allowed to edit her article - the conflict of interest is obvious. Paul Austin (talk) 10:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An IP is now edit warring to add the material. I think an uninvolved admin may be needed here. -- Lear's Fool _mobile 10:51, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisting editors based on their political affiliation is a VERY bad idea. Wikipedia has never required that editors be free of conflicts of interest, only that they don't let those CoIs prevent them from abiding by policy. If we banned Greens from editing (and were somehow able to implement that), it would present a strong risk of anti-Green bias in the article. If we then restored the balance by banning anti-Greens from editing as well, we'd end up with a very poor-quality article because there'd be nobody left with an interest in or knowledge of the subject. --GenericBob (talk) 11:09, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My text does not say or imply that Rhiannon is still a communist, and I have said several times that I don't think she is. The text does not say when she ceased to be a communist, because so far as I know she has never made a statement on that question. Her parents' biographies are relevant because of her public statement that they were "not Stalinists", which is plainly false. This therefore goes to the question of her honesty about her past, which has been the subject of considerable public controversy in Australia and no doubt will continue to be. I don't go as far as Paul in saying she is "lying" about this - people frequently come to believe things about their parents which they simultaneously know not to be true. If my parents had publically defended the Moscow Trials and the Hitler-Stalin Pact, I'd be defensive about it too. I reject the view the length of my text on Rhiannon's past is disproportionate or unjustified. She has not yet taken office as a Senator, so most of her political career is in the past. She was a communist for over 30 years - from childhood until some time in the 1980s. She has been an ex-communist for perhaps 25 years. Readers of this article will be looking for a full account of her political past, and I have written one. Greens loyalists are entitled to debate my edits with me and amend any wordings they think are unfair. They are not entitled simply to delete my text and leave no account of Rhiannon's communist past at all. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 23:32, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think Intelligent Mr Toad's edits could be much better sourced, but do reflect actual facts. He should drop the "green conspiracy" rhetoric - even if/though true, it's pointless arguing along those lines. User:Chrismaltby seems to be keen to whitewash the article, he should be encouraged to be a bit more objective and exhibit less ownership of the article. --Surturz (talk) 08:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said a few times, the issue is not with including relevant factual material, it's to do with the undue weight and non-neutrality of the proposed additions by Mr Toad. That is not just my admittedly biased view, but one shared by several disinterested moderators. As for "ownership" of the article, I am perfectly willing to share in consensus making about edits. I am happy to recognise that I am not the font of all wisdom on this topic or any other. Chrismaltby (talk) 08:45, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support most of Mr Toad's material but there are some bits I find problematic. Working off this diff:

"Rhiannon asserts that she was never a (CPA) member" - as far as I can tell from the article and ref attached to that sentence, nobody has ever alleged that she was. This comes across a bit "have you stopped beating your wife yet?" to me - 'assert' has connotations of a debate. If other editors feel the fact needs to be mentioned, IMHO it would work better in the second paragraph as a direct quote: "In 1971 the CPA split over attitudes to the Soviet Union, and particularly the 1968 Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia. Rhiannon stated that 'Although I was never a member of the CPA these divisions disturbed me.'" This makes the context clearer.
"However, (Rhiannon's parents) joined the CPA in the 1930s, at a time when it was totally loyal to the Soviet Union and Stalin's leadership of it: they could not have remained in the CPA if they did not share this belief. REF: Stuart Macintyre, the leading historian of the CPA, writes: "From 1930 the Communist Party of Australia adopted an iron discipline... that subordinated it to a nominally international organisation (the Comintern) that was itself subjected to the control of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union under the dictatorship of Joseph Stalin."" - the "they could not have remained..." bit looks like WP:SYNTH to me. It's certainly a plausible interpretation, but people are complicated don't always act in accordance with their beliefs. I'd be happy to leave the rest in, on the assumption that readers are just as competent to interpret those actions as we are.
Citation to Blogspot - not convinced Aarons' blog is notable enough for the mention, but open to argument on this.

--GenericBob (talk) 09:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. It's been frequently asserted that Rhiannon was a CPA member. I think Henderson said so in one of his pieces. I thought she had been, until I found her assertion that she wasn't. This surprises me, to put it mildly, but since I have no evidence that she was, I have reported her assertion. 2. The question of the state of the CPA and what its members were required to believe in the 1930s and 40s is relevant because of Rhiannon's statement that her parents were "not Stalinists." Anyone who knows the history of the CPA knows that this is a false statement. It was not possible to join the CPA in 1036 or 1940 without being a Stalinist - CPA members were taught their doctrine from Stalin's Foundations of Leninism and their history from the Short Course, which glorifies Stalin's every word. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 12:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re. #1 - in that case, I think it would work better with a cited instance of the assertion. I still think it would fit better in the second para of that section but that's an issue of flow, not BLP. #2 - I am not objecting to the inclusion of that reference. I think it's relevant to state that the CPA was totally loyal to the SU and Stalin, for the reasons you give, and the reference is appropriate for that claim. The only part that I'm suggesting be removed from that bit is "they could not have remained in the CPA if they did not share this belief". To me that goes beyond what's in the cited source; it seems a reasonable and highly likely conclusion to draw, but it is nevertheless synthesis. --GenericBob (talk) 09:39, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it relevant to talk about the alleged stalinism of people who are not the subject of the article? What does it mean to be a "stalinist" in the context of this article? Can you show that Rhiannon supported the Soviet pogroms, or the Nazi non-aggression pact or whatever it may be that she is damned for having implicitly done because her parents were CPA members in the 1930s or 1940s? This is way over into the realms of conspiracy theory not scholarship and no way is it suitable for a BLP... Chrismaltby (talk) 13:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GenericBob, I agree with your points. Chris, it's relevant because she has stated that her parents were "not Stalinists." It's relevant because it reflects on her honesty. If Eric Abetz said "my great-uncle Otto was not a Nazi," that would be a major scandal, because of course he was. There seems to be a double standard for Greens. I haven't said that Rhiannon supported the Great purge or the Hitler-Stalin Pact (although her parents certainly did - Bill Brown joined the CPA in 1940, when the USSR and Nazi Germany were allies!) I've said that she was a member of a party which supported the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the imposition of martial law in Poland and the persecution of Andrei Sakharov, which is an undeniable fact. Furthermore, I don't damn her because her parents were communists or because she was a communist - as I've noted, I was also a communist in my youth. I criticise her because she continues to make false statements about her parents and her own past. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 01:13, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please put points like this in a blog, not in an article at Wikipedia. When a very reliable and secondary source shows a reason to mention "stalinist" or whatever, then the matter can be considered. With your background it probably looks as if supporters of Rhiannon are trying to whitewash the article, but that's not true (there might be one or two, but cleaning out stuff like "X denied bashing his wife" is standard procedure here). Johnuniq (talk) 01:51, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And what is "my background" exactly? Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 00:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no point discussing that. Please take my comment at face value—it is simply pointing out that Wikipedia operates differently from many sites, and while there are probably a couple of supporters trying to push their position on the article, it really is standard for material like that in question to be removed. The reason is easy to see if you consider how articles on politicians would look if the pro and con sides were given free reign to add whatever tidbits they could find. Johnuniq (talk) 01:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Juice Plus/John A. Wise

I'm having trouble with an editor (an admin alas) on the Juice Plus article who is insisting on incorporating a section about living people based on OR from a self-published POV source[1]. I originally took it to RS/N but not much input there yet. That discussion here, he is insisting that WP:BLP only applies to articles about people, not people mentioned in articles.--Icerat (talk) 03:28, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The text is also supported by the NEJM.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:33, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're seriously claiming a 1986 NEJM paper supports a claim about an association with authors of a paper published in 199&. The NEJM article was published in 1986 and the "association" you claim that paper supports was with a paper published in 1996. Care to explain exactly how that works?--Icerat (talk) 03:43, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll not comment on the substantive issue (not really looked into it as yet), but I think Icerat's user page may be relevant here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:36, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And that would be relevant how? --Icerat (talk) 03:43, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When you write about 'POV sources', your own POV is clearly also of interest. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As is yours and everyone elses. Care to note why you haven't pointed out Doc James' clear POV on these kind of topics? In any case attacking the man and not the case is very poor form. It's a BLP issue based on a SPS source. Do you dispute that? --Icerat (talk) 04:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please spell out the problem. Yes, the edit you mentioned added text about a living person, but does that text fail WP:BLP? How? Is the text wrong? Does it fail verification? Is it undue? Johnuniq (talk) 05:00, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It fails WP:BLP, specifically WP:BLPSPS - Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject. --Icerat (talk) 13:01, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is starting to look like the same arguments we got from User:Ronz who was using WP:BLP to try and squelch debate on the quality of and use of Stephen Barrett in the Weston Price article (see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive97#Noticeboards.2C_source_criticism_and_claims_of_BLP_issues and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Problem_on_BLP_noticeboard) If you look at the disputed text and Barrett's The Rise and Fall of United Sciences of America paper as well as Therese Walsh's "Juicing for fun and profit: taking a good thing too far" article (reprinted in) Gale Group's 1997 Nutrition forum: Volume 14 Prometheus Books pg 36-39 (which says and I quote "Juice Plus capsules and many other dehydrated juice capsule products, including those from AIM and Juice For Life, are promoted as having enzymes that aid in digestion. These claims are just as false for juice capsules as for whole juice. Even the claim that juice capsules contain much the same nutritional value as the actual juice is unsubstantiated.") there doesn't seem to be a WP:BLP issue here.

Furtheremore, Nutrition forum: Volume 14 pg 36 has a sidebar which references quackwatch another of Stephen Barrett's sites which has Unconventional Cancer Treatments which has some more on United Sciences of America.--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce, what on earth are you talking about? Barrett is being used here for BLP stuff, not about the juice. That's why this is on the BLP noticeboard. Please read what an issue is about before commenting. -Icerat (talk) 17:51, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BUMP! This is still an issue. A self-published source (mlmwatch.org[2]) is being used to support the following clearly BLP section implying wrongdoing -

John Wise, NAI, and Juice Plus Research

In a critique of Juice Plus,[1] Stephen Barrett of MLMWatch remarked upon the previous association between two authors of a 1996 Juice Plus research study [11] and United Sciences of America, Inc. (USAI), a multilevel marketing company that sold vitamin supplements with illegal claims that they could prevent many diseases.[56][57][58][59][60][61] In 1986, lead author John A. Wise, who later co-authored several other Juice Plus research studies,[28][29][30][31][36] was USAI's Executive Vice-President of Research and Development; and second author Robert J. Morin was a scientific advisor who helped design the products. State and federal enforcement actions[56][57][58][59][60][61] drove USAI out of business in 1987.[56][58][61] Wise became a consultant to Natural Alternatives International (NAI) in 1987 and a company executive (Vice-President of Research and Development) in 1992. Barrett noted that Wise was also an NAI shareholder and that production of Juice Plus for National Safety Associates (NSA) was responsible for 16% of NAIs sales in 1999.

The other references used are straight from the Barrett piece and nowhere remark on this association, this is a clear use of a self-published source being used for controversial BLP information, contrary to WP:BLPSPS. --Icerat (talk) 21:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John A. Wise's own biography says much the same thing and it presents Forbes (2006), Journal of the American College of Cardiology (2003), Journal of the American College of Nutrition (2004), The Skeptic (2000), Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (2010) as supporting sources. All Barrett really does is connect the dots preventing WP:SYN.--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not his "own biography", it's a wikipedia biography and many of the same authors as on Juice Plus were involved in writing it. There's a reason WP:SYN exists. You can't get around it by using a SPS. If any of these sources "say much the same thing" then rewrite it using them. Well ... I just went to the Wise artice and discovered most of these sources don't even exist any more, and Barrett is used as a source there as well - again, an SPS being used for BLP. --Icerat (talk) 07:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the John A. Wise article has now been listed for Afd --Icerat (talk) 12:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BUMP - still no comments from uninvolved editors. BLP policy says instant delete, but need 3rd party to prevent edit warring.

Above is a poor interpretation of BLP. BLP refers to contentious material. There is nothing contentious at all about what's written in the article. 18:36, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

It's a reliable source according to the recent and past discussions on RSN and elsewhere, so WP:BLPSPS doesn't apply. Are there specific BLP concerns with using certain information from the source? If so, please make those concerns clear. --Ronz (talk) 01:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These constant "BUMPS" IMHO show a disregard for the Wikipedia is not a forum guideline. The last time something like this came up the editors agreed that WP:BLP is NOT a magical censorship hammer. If there are factual errors in Barrett's piece (as shown quite clearly regarding his comments regarding the work of a man long dead) then yes the source should not be used but in this case no such evidence has been presented.--BruceGrubb (talk) 01:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The bumps were partly a result from a post from another user pointing out that they often missed contributing because they assumed other uninvolved editors were discussing it when in fact it was almost primarily involved editors. There's currently no mechanism for dealing with that. Looking through older posts including the link your provide shows that, contrary to claims, Barrett is not an automagical reliable source, and that mlmwatch does not have the same advisory board process as the main quackwatch site and has not been tested in any measure for reliability on WP. The Barrett article is self-published and clearly being used to disparage the man and push a particular POV. Apart from the rote repetition that Barrett is not a self-published source, which you apparently agree with me is not the case, how does WP:BLPSPS not apply? Is instead the standard that, for any given article, Barrett is considered a non-self-published reliable source unless proven otherwise, despite clearly fitting into WP:SPS? How and why does this broad exemption apply? --Icerat (talk) 01:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the source being a reliable one, the material in question is not contentious or factually disputable. How many times does Icerat need to be told this? Rhode Island Red (talk) 02:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A FORUM so there is no reason for "bumps"--we have little things like bold and italics to draw attention to points missed by other editors. This is looking more and more like a less extreme version of the WP:BLP as the magical censorship hammer nonsense we saw about a year ago.--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to attract 3rd party independent commentary does not count as WP:FORUM in my book. --Icerat (talk) 03:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There other ways to attract 3rd party independent commentary then to throw up Bump (Internet) as a topic goes into archive only after five DAYS worth of inactivity. Both BUMPS were within hours. THERE IS NO FREAKING REASON FOR THAT--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Although WP:SPS/WP:BLP concerns are valid, they don't apply here. Quackwatch is only used in the following BLP context: "In 1986, lead author John A. Wise, who later co-authored several other Juice Plus research studies,[28][29][30][31][36] was USAI's Executive Vice-President of Research and Development; and second author Robert J. Morin was a scientific advisor who helped design the products. State and federal enforcement actions[56][57][58][59][60][61] drove USAI out of business in 1987.[56][58][61] Wise became a consultant to Natural Alternatives International (NAI) in 1987 and a company executive (Vice-President of Research and Development) in 1992. Barrett noted that Wise was also an NAI shareholder and that production of Juice Plus for National Safety Associates (NSA) was responsible for 16% of NAIs sales in 1999." I presume those facts are public knowledge and not in dispute Also, Barrett is not the only source for them. So, that Barrett is used in this context does not raise BLP concerns for me.
The other use of Barrett in the article is about the organization not the individual:" The University of California Berkeley Wellness Letter and Stephen Barrett of MLM Watch questioned the survey's scientific value, and claimed that the Foundation is being used mainly as a marketing gimmick to get families to buy Juice Plus products.[21][65] Barrett's organization Quackwatch includes the JPCRF among its list of questionable research organizations (organizations formed by promoters of health products which Quackwatch says exaggerate their effectiveness).[66]"
Even if there were BLP issues, Barrett's website while self-published is recognized as authoritative for consumer health advocacy (I don't like Barrett's approach but that's neither here nor there). And John Wise is not just an individual but the head of a corporation--a public figure involved in making health claims and selling products that thousands or millions purchase. The level of scrutiny for negative claims about living people in such a position is not dismissed, but it is lower. In this perhaps borderline case, the tree falls in Barrett's direction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocaasi (talk • contribs) 03:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ocaasi - (1) quackwatch.org is not the source under discussion. It has (ostensibly) some level of editorial advisory board. mlmwatch.org has no such advisory board. (2) The BLP information, if not sourced to Barrett but instead the other sources , would clearly be OR and SYNTH pushing. So we're using a self-published source for BLP information that would otherwise not be allowed. (3) WP:BLP and WP:V make no exception for public figures and poor sourcing that I'm aware of. Indeed if they're not a public figure they wouldn't even be on wikipedia, would they? Again though, we're not talking about quackwatch.org as a source. --Icerat (talk) 22:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYBLP has some good pointers and really should be woven into the main WP:BLP article.--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:38, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Jewish categories

In the body of this article, it says that Gordon-Levitt's "family is Jewish." Other than a quote about a character he played in a movie, that's the sum total of what the article says about Gordon-Levitt and Jewish. Nonetheless, the article had two Jewish categories in it, American Jews and Jewish actors. I removed them, but All Hallow's Wraith, reverted referring in his edit summary to a previous "conversation". My assumption is he means this discussion on BLPN. That discussion also had to do with WP:BLPCAT, but the actor in question was Mila Kunis. For those brave souls among you, feel free to read the discussion. A threshold question was whether BLPCAT applies to Jewish because Jewish, according to many, can be an ethnicity, not a religion. I don't think that issue was resolved. Some editors suggested that the issue be further explored to try to reach a policy resolution. Will Beback asked Jayen466 to look into it. I don't know what came of it.

Here we are again, but there is a key difference. Without rehashing the arguments in the previous discussion, there is almost nothing in the Gordon-Levitt article to even indicate he's Jewish. By contrast, the Kunis article had much more. Thus, even if we put BLPCAT aside, there's no support for the categories, a relatively standard reason for removing categories. But I don't have the stomach to edit-war or even discuss this with AHW, so I'm bypassing the Gordon-Levitt Talk page - something admittedly I often tell other editors not to do - and coming directly here to try to stimulate some broader discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are there reliable sources that describes him as Jewish? If so, the categories are fine. If not, not. Simples Sergeant Cribb (talk) 07:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, there's nothing in the article that describes him as Jewish, just the one phrase about his birth family. I have no wish to look for sources, assumning they exist, as I'm generally opposed to these kinds of categories as generally irrelevant. Without any sources in the article at present, the categories, like any unsupported categories, should be removed. But I'm faily certain AHW will add them back. Unless maybe I get some consensus here.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a source cited in the article. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 13:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Gordon-Levitt, the younger of two sons, was born in Los Angeles, California. He is Jewish. His father, Dennis Levitt…" Bus stop (talk) 13:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Nowhere in that source does Gordon-Levitt describe himself as Jewish or even allude to himself being Jewish. I referred to this in my first post above. This is what the author of the article says: "Then, in 1996, he took the role of Tommy Solomon on the sitcom 3rd Rock From the Sun, and suddenly the whole country knew who he was: a Jewish kid playing an extraterrestrial pretending to be a Jewish kid." That hardly supports the categories.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As for Bus stop's source, first, AFAIK, it is not cited in the article (at least not for that proposition), and, second, I can't really read it because it sends Firefox into a tizzy with pop-ups and pop-unders. Nonetheless, I looked at in IE, and after some difficulty was able to read it. The interviewer says Gordon-Levitt is Jewish and describes his parents' involvement in the Jewish community. Gordon-Levitt says nothing.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:49, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sergeant Cribb asked for a reliable source that describes him as Jewish, not one where he describes himself as Jewish. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 13:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think Bbb23 makes an excellent point when he says, "A threshold question was whether BLPCAT applies to Jewish because Jewish, according to many, can be an ethnicity, not a religion. I don't think that issue was resolved". I agree that this is an important question. Bus stop (talk) 14:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has a schizophrenic attitude to these categories. On the one hand, attempts to delete them typically fail. On the other hand, when one tries to apply them some editors insist that no sourcing is required, while others insist on sourcing far exceeding any policy or guideline-based requirements. In this case, Gordon-Levitt is obviously Jewish, and the sourcing is fine - self-identification is not a requirement. Wikipedia would be better off if these categories didn't exist; but until they can be deleted, they don't have any sourcing requirements beyond standard policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One might wish that editors maintained a consistent stance on this sort of crap. John lilburne (talk) 14:43, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you about the schizoid attitude and the point about deleting the categories from the database, but I don't think the sourcing here even meets "standard policy". Coming from a Jewish family doesn't make someone Jewish. An interviewer's offhand comment that the interviewee is Jewish is weak at best. I realize that the self-identification requirement seems inextricably intertwined with WP:BLPCAT, which is perhaps why you believe that my saying that there must be self-identification for Jewish categories is wrong. However, forget BLPCAT For a moment and just consider the differences between kinds of categories. For example, if someone is sourced as born in New York, a category of "people born in New York" is a no-brainer. The inclusion in the category is obvious on its face. There are many categories like that. However, the Jewish categories require multiple, logical steps for inclusion because they are not obvious on their face. Thus, to say someone is in a category "American Jew" you have to determine whether they are a Jew, and I submit the only way to do that is something stronger than is present here, even to satisfy standard policy. Part of the problem too is in the slipshod (in my view) way in which categories are created. In the vast majority, there is no definition of the category. This leads to confusion (except for the obvious ones) as to whether they apply. My preference would be to have a category definition in every category, even if it seems obvious to some. Then, the only argument would be over the interpretation of the definition. Sorry for the dissertation, but if Wikipedia deleted all categories (something that wouldn't bother me a bit), our work as editors would significantly decline.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The most important part of an article, in my opinion, is the body of the article. Thankfully none of the illogic plaguing Categories and Infoboxes has thus far crept into the body of the article. Bus stop (talk) 02:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well said, Bbb23. Ping me on my talk if you ever propose that all non-obvious categories must have an unequivocal definition that an intelligent child of eight could correctly apply, some bright-line critera for what's inclded in them. Best, – OhioStandard (talk) 13:35, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. A very important point. I'm not sure that deleting all categories would necessarily improve Wikipedia, but almost all the contentious BLP ones are based on subjective opinion rather than verifiable fact. Since you can't have an 'unequivocal defininition' of opinions, they should go... AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ohio and Andy, the big question is how would we go about removing certain categories and defining any that aren't removed but need clarity? Sounds like a relatively major change to the encyclopedia, no?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:19, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Santorum

I thought for sure this would already be mentioned here. It's not. See Santorum (neologism).

Summary: There's an Internet campaign to associate a living person with shit via Googlebomb. The Wikipedia article on this campaign, because it's long and full of links, is the #2 link on Google for his name, above the page on the person himself. People argue that this article is not a violation of NPOV or BLP because it neutrally describes the event (the campaign) and doesn't claim that Santorum himself did any bad things.

My opinion is that 1) Wikipedia is in effect participating in the campaign, not just reporting on it, and 2) an article can be negative about a person without literally saying anything bad about the person himself--excessively reporting a smear, particularly one that isn't fact-based to begin with, tends to reinforce the association of the person with the smear in the reader's mind. Ken Arromdee (talk) 15:18, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would tend to agree with you. However, this has already been discussed extensively here, on the article's talk page, and at WP:AFD, numerous times over the years, so I see little likelihood that the community is close to changing its viewpoint on the inclusion of the article. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:49, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, agree with you in principle, but the established consensus is regrettably clear. It's unfortunate that the article fails to characterize a deliberate campaign to vilify anyone for their political views as anything but that, however successful and widespread the campaign may be. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, if you can suggest secondary sources that put forth that opinion — I will gladly incorporate them into the article. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 17:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the characterization of Savage's behavior as "revenge" in what's currently note 14 would be a start. But of more concern is the curiously sanitized set of sources for Savage's actions: rather than, so far as I can tell, citing the writings/columns where the "project" (to use a more neutral term) began, the article cites much later ones, where Savage uses more neutral phrasing to describe his activity. It's rather hard to believe, in the construction of an article this extensive and detailed, that no one ever came across those sources. When Vidal did something similar in Myron (with much more wit and logic) he wasn't exactly coy about his intent to ridicule. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:19, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just checked, I did not see the word "revenge" in that source. Please note that the particular source you mention, is already given prominent weight — in the lede/intro of the article. -- Cirt (talk) 18:22, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I answered too quickly and got my cites crossed up. The reference to "revenge" is in the Mother Jones piece currently listed as note 6. The note 14 source described Savage as a columnist "who does not hide his hatred for Mr. Santorum," a point I don't see noted in the article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, I have added all of the information you suggested, all of the quotes you suggested, from all of the sources you suggested — into the body text of the article, and all of them into the lede/intro of the article, as well. -- Cirt (talk) 19:13, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:Santorum_(neologism)#Suggestions_from_User:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz. -- Cirt (talk) 19:22, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Hulabaloo - Well yes but its still an egregious BLP violation. If there's consensus to add a clause to WP:BLP to the effect "does not apply to persons who are unpopular here", that'd be one thing. Absent that, I would say that application of the BLP rule would be justified regardless. Herostratus (talk) 18:01, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Archives, anyone? It's not as if this hasn't been discussed recently -- see here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:21, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been expanded greatly since that discussion. While I believe that the formation and spread of this neologism is notable and should be covered somewhere in Wikipedia, I find the size and detail of this article to be concerning, just on a personal level. I suspect that any attempts to change the status quo will be unsuccessful because it violates no specific rules or guidelines. That said, I think a number of people are having difficulty reconciling the principles of WP:BLP with this article. Seeing how "the community" applies those principles in cases where the person in question is unpopular may be an eye-opener for some people. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:50, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would not call this public figure unpopular, simply because of the number and breadth of his surrogate white knights on Wikipedia. But that's what it boils down to, really. This makes me feel uncomfortable, so I want to erase it. Well, even if you erase the term from Wikipedia, you will not erase it from the internet, much less peoples' mouths and minds. Better to work to ensure that the article stays neutral and continues using high-quality sources (which is what the spirit of BLP is) than to tear it down in a futile attempt to control the terminology of peoples' sex lives. Quigley (talk) 19:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You seem not to have noticed that what I actually said was that coverage of this topic belongs on Wikipedia, which is pretty much the opposite of wanting to have it deleted because I don't like it. Your suggestion that anyone is attempting to in any way control any aspect of people's sex lives through discussing this article is ridiculous and inflammatory. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article's subject is not a person, not a campaign against person, and not a "Googlebomb". The article's subject is a sexual slang term for a common byproduct of a sex act (not what Hullaballoo Wolfowitz described) that has not had a widely recognized name before. It has been popularized through print media, slang websites, and the columnist's own website before Wikipedia even had an article. It has been used and documented, without reference to any person, in multiple reliable sources, ranging from erotic fiction to sociological books to medical journals. It has an eponymous person, but so do many now-common words like "dunce", "lynch", "draconian", "tawdry", and "chauvinism". The namesake, who is a public figure, has welcomed the incidental search results (which we don't control; we are Wikipedia not Google) as helpful to his conspiratorial cause. This neutral and impeccably-sourced article, which is about a term, does not even fall within the purview of BLP. Let's not be hysterical, let's not forum shop, and let's do more research before we write a complaint. Thanks. Quigley (talk) 19:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree about the subject of the article, this article is obviously about a person and falls squarely under WP:BLP; this cannot be Coatracked as an article about a 'term'. Dreadstar ☥ 19:20, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your assessment. I don't know even how it could be a "coatrack", if the only coverage of the person is about the one capital S Santorum controversy. If you think there is too much coverage of the term's origins and namesake, (which I think there is, and it gives an excuse for the political friends of the Senator to say it is about him) then we could talk about shifting the emphasis more towards the term's adoption and its usage. Quigley (talk) 19:25, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there are plenty of reliable sources about this, but really, let's face facts, this term is obviously a political commentary on Santorum, as well as being a commentary on sexual socio-political issues, so it's a coatrack subject from the start. Sure, we can probably have the article under our current policies, but we need to be very cautious about WP:BLP, that's all I'm saying. You can't take the BLP out of the neologism. I totally agree with you that there's too much coverage of the term's origins and namesake, and we should shift the emphasis more towards the term's adoption and usage. But even then..it's stil going to have WP:BLP concerns. Dreadstar ☥ 19:41, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although, I'm concerned that I might be too lax on this, and that it is indeed a WP:BLP violation as it has elements that attack the subject (Santorum), and is apparently part of a smear campaign. So I wouldn't object to the article's deletion or redirect to one of the existing articles on the circumstances of the neologism such as Rick Santorum#Statements regarding homosexuality or Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality. That makes BLP sense. Dreadstar ☥ 19:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of the article is, once again, not Rick Santorum. Proposals to merge the article about the term have been denied, repeatedly, on the article's talk page within the week. Articles that document real smear campaigns have been kept (examples one and two). The term's rise started in 2003, and the man's political career ended in 2007, for reasons that had nothing to do with the neologism. If he has a serious chance at running for some national office again, he will have raised more than enough money to legally and illegally suppress unfavorable search results on all the major search engines. He has indicated a desire not to do this, because he is successful at framing the term's existence to make him into a martyr against those to whom he has voted to deny civil rights through legislation. The politics are over. The term's primary meaning and associations are sexual. The term's origins in the politics of the past are trivial. That Wikipedia even thinks it has so much influence over peoples' perceptions is an exercise in egotism. I feel like a broken record. Archiving is overdue. Quigley (talk) 20:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of the article is, as one of the academic sources in the article puts it, "Dan Savage's internet media campaign to transform former Senator Rick Santorum's name into a new sexualized word, to retaliate against and increase awareness about the senator's issue stances." If it were just about the "term," it would hardly be notable at all; its googlerank would mean little more than the ridiculous number of GHits that Pat Pornstar gets from promotional linking. Arguing otherwise doesn't strike me as intellectually legitimate, and playing down the highly relevant "campaign" aspects impairs the encyclopedic value of the article and raises NPOV problems. Arguing that "the politics are over," frankly, doesn't reflect reality (or a few thousand current GNews hits)[3]; he may rack up Fred Thompson level votes, but Stassen he's not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk • contribs) 22:55, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Savage's media campaign may be the most notable part of the article, but it is not the focus and the scope of the article, which is about the term. Information about the term's origins, which happened to be in politics, is probably disproportional; but that is because reliable sources, not politics, dictate what we write. Any accomodation to Rick Santorum's future possible political ambitions is submission to a crystal ball; such is as intellectually dishonest as applying BLP protections to a person who is dead. Quigley (talk) 23:11, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you can't split BLP hairs that fine; BLP states very clearly, "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page"; equally clear is that the article's subject is about how Santorum's name became and is being used as a neologism. The "most notable, focus and scope" of the article may be the neologism, but it's all based on a Living Person and includes a large amount of content about Santorum - you cannot separate the neologism from the Person it is based on. And there's no need to keep repeating yourself for my benefit, I've read all the comments on this and am already aware of what you're saying. Thanks for the info, tho... :) Dreadstar ☥ 01:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me add that BLP not only applies to Santorum in that article, but to every living person mentioned in it, including Savage. Dreadstar ☥ 02:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'"Real" smear campaigns'? Are you suggesting that this one is fake? Just because it doesn't make negative factual claims about Santorum doesn't mean it's not a real smear campaign.

And the difference between this and the Obama ones is that the Obama ones are not the number two Google results for "Obama"--those articles have much less of an effect than this one. Ken Arromdee (talk) 02:45, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't control Google, and to change a Wikipedia article to try to increase or decrease its pagerank is an unsure and dangerous enterprise beyond our mandate. To explore the Obama analogy further and with finality, Savage's political actions are most akin to Barack Obama's Fight the Smears website, because he is raising awareness of and refuting Santorum's comments that equate gay and lesbian people with child molesters. If there's any smear campaign against living persons here, it's Santorum's smear campaign against millions of gay and lesbian Americans. If Wikipedia erases its own neutral and balanced content so that Rick Santorum's personal website—full of malicious screeds against different social groups—comes first on Google, then it has sacrificed millions of people on the altar of one. That's the logical result of stretching BLP policy beyond biographies to "information about living persons [on] any Wikipedia page". Quigley (talk) 03:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We're not 'stretching BLP policy' to 'information about living persons on any page,' that's the way it actually works...no stretching necessary. For instance, your accusation that Santorum is engaging in a smear campaign falls under WP:BLP, even on a noticeboard. Any page. Dreadstar ☥ 03:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case, then where is the outcry against User:Ken Arromdee's and others' accusations that Savage is engaging in a smear campaign? Does that not fall under BLP? Is Dan Savage not a living person? I'm afraid to conclude that what Herostratus said about BLP not applying to "persons who are unpopular here" is true—only, that unpopular person in this case is Savage, not Santorum. Quigley (talk) 03:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what I said, content and comments about both Santorum and Savage fall under BLP. We must be careful about critical comments and content on everyone who's alive. Dreadstar ☥ 03:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder, if we were writing 80 years ago, whether there would be some argument for moving Hooverville to Charles Michelson neologism for shanty towns. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Blacketer, a very, very good point. -- Cirt (talk) 21:24, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like an excellent opportunity to point out that Hooverville has a wordcount of 941 words. Santorum (neologism) has a word count of 10,518 words. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delicious carbuncle, no one is stopping you from going and improving the article Hooverville by expanding it with additional secondary sources. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 21:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's coverage is biased towards recent subjects because of the accessibility of reliable sources, among other things. Perhaps a better forum for your concerns is the WikiProject on countering systemic bias? Quigley (talk) 21:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cirt: The point is that "improving" the article with more secondary sources is bad, and that the Hooverville article is better than the Santorum one because it has not been "improved" in that way. Increasing the article's length and the number of links helps the Googlebombing.

Of course, Google didn't exist 80 years ago. Asking "what would Wikipedia do to Hooverville if it was 80 years ago" postulates that not only Wikipedia existed 80 years ago, but Google and Googlebombing as well, at which point the hypothetical Hooverville campaign would no longer be much like the real one. Ken Arromdee (talk) 02:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, the Hooverville article is not "better", as it contains large chunks of wholly unreferenced info. -- Cirt (talk) 02:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's better in that one aspect (it's shorter and therefore has less effect on its subject). It can still be worse in other aspects. Ken Arromdee (talk) 02:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Arromdee, glad that we can at least partially agree on that. :) -- Cirt (talk) 02:49, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If we were writing 80 years ago, we probably would be covering the subject in an article about the upcoming presidential election and the Democrats' campaign rhetoric. There were lots of such phrases, and "Hoover Depression" was probably pushed the hardest, but Hoovervilles is probably the only one that stuck. (GNews shows more than 3 times as many hits for "Hoover Depression" than for "Hooverville" in the 1930s, although it's hardly a complete archive and the "Hoover Depression" hits are more likely to be spurious.) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This one is old, old, old news. We can no more justify its removal now on BLP grounds than we can any other term that has made its way into the popular vocabulary, however fair or unfair or accurate or inaccurate, from Mesmerism to Stalinist to McCarthyism to Sandinista. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangemike (talk • contribs)

If it were indeed 'old, old, old news', then it wouldn't be a neologism. :) I actually see some questions in this discussion about whether or not this is indeed a term in the 'popular vocabulary' and not just a Googlebomb or internet term that isn't really used much in real life. I've never heard it said anywhere, but then maybe my horizons are limited.... As for the comparisons, I'd like to see something closer to what this one purports to be. For instance, in the Hooverville comments above, the real comparison would be (at the time!) Hoover (neologism) which means "'The dried feces and vomit tracked into the shanty homes built by the homeless in unsanitary conditions." Something like that. Dreadstar ☥ 04:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mesmerism, Stalinist, McCarthyism, and Sandinista are named after people who aren't alive and therefore don't fall under BLP. They're not negative in the same way; their association with their subjects is only negative to the degree that they make negative claims about the subject--this one harms its subject in a different way. None of those are part of Internet-based campaigns and any harm that Wikipedia does by popularizing the term is far less directly related to any group's goals. And they are all widely used terms. Ken Arromdee (talk) 14:37, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly a BLP violation, in my view. There's an attempt to create a meme associating a person's name—not a common name—with anal discharge, and that includes the name of his wife, children, and other relatives. Wikipedia is helping to create it by hosting a stand-alone article. Just because reliable sources have written about something doesn't mean we're forced to give it its own page. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 05:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- We're not forced to give santorum its own page, but we're not forced to delete it, either. By covering the subject neutrally and with the most reliable sources, we are filling a gap that would otherwise be filled by unreliable or biased websites that do nothing for the former Senator. And he (and Savage) are the only people connected to this article; if we take the extreme position that his "other relatives" are implicated, then everyone with the given name Peg should be offended by and protected against the sexual term pegging, coined by the same sex columnist. If a person's name causes them emotional distress, then they have the legal means by which to change it. Quigley (talk) 06:06, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - 1) People with the name "Peg" won't have the term turn up as the top Google hit for their name, and nobody will search for "pegging" when they want the name.
  - 2) The idea that someone should change their name to avoid a Googlebomb that is assisted by Wikipedia is absurd and contradicted by BLP.
  - 3) "Covering the subject neutrally" is taking advantage of a loophole in Wikipedia's rules in which only the article's claims are treated as harming the subject. In this case, the article doesn't harm Santorum because it makes statements about Santorum that aren't neutral, it harms Santorum because its nature as an article harms him. Associating a living person with sexual shit is inherently harmful, even if the association is only done by putting them together in the same article.
  - 4) Likewise, claiming that we're "filling a gap" that would otherwise be filled by biased websites assumes that harm is only caused by biased text. In fact, harm is caused to him by having a large, well-linked, article at all, whether the text in it contains biased claims or not. Removing biased claims from the article doesn't prevent it from doing harm to him. Ken Arromdee (talk) 14:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "There's an attempt to create a meme associating a person's name..." - the attempt has succeeded, as the article documents. The term is established enough, and the creation of the term well documented enough, to be outside of the zone of discretion where we can reasonably take BLP into account whether to have an article or not. It is now encyclopedic, and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We wouldn't be having this conversation if the term had been associated with fluffy pink bunnies, say; so the only difference is that the term describes something disgusting. Therefore WP:NOTCENSORED applies. It may be a conclusion as unpalatable as the topic, but there it is. Rd232 ^talk 05:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTCENSORED is not an excuse to ignore BLP considerations. The fact that the term describes something disgusting affects how it harms the subject, and therefore how to apply BLP. Ken Arromdee (talk) 14:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its use is limited and forced. Most of the sources are about the campaign, not examples of the word being used. And in any event, the point is that we don't host stand-alone articles on every word that exists, and on every topic a reliable source might mention. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 05:49, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no reason to believe that the broad range of sources that use the term—from erotic novels to sociological books to medical journals—were "forced" to use the term. If you have sources that say this, please quote them. Yes, most of the sources are about the campaign, but that is because what we write is dictated by the availability of reliable sources, and not politics. Recently, a reader brought a quote mentioning santorum in a medical journal to the article's talk page for inclusion. Cirt did not have access to that journal, so he could not cite it before: such collaborative editing is all the more reason for santorum to have its own article. As its breathtakingly thorough reference list shows, the term is not simply what "a reliable source might mention", but has generated hundreds of pages of writing and discussion for almost a decade. It is definitely important, notable, and worthy of its own article. The correct venue to challenge this status would be AfD. Quigley (talk) 06:06, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While the concept of this word is literally execrable in and of itself, I can't say I see any grounds under WP:BLP to support its removal.

The article is written with a NPOV, it is verifiable, and it does not contain original research.
It does not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints. (The word clearly exists, and its use is exceptionally well documented; it is disingenuous to claim that the subject itself is disproportionate. The extensive sourcing makes it clear that the neologism exists and has been the subject of wide-ranging discussion.)
It does not meet the definition of an "attack page"—unsourced and negative in tone—as it is well sourced and neutral in tone.
I don't see that the sources are being challenged, or are likely to be challenged, to a degree that would eviscerate the article.
While much of the material is contentious, as evidenced by this discussion, it is not unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material, so that part of BLP doesn't apply.
It's not gossip: it's a well-documented phenomenon.
It doesn't misuse primary sources.
It isn't about "a person notable for only one or two events", so the "Avoid victimization" clause doesn't apply.
Rick Santorum is a public figure, but the article is compliant with WP:WELLKNOWN.
It doesn't use personal information.

The remainder of the BLP clauses simply aren't applicable. In short, there's nothing under WP:BLP that creates grounds for deleting or substantially rewriting this article. Sure, it's a despicable thing that someone created this neologism, and it's terrible that it caught on to the extent that there are one hundred and twenty-eight citations in a well-written article about the subject. But claiming that it runs afoul of BLP is unsupportable, and ultimately a case of "I don't like it". The word, and the phenomenon of the word, exists. The etymology of the word is noteworthy. The case where a neologism was coined to make a negative association with a prominent politician, based on and related to his public statements regarding sexual matters—and the word stuck—is likely to be of historical significance. The article should remain. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 16:36, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very well stated, Macwhiz. Binksternet (talk) 16:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. Rd232 ^talk 16:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Very well said. -- Cirt (talk) 16:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also agreed. A definitive statement. – OhioStandard (talk) 13:41, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While MacWhiz states the technical BLP arguments well, he doesn't get to the heart of the matter, which can accurately be said to involve the principles underlying BLP more than the letter of the policy. SlimVirgin hit the nail on the head when she described the central matter as "an attempt to create a meme associating a person's name—not a common name—with anal discharge." The claims that the article is really about "the term" are flimsy and often serve a political agenda rather than an encyclopedic one. What this article ought to do is to treat its subject the way Wikipedia treats an even more prominent example of the same general phenomenon, the attempt to use online search engines and such to associate George W. Bush with the phrase "miserable failure." That's the model we ought to be following here.

And it's certainly not the case that the article is well-sourced. For example, the article asserts "Santorum has received utilization in fiction works," citing four examples. But these cites are mostly contrived if not inaccurate. The first, Hard by one Jack R. Dunn, is a self-published, free-distributed E-book. The fourth, Hate Starve Curse by Austen James, is another self-published book by a non-notable reader, more easily searched because it was published and offered for sale through Amazon's self-publishing operation. The third, Men On the Edge, represents only the use in a single short story story by an unidentified writer. The second cite, The Stepdaughters by Rod Waleman, is phony; whoever inserted it into the article simply found a book with a typo in the hokey old Latin phrase "sanctum sanctorum" (know these days mostly as Dr. Strange's house in Marvel Comics) and listed it even though anyone reading the relevant excerpt would easily know that it has zero relationship to the Savage coinage. So we have, after nearly a decade, exactly one documented use in legitimately published fiction. That hardly supports the claim that the term itself is notable.

Similarly, the claim that "The word appeared as a humorous aside in college newspapers" is overstated at best. While four examples are cited, two use the term in discussions of Savage and his activities, not independently, one uses it as a general reference to sexual activity, not in the sense described in the article; only the "music review" actually supports the claim. The New York Times reference is overstated; the relevant text is actually "Other recent Google bombs have sought to associate President Bush, Senator Clinton and Senator Rick Santorum, a Pennsylvania Republican, with various unprintable phrases." The source for the claim "The term's popularity as a political epithet has extended to bumper stickers and t-shirts" seems pretty weak; apparently the principal outlet for such merchandise is a blog operated by Savage and the items are manufactured on demand. Until I objected to it this morning, one citation describing the "santorum" coinage as an "important linguistic development" was attributed without qualification to a humor piece that is (by design) not exactly rigorously factual -- it also described Savage's motive as being "to honor" Sen. Santorum.

The article fundamentally violates WP:NPOV. Wikipedia articles are supposed to describe subjects in the way they are described in reliable, independent/nonpartisan sources. As reported -- but seriously underplayed -- in the article, the "santorum" phenomenon -- or however one wishes to encapsulate it -- is the result of, and inextricably associated with -- a campaign organized by a partisan media figure who disapproves of Santorum's views on sexuality; its purpose is not to "memorialize" Santorum's comments, as the article has it, but to make him a subject of derision/ridicule, to emarass him or damage his public image. This is not seriously disputed, even by Dan Savage himself. (In contrast, the use of the name "lewinsky" as a synonym for a sexual act, although pressed by some partisans, is generally seen as a more spontaneous development.) And while Savage's actions may be enjoyed by many who are amused by seeing a figure like Santorum discomfited, there appears to be a wide sense of unease (example here, in the comments at a fairly liberal site on a similar proposal [4]) about the appropriateness of Savage's campaign, another point avoided in the article.

And the article fundamentally violates principles underlying BLP, even if a case can be made that it evades the specific elements expressly barred by the policy. The Wikimedia Foundation resolution requires to make "taking human dignity" into account one of our most important concerns in constructing articles relating to living persons. Dan Savage apparently believes that Santorum's views are so repugnant that he does not deserve to be treated with any minimum of decency or respect. The article, as currently framed and written, comes closer to Savage's view than to Wikipedia's. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These are points that have been repeated ad nauseum by a few people here, and yet I don't see signs that minds are being swayed, and I'm no longer clear on the purpose of continuing this discussion at BLPN. I don't see any prospect for a different AfD outcome in particular. If the point is that the article needs to be edited in particular ways, then that should be argued at the article talk page. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NAUSEUM. --JN466 23:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hullaballoo, I don't doubt the article has issues. I just don't see that they rise to the point of deleting the article using BLP as a justification. I think part of the problem here is that some people see the Wikipedia article as "an attempt to create a meme"; that would obviously be wrong under any number of policies. I see it as documenting the apparently-successful creation of a meme. I don't think the existence of the Wikipedia article helped in that success, increased that success, or legitimized the term. The story of the word is rooted in a political agenda. That's not the same thing as the article being rooted in a political agenda. Were we to conflate the two, it would be impossible to write about any political subject.

Personally, I don't like the word. Removing my personal tastes from the issue and going by the text of the BLP, which I am presuming accurately reflects the consensus of the Wikipedia community, I can't find justification to remove the article. If I felt sufficiently strongly about removing the article, I'd either look for other grounds, or I would work to first change the BLP to cover this case. If this case truly runs contrary to "the principles underlying the BLP" but does not actually violate the BLP as written, then it indicates the BLP has a gap that needs to be closed... after the appropriate discussion and procedure, to ensure that the BLP continues to reflect the consensus opinion. But that should be a separate discussion on a different talk page. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 20:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing for deletion of the article. I'm arguing for substantial changes in the article, making clear that it's notable primarily as a political meme and discussing the way the meme originated and was propagated as well as its political consequences. That's way it's significant enough to be discussed in an encyclopedic article. Much of the article content right now isn't related to this -- there's a lot of stuff on Santorum's personal reputation/reception that's not relevant to the meme, and is presented at excessive length -- and a lot of material that hasn't been scrutinized carefully enough -- for example, a point just mentioned on the article talk page, that one of the supposed "popular culture" examples of the meme turns out to have been published in 1971, and can't possible be relevant here. (It also involves misspelling of the key word, as I mention above).

The article discussing the attempt to Googlebomb George W. Bush as a "miserable failure" doesn't go on at length discussing the merits or lack of merits of the characterization; it's not relevant to the meme. That's a model I think we should use in reconstructing this badly flawed article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone ahead and taken the initiative myself to voluntarily remove Dunn 2005 diff and James 2008 diff. I have also made some edits to the article in response to above comments by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk · contribs), see diff, diff, diff. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 22:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for removing Dunn and James. But I see you have now added them back – ? --JN466 10:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is an attempt at compromise through talk page discussion, diff. -- Cirt (talk) 03:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent comments, Hullabaloo, both you and SlimVirgin have squarely identifed the problems with this article, and you have outlined a good way to move forward by making substantial changes in the article. The article clearly is not about the neologism (if it is indeed a legitimate neologism), it is about a much larger set of events that many sources refer to as a “campaign”. If it’s just about the neologism, then 95% of the article should be removed and what’s left over can be placed in subsections in the other articles on Santorum and Savage. On the other hand, if the ‘campaign’ is significant enough for its own article, then it needs to be renamed, the current naming is clearly misleading.

Reading through the sources, I find comments like:

What we’ve apparently done here is a forced elevation of what is basically an insult and internet prank to the level of an encyclopedic article; something which is normally limited to the purview of tabloid sensationalistic journalism.

I only checked the first 30 references and found 7 sources that don’t even mention the purported topic of the article, the neologism: [5][6][7][8][9][10][11] Those sources violate WP:OR in this article, because they are not “directly related to the topic of the article”, which purportedly is the term. I'm sure there are more references in the 95 remaining sources I didn't check that violate OR, and probably in the other sources in in the first 30 that aren't immediately available online, as well.

If we truly want to make this article an encyclopedic entry, then the best course of action is to rename and refocus the article on the actual campaign waged by Savage to refute Santorum’s comments, and not attempt to use the sensationalistic neologism as a basis for the article, when it’s clearly not about the term. It’s disingenuous to suggest the article is about the term.

So, yes, I think the article in its current state is indeed a violation of WP:BLP and needs to be modified as soon as possible. Dreadstar ☥ 05:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The neologism is far less notable than the campaign that spawned it, which is what the sources are about. This should be an article on the campaign, and the title and lead should reflect that. If it's an article on the neologism, it should be a lot shorter (and not padded out with self-published sources). --JN466 10:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is extremely easy to construct a Google bomb, a campaigner back in 2003 would have been able to create a Google bomb with very few links indeed. What raises this Google bomb up is that it occurred at about the same time as the media became interested in the phenomena. John lilburne (talk) 21:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance of "harms the subject"

I'm troubled by the frequency with which the critics of this article (and others) invoke the specter of "harm to the subject" as a reason for deletion or other adverse action. Wikipedia's mission isn't to aid or impair the political career of Rick Santorum. Our mission is to inform our readers about the world. That's why BLP doesn't say that we can't report unflattering facts about a bio subject; it says that negative or contentious information must be properly sourced. I'm sure Rick Santorum is harmed to some extent because his Wikipedia bio reports on his residency controversy. As that section of the bio notes, his supporters charge "that the controversy is politically motivated" -- but so what? The rest of the world doesn't follow Wikipedia policies, and we report on things that go on off-wiki that wouldn't be allowed here.

Furthermore, Wikipedia isn't joining in an attack by reporting on it. Many people have the ability to influence the public conversation. Some of them use that influence to spread personal attacks, some of which are meritorious and some of which are garbage. If scurrilous political attackers succeed in getting a lot of attention for a garbage attack, then they've made it significant and we'll report it. Yes, our article will in turn contribute, to at least some degree, to making the attack even more significant, but that's a consequence of the original attackers' success in getting noticed. NPOV doesn't allow us to start picking and choosing which facts we'll include based on which politicians might be helped or harmed by a truthful report. JamesMLane t c 17:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JamesMLane, I agree with what you say here (and with what macwhiz says above). This really is not an issue for the BLP noticeboard, since there is no overt violation of WP:BLP, but since we are discussing it here, I will pose a question. Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality, the article which seems like it should naturally include coverage of the "santorum" formation, clocks in at 1,264 words. Santorum (neologism) runs to over 10,000 words (10,574 at the moment). It seems to me that regardless of the legitimacy of covering this information in Wikipedia, whether as part of an existing article or as a separate article, this amount of coverage is excessive given the real world importance of the event and the amount of in-depth media coverage it has received. While Wikipedia has staggering amounts of information on video games, etc, this particular article is possibly unique in that it the term is necessarily and inextricably linked with a living person and, regardless of how balanced our coverage may be, the term itself has negative connotations for most people. Given all of that, I feel that by having such an unnecessarily large and detailed article, we are violating what I feel to be the spirit of BLP and going beyond the role of a neutral party in all of this . I will not ask anyone to agree with me, but I will ask if you can see why I might feel that way - do you? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I get what you're saying, but consider this: Considering the neologism "santorum", which would give that term and its history more undue emphasis in the context of Rick Santorum: being part of an article about Rick, or being a unique article that is not directly related to Rick? I understand the normal thing is to merge less-notable articles into main articles, but I think it would ultimately work against the goals of the BLP here: as an article on its own, I think "santorum" puts less emphasis on the relationship to the man than it would if it were a section of the man's biography or a page about a controversy directly relating to the man's political career. The current article is about the word; a merge would make it about the man. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 20:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't accept the basic premise that article length must represent an informed judgment about the subjects' relative importance. In a volunteer project, there'll be more coverage of whatever interests the volunteers. Our article on Britney Spears is longer than our article on Martin Van Buren. That doesn't mean that the Spears article must be shortened unless and until people add more information to the Van Buren article. In general, we shouldn't try to achieve some spurious "balance" by removing well-sourced and properly encyclopedic information. Also, I agree with Macwhiz that segregating stuff like this in its own article is often the right way to preserve information without overwhelming a more general article. For that reason, in fact, Macwhiz's statement that "the normal thing is to merge less-notable articles into main articles" seems dubious to me. Wikipedia:Summary style encourages the spinoff of less-notable subjects into separate articles, with a summary and wikilink left behind in the more general article. JamesMLane t c 22:09, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There may be no overt violation of BLP, but it violates the principles underlying BLP. BLP is based on avoiding harm to the BLP subject. If an article causes harm in a very unusual way that is not covered by the letter of the BLP policy, it still falls under BLP. Ken Arromdee (talk) 21:21, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want the BLP policy to say that, you should propose an amendment. Trying to word it would be interesting. I don't know how on earth you could define "very unusual way" in any form that would hold water. The "usual way" is, I suppose, that a Wikipedia article includes a properly sourced report of real-world facts that some living person would prefer be suppressed. That's what's going on here. What's the proposal? "Wikipedia may not include a properly sourced report of negative facts if the inclusion in Wikipedia would affect Google rankings or would otherwise serve to bring the facts to the attention of more people"? (Having written an example that I intended as satire, I find myself fearing that some editors would support it as a serious proposal.) JamesMLane t c 21:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you actually want a suggested change to BLP we can start here (additional material in italics):

Avoid victimization

When writing about a person notable only for one or two events, or writing about a person who is independently notable but where the biographical material is so prominent that it can significantly affect the subject, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic. This is of particular importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions, or writing about a topic that is largely or entirely about the person being a victim of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization.

If you are worried that we can't define harm, there's no problem--we already have a rule which is perfectly fine. We don't need to add a new definition of harm to it. We just need to extend the existing rule to cover more people. Ken Arromdee (talk) 04:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If we're going to be talking about squishy matters like the "spirit of BLP," then it seems fairly clear to me that one of the core things about that "spirit" is this: BLP guidelines exist to prevent readers from believing certain damaging facts about the subjects of articles. (I'd write "certain damaging false information," but I accept grudgingly that there are legal contexts/jurisdictions when even saying something true can be considered legally actionable.) In light of that spirit, it seems to me that there's no way you can use BLP as an excuse to excise this article, as nothing in it would lead you to believe anything about Rick Santorum that is false or damaging. The core of the original controversy is that, as a sitting senator, Santorum gave a well-documented interview in which compared consensual gay sex to bestiality, a comparison which as far as I know he has not recanted; everything else in the article is about other people's reactions to that statement (primarily Dan Savage's). There's no way any reasonable person would read this article and come away thinking that santorum (the substance) or the "spreading santorum" campaign was in any way affiliated with Rick Santorum or anything other than an attack on his political views.

Please note that, in the larger discussion about the fate of this article, I actually have the gut feeling that santorum is very rarely used "in the field" as a neutral term for the frothy mix etc., and is almost always used in the context of Savage's campaign, and thus the content here would be best merged with the "Santorum controversy on homosexuality" article. But statements like "BLP is based on avoiding harm to the BLP subject" really raise my hackles, as they imply that we literally could not post anything even vaguely negative about a living individual. --Jfruh (talk) 04:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is so not true. Remember the controversy over including the name of the Star_Wars_Kid? There wasn't anything factually inaccurate about his name. It was taken out because it amounted to participating in his victimization. Remember Brian Peppers? The spirit of BLP is to avoid causing unnecessary harm to living people. Limiting it to damaging facts and not to other damaging things is the same loophole as before. And the rule I propose extending clearly allows deleting material that is factually accurate. It's just that the current version doesn't apply to Santorum because it's written to apply to people notable for one event. I propose extending the rule to cover people like Santorum. But I don't propose adding a new principle that BLP can cover things that aren't about false information. we already have such a principle. Ken Arromdee (talk) 13:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Forget "factually accurate" vs. "factually inaccurate" for a minute -- like I said, I accept that there are reasons why we might want to not report factual information about someone. My point is that the "santorum" business does not actually revolve around information about Rick Santorum, in the main. One would not come away from the Santorum (neologism) article with any new information about Santorum himself (other than his comments about homosexuality, which were quite high profile, would be found by almost anyone looking up things about Santorum in any case, and which as far as I know Rick Santorum is not particularly ashamed of). They'd learn about a campaign that was launched to mock Rick Santorum as a result of those remarks. But I don't see anyone thinking worse of Rick Santorum than they would have otherwise.

The factuality of the article is irrelevant to whether it's harming him. And yes, people will think worse of him. He's associated with sexual shit in their minds. Just because they won't end up believing negative claims about him doesn't mean they won't "think worse" of him; "thinking worse" includes impressions and associations, not just facts. Ken Arromdee (talk) 18:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And you say "the current version [of BLP] doesn't apply to Santorum because it's written to apply to people notable for one event. I propose extending the rule to cover people like Santorum." There's a name for people like Rick Santorum: "public figure." And our threshhold for suppressing negative information is therefore much, much higher. Do you honestly think there's a comparison between a hapless kid who unwittingly became a source YouTube mockery with a two-term senator who's launching a serious candidacy for the US presidency? Doesn't really speak well of Santorum's chances if so. There's a reason the BLP explicitly mentions "people notable for one event," and that's becuase Wikipedia needs leeway to discuss public figures. --Jfruh (talk) 16:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was proposing a change in the rules, and more to the point, I was proposing a change in the rules that gets around the objection "how do we define it?" (by being based on an existing rule that already defines it acceptably). Ad yes, there's a comparison between Star Wars Kid and him. We need a higher threshhold for public figures, but that's only a higher threshhold, not an unlimited one--at some point things will exceed even the higher threshhold. Ken Arromdee (talk) 18:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Santorum was a US senator and might someday end up as president. I'm struggling to absorb the notion that he is somehow a "victim". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

His being a victim is not the issue here. The issue is that the article is not neutral and seeks to victimize Santorum, using phony and misrepresented sources (see Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC) above) to push the point of view that this is a notable neologism, rather than a notable campaign. --JN466 17:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that he is a victim in the sense being contemplated by the rule. He's being victimized both by the article (as you point out) and by the campaign. Ken Arromdee (talk) 18:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Putting the niceties of BLP policy language aside, isn't the real question whether we should have an article that can be summarized as "Rick Santorum is synonymous with human excrement"? Or should we have one that can be summarized "Rick Santorum holds social/political views that many people find offensive, and some of his detractors are campaigning to associate his name with human excrement"? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or even one that says nothing at all about this deeply unencyclopedic topic? Sergeant Cribb (talk) 19:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, H Wolofowitz boils it down nicely. A couple of lines in his BLP article section about the related campaign in which this has occurred is more than plenty about this drivel, never ming creating a bloated article as publicity for the words entry to the English language - awful violation of the projects ambitions to be Neutral and Encyclopedic. Off2riorob (talk) 19:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's it in a nutshell. --JN466 21:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're basically correct, but the literal-minded people endemic to the Internet will jump on you if you phrase it that way. They'll interpret "summarized as" to mean "explicitly states". Ken Arromdee (talk) 21:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BLP Victimization extension proposal

I've looked at Ken's proposal to extend the BLP by modifying the "Avoid victimization" clause. I have issues with this proposal.

First, I don't think it's consistent with the Wikimedia Foundation's resolution establishing the BLP.
Second, I think as worded it would rule out far too many articles: Rosa Parks comes to mind, because her primary claim to fame is her victimization as a black woman. One could then use this rephrased BLP as grounds to suggest deleting the Parks article as it would be "writing about a topic that is largely or entirely about the person being a victim of another's actions". What about Monica Lewinsky scandal? If this change goes in, expect a speedy delete request for that article before you can blink!
Third, it doesn't take into account what I will call, for want of a better term, the "what did you expect" factor: Any claim that Rick Santorum was "victimized" by someone using his name to create a neologism is unavoidably tempered by the fact that he is a major public figure in the field of United States politics, where such things are not terribly unusual. While this is an extreme case to be sure, it's hard to argue that Rick Santorum experienced as much psychological damage from this event as a thirteen-year-old shy kid of no particular fame might have experienced if it had happened to him. This is not a kind thing, but it is a realistic thing: any person running for political office can expect to be vilified to one extent or another, and almost certainly falsely so. The fact that an event might be considered "victimization" of a private citizen does not necessarily mean it's true of a political figure. And where do we draw the line of "victimization"? Troopergate? Watergate? Obamacare? Name a political figure, and you can find something in their article that someone will call victimization. Others will call it political satire.

The BLP policy is supposed to protect subjects from harm from inaccurate or poorly sourced information: libels that are legally actionable. I'm concerned that there's an appetite to change it into a whitewash policy that justifies the removal of anything negative, or that someone perceives as negative. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 01:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have not seen the suggestion but I do dispute your claims about the appetite for a whitewash of negativity. This discussion is about the over-egging of a minor issue not the removal of its mention altogether. User from America should also remember this so called neologism existists only in politically minded American peoples minds. A re we not supported to consider a worldview - just because it seems super notable to you - outside of your bubble it does not even exist.Off2riorob (talk) 10:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consider your Rosa Parks example (pretending that she's still alive). Rosa Parks already falls under the original clause--she's primarily notable for one event and for being the victim of another person's actions. By your reasoning, not only does the proposed rule demand that we delete the Rosa Parks article--so does the existing rule. Yet it doesn't. The reason is that the rule doesn't say that all such articles/material must be deleted, it says to delete it when Wikipedia would be participating in the victimization. Writing about Rosa Parks doesn't participate in her victimization; the article doesn't help exclude her from the front of the bus. The santorum article does help associate Santorum with sexual shit.

"where such things are not terribly unusual. While this is an extreme case to be sure..."

"This is an extreme case" is another way of saying that it's unusual. There really aren't that many political figures who are the target of this kind of campaign in a way that is substantially helped by our article. Yeah, Bush was linked to "miserable failure", but our article on this meme is not the #3 hit for searches for "George Bush" or the #2 hit for searches for Bush. And "Obamacare" doesn't call Obama names, it calls his policies names. Ken Arromdee (talk) 19:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Macwhiz that this proposal would call for many clearly improper deletions. Let's consider just two actual current Wikipedia articles: John Kerry military service controversy and O. J. Simpson murder case.

An aside for non-Americans who may not be familiar with these subjects: When John Kerry ran for President in 2004, some of his political opponents mounted a campaign to disparage his service in the Vietnam War by lying about his record, making accusations that were refuted by official records and, in some instances, by their own prior statements. O. J. Simpson was a football star who was tried on two counts of murder, but was acquitted. Both of these matters received widespread media attention in the United States.

Is each of these articles "about a person who is independently notable"? Yes. Is "the biographical material ... so prominent that it can significantly affect the subject"? Yes. Is each of them "largely or entirely about the person being a victim of another's actions"? Yes. (Of course, if this proposal were implemented, it would open the door to numerous heated disputes about interpretation. Is someone who's tried for a crime, but acquitted, a "victim" of a prosecutor's actions? Would the article be subject to deletion or significant paring back, but then reinstatement or expansion after Simpson loses the subsequent civil trial, with its lower standard of proof? Is former U.S. Senator John Ensign a "victim" of the Senate Ethics Committee report that concluded he had probably broken federal laws in connection with the John Ensign scandal?) Finally, in each case Wikipedia is arguably participating in the victimization, by spreading and bringing to the attention of more readers an attack on the individual.

The fact is that, if we follow our mission of informing readers about the world, that will include informing them about political attacks (as with Santorum and Kerry) and other negative events (as with Simpson and Ensign). If our following of our mission affects Google rankings, so be it.

Of course, we shouldn't include so much about an attack that it's given undue weight in the bio article. We also shouldn't suppress valid information. The solution is the one we actually use: Wikipedia:Summary style. If Kerry's bio included all the information about the attacks on him, that section would overwhelm the rest of the article. Accordingly, the description of this aspect of his life was spun off into a daughter article, leaving only a summary in the main bio. The Simpson murder trial also has its own article. In each case, the main bio puts the event in context, and any reader who wants more detail can follow the wikilink.

With Santorum, the same is true. His bio mentions the attack in one sentence, including a wikilink, with a second sentence devoted to the notable fact that it's the top search result on Google. His bio doesn't even give the definition that some people find offensive. That level of detail is available only in the article about the neologism.

In response to Off2riorob, I'll add that there is no requirement that "notability" mean "notability throughout the English-speaking world" or the like. If it did, we could delete many, many articles about British footballers not named Beckham. JamesMLane t c 21:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Beckham is a global phenomenon - Santorium is not, its a extremely localized partisan political and activist slur completely unheard of and will never be used outside of those circles' Off2riorob (talk) 00:43, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't make my argument clear. Yes, Beckham is a global phenomenon. Most other footballers are not. Category:English footballers has more than 12,000 articles, and I'd guess that many of those blokes arouse even less interest in the States than Santorum or santorum do in England. My point is that there is such a thing as being notable in only one country (or even in only one part of one country). JamesMLane t c 03:18, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument was perfectly clear... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The answers are:

You're suggesting that it may be hard to determine who's a victim. Yet I'm just proposing extending an existing rule, and the existing rule doesn't cause problems determining who was a victim. As I pointed out, the existing rule applies to Rosa Parks. She could be considered a victim of the legal system just like you suggest for OJ. Yet, in fact, we have no trouble deciding whether the rule applies to her.
The rule doesn't necessarily say that the whole thing needs to be deleted. It says that the article should be pared down. (And that's part of the existing rule too.) So it's a strawman to say that we can't be "informing readers about political attacks". We can tell the reader that there was an attack, while at the same time shortening the article, renaming the article, and/or making it a paragraph in another article rather than standalone.
You seem to agree that we shouldn't give the attack undue weight. In a way, this is still an undue weight issue. Just because the article is separate from the one on Santorum himself doesn't mean it's not being given undue weight. It's the #3/#2 Google search for Santorum's name, and seems to have been deliberately engineered to be so; claiming that it's okay because it's not actually part of the same article privileges form over substance.

Ken Arromdee (talk) 16:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re Rosa Parks, if the existing rule hasn't caused a problem it's because nobody's taken it seriously in this instance. First, she's notable for only one event, but that criterion is sensibly interpreted to apply to the flash-in-the-pan 15-minutes-of-fame person, not Rosa Parks or Lee Harvey Oswald or the like (notable for only one event but that one being so huge that notability is utterly beyond dispute). Second, few people would see her as a victim; she was in a sense victimized but so were many other blacks affected by Jim Crow, and she's notable because of her heroic response to the victimization. In most people's eyes, the widespread reporting of facts about the matter redounds to Parks's credit, not her detriment. That's why Kerry is a better example. Our detailed reporting about smears against him doesn't bolster his reputation, the way the Parks article bolsters hers.

I understand that the issue isn't confined to deletion. In my first comment I referred to "reason for deletion or other adverse action" but thereafter I sometimes used shorthand. Let's not quibble. My statement was that "if we follow our mission of informing readers about the world, that will include informing them about political attacks...." By that I meant fully informing them -- which doesn't mean every detail, any more than it does in any other article, but it means all the significant information. That decision frequently involves editorial judgment. My point is that the judgment shouldn't be influenced by whether we're reporting, for example, praise or condemnation. Keeping the nice, happy, cheerful, positive stuff fully detailed, while "paring down" (in some unspecified degree) anything that might upset someone, would be a profoundly unencyclopedic approach.

We can see this with the Kerry example I gave. My recollection (which I don't feel like wading through the history to confirm) is that, at one point, Kerry's bio article pretty much followed one of your suggestions -- "We can tell the reader that there was an attack...." Something like "Some people have criticized Kerry's service in Vietnam" got expanded with more detail, then more, then still more, until the editors working on article thought it was taking up too much space in his main bio. That's when the material about this controversy was spun off as a daughter article, leaving only a summary in the main bio. If the standalone article about the attack on Kerry were to be merged wholesale into his bio, it would be undue weight there. If we were to merge a pared-down version or keep a pared-down version as a separate article, we'd lose a lot of properly sourced information. These are bad alternatives. The way we've actually done it is better.

The existence of a separate article is frequently the way to solve the "undue weight" problem. When it comes to undue weight, form is substance. A Kerry bio with a brief summary of the attack on him, including a link to a daughter article for more detail, is well balanced. If we changed only the form, by taking the current daughter article and putting that exact same text into the main bio article, that would be undue weight.

I don't think Google search results are relevant to assessing an "undue weight" concern. Our job is to prepare properly informative encyclopedia articles in accordance with our standards. This website gets so many hits that quite a few of our articles are in the top three Google results for their title. I just did five "Random article" hits and Googled them, with these results: South Ayrshire by-election, 1970, #1; Angel Samson, #1; Sara C. Bisel, #1; Mühlbachl, #2 (might have been #1 if I had restricted to English-language pages); and Choate (law), #6 (disambiguating parenthesis dropped us down). Beyond that, this argument about us allegedly "participating in the victimization" amounts to saying that, on some subjects, making information more readily available will work to some people's detriment. I don't doubt that that's true. Sometimes we'll be exposing evildoers, and other times we'll be bringing scurrilous charges to the attention of more people. That's inherent in writing a good encyclopedia. At least none of this Santorum material involves false statements about him, the way the Kerry stuff does. There's no dispute that Santorum really did make the comments that prompted Savage to act. JamesMLane t c 22:49, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted in some of the other areas about this, so may as well put it here too. Basically put me in the Slim Virgin camp. It comes across as an attack on a BLP. If it were just a listing at List of gay slang terms, then I prolly wouldn't bother. If there was some need to include some of this, then I'd be of the opinion that it should be in the Savage article, or possibly in the "gay controversy" article about Santorum. — Ched : ? 00:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Be very firm about the use of high quality sources"

While many sources used in the article are of sufficient quality for an article that fits under WP:BLP's purview, many of them are not of sufficiently "high quality." It's not like the article currently suffers from being overly brief, so surely the article can be trimmed, using only the high quality sources. I don't see how opinion sources that don't get coverage in third-party news sources can be considered high quality, nor sources like alternative newspapers. That would exclude most of Savage's own highly-opinionated articles for example. Drrll (talk) 00:10, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One good measure of high-quality sources is the search of 'Major World Publications' in LexisNexis. Doing such a search that includes both the search terms 'Santorum' and 'Dan Savage' results in a grand total of 1 source that discusses the issue in depth--an article in The Phildephia Inquirer. There are 3 additional articles that mention the issue briefly, all 3 of which are in relation to the news of Santorum's Senate opponent returning a campaign donation from Savage. Two of the 3 articles also come from The Philadelphia Inquirer, while the third comes from the gossip column of The Washington Post. Drrll (talk) 00:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, we wouldn't state as fact that Santorum is a bigot and support that statement with a footnote to a piece by Savage. This article should, however, report facts about the opinions concerning the controversy. That includes giving a fair presentation of Savage's views -- attributed to him, rather than being adopted as fact -- as well as a fair presentation of the other side. That's why, at Talk:Santorum (neologism)#Suggestions from User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, I favored including a quotation from an opinion column critical of what the columnist called "hate content". Given Savage's role in this, it would be silly to expunge his opinions from the article. JamesMLane t c 03:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It may seem silly to remove Savage's opinions, given his critical role in the promotion of the term, but I can't see how his opinion pieces, largely printed in alternative newspapers, can square with the admonition in WP policy to "be very firm about the use of high quality sources." That applies to the opposing opinion piece(s) as well. In my view, there are a sufficient number of high-quality sources available that can be used to report Savage's opinions and actions. Besides the in-depth Phil.-I article on the issue, there is the New York Magazine article, some additional sources used in the Santorum (neologism) article, a couple of Politico articles, an ABC Nightline broadcast, and a CNN broadcast. BTW, the only possible high-quality source I could find that could be used to source Savage's definition of 'santorum' is this article. Drrll (talk) 04:13, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whether a source is high quality depends on the point for which we're citing it. If we want to report facts about an opinion, a high-quality source is one that gives us good assurance that the cited commentator actually expressed that opinion (the only fact for which we're citing it). Some of the Savage quotations in our article are from columns he wrote that were published in a newspaper of which he was, at the time, the editor-in-chief. That's an extremely high-quality source. It's essentially inconceivable that our citation does not represent Savage's actual statement.

Of course, we don't need to cite every opinion. We should fairly represent all significant sides of a controversy without slipping into "Shape of the Earth -- opinions differ" silliness. In that respect, where an opinion appeared may be important in deciding whether it's notable enough to mention. In this instance, however, Savage's and Santorum's opinions are both important, regardless of where they appear. All we need is the assurance of accurate quotation or paraphrase. JamesMLane t c 05:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know of any policy language that supports that contention about whether a source is high quality? I guess I'll bring up the issue more generally in a new BLPN posting. Drrll (talk) 05:36, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Drrl. JamesMLane, your principle, "Whether a source is high quality depends on the point for which we're citing it. If we want to report facts about an opinion, a high-quality source is one that gives us good assurance that the cited commentator actually expressed that opinion (the only fact for which we're citing it)." could be applied to any tabloid, blog or self-published book, and would thereby turn such citations into "high-quality sources" for BLPs. They're not. Importance is measured by where something is published. A chapter in a book by an academic publisher, or a well-researched article in the Washington Post or the The New Yorker, carries more weight than a column in a free alternative weekly, or pieces on activist or satirical websites. --JN466 17:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're confusing two separate concepts: reliability and importance. We wouldn't cite most blogs for a proposition like "the plan would cost more than a billion dollars," but a citation to Joe Blow's blog is a very reliable source for a statement like "Joe Blow denounced the plan as too expensive." That latter fact will sometimes be worth reporting because, even if it's not in the mainstream (i.e., corporate) media, it can be important enough. Appearance in those media is one factor as to whether something is worth citing but it's not the only factor. If Dan Savage launches a neologism to embarrass Rick Santorum, then opinions by Savage and Santorum can merit inclusion. More generally, I don't share your blanket disdain for free alterntive newspapers. In my experience, those papers have lied to me less often than the more traditional media. JamesMLane t c 04:13, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Drrl, as for Savage's definition, this is also quoted in Value war: opinion and the politics of gay rights, by Paul Ryan Brewer, published by Rowman & Littlefield. It's a quality source, although it's in a footnote. In my view, the lead sentence should not state "Santorum is a sexual neologism for "the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex". It should state something along the lines of

"Santorum is a sexual neologism coined by humorist and sex advice columnist Dan Savage in response to comments Rick Santorum made in a 2003 interview about gay sex. The meaning Savage gave to it, based on suggestions submitted by readers of his column, was "the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex" ...

That would also ensure that the second Google search result for Santorum's name does not display

"Santorum (neologism) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The word santorum /sænˈtorəm/ is a sexual neologism for "the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex". ..."

The proposed lead sentence would be more in line with the focus of the cited sources, and would in addition be more in line with the victimization aspects of BLP, as mentioned by Ken Arromdee above. --JN466 18:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done, I have implemented the above suggestion, see diff. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 21:48, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Cirt, I appreciate that. Unfortunately, you have been reverted by another editor. --JN466 22:09, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see that, and I see you started a section to discuss that, at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Lead_sentence. I am in agreement with you, that this is probably the best course of action for now. :) -- Cirt (talk) 02:00, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, forgot about books & journals--I was just considering news sources. I agree with your proposed change, but I doubt that it could survive the attempt to change it. It seems that there are a group of editors dead set on having the article inflict the most possible damage to Santorum, acting as Dan Savage fans, as well as extending the article ad infinitum. Drrll (talk) 18:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF, please. And remember, other editors are living people as well and deserve the same kind of consideration as Santorum. Gamaliel (talk) 18:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. Drrll (talk)

I've invited editors at the Santorum (neologism) talk page to comment here on the proposed change to the lead sentence. --JN466 20:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Major World Publications" is a very limited search of Lexis/Nexis and leaves out many sources which are indisputably high-quality sources. A look at the 132 sources used in the Santorum article reveals that many (most?) of them are both high-quality sources and sources that would turn up in a Lexis/Nexis search using different parameters. Clearly a "Major World Publications" search isn't a good metric of the availability of high-quality sources. Gamaliel (talk) 18:49, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know that 'Major World Publications' leaves out most online sources and all broadcast sources (which misses such high-quality sources such as Politico, the 3 broadcast networks, the cable news networks, and NPR), but what are some examples of good print sources that it leaves out? The 'All News' selection gets a lot more results, but it also lards up the results with all sorts of blogs and other partisan sources. Drrll (talk) 19:24, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't name a specific print source off the top of my head, but I do know from experience that the results differ drastically, even taking into account television and radio news. In the advanced search, you can remove blogs from your search results. Gamaliel (talk) 21:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip Gamaliel. Drrll (talk)

I had a look at the sourcing. Most of them are standard RS, mainstream publications. The only sources I found that seem a little weaker are the ones listed below (descriptions taken from our articles, where available):

14 cites to The Stranger (newspaper), an alternative weekly newspaper in Seattle, Washington, US
3 cites to Gonzo Crosswords, a book of alternative crossword puzzles [12]
1 cite to People's World, a news website associated with the Communist Party USA.
1 cite to Metro Weekly, a free weekly magazine-style publication for the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community in Washington, D.C., U.S.A
1 cite to BBspot, a geek satire and humour web site founded in 2000
1 cite to Roger's Profanisaurus, a compendium of profanity, featuring the foulmouthed Viz character Roger Mellie, the man on the telly
1 cite to a self-published erotic novel, distributed as a free e-book (Dunn)
1 cite to a self-published book by Austen James
1 cite to The Onion, an American news satire organization
1 cite to Gay City News, an award-winning, free weekly newspaper based in New York City
1 cite to Wonkette, a left-leaning American online magazine of topical satire and political gossip
1 cite to the Gay and Lesbian Humanist, a quarterly magazine published by the Pink Triangle Trust until 2005 that was issued free to members of the Gay and Lesbian Humanist Association
1 cite to the Montreal Mirror, a free English language alternative newsweekly based in Montreal
1 cite to the Tucson Weekly, an alternative newsweekly

Some of these, like the self-published books, do seem wholly inappropriate; with most others, it's a judgment call as to how much weight to give them.

There are also

3 cites to The Daily Show, an American late night satirical television program
2 cite to the The Colbert Report, an American satirical late night television program

This is just an analysis based on the publications cited; how they have been used is another matter. Wonkette for example says,

"If Rick Santorum wanted to get this sex thing the Internet did to him like a decade ago pushed down his Google results, he could do something relevant for the first time since then. To be fair, he’s trying to do this by running for president. But even his presidential campaign is less relevant than some joke made about him years ago. Which is even funnier than the joke."

In the article this becomes,

Jack Stuef of Wonkette suggested the candidate "could do something relevant" in the campaign to alleviate the issue.[107]

I think Wonkette's point got slightly lost there, but one might also question if Wonkette's fun-poke is a significant enough comment to report in the first place. --JN466 22:09, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the breakdown, Jayen466. It's quite hard to see how such examples could be considered "high-quality" BLP sources. Drrll (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A problem with even the "good" sources is that it raises the question: Sources for what? The sources document that there's a campaign against Santorum. But they don't document that the word is used as a word for non-political purposes. Ken Arromdee (talk) 17:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a minor note here. On the AGF comment above that our editors deserve the same kind of consideration as Santorum. Ummmm ... you realize this is said in the venue of an article that basically equates a person's and family's sur-name with the anal secretion byproduct of a homosexual act? Can you see where I'm having some difficulty here? Personally I'd rather not have that kind of "consideration" to myself thank you. In regards to the intent though, yes, we should endeavor to be respectful of our fellow editors, and the point is understood and taken. — Ched : ? 21:16, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This whole article is a cited falsehood, The idea that homosexual people are having anal sex and then looking down and using this alleged neologism and going wow dude look at the santorum coming out of your anus - its just a insulting falsehood, the only place this insult is being used is in the press to attack the person and for the same reason here at wikipedia - wow - your anus is leaking santorum - will be spoken almost never. Off2riorob (talk)

Got any sources for that? I have a hunch that your knowledge of what gay people do and say is little better than your knowledge of what Jews do and say. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:29, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, I understand you are an expert on gay Jew behavior. Tell me - do you personally look down and say it? You bore me completely, your purpose at wikipedia seems to have become opposing me or attacking me at every opportunity - get over yourself. Off2riorob (talk) 21:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the forum for this conflict, so everyone please stop or take it to personal talk pages. Gamaliel (talk) 21:48, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess people, especially in the States, who practice anal sex might well say it to their partner, as an in-joke. --JN466 22:35, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between insulting a living individual and reporting that 132 reliable sources have recorded someone insulting a prominent public figure. I think the unwillingness or inability of editors to make that distinction is the root of the conflict here. Gamaliel (talk) 21:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I fully understand the distinction that editors are trying to make here. Even putting aside the WP:BLP, WP:ATTACK, WP:NOT(so many things) .. this idea was an artificially created word by ONE MAN. And the entire intent behind the creation was to attack an individual with whom he disagreed. (over some fundamental sexual issues and comments the then senator had mentioned). The distinction that I make however is the entire "concept" of this word (and I use the term "word" loosely), and it's corresponding page. Back on point though. The WMF has mandated that we make efforts to be diligent in regards to BLP issues. One of their statements: (here), covers some of our requirements. I read item number two at the bottom of the page: "Taking human dignity and respect for personal privacy into account when adding or removing information, especially in articles of ephemeral or marginal interest", and then I look at the article in question and simply see a huge thumbing of the nose at our benefactors. To suggest that this word is a common term being tossed about in everyday life is wrong. Perhaps in some gay porn circles a few folks get a chuckle out of this 10-year old boys locker room humor; I wouldn't know as I'm not familiar with those areas. This simply is not a mainstream neologism. What Wikipedia has done with the entire matter is effectively empowered, encouraged, and emboldened Dan Savage on his efforts to insult, degrade, and smear another individual. To those who can not see or understand that, I really don't know how else to explain it to you. Perhaps some do understand it, and simply find it acceptable. I personally will never find it acceptable either here on Wikipedia, or in real life. As I already expended more time on this topic than I ever intended to, I shall take my leave of all you good people, and wish you luck in all you do. Feel free to hit me up on my talk if you have an issue with my post. Cheers and best. — Ched : ? 22:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead sentence

Resolved

– JN466 has implemented the proposed change. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I proposed in the preceding section that we could change the article's lead sentence, as that is what is displayed in the Google search results. Cirt responded to the proposal by changing the lead sentence accordingly, so it read:

The word santorum /sænˈtorəm/ is a sexual neologism coined by American humorist and sex advice columnist Dan Savage in response to controversy over statements on homosexuality by Republican U.S. Senator Rick Santorum from Pennsylvania.

The definition was then given in the second sentence of the lead:

The meaning Savage gave to it, based on suggestions submitted by readers of his column, was "the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex"."

However, Cirt's edit was reverted by Nomoskedasticity three minutes later. As the proposal is a little buried in the discussion above, I've created this section so we can discuss this further. Views? --JN466 22:23, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I really think the article talk page is the right place for this discussion. No doubt there's a policy or guideline that clarifies... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather keep the discussion in one place. In my experience, once an article issue comes to a community noticeboard, because an editor has requested outside input from neutral editors, discussion continues there; replies to questions raised are generally given at the noticeboard. --JN466 22:43, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Restricting the discussion to here skews the consensus towards the viewpoints of editors who feel more strongly about rigorously enforcing their interpretation of BLP and neglects the viewpoints of editors who care about improving individual articles but who are inexperienced in community matters or are intimidated by noticeboards. In this specific case, directing the discussion here pushes the controversial proposition that the article is a "BLP issue". Quigley (talk) 01:38, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with the change. The term santorum was not coined yesterday, and it belongs to all who use it, not Savage. The intention to manipulate Google search results is an odious overstretch of Wikipedia's policies and purpose. Quigley (talk) 01:38, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am ambivalent about the proposed change, but I do not object to it. If it will help editors come to a compromise with regard to this article, then that is a good thing. :) -- Cirt (talk) 01:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support the change. It more clearly states the legitimate purpose of the article: to document the phenomenon of the word's coinage and use, rather than to act as a dictionary entry. As noted above, it also gives search-engine users a better synopsis of the article, allowing them to make a more informed judgement about the article's utility to them. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 01:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support the change per Macwhiz. Drrll (talk) 06:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support, this is a healthy proposed change, unlike many of the others which have attempted to do the same thing that has failed and failed again, Sadads (talk) 08:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Though I would suggest "vulgar" as an adjective in the first sentence. Personally, I suggest tha neologisms not in common usage (and there is no doubt that this word is not in common usage) should not be considered valid for any encyclopedia. Period. This is far past a mere BLP concern - it is a concern that being host to such drivel is harmful to the WMF and to Wikipedia itself. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Macwhiz. How much of the article deals with the properties, uses, health implications etc of lube/fecal matter? This is an article about a neologism as neologism, not the matter denoted by the neologism. Collect, I suggest we simply remove "sexual" as redundant. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Rename and reorient the article

Per Dreadstar, above

What we’ve apparently done here is a forced elevation of what is basically an insult and internet prank to the level of an encyclopedic article [...] If we truly want to make this article an encyclopedic entry, then the best course of action is to rename and refocus the article on the actual campaign waged by Savage

Most of the mentions of the "neologism" I've found are in fact focussed on Savage's prank, not unselfconscious employment of the term in its new meaning. The notable object here is the prank, not the neologism. SlimVirgin, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, and Dreadstar explain this above better than I could. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:00, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:Santorum_(neologism)#Proposal. That discussion has been underway for seven days involving over twenty editors. -- Cirt (talk) 04:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would the best thing not be to merge the contents (just one paragraph describing the campaign) into a subsection of the article about the Santorum homosexuality controversy, which was created first? Then move the santorum neologism title to Dan Savage santorum campaign (or similar), then direct that new title to the new subsection in the controversy article.

That would allow us to cover the controversy; cover the Savage campaign triggered by the controversy; direct readers to it; and at the same time maintain a distance from it. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 04:28, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly support SlimVirgin's proposal, both in its intended aims and implementation. alanyst 05:28, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also support this approach. His stance on homosexuality is what is notable, and this campaign is part of it. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We're already !voting at Talk:Santorum_(neologism)#Proposal; please take this there. You'll find an overwhelming consensus against the sort of merge you propose. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 06:42, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also support this approach. An internet prank is not worthy of its own separate article. This is mentioned in the google bomb article as one of many such incidents along with the GWB "Miserable failure", and "French Military Victories" we don't, and quite rightly so, create a separate articles on those bombs. Anyone wanting to pick this one out for special treatment ought to have clear encyclopaedic reasons for doing so, especially when a BLP is concerned. John lilburne (talk) 08:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't support SV's suggestion because I believe a good case can be made for an article on this unique event – the creation of the neologism and it's ramifications. No good case has been made, and I doubt one can be made at the moment, for an article on the substance, santorum. The article Santorum should cover the properties, uses, health implications, etc. of lube+fecal matter and, being health-related, would need to be sourced according to WP:MEDRS. I doubt this can be done at present, and the present Santorum is definitely not that article, it is an article about the creation and ramifications of a neologism, and should be named accordingly.

A sound argument can be made for renaming the article, but not for erasing it or merging it. I believe we should take the former proposal to the article's talk page. Renaming may have the consequence of bumping it further down the list of Google results for "santorum," though that is no reason in itself for renaming. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John lilburne, what do you think is wrong with google bombing? I've heard that you're proposing to do just that to editors of Wikipedia. Is it your view that it's OK to prank and harass people, just not to write about it? Will Beback talk 09:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You heard wrong or have misunderstood. A google bomb is very easy to construct especially with a non common name. It takes very few links and back in 2003 one could do it simply by changing your signature on some web forum - Hey presto 100s of links all with the same phrase all going to the same site, that is the point I made. I also speculated that, even today, many user names here (yours included) are susceptible to such pranks, and it does look as though someone has been checking out the truth of that that statement. In fact depending on who is doing the linking, one can do it with a single link, the google bomb mainly reflects on the linker not the linked, a popular blogger can google bomb with one link. 5 years ago I gave permission to an NA university to use a photo on a course website, my real name was linked to a photoblog, that one link is enough to bring the photoblog as the first link of a Google search for my real name. That is the reality of links and Google ranking. The linking site's 'authority' or popularity, the newness of the link, the number of pages similarly linking. So would I google bomb you? If you've followed anything I've said in the past months you'll know that it is NOT something I'd do. Whilst I think a high profile person may on occasion deserve it, maybe even the guy being discussed here, I don't think it ought to be considered anything more than a footnote at most in their life/career. It may be of more importance in relation to the bio of the google bomber, and it may be considered as an example of the phenomena. John lilburne (talk) 10:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that clarification. Will Beback talk 12:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, there is a discussion on this proposal in an earlier section. The two sections should be consolidated -- this one moved up, or the other responses moved here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Oppose The problem with this approach is that it circumvents the conversations which have been going on at the article talk page, which has been running forever now and drawn in users from all kinds of different forums includeing a since closed discussion here, WP:AN, Jimmy's talk page, WP:ANI, and several other forums. The proliferation of long and ad naseum discussions, needs to stop, Sadads (talk) 09:11, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It has already been established -- repeatedly -- that the article Santorum (neologism) is not a violation of the BLP policies. I try to assume good faith, but when it is the same group of editors bringing up the same tired arguments.... This is getting tedious. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 12:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First I suppose I should apologize for returning when I said I was leaving; however, I wanted to make a different note on the post above by TechBear. While it is true that there has been consensus established in the past, there are several items which I think make the current discussion(s) valid. 1.) We appear to be drawing in a number of new editors to this discussion. I suspect that is due to several things: a) The approaching election year in which Santorum may take part in. b) The recent expansion of the article. c) The "Googlebombing". I suspect that this has led to a greater awareness of the article and the situation. 2.) While it may not appear to be so at the moment, I remind you that consensus can change, and we do seem to have a more equal balance in this respect than we have had in years past. While it may be "tedious" to you as a long time defender of such ... ahhhh... contributions, I respectfully ask that you allow folks to voice their views on this matter. Thank you for your time. — Ched : ? 15:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a disgrace, it is of a level of puerility that would make a 12yo blush. It reflects extremely badly on the articles authors who ought to be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. I suspect that it will many years before anyone takes them seriously again. If the article is in accordance with BLP policy, which I doubt, then the presence of the article also reflects badly upon and diminishes the project itself. John lilburne (talk) 22:08, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This has been done to death elsewhere. Forum-shopping isn't going to change things. Yes, the usage is a mere scatalogical smear -- but that's clearly exactly the effect its creator intended; it's a significant example of a piece of highly effective political propaganda, one reported on many, many times by a wide variety of mainstream media, and one that seems to be having appreciable effects on the current U.S. presidential race. Suppressing it to save the blushes of its target, or those of our presumed reader, seems contrary to long-established precedent here. Compare swift-boating. -- The Anome (talk) 22:31, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is like Dan Quayle comparing himself to JFK. John lilburne (talk) 23:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Swift-boating -- "a strong pejorative description of some kind of attack that the speaker considers unfair or untrue—for example, an ad hominem attack or a smear campaign" -- destroyed Kerry's campaign. The word "santorum" may well end up doing the same for Santorum. -- The Anome (talk) 23:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Key here is "may well" you have no way of knowing, as it hasn't happened. Kerry was the Democratic nominee, this guy is at present a maybe, if he does run you have no way of knowing whether this will have any effect. IOW your justification for the article is CRYSTAL BALL GAZING, and non encyclopaedic. John lilburne (talk) 00:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That the article has potential to become extraordinarily notable in the next few months in no way contradicts the fact that it is notable -- and very much so -- right now. -- The Anome (talk) 00:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arguing for the retention of an article for its polemical value is POV-pushing. John lilburne (talk) 00:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The term swift-boating does not use a living person's name or have a scatological meaning, and it is used to disparage an unfair politically-motivated attack, rather than being used to perpetrate it. I don't see how it sets any sort of precedent for what's being discussed here. alanyst 02:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and your assertions regarding the motivations of people who use either term are more-or-less irrelevant unless you happen to be a reliable source. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 03:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose forum shopping. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

RfC

I've add the RfC tag to the talk-page discussion to get wider input, so could anyone who has commented here but not there, please add your comments there too? That will help keep things in one place. See Talk:Santorum_(neologism)#Proposal to rename, redirect, and merge content. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 06:14, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Laughing - There is no way that asking that group to behave reasonably has any chance of succeeding. The guy is a figure of hate/ridicule has little support here and as such can be snowed, a similar article on say Palin would never get off the ground. In this case there is a puerile pack operating around the article on a minor figure for the LULZ and partisan POV pushing. But much the same operates in other BLPs the Jessica Black article should never have been made or kept, and 90% of the LaRouche, and Scientology stuff has similar antecedents, and undoubtedly serve as precedents. Common sense, dignity, and just simply doing the right thing have degenerated into "But this RS said he said so first". It allows controversialists like Savage and Beck to spread their attacks across a wide range of BLPs all aided by WP editors with a point to make. Out of control Slim, out of control. John lilburne (talk) 09:08, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually just noting that it's a new RfC that has started, because the old proposal was different. It's under the same header: Talk:Santorum_(neologism)#Proposal to rename, redirect, and merge content. Comments welcome. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 10:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, my comment

Please see diff. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 00:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:SlimVirgin/Poetgate

Resolved

– Reporter User:Mindbunny has been indefinitely blocked for repeated violations of WP:Disruptive editing : WP:POINT,WP:BATTLE

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SlimVirgin/Poetgate

I was initially going to nominate the page for deletion, but 1) the page is protected and can't be nominated for deletion, 2) discussion might be better than deletion anyway. It is relevant here because WP:BLP "applies to posts about Wikipedians in project space...some leeway is permitted to allow the handling of administrative issues by the community, but administrators may delete such material if it rises to the level of defamation, or if it constitutes a violation of No personal attacks." There doesn't seem to be an ideal forum for discussion, but since BLP does officially appply, I'll try here.

This page is a narrative of a prolonged dispute from years ago. Unfortunately, it is also an attack page, primarily aimed at a now-banned user but also blaming, active editors. It is almost completely unsourced. Information about the identity of editors can't be sourced, because it is off-wiki (mostly from Wikipedia Review AKA "WR") The more inflammatory the accusation, the less likely it is that there's a source The page says:

"The man behind the accounts has been named on Wikipedia Review as a middle-aged British civil servant who stole photographs of attractive women so he could pretend the accounts were run by them...He has a history of impersonating women elsewhere" (unsourced)
"...he claimed to be G______. H_______., 26 years old, who lived either in Hertfordshire or Essex." (unsourced)
"The writing was also either very masculine and pompous, or too feminine, or rather it was what some men might suppose is feminine — simpering, flirtatious, and childish." (attack)
"It was pretty clear that the writer was male, probably an older man, and very likely someone who had issues with women and little experience of close relationships with them." (attack, unsourced)
"Others began to join WR, some of them frankly lunatics, and a couple who seemed violent." (attack, unsourced)

Potential accusations of crimes or liabilities:

"He started the rumour that I was an intelligence agent, which Brandt and Slashdot later picked up on." (potentially an accusation of defamation; unsourced)
"What he or they did is likely to have involved a degree of real-world pursuit (or stalking, depending on how you look at it)" (potentialallegation of a crime, unsourced)
"They held a poll to decide whether the Mossad would kill me or jail me when they found out what I was "up to." They posted that I had faked my own death, and that I was a teenage girl who had murdered her mother." (potential allegation of a crime, unsourced)

I stopped excerpting about half way through (but the attacks, hints of identifying information, and unsourced insinuations with legal implications continue).

The page also contains a section devoted to User:Cla68 [13], who is currently active on Wikipedia: "The WR attacks have carried over onto Wikipedia with User:Cla68's pursuit of me, which has been going on for over a year. Cla is also strongly supported by Lar (who has told people that I am the Wikipedian he most dislikes)." The gist of the section is that Cla68 opposed SlimVirgin in an ArbCom case. That's it. He is included in this narrative alleging death threats and stalking, as an attempt to smear by association. SlimVirgin's comment shows bias: "The diffs Cla produced in his ArbCom evidence against me [6] do not show what he claims they show. But again, who has the time to go through them all," She didn't read them, yet knows they don't show what he claimed... The page contains periodic blamings and sideswipes of other editors, but no other editors get their own section.

The page has been defended on the grounds that it documents abuse, and as such could be useful in preventing recurrence. First, it is just SlimVirgin's narrative. Documenting anything requires sources. Second, most of the abuse it describes is on another Web site (Wikipedia Review). Third, it doesn't document abuse to speculate on someone's dysfunctional relationships with women, to publish identifying information about his name, residence, and age, or to insult him as simpering and pompous. Fourth, some of the accusations could be construed as having legal implications yet are unsourced. It's possible that a much abbreviated version of this page could belong on Wikipedia, if it contained a distillation of information solely needed to prevent a recurrence. As it stands, it isn't related to making content choices and has little value helping us work together. It is mostly a way for SlimVirgin to attack her enemies.

Note, there is an official page for documenting long-term abuse: [14]: why hasn't it been used instead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mindbunny (talk • contribs) 16:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The page is a history page, very useful as a reference. It is not an attack page. Binksternet (talk) 18:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

if it is a history page, it should be in a section on long term abuse/special abusers as Poetlister certainly was/is one. And it should not be fully protected. My actual thought is that this page is more of a blog posting summary of events from SV's point of view and is not a good page for inclusion in wikipedia anywhere. It would be better kept either at home, or (if SV wants it public) hosted somewhere else. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how unsourced claims can be "useful as a reference". Ditto for outright viiolations of policy, such as publishing identifying information about an editor--and then insinuating he has "issues with women". Mindbunny (talk) 20:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the page refers to several people by their real names. That would bring it into the BLP orbit. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 18:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, this post is troll. Mindbunny has being using his own userspace to comment on living people and been blocked for it. He is also, AFAIK in a dispute with SlimVirgin. So, this is hypocrisy and posturing. On the substance, we do have lost of pages recording past events, and people's opinions of other's editing - so allowing one user to have a "right of reply" in their userspace is no biggy. To compare this with BLP is silly. All the people mentioned on that page voluntarily participated in this project, have commented on other users, and now have only their own conduct being commented upon. So, no big deal. If there is an issue it has to do with user interaction and courtesy not with BLP. Further, I am not aware of either Cla or Lar having complained about the existence of the page, and both are big enough to fight their own battles without Mindbunny's help (Poetlister can burn in hell; we don't need to worry about offending him/her/it). Having said all that, I courtesy blanked some of my own old userspace commentary which touched on Slim Virgin, so she might be open to doing the same, if reasonably requested by those affected. Bottom line: there is no action to take here.--Scott Mac 21:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not an attack page, certainly not the Poetlister comments; truth being the rationale - plus the fact that Poetlister is an account name, not a person, and the relationship between Poetlister and the RL identity is verifiable and provable (it may be argued that by not referencing the facts that it is less of a potential source of embarrasment than it may be) as is the determination of his abuses of accounts and the identities of innocent third parties. The antipathy between SlimVirgin and Lar is also a matter of record, and - if Lar was still active - would likely be acknowledged. As for Cla68, I think he is also pragmatic enough to acknowledge that SV has voiced her concerns regarding him in several venues - and so is a matter of record.
Declaration of interest; I am familiar with "Poetlister" and their lies, deceits, and issues - and have been one of those initially fooled - and can vouch for the accuracy of SV's detailing of their activity. I am also aware that it is of concern that the person behind Poetlister continues to try and infiltrate WP - so such a record is useful when checking the activities of a suspicious account. Lastly, me and Slim... We are not friends, but are on better terms now than in the past.
Why is this so important to you that you should continue with this after it did not gain traction at the admin noticeboard? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Traction? In the ANI, it was suggested by an admin that I nominate it for deletion. Since I couldn't nominate it for deletion, I tried a different forum, that's all. The ANI closed for reasons that had nothing to with the reasons for objecting to it (an open a request for arbitration, since closed). The page is mostly unsourced and an attack. I am also, frankly, tired of SlimVirgin's attacks, but an editor's motives in complaining about something have nothing to do with the merit of the case. Mindbunny (talk) 23:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This thread is for discussing edits, not editors. Scott Mac, I struck your attacks. If an admin wants to move this to MfD, that's fine. I was unable to do so, because the page is protected. It would be helpful if editors addressed the actual points. The idea that it is not an attack page because it is true is pretty silly, and not something that reflects any policy. Cal68 is on record as objecting to it, asking for it to be moved to WR. The page publishes identifying information about an editor and speculates about his sex life (or lack thereof), and accuses people of things are potentially crimes, and all of that is unsourced. Mindbunny (talk) 22:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather not say too much about this, except that Mindbunny seems to be pursuing me in various ways, and I'd appreciate it if it would stop. I haven't read that page for a long time, so I'll undertake to read it soon and tighten bits of it, especially where names of editors are concerned. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 23:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sarah, I really think that's all that needs done here. Mindbunny - stop pushing, it looks our like patience is wearing thin on several fronts.--Scott Mac 23:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Off-hand criticism of living people in non-article space where Mindbunny opened a threat to propose that disparaging remarks about living people SHOULD be allowed in userspace, and SHOULD NOT be a violation of the BLP policy. The opposition thing he's arguing here. Draw your own conclusions.--Scott Mac 00:01, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Thanks Sarah"? Who is Sarah? Bielle (talk) 02:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be a reference to SlimVirgin. Scott Mac and SlimVirgin must know each other in real life, or at least be friendly. That explains everything. Mindbunny (talk) 06:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As an editor who has only been active for two years, I am happy that records of such outrageous misbehavior are preserved in this form. Institutional memory is critical, and we must be certain that the people who misbehaved so horridly, as well as those who might choose to emulate them, are prevented from doing so in the future. As for you, SlimVirgin, I sympathize for the anguish you must have felt back then. Reading this account only deepens my respect for all the work you have done to advance and protect this wonderful project over the years. I thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 03:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, but when revising the page it would be a good idea to keep BLP in mind when referring to living people by name. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 06:46, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have read it a while back, and it is eye opening, and extremely useful source of Wikipedia's history. It is a crash course on Wiki-politics for novices. It must be preserved absolutely. I haven't noticed real names; if these are mentioned, they don't need to be there. As for the initiator of this post, he was clearly (a) pursuing the author of the page and (2) making a point. I think this should stop, or be stopped. - BorisG (talk) 16:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly interesting that people keep referring to completely unsourced allegations as "documentary" and "a record", and "useful source of...history." Also, that speculation about someone's emotional dysfunction with women could be considered "useful history." Also, that posting identifying characteristics such as initials of real name, where he lives, who works for, and his age is not, taken together, considered a violation of "Posting another editor's personal information is harassment....". And that some of these allegations carry criminal implications (death threats, real-worldstalking) and are unsourced, yet nobody is conerned about potential defamation. And, of course, that bringing these concerns to a noticeboard immediately causes some editors to attack the editor with the concerns, rather than actually address the topic. Wikipedia has a formal method of tracking long-term abusers of the site. If it is adequate to this task, it should be used. If it is not adequate to the task, the problem should be addressed in a constructie way. Instead, it is being dodged and I am being called an "idiot" by an admin. Mindbunny (talk) 20:29, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has a formal method of tracking long-term abusers of the site. If it is adequate to this task, it should be used. True. But the first step in all of these procedures is to approach the person that appears to be disruptive and ask them to stop this behaviour. That is what I am doing. - BorisG (talk) 01:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I came here for the Santorum controversy. But I saw this one, and it sounds pretty disturbing to me. I have no way to read the article since SlimVirgin, according to the comment, temporarily deleted it. But deleting it at this point makes it hard to analyze under BLP. Since it's been deleted, I can only go by what's being said here, and what's been said here and not rebutted doesn't sound good. I don't care if the user who complains said similar things were okay on another page, this complaint sounds pretty bad on its own merits. Wikipedia does not allow unsourced negative material about people. We do have an exception: "some leeway is permitted to allow the handling of administrative issues by the community, but administrators may delete such material if it rises to the level of defamation, or if it constitutes a violation of No personal attacks." But the material that is purported to be on that page does make serious real life accusations and does contain personal attacks. Ken Arromdee (talk) 05:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also only have this string to go on. But reach a slightly different conclusion. It seems there is some POINTy attacking going on. I'm not a fan of wikihounding. Bad for morale, as a general matter. As to the specifics, from what I read the only possible issue is if real names are reflected, and in an inappropriate way, which it would appear may not be the case or if it is then SV seems interested in addressing that complaint. I don't see much more to be done here.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that BLP doesn't apply when real names aren't used would let us make accusations against basically anyone. We'd just have to point out that we haven't identified the person, and that any external sites that have identified him are not under our control, so it's not our fault that the combination of Wikipedia and the external site allows a negative inference to be made about the person. This would be a huge loophole that would make BLP worthless. Ken Arromdee (talk) 06:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While the deleted page may have exhibited the characteristics you mention, plenty of us have read the page and can confirm that it is a very useful record of an extremely worrying part of Wikipedia's history (and I think the only BLP issue was that some early revisions of the page contained the real name of the highly disturbed individual behind all the trouble). I hope SlimVirgin restores the page as her deletion edit summary suggests ("deleting this for now until I have time to copy edit it") because the community needs significant events documented for assistance with future problems. This discussion was started as a POINT and should not be continued unless someone has evidence of a problem. Johnuniq (talk) 10:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence of the problem has been given repeatedly, and at every repetition is met with assumptions of bad faith, personal attacks, and invocations of WP:POINT that serve to dodge the point. The contentious claims are unsourced. They can't document anything. Deal with the merits of the concern, instead of attacking those who raise it. Mindbunny (talk) 04:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If Mindbunny is doing it too, then I would have no problem from making the same complaint about him. I can't see the things he posted either and there doesn't seem to be a good summary of them with enough details. But I really don't care. So the accusation does come from a user who does the same things himself. So what? It's bad when either person does it. And while he may be trying a WP:POINT, I'm certainly not. May I complain about the article starting from scratch and have it be treated as a legitimate BLP complaint? Those excerpts show far more than is necessary for documenting abuse. Ken Arromdee (talk) 14:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The point missed by those complaining about the "unsourced" aspect of the essay is that the events are recorded in the history of various pages (from memory, I think there was reference to a couple of other Wikimedia projects where history is also available, and perhaps to some off-wiki forums(?) where the text is likely to persist). There are a few possibilities: (1) SV invented large parts of the text (i.e. it's lies); (2) SV invented small embellishments (i.e. some details are lies); (3) SV made a couple of minor errors (i.e. some text is incorrect); (4) SV accurately recorded events that really did occur. Possibilities (1) and (2) are vanishingly improbable because SV is known to not lie, but also because the events were a huge drama, and SV a very well known figure with lots of people who follow everything she does, particularly when a drama unfolds—I have never heard any claim that there were inaccuracies in the essay (and it certainly is not all made up). Regarding (3) vs. (4): It does not matter if a couple of minor errors were made. The experienced editors who saw the events occur, and who investigated the issues in the following months, would have made a large amount of noise if the essay contained any significant errors. No one can point to any dissent regarding the essay other than claims that it needed more sources (i.e. evidence diffs). Regarding the essay as an "attack" is to totally miss the point: the events described were monumentally disruptive and harmful to Wikipedia, and it is vital that such abuses are recorded for reference as needed in the future (see WP:LTA for more). Johnuniq (talk) 03:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that does change things to some extent. If these are events that happened elsewhere on Wikipedia, that should obviously fall under the "administrative issues" exception.

I'm not convinced, though (given that I can't see the essay itself) that, from the description above, that it only covers events elsewhere on Wikipedia. It sounds as if a lot of it is about off-Wiki events and interpretations of them that may not necessarily have directly affected Wikipedia. Yes, they attacked a Wikipedian, but imagine if every user was allowed to put on their user page "I went to Wikipedia Review and I found that Wikipedian ____ obviously has issues with women. And he's a lunatic." It almost makes you wish for BADSITES.

It also sounds as if the essay involves users other than the banned one. Ken Arromdee (talk) 15:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have indefinitely blocked Mindbunny (talk · contribs) for repeated WP:POINT. Hopefully this will be the end of their disruptions. Jehochman ^Talk 14:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dominique Strauss-Kahn sexual assault case

I wish to report the following [15] which I deleted since it is contentious and plainly libelous (it is repeated by no US media) but was reverted by User Wikiwatcher1.

The item is discussed on the Talk page at [16].

I hope this a correct notice. New to this sort of thing. FightingMac (talk) 22:38, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it. You removed a source because it was libelous? And even the assertion wasn't libelous. The Conti stuff has been properly removed from the article, not because it's libelous, but for other more legitimate reasons. And for someone who's "new to this sort of thing", you sure are going at this with a vengeance. Admittedly, it's a controversial article, but still, maybe fewer reversions, and cooler words might help. Off2riorob, an experienced editor, has the right idea. Maybe, as a newbie, you should listen to him.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No Bbb23, I removed an edit because it was contentious and certainly libelous (why it hasn't been repeated in the US). Are you saying I shouldn't have? I'm new to this kind of editing, not to Wikipedia. Can you please explicitly say what the "more legitimate" reasons are for the Conti removal? I can add I'm not initiating the reversions. Thank you. Appreciated. FightingMac (talk) 00:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The diff you reported above is the removal of a source. Maybe you mean a different edit you made, don't know. The more legitimate reasons were well articulated by Rob: "I don't see a porn stars comments/claims to be a good addition at all. There must be a lot better comments than that - the issue is - don't add all and sundries opinions and unconfirmed claims - they are worthless and just trivia." You have reverted - just because it's in response to a reversion doesn't matter, particularly when you restore material that has been, in my view, properly removed. What do you mean by "this kind of editing"?

A better question is what do you want here on BLPN? Is there still some "libel" you object to in the article?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:03, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To cut to the chase what I wanted from BLPN was for the Conti stuff to be deleted. Rob has done that but Wikiwatcher1, who reverted my deletion, has said, if I understand him correctly, that he will restore. So further I would like from BLPN a clear acknowledgment that the Conti stuff is contentious and should be removed immediately. What's your position on that, Bbb23? FightingMac (talk) 01:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By 'this kind of editing' I mean the continual blanking in violation of WP:NOBLANKING. FightingMac (talk) 01:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOBLANKING is an essay. Blanking can be the best option. Off2riorob (talk) 01:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's an essay about policies which is headed "Blanking sections violates many policies". You might as well say the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is just a document. And there's nothing in this essay about blanking policies which says blanking can be the best option, and incidentally when you use 'can' like this you're diluting language. I'm not impressed, Off2riorob. You are a Twinkle user who is supposed to understand Wikipedia policy but you rather dismiss it with the repetitive mantra 'it's an essay'. Meanwhile you've used Twinkle to blank content so I can't restore without running foul of the 3RR rule, carefully crafted edits made over a period of days without consulting in any way the people who contributed, of which at least one is a woman and we do know, don't we, how much Wikipedia has been criticised for its aggressive male-dominated treatment of women? I ask you to restore your blanks immediately and to concentrate here on the issue I put forward for discussion, which is whether Wikiwatcher1's revert of a delete I had made on grounds that the edit was contentious per WP: BLP was proper. Thank you. FightingMac (talk) 02:47, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

outdentOff2riorob. An editor I know a little and respect hs set me right about NOBLANKING and indeed it's as you say, so I apologise. Nevertheless I'm still perturbed by your blanking of the Feminist stuff, which I reiterate I didn't provide but I do support. Thank you for your time. FightingMac (talk) 11:57, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A RSd interview, highly relevant to the article, belongs without doubt. The "libel" issue is a red herring, and has not been justified. My supporting comments are here. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:47, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a vote - what content are you actually talking about? Off2riorob (talk) 01:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm responding to your comment on my talk page, "please take it to the BLP noticeboard and seek support for inclusion there." --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Go on then - post what ever it is you are desirous of adding to the article - lets have a look at it' Off2riorob (talk) 02:20, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why hasn't the story (the Conti stuff) been taken up by the American media, Wikiwatcher1? You said no doubt it will be when I queried it with you, but it hasn't happened. So why is that if it's so highly relevant as you aver? Do you dispute it's contentious, likely provoking argument? Or do you really believe that everyone reading this will think, well here's a porn star claiming this and that and it must be right because she's a porn star and it's in The Telegraph (as well as in The Sun and The Daily Mail but oddly enough not in the American papers ... oh well, they're just a bunch of prudes)? FightingMac (talk) 02:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the desired addition

Dominique Strauss-Kahn sexual assault case

Deleted interview. Note that there are two RSs, UK and Italy. FightingMac translated the Italian interview text himself. Now he wants it deleted.

Michelle Conti, an Italian porn star who said she had met Strauss-Kahn on several occasions in a private club in Paris, decided to speak out in his defense because he was being treated "worse than an assassin" over the allegations. She said "he attracted me because he behaved like a gentleman in spite of being turned down [by others]... He was very kind and polite, not like a slobbering dog as often happens. He treated us kindly, gave me cuddles ... Dominique doesn't need to rape a woman because if he wants it, he can afford an escort or, as he did in Paris, go to a private club for a little fun. He's just a libertine."

I, porn and those encounters with DSK

"Dominique Strauss-Kahn not 'a drooling dog', claims porn star"

--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:36, 2 June 2011 (UTC)*[reply]

For the record, the interview was initially added to the article about a week ago. There have been hundreds of edits since that time by many editors. There have been many article problems noted on the talk page. However, FightingMac, every day or so, comes back with his laser-beam deletion button and always targets that highly relevant interview. And likewise posts a public notice expressly "begging" for a degrading and humiliating image of Strauss-Kahn in his "perp walk." The non-funny irony of all this is that he accuses me of having an agenda!--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 08:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No Wikiwatcher1. I hardly ever delete content. I deleted some stuff from a couple of editors who wanted to include content about the alleged contact that DSK's lawyers had made with the alleged victim's family to make the case blow away. I also deleted an edit in the American reaction section about DSK's lawyers allegedly having prejudicial information about the alleged victim as not 'reaction'. As far as I can recall those those were the only deletions in this article I made prior to deleting your Conti edit, and I clearly stated in the talk page I was going to make that deletion if you didn't make it first. Moreover that's the only time I deleted the Conti edit (of course I should have immediately I saw it, but as I say I'm relatively new to this kind of editing). I don't return every day. I took a break of several days after you deleted my Paris Match edit. At that time I expressed my concern that two of your edits, one being the Conti edit, was directly prejudicial to Mr. Strauss-Kahn and asked you to remove them. When I returned yesterday one of those edits had been removed but the Conti was still there and I accordingly posted on the Talk page my intention to remove it and seek some form of dispute resolution if it was subsequently reverted. Those are the facts of the matter. FightingMac (talk) 03:48, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly not correct: I commented on your "libelous" Paris Match addition on the Talk page only, and the consensus was to "delete" by everyone but you. You went back and deleted the "tits and ass" quote, and left the rest. It was subsequently deleted by editor User:Sue Gardner as a violation of "dignity," (ie. "libelous") A day or so later you came back and wrote on the talk page, "Regarding the Paris Match 'tits and bum' remark, I'll be making a WP:BOLD restore." --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:21, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason FightingMac posted this here as a BLP issue was, I speculate, because he assumed that by claiming the interview was "libelous," it would be allowed here. That's an obvious red herring, as mentioned above, and probably an effort at gaming the system. There is nothing libelous in the interview. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do any of you pay the slightest attention to policy? It says clearly in Noticeboard guidelines that potentially libelous material should not be repeated here. You're assuming it's *not* by posting it here, but that's in the frame for discussion. FightingMac (talk) 02:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Rob that the material Wikiwatcher wants in the article doesn't belong. It's like saying, well, he couldn't have raped the other woman because he was nice to me. And he doesn't need to rape women because he can pay for them. First, it makes no sense on almost any level. Second, who cares? Third, it's not noteworthy. I must confess, though, I don't understand why Mac thinks the material is libelous exactly. Because she says she had a relationship with the guy? Seems like the least of the problems with the material. I also agree with Rob that comments are fine, but we don't need to vote.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:40, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23: first of all the material is contentious. In other words reasonable men and women reading it would argue amongst themselves as to it's truth. For that reason alone it should be removed on WP:BLP grounds immediately, because that's the policy. Secondly it's quite clearly libelous by which is meant not that it actually is a libel but that it could be plausibly challenged as a libel because it's damaging. The fact is that American media, by no means averse to scandal, has left this story cold. Why do you think that is? Come on, be reasonable. And of course it's not a question that she 'merely had a relationship' with DSK. She's a porn actress DSK is alleged to have picked up in a swingers' club. Quite a difference. But nevertheless revelations of having a relationship in itself can be damaging and that's the issue here. DSK facing a rape trial in which his private life and moral credibility will come under intense scrutiny while Wikipedia if you please, basically because a user unfathomably thinks it helpful to DSK for what you agree makes no sense on any level, is publishing the infromation that is copied above and which I shan't myself further directly reference. Surely a juror is potentially prejudiced by it ... 'well here's a man who cheats on his wife and has sex with porn stars in swingers' clubs ...' Not brilliant is it? Not really.

So will you both please Rob and Bbb23 now give me your opinion of what was requested, at least by implication, that the deletion on WP:BLP grounds was justified, and while I'm at it advise me how I should proceed if Wikiwatcher1 nevertheless restores.

I do thank you for your time and effort. Appreciated. FightingMac (talk) 04:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: your deep concern, "DSK facing a rape trial in which his private life and moral credibility will come under intense scrutiny, . . .here's a man who cheats on his wife ~~and has sex with porn stars in swingers' clubs .~~..Surely a juror is potentially prejudiced by it." Certainly the remarks of a concerned and very sweet editor, not wanting poor DSK to be put in a bad light. So unlike that other editor, who wrote, "And please pretty pretty please beg on my knees please and basically do whatever it takes here please (within limits come on) can someone load an image of the DSK perp walk. My apologies to a real Teddy Bear. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite 'deep', Wikiwatcher1. I am concerned. And, yes, I do want to see an image of the perp walk in the article and indeed have inserted a an 'image requested' template on the talk page. The two are not inconsistent because I'm not agenda pushing here. I just want to maintain a fair and informative article about the ongoing case. All that strikeout stuff wasted on me, Wikiwatcher1. Not the slightest idea nor interest what that might mean or signify. I see Rob has made it clear on the talk page that your Conti content is contentious and shouldn't be included on BLP grounds. I hope we can move on here now. FightingMac (talk) 12:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request resolution

This discussion has evolved into an infinite loop. User:Off2riorob has simply given single word adjective opinions with no support, ie. "unsupported controversial accusations from a dubious source." User:Bbb23 added "First, it makes no sense on almost any level. Second, who cares? Third, it's not noteworthy." Also with no supporting "real world" commentary. I find these sort of third-grade comments surprising from this board. I could have gotten more in-depth and honest opinions from my mail man. Bbb23 does note, "I must confess, though, I don't understand why Mac thinks the material is libelous," which is the right question. It undermines the initial rationale for posting this BLP notice, that it was "plainly libelous." As mentioned above, the "plainly libelous" stuff by FightingMac is being winked at. Please state where in the loop this is: do I restore it or simply treat it as censorship? Thanks. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:57, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you allow some other users to comment. User:Bb23 has posted an opinion against including. I said Imo it is a controversial claim from a dubious source. It has not been widely covered and apparently has not been covered in the USA at all. - ths woman is claiming some controversial things about a living person - she is a dubious source - the claims have not been widely reported and we can also show a bit of editorial judgment in such a situation. BLP requires we write conservatively about living people and in this case imo that supports keeping this controversial claim out. Others may disagree, there is no deadline and actually the womans comments are not about the case at all anyways - they are just the opinions pornographic model that is claiming to here had relations with the living subject. Off2riorob (talk) 09:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree here, Rob, and your point about NOBLANKING now understood via ErrantX, thanks. The reason the content in question is not been covered in America, even by the sensational tabloid press out there, is because it's quite plainly a 101% and hopelessly indefensible libel and there's no way it's going to be published in the jurisdiction of the trial - proprietors might as well write out a blank cheque to the DSK defense fund. But indeed that's not the point, or at least secondary to the issue here, which is that this content *is* contentious and shouldn't be there per WP:BLP (which I trust, at least in this case, isn't just an essay). As for your blank of the feminist content that's just plain wrongheaded and I will be restoring as soon my 24 hours are up and when I would hope to see you on the Talk page before another blank. Thank you for your input, appreciated. FightingMac (talk) 12:21, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I raised this on the talk page the other day; and received a concerning level of opposition to removing the content. It originally made a huge deal out of a quote from her (indented quotation); the content is just repeating her soapboxing and it is utterly irrelevant and unsubstantiated. We should be sticking to information on the trial along with a few noteworthy opinions, to give an idea of the views being expressed. These are not really noteworthy.

NOBLANKING is an essay with a poor grasp of policy, I have left a note about it with Fighting Mac on his talk page. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Rob. I don't feel like getting into Mac's request about libel, etc. I just find it kind of amusing that a porn star's claim that she had sex with Strauss-Kahn and that he treated her well, which ostensibly reads like a defense of him, is being treated as damaging to his reputation by Mac. It's really the least of S-K's worries. That said, the information just doesn't belong as I also agree with ErrantX that the article should be about the trial and truly noteworthy commentary. Otherwise, it's just a bunch of people getting up on a soapbox and expressing their views, and the article becomes a newspaper (and not even a very good one), as opposed to an Encyclopedia article.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no trial. The article is not about a trial. Nor am I "amused" at such blatant censorship, and believe I'm not the only one in WP to feel that way. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, Wikiwatcher, the article is about a criminal case. He's been indicted. There have been pre-trial proceedings. Unless he pleads guilty or the charges are dismissed, my, uh, guess is there'll be a trial. In any event, what do you think the article is about (putting aside what the article actually says it's about)? As for my amusement, don't put words in my mouth. I'm not amused by what you call "blatant censorship". I'm amused by the dissonance. But I'll let you and all the other WP editors you claim to speak for tell me I shouldn't be amused by such things. I find that amusing, too.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:32, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you have questions or guesses about the article or the case, the article talk page should be used. This BLPN was to support the deletion of a published interview because an editor claimed it was "contentious and plainly libelous." Both you and Off2riorob have found nothing libelous, and you find it amusing that an editor would think it was. Neither of you, nor FightingMac, have explained why it would be clearly "contentious." The only clear statement by FightingMac as to his rationale for this BLPN was To cut to the chase what I wanted from BLPN was for the Conti stuff to be deleted. And your conclusions don't support a claim of "contentiousness" either: First, it makes no sense on almost any level. Second, who cares? Third, it's not noteworthy. Therefore censorship is the remaining issue. The issue can't be and won't be ducked. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks for that ErrantX. Understood and appreciated and I apologised to Rob above at the outdent. Nevertheless I am dismayed at his blank of the 'feminist' material and will restore it as soon as my 24 hours are up. The feminist content not from me but I am very aware of how significant the DSK case is for feminism in France and I absolutely do want to see feminist reaction documented in an encyclopaedic account of the ongoing process. Thank you for your input FightingMac (talk) 12:10, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt the French feminists will appreciate your insistence on adding physical descriptions of a possible sex assault victim as being "very unattractive", along with your equally insistent desire to quote a French tabloid's interview with a French taxi driver, a quote you called "notable." --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:01, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I should hope so. The point of the edit of course was to document sexism in the French media as well as to record the simple historical fact of Paris Match being the first to out the alleged victim. Another straw man fallacy from you, Wikiwatcher1. FightingMac (talk) 00:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[outdent]] Despite consensus at BLPN that the Conti material should go, Wikiwatcher1 re-added it [17]. Can't delete because of 3RR rule. Can someone edit please. FightingMac (talk) 07:25, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The original longer quote, which you translated and added, was a main issue. This Telegraph cite was abbreviated by about half, and is incorporated into the context. There was no "consensus," as there was no vote, just a discussion. It was abbreviated to avoid an ANI complaint for your censoring material.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 07:46, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, as you know that content was rejected by multiple users at the BLP noticeboard and on the talkpage of the article - please don't replace that content like that again, if you do I will immediately request an editing restriction for you, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 08:46, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, I have no intention of reverting. However, your highly aggressive comment seems totally overboard and ignored major changes that were made in response to this discussion. Note: the original interview material below was 117 words. They were all descriptive, relevant, and from a RS interview. I abbreviated the interview citation to 34 words, less than a third of the original, and rephrased and incorporated the interview into the context of the section by removing most of the quoted material. There were other related interview material added along with it. However, you have again supported deletion of this interview with absolutely no logical reason, besides your implied comments that an interview with a porn actress does not have validity. I speculate on that since you constantly use the term "porn" when supporting your comments.

Original text: Michelle Conti, an Italian porn star who said she had met Strauss-Kahn on several occasions in a private club in Paris, decided to speak out in his defense because he was being treated "worse than an assassin" over the allegations. She said "he attracted me because he behaved like a gentleman in spite of being turned down [by others]... He was very kind and polite, not like a slobbering dog as often happens. He treated us kindly, gave me cuddles ... Dominique doesn't need to rape a woman because if he wants it, he can afford an escort or, as he did in Paris, go to a private club for a little fun. He's just a libertine."

Revised text: Michelle Conti, who claims to have known him intimately, states that he behaves like "a gentleman" around women, and agrees "he was not the violent type," adding that "he's just a playboy, that's all.

So I need clarification on this issue, which is why it is under a section called "Request resolution." Please summarize this issue, finally. Both you and Bbb23 said it was not libelous. Why do you both seek to exclude it? Thanks. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Porn actor sells her story (I assume) to the press and claims bla di bla - whatever...No its not going in the article.Off2riorob (talk) 22:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is that the new final rationale for deleting wrongly termed libelous or contentious material? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thats right - feel free to replace if you get a consensus the supports your desired addition - right now I didn't see a single one. Off2riorob (talk) 23:29, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify. It was removed and put up for discussion here as being possibly "contentious or libelous," neither of which was supported. But now you're saying that a "consensus" is needed to replace it, even the shortened sentence version. I don't know all the guidelines, but what guideline are you referring to for a situation like this? My expectation would have been that the original material, or at least the shortened cite, would have been automatically restored, and the original BLPN poster would have been set straight. Yet the opposite has happened! Now it's devolved into rationales of the person being a "porn actor," "selling her story", impliedly lying for money ("claims bla di bla"), and in any case "not going in the article" regardless.

I'm actually not that interested in this one person's quoted comments, which are no different than others. What I'm trying to find out is how seemingly arbitrary opinions by another editor can affect material that meets RS, V, and NPOV guidelines. Would your rationale allow me to go to another article and delete a cited interview because I "assumed" the person got paid, for instance? I'm against digressions, as you've seen, but voluntary RS comments by someone who knew him intimately, speaking about the subject of this article, seems about as relevant as you can get. What am I missing? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abhinav Bharat

Abhinav Bharat is the name of two organisations, both apparently trusts [18]. The two groups are often confused [19] is a link to news articles and you can see the attempt to distinguish them. There are obvious BLP issues here as one has been accused of terrorist activities. I think we need two articles with a dab page, but I'd like confirmation that that is the best way to deal with the BLP issues and suggestions as to how to distinguish them in the article titles that won't have BLP implications. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 10:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there was once a proposal to extend BLP to organizations, but it was rejected. Ken Arromdee (talk) 23:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Teo Ser Luck

There is defamatory and libelous information found on Talk:Teo Ser Luck. I've tried removing but a user by the name User:La goutte de pluie kept replacing it. User:La goutte de pluie has repeatedly vandalized the Teo Ser Luck page despite being told that self-published blogs as references aren't allowed. He did not update any other information pertaining to the living person, just kept reverting to his edits.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.16.246 (talk • contribs)

I think there are editors here that would be interested in looking at this issue but you need to provide us with diffs that specifically illustrate the issue at hand. As for accusations of vandalism, that should be taken to the Wikiquette noticeboard with some very specific diffs to back it up as it is a strong statement to make about another editor.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My aim is to provide a balanced view of the article. I even commented out the disputed section while discussion was in progress; I have invited the user to use the talk pages? I am very receptive to discussion, but I note that Yahoo News is generally a reliable source; correspondingly, writers hired by Yahoo News to write on Singaporean affairs are also reliable, as much as an opinion columnist on the Huffington Post is. If you google "Teo Ser Luck", discussion of his lacklustre rally style are easily found near the top, and are commented by a wide amount of writers. Yahoo News is only one of many sources discussing this issue.

The allegation is not to smear -- indeed, Teo Ser Luck's party often does the smearing -- but rather that if the PAP boasts to be a highly experienced and highly qualified government, why does it have high-ranking officials of such poor calibre? This is not my allegation, it is the Opposition's. Opposition-sympathetic views of a minister should be allowed to be on an article about a prominent politician.

I am very open to discussion! I have repeatedly tried using the talk pages and many avenues of discussion. Deleting talk page comments, and sockpuppetry, as this user has done, is clearly unjustified. It is not my tendency to edit war, but lack of discussion by those who disagree with my edits, when I have invited discussion, is disturbing to me. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 00:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I quote:

"Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." -- WP:BLPSPS

I believe my source qualifies. Fann Sim is a professional under the full of editorial control of Yahoo News -- a very prominent source. Given Singapore's censorship, this is remarkable. However the user has not even engaged in discussion with me! I would like to know how my concern of censorship and whitewashing -- a very real concern given my country ranks #151 in the world -- is known as smearing. Actually I am inclined to add any relevant information as well. It seems to be the policy of MCYS -- I can support this with diffs, and I have caught Ministry IPs doing it -- to add "official" overly self-promoting, non-NPOV content from government websites and it flies under the radar, and to delete criticism of government ministers, even if they are well-sourced. MCYS agents have gone so far as to delete citations from the The Economist. This is alarming! Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 01:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not appreciate how you have repeatedly smear the party mentioned or any politicians due to your extreme political views. I also do not appreciate how u have repeatedly accuse me of whitewashing when I have been taking efforts to make edits to members from other parties. Looking back at your edits made at Vivian Balakrishnan and Tin Pei Ling's pages , I'll suggest you to stop trolling if you cannot stay civil. Was Teo Ser Luck's rally speech of most importance that you have to keep adding it? Or are you just trying to include the particular youtube link just so to increase views to make you feel better? When President Obama accidentally became the joke of the day during his trip to the UK, was it documented on his wiki page? If trivia news like this need to be updated, I'd suggest you go and count the number of mistakes both opposition and proposition make in their rally speeches and update their pages. Fann Sim is listed as blog author, not journalist for SG yahoo. It remains an unofficial source. It is listed as blog over there for a reason. Or perhaps, you just want to include it just to find some way to 'humiliate' him since the information you are trying to include is so insignificant to be mentioned in any other sources.

I do not see the link with MCYS agents as Teo Ser Luck is now under MIT. I was waiting for you to finish vandalizing before editing his shift to MIT. Now you are still harping about MCYS. You even reverted my edits after I changed everything his new posts just to make it seem he's still with MCYS. Who is the one with the problem here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.16.242 (talk) 22:14, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not trying to include the youtube link, I am trying to include a reliably sourced article. I really want to assume good faith, and I am really curious if you have read policy about two things: reliable sources, and Wikipedia:vandalism. Content disputes do not consist of vandalism; furthermore, misleading edit summaries are liable to get you sanctioned in some way or other.

"Or perhaps, you just want to include it just to find some way to 'humiliate' him since the information you are trying to include is so insignificant to be mentioned in any other sources."

Certainly the video is viral and is widely echoed around the internet that it appears at the top of search results and dominates google searches for Teo Ser Luck; secondly the issue is mentioned in a wide plethora of sources; but the Yahoo News link has the highest prestige. Thirdly, in a country with little press freedom, I do not find your argument that a significant event would be covered in more sources. There are many significant events that are not covered by the mainstream press due to well-known political bias. The existence of one reliable source that echo a wide array of views online is sufficient. Note that had a politician in a country with a freer press made such gaffes, it would be all over the news -- see George W Bush. Sarah Palin makes a slip-up an interview and one source covers this -- we include it.

I don't know what you consider "extreme political views". A large bulk of information in the Vivian Balakrishnan article favourable towards him was written by me. My accusation of whitewashing is not unfounded. I have repeatedly caught IPs from Ministry addresses editing articles on Singaporean politicians -- to say this on a talk page is not vandalism. You revert unilaterally and you do not use discussion pages unless your revision is threatened -- this is the only reason why I revert so frequently, is to try to get you to use the talk pages. You never use discussion voluntarily! I can post messages on your myriad sockpuppet pages and you never respond to them. When you accuse me of being incivil, I suggest you read Wikipedia:civility. If I were not an involved editor, I would have blocked you for your behaviour a long time ago. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 08:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fann Sim is listed as blog author, not journalist for SG yahoo."

This is a false accusation. Should I unilaterally remove your statement as libel, as you have done? Please read http://sg.news.yahoo.com/blogs/author/fann-sim-/ and tell me that this author does not exhibit a high dose of professionalism in writing for Yahoo and helping it earn revenue (the writer would not be a guest writer, for example) and does not represent Yahoo News (after all, "follow Yahoo! News" is listed at the end of every article). I would appreciate if you would actually address the fact that blogs of reliable news sources are considered authoritative because of strict editorial control. I would appreciate if you actually addressed the appropriate sections of policy head-on. And yet you would remove my talk page comments on Teo Ser Luck simply because you do not agree with them! Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 08:37, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is common sense SingaporeScene is a reliable source. Its subtitle is "fit to post" -- i.e. there is editorial control. All articles are written professionally. Articles have no POV disclaimers and are strongly linked with the Yahoo! News brand and even a physical address for the Yahoo branch in Singapore. Fann Sim is listed as a journalist; Jeffrey Oon is the SingaporeScene editor; SingaporeScene was formally called the Yahoo! Singapore Newsroom. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 08:47, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've protected the article to stop the edit war and let this discussion proceed. Toddst1 (talk) 16:31, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Walton & Johnson Show

Over the past several weeks, some entire new sections, that were little more than rambling rants of opinion, and in many cases, essentially defamatory character assassination were posted by an anonymous editor, to the article in question (Walton & Johnson Show).

When the non-encyclopedic opinion was repeatedly deleted by other editors, the anonymous editor (same IP address) put the opinion back with "citations" that were simply links to rants in blogs defaming the hosts of the radio show.

I first became aware of the issue when Walton & Johnson issued a statement ON AIR on today's show that they were considering suing Wikipedia over it's moderators failing to keep the liable against them out of the Wikipedia article about their show. So, I took a look at the article. My awareness of the "history" behind the defamation is simply the result of reviewing the article's recent history. By the time I looked, another editor (not anonymous) had, within minutes before I looked, removed most of the defamatory stuff and had cleaned up the article significantly. (That person probably heard the lawsuit threat on air like I had.)

I added the "Biography/Living" tag to the talk page on the article. I feel this is justified as the hosts of the radio show in question are living persons, speaking on air as themselves, and the article is, therefore, inherently biographical in nature.

These radio hosts are "shock jocks". Their intent is to anger some of their listeners, but I'm sure you'll agree that Wikipedia is not the forum for angry radio show listeners to be venting.

Just before I hit "save" on this report, the article was still free of the defamation, but the anonymous editor is persistent, it may be back by the time a moderator reads this.

Thank you.

Fish Man (talk) 17:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's still happening. PLEASE protect this article from anonymous editing! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fish Man (talk • contribs) 20:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I'm sure you noticed, Threeafterthree and I have been editing the article and the Talk page about the problems with the article. Things have quieted down, but the article is still a problem because it's now wholly lacking in inline sources. It's also unclear as to whether it's notable, although my guess is it is - I just don't know enough about radio talk shows and notability. I've taken things out and added tags, but I haven't looked for third-party coverage.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:04, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I looked, very quickly, for 3rd party coverage but didn't see any. If any folks who "specialize" in radio shows or notability of articles could help us here, it would be appreciated. TIA --Threeafterthree (talk) 14:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Satoshi Kanazawa

Satoshi Kanazawa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This person is an academic at the LSE, recently in the news for writing some preposterous things in his blog ("black women are objectively less attractive than women of other races" or something to that effect). I've been trying to keep up with the various newbies and IPs coming to fill up the article with every denunciation they can find, but I'd appreciate some help in this regard. Some of the denunciations are well-sourced and deserve to be there, but the article is degenerating because most recent contributors don't know what they're doing in Wikipedia terms. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:07, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like WP:BLP1E to me. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 11:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't -- the article existed long before this recent episode, and he satisfies WP:PROF: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Some of the GS links are not to him, but many of them are and he has hundreds of citations. The news results show plenty of coverage prior to 2011. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Raj Kiran (bollywood)

Plz note the wiki information on Raj Kiran (Bollywood) is incorrect. Plz find true details below. Plz visit the weblink at the end of the comment to verify.

A Facebook Page by his daughter Birthday June 19, 1956 Description Raj Kiran Mahtani is a famous Bollywood actor and the loving father of 2 daughters Biography We should not always believe what we read to be truthful. The truth is that he is not in Atlanta and he is currently still missing.

We have been telling this story to people so that in our quest to find our father we can stay away from the media and focus on the most important thing to us - which is to find him. Unfortunately, this has reached the press in a very unfortunate manner and now the wounds and scars that were to fresh 8 years ago have all resurfaced.

He has been missing for 8 years now and we have all looked high and dry to search for him far away from the media attention - until today with no rewards.

Raj Kiran is the most wonderful human being. He has showered his family with more love than anyone could have ever imagined. His family is his entire life. My mother always supported him, trusted him and believed in him. He is my idol.

Unfortunately there is a life long battle he had to face. One of mental imbalance and his caused us a lot of pain and grief. To not be able to help him made us feel so helpless.

He is remembered each and everyday and is very deeply loved and missed.

Rishi Kapoor has been very kind to show his support in caring for him. And we would truly appreciate his help in trying to locate him.

If anyone can locate this wonderful actor plz be sure to contact this fan page. If anyone does belive he is in Atlanta, plz help us with the contact number and name of the facility and the first people you will see there will be us.

He was never adandoned and desserted. But only loved.

His loving daughter.

Awards He has won multiple awards over the years for work in his movies like Arth, Teri Meherbaaniyan etc Gender Male Personal Interests Reading, Chess, Backgammon, Watching movies, Socializing (he LOVED chatting! with family and friends and especially with his fans! I remember him always chatting with his fans) Email rajkiranmahtani@gmail.com

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Raj-Kiran-a-personal-page/188577924524324?sk=info — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.85.229.107 (talk) 12:30, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced contentious material removed. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:37, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Olivia Bonilla

Came across this "fluff"-filled BLP maintained by a single purpose account and tried to make it a bit more encyclopedic by removing some unsourced statements and irrelevant information. Me and the article creator have since found ourselves slowly reverting each other back and forth. I left them a message on their talk page here and on the article talk explaining my actions here but have received no answer. Could other editors please have a look? I'm not even totally convinced she is notable enough for an article. Cheers, doomgaze (talk) 13:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

She looks just about notable to me, has an award for best pop sonk and a fair degree of discussion in externals. Why are you removing all the pics? a couple then seem to be ok ish claims and have not been disputed, are they all copyright violations? Off2riorob (talk) 16:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can remember I had not removed any images. I had only removed red links to deleted images, as they keep being removed from commons for various reasons. The award in question looks rather suspicious, reading here it looks like you effectively pay to win the 'award.' I further quote "Artists are encouraged to Submit as many songs as they wish in multiple categories to increase their chances of Nomination." What is your opinion on the content that I removed? doomgaze (talk) 16:25, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fluffness and uncited - good edit. The involved account needs to start discussing or come back with some WP:RS - to support their desired additions/reverts. I will leave them a note/request. Off2riorob (talk) 16:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia Dupuy

regarding "Virginia Dupuy". Wikipedia currently only has one article for a person of that name, a mayor of Waco, Texas.

I'm speaking about another, probably equally famous (outside of Waco, at least), "Virgina Dupuy", the Grammy-winning mezzo-soprano.

Here are some links to information about that Virginia Dupuy herself and/or her music:

http://faculty.smu.edu/vdupuy/

http://www.voicesofchange.com/Virginia01.htm

http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&keywords=Virginia%20DuPuy&rh=n%3A85%2Ck%3AVirginia%20DuPuy&page=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flora68 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you think she's a sufficiently notable singer, you could start an article on her. Or you could teach the mayor in Waco to sing opera.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:43, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Contentious or libelous descriptions

There was a consensus during discussions of this needless material being added to the article. Although I opened the discussion, the contentious paragraph was eventually removed by User:Sue Gardner. The original editor of that paragraph later responded with, Regarding the Paris Match 'tits and bum' remark I'll be making a WP:BOLD restore (if not already restored) initiating WP:BRD when I return to continue my additions to this article. (User:FightingMac (talk) 3:41 pm, 31 May 2011).

The offending paragraph was removed again, this time by me, with a clear rationale and Talk page explanation. The editor fighting to keep this kind of essentially unrelated, irrelevant, and contentious content in the article is doing so without any rational explanation much beyond "It happened. It's notable." This same content was also noted in an earlier BLPN discussion, but surprisingly neither of the two BLPN editors chose to comment. The text is now restored to the article here. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I see the tits and whatever content is currently not in the article, if it is please be specific about what content you are actually talking about and exactly where it is and in which diff it was re inserted in, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 22:02, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since this notice was posted, User:Bbb23 edited along with others, the section. It's probably more acceptable now, although it still seems like pointless personal trivia about an alleged crime victim. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:08, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Much like the soapboxy quote about other presidents added (and thankfully quickly removed) to the article ;) Most of the reactions section can be cut of irrelevant quotes TBH. --Errant ^(chat!) 22:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The possibly problematic sentence now reads: "On May 17, Paris Match published the name of the alleged victim and discussed Strauss-Kahn's lawyers' opinion of her physical attractiveness. Other French newspapers quickly followed suit in naming her, eventually adding photos and details of her private life." I would have no problem changing it to read: "On May 17, Paris Match published the name of the alleged victim. Other French newspapers quickly followed suit in naming her, eventually adding photos and details of her private life." - leaving out the phrase about the lawyers, which I think is silly and unnecessary. I just don't see why whether she is attractive or not, or who thinks she's attractive, is even remotely relevant to an attempted rape.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:14, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both User:Wikiwatcher1 and the other one - User:FightingMac are disrupting the article and are both focused on adding media speculation and trivia opinions that seem to support their opinion about the living subject and the case in general, the article would benefit from them both being topic banned from anything to do with the case. Off2riorob (talk) 22:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the problem is too many discussions going on at the same time. I just reverted both Wikiwatcher and Mac for adding material that I don't believe should be in the article (and I don't think I'm alone). The Mac addition was in the Media coverage section. The Wikiwatcher addition had BLP issues, although not absolutely obvious, but still the potential. I don't think Wikiwatcher will take issue with my reversion, although I could be wrong. But Mac won't like what I did.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zerifa Wahid

Resolved

– moved to the correct name

THE NAME IS NOT jerifa wahid. it is ZERIFA WAHID. BORN IN ASSAM IN I978. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.117.145.234 (talk) 08:24, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the report. Moved as per this report and search results. Article requires improvement from someone with understanding/knowledge of Jollywood - Off2riorob (talk) 08:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ivica Dačić

The quote given on ths page [1] is factaully incorrect.It is marked for removal.The references cited below do not mention any shooting incident in March 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.87.184.51 (talk) 10:15, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removed as uncited. If it is actually correct, please cite to a WP:RS and replace. note - the user that added it Special:Contributions/Greenredwhiteblue was indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet of the indefinitely blocked sockmaster User:Porgers - thanks - Off2riorob (talk) 10:23, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

joan acocella

Hello I am Joan Acocella.

Someone keeps adding 2 derogatory paragraphs at the end of my Biography. I can see somone keeps deleting the 2 paragraphs. but they keep reappearing. Please Help!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joanacocella (talk • contribs) 22:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joan - I will keep an eye on your biography and will remove the paragraphs if they reappear, since they are unsourced and also rather silly. Keep in mind that Wikipedia doesn't have a policy prohibiting negative information in biographies, so if someone ever writes an article critical of you in in a reliable source mention of it might be included in your biography here - but even then, it would have to be proportional to the rest of what has been written about you, it couldn't dominate your biography here. The paragraphs that had been added there previously definitely did not belong. Kevin (talk) 22:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

V. S. Naipaul

Please watchlist. Apparently, this winner of the Nobel Prize for Literature has behaved badly towards lovers and his wife, a fact he admits and reliable sources attest to, but the personal life section should not be overwhelmed by sexual detail. --JN466 22:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

damian bodie

the information regarding damian bodie appearing alongside eliza taylor cotter on winners and loser's is incorrect he appears alongside virginia gay who played ed nursing unit manager gabrielle jaeger on the now defunct australian series all saints! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.12.54.101 (talk) 23:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Intentional misrepresentation of a living person's comments at Freedom for Palestine (song) and contributory copyright infringement

User:Bachcell has twice misrepresented comments made by Glenn Beck at the article Freedom for Palestine (song). This is possibly a 1/rr violation (the I-P topic area is under harsher restrictions due to an arbitration decision) but the bigger worry is the BLP violation. There is also contributory copyright infringement that needs to be removed immediately.

Glenn Beck was critical of the song. He did not promote any aspect of it but tthe lines here and here lead the reader to draw he conclusion that Beck supports the song and certain aspects of it. Salem News (used as a source for an inline citation) was cherry picking the quotes to make a point. We cannot mirror that tone. The lines need to be removed since they violate BLP. I cannot do it since the article is under 1/rr. The editor who included the items also needs to be warned.

The video and transcript can be found here and additional info can be found through The Washington Post.[20]Cptnono (talk) 23:20, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I made a little edit to remove the implication of Beck having said things that he had not said. I do really dislike Wikipedia making people say things that they did not say, and it seems to happen a lot in this topic area. Some more work is needed on this article, much of it is written in something that I don't really recognise as English. Questionable implications can lurk beneath what some people might see as complete nonsense. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the tweak. It now does not misrepresent his viewpoint but instead gives prominence to poking fun at him. Do we need mor than one line?Cptnono (talk) 23:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the confusion. The original edit was purposely done in a style consistent with pro-song POV to avoid offending that POV. The Salem News piece is obviously either poking fun or deliberately twisting Beck's intent, but is a notable attempt to defend the validity of the song against Beck's disapproval. Similarly, it is notable that the official group posted a Media Matters clip dismissing the attack as "hilarious" which also implies that Media Matters, and its supporters also support the song.Bachcell (talk) 00:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leon Botha

Resolved

Can a few people watch this article for the next 24 hours? There are rumors that Botha has died, but this news has not yet appeared in a reliable source. Several IP editors have added his death to the article today, which in turn has been cited by others online. Jokestress (talk) 02:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update: death now confirmed by reliable South African news source. Jokestress (talk) 15:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Lewis

There's been an interesting exchange on my talk page (User talk:RayAYang) with some IP authors over whether the subject of this article is still alive. They appear well-intentioned, but we've been burned before over such things without sourcing. This is a request for interested editors to look for information to confirm or refute their suggestions, as I imagine the situation may be distressing to the IP editors. I'm currently travelling, so don't have access to much besides basic Google. Ray^Talk 06:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony J. Hall,

Can we have an editor cut this article down to a paragraph or two... he obviously wrote it himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadaman1 (talk • contribs) 08:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Finders

I'd appreciate it if this article were added to a few more watchlists. It just came off three days of full protection, following problems from multiple new (but autoconfirmed) and IP editors. Some unfortunate content (absurd but with BLP implications) had been quietly added and remained there for way too long. I did a rough overhaul of the article and am crossing my fingers, but I am concerned that some of the problem editors may be poised to spring. Rivertorch (talk) 09:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Wright-Neville

I recently noticed this deletion of referenced material (from The Australian). I restored the material, but re-wrote it to have a more NPOV. This has since been removed twice, and I would like a second opinion given the sensitive nature of the material. — Manti core 10:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Swami Ramdev

I request independent review for BLP issues in this article, as there are numerous claims (with citations) of this highly public figure that are not backed up reliably by said citations. The reliability (for a BLP) of several of the citations are also misrepresented by what appears to be a campaign by his detractors. For instance, this section alleges that "the Union Health Ministry did find animal DNA in the samples, though most newspapers carried reports to the contrary". This is sourced to an op-ed in a partisan newspaper rather than a primary source. Numerous other more reliable sources, such as [21], have been removed from the article. They were present in earlier versions.59.160.210.68 (talk) 10:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plan B (musician)

Plan B (musician) revision 00:01, 6 June 2011 by 86.159.152.205

Also with respect to discussion on the article: the edit by 86.176.164.114 at 21:25 on 16 March 2011

Information with respect to Ben Drew's parents and location of upbringing are being violated. There is proof that such deliberate misinformation is being propagated in the popular press and being used in a possibly defamatory way.

I've reverted the first of the edits you link to, and watchlisted the page. The edits mentioned in the discussion on the talk page, already seem to have been reverted by someone else. It would be useful to find, and add, sources for these disputed pieces of information in the article. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Chenge - missing source

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Chenge

Missing reference for the last sentence ("UK's Serious Fraud Office has however confirmed that... have closed the file for investigation."). Also a citation would be better here.

Michael Theoklitos

Resolved

– WP:NPOV version of events restored to article; general copy-edit and BLP cleanup completed. ⌘macwhiz (talk) 02:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all. A single-purpose account has been removing sourced negative material from this BLP. I've been reverting this on the basis of WP:NOTCENSORED.

The SPA, Citylights111 (talk · contribs), has now posted the following on their user talk:

"Hi there, I am part of Michael Theoklitos's management group and we feel that your summary of the events at Norwich are portraying Michael in a negative light. He does not appreciate them and feels that you have not stated the correct facts regarding both situations especially the Gillingham bus incident. This is not a true reflection of Michael as a professional and an individual, nor is it stating the truth about what actually occurred. If you could please respect our edits it would be much appreciated. Thank you"

A few things:

I'd welcome input from a BLP perspective on whether my reverts have been appropriate, ie if the negative material is adequately sourced (if not, I'm confident of finding other sources)
If my actions have been deemed correct, please could a previously uninvolved admin revert and consider protecting the article
In any case, please could a previously uninvolved admin deal with the COI editor

In the meantime, I'll request RS for Theoklitos' version of events of "the Gillingham bus incident"

Many thanks --Dweller (talk) 12:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I found this source from Australia, where MT claims that ""I rolled up late for a match because I got my wires mixed up," ... "It’s not that I did not turn up but I was half an hour late."" Not sure that differs substantially from what the article says - he inexplicably missed the team bus. --Dweller (talk) 13:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While the SPA shouldn't be censoring the article, and it does appear that they are tending to eliminate items that may be well-sourced but unflattering, the fact is that the reverted version of the article has its own BLP problems. There are substantial problems with tone and statements not verified in the articles. For instance, the claim that he missed the bus is in no way substantiated by the citations. The characterization of his debut as "disastrous" is a WP:NPOV issue. That said, be advised that you're both up against WP:3RR, and to the extent that Citylights is removing NPOV issues in a BLP, they might come out on top in a 3RR case at the moment. Rather than simple reverts, the article needs a good copyedit for tone and accuracy to sources. To avoid 3RR problems, it should probably be another editor that does it. I'll try to have a look later tonight. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 21:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can probably find some sources - this is a good starting point (the Norwich local football paper) - interestingly the first article describes his debut as being in "the disastrous 7-1 home defeat to Colchester United on the opening day of the season...". My gut feeling is that the version Dweller is reverting to isn't that far out of order - the language might use copy editing for sure, but I reckon most of it could be sourced and actually strikes me as a more or less fair representation of Theoklitos' time at Norwich. I'm not sure I'd be so quick to dismiss the clear COI issues that have (apparently) developed in this case. Anyway, I might have some time later in the week to take a look myself. Blue Square Thing (talk) 23:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To add, because I don't know whether the ref is in the article just now, the match report from the Pink Un gave him 2/10. No one gets 2/10. Below 5 is an absolute disaster. That report describes his debut as "terrible". I didn't see it myself. Fortunately. Blue Square Thing (talk) 23:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the information about the Gillingham game, but using neutral language. It's well-sourced, so there's no reason for it to be removed. I've also completed a general copy-edit of the article. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 02:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Derek and the Dominos

The report states that the split between Eric Clapton and Bobby Whitlock was acrimonious.

Neither party's autobiography reports this, and they apparently remained friends - though did not work together again until 2000.

The row that split the band was between Clapton and Jim Gordon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.6.90.0 (talk) 18:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The statement about Whitlock and Clapton was unsourced, so I have replaced it with a more neutral one. You may wish to insert the information about Clapton and Gordon if you can find a reliable source for it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Screen-shot-2011-05-27-at-11.04.09-PM.png

Hi -- this asserts that it is the photo of BLP, who twittered it, while he flatly denies that he twittered it and has not been clear as to whether it is of him ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Screen-shot-2011-05-27-at-11.04.09-PM.png

It is also referenced in the BLP's article in a manner that may not be appropriate.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update -- the BLP has now admitted to it, so that is no longer an issue (though the photo is now of for speedy deletion based on copyvio issues).--Epeefleche (talk) 05:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Miguel

In 1996, Luis Miguel became the first Latin artist to receive a star in the Hollywood Walk of Fame.[2] -- this is incorrect & record-company hype. Several people preceded him:

Vikki Carr, 1981 -- http://www.walkoffame.com/vikki-carr

Desi Arnaz, 1960 -- http://www.walkoffame.com/desi-arnaz

Celia Cruz, 1987 -- http://www.walkoffame.com/celia-cruz

Xavier Cugat, 1960 -- http://www.walkoffame.com/xavier-cugat

Placido Domingo, 1995 -- http://www.walkoffame.com/pl%C3%A1cido-domingo

Gloria Estefan, 1983 -- http://www.walkoffame.com/gloria-estefan

Julio Iglesias, 1985 -- http://www.walkoffame.com/julio-iglesias

Pedro Infante, 1993 -- http://www.walkoffame.com/pedro-infante

Jose Iturbi, 1960 -- http://www.walkoffame.com/jose-iturbi

Perez Prado, 1960 -- http://www.walkoffame.com/p%C3%A9rez-prado

Tito Puente, 1990 -- http://www.walkoffame.com/tito-puente

Lalo Schifrin, 1988 -- http://www.walkoffame.com/lalo-schifrin

Ritchie Valens, 1990 -- http://www.walkoffame.com/ritchie-valens

Carmen Miranda, 1960 -- http://www.walkoffame.com/carmen-miranda Tclpups (talk) 19:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC) Tclpups (talk) 19:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Ross (consultant) - "It was also reported ..."

Rick Ross (consultant) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Diff = contentious controversial info about a BLP. Reporting here for further review and analysis. Will defer to outcome of judgment of community about this. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 00:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although I don't know a lot about the Ross person , it seems we have an article about the content Jason Scott case - Off2riorob (talk) 00:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Todd

New single-purpose account editor Deaftruth (talk · contribs) has been making numerous changes to Rob Todd recently. Many are puffery about Todd that are distinctively non-neutral, and typically lacking citations. [22] Of those that are cited, the "citations" are typically done disruptively, without care to match the article's citation style... or even <ref> tags, for that matter, and often use unacceptable sources. [23] These edits have frequently left the article a shambles. Some fly completely in the face of the cited source, and seem to be nothing but POV pushing. [24]

Further, Deaftruth has repeatedly removed from the article well-sourced, notable, but possibly embarrassing material, to wit: Todd, whose conservative "family values" stance went so far as to try and bust a condom store for selling edible panties without a food license, admitted in 2000 to having an extramarital affair with the wife of his fellow councilman. This was documented in the Houston Press,[25] which has previously been found to be a reliable source.[26] It was also mentioned in the Houston Chronicle, albeit in an editorial, so I had not included that reference in the article.[27] Deaftruth's edit statements argue that, as the article does not directly quote Todd as admitting to the affair, that the entire statement must be removed. That's not supportable by facts or by policy, and by omitting it, we would violate not only WP:NPOV but the BLP—which says we have to report fairly, including those facts that are well-sourced but potentially embarrassing.

I have tried to communicate with Deaftruth on his talk page [28] but the user has refused to engage in dialogue, whether on user talk pages or the article talk page. The only attempt at communication has been through terse edit comments as part of reverts. While reading these edit comments, I'm struck by how the structure and word choice of them mirror users Democratsunited (talk · contribs) (which may be a previous account, based on timeline and the fact that the name of that account was flagged as inappropriate) and Robertpercytodd (talk · contribs), apparently the subject of the article.

Would an admin please review this page and determine if a block is warranted for this user? I'd also welcome second opinions on the NPOV of this article. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 01:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion on Deaftruth, but I'm unpersuaded by your reasoning about including these allegations about his personal life. Certainly, our current writeup seems to push at the boundaries of what the sources report as fact. I'll write more at the talk page.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo, I've explained my reasoning for including the material, and the thoughts that went into the choice to include the material and the way I presented it, over at the talk page. Could you have a look and see if it helps, or if you can show me where our reasoning differs? // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 01:10, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kazuo Hirai

Clever folk keep trying to edit the article to say he killed himself on stage at E3 due to the Sony security breaches. Some of the editors have previous BLP warnings. - BalthCat (talk) 07:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Project Vote Smart and politician voting records

There is a discussion going on at Talk:Sandy Pasch and Talk:Jennifer Shilling, two Wisconsin politicians, about proper sourcing for a politician's voting record. With discussion also found at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#User:Tdl1060, the concern is about using two separate sources to make a novel conclusion, an apparent violation of WP:SYNTH. Here is the method:

A: A piece of legislation was reported in the news as notable.
B: A politician voted on it as seen in public records.
Therefore C: The politician's vote was notable.

The twist is that the 'B' part of the process involves not public records but Project Vote Smart, a voting records digest that has been used a lot for sourcing politicians' votes, and that is perhaps acceptable for establishing notability of the vote. For instance, this webpage describes a Wisconsin state bill called SB 2: Tax Benefits for Health Savings Accounts, as a "Key Vote", and it says Sandy Pasch voted 'no' on it. Project Vote Smart describes their own rationale for labeling a vote a "Key Vote" at this popup webpage, so apparently there is some oversight, some human selection applied by website volunteers or editors. I place little trust in VoteSmart's opaque in-house process and so I consider the votesmart.org voting records to be a primary source, failing to establish notability even with their "Key Vote" label. I would greatly prefer to see a politician's vote discussed in a news item or expert opinion column—widely read WP:SECONDARY sources which firmly establish notability.

So which is it? Does Project Vote Smart establish notability because they are a secondary source or are they a primary source, little more than a collection site for voting records? Binksternet (talk) 15:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently a secondary source - the primary source is the legislative record itself. Wikipedia articles frequently list "ratings" from various groups which are only marginally different from lists of votes. Collect (talk) 17:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally: in this particular case, not every "Key Vote" is being included, which creates a problem with possible undue emphasis on votes which an editor feels will make the subject look particularly good or bad in the eyes of voters (both these people are candidates who may be up for election in a month or so). Listing all the votes, of course, is a WP:NOT#DIRECTORY violation. Also problematic has been the way in which votes are described (for good or ill). What to one partisan is "job creation through tax relief" to another is "payoffs to rich campaign contributors through tax giveaways". --Orange Mike | Talk 17:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. As one who feels an article is in any way unbalanced can add other votes and opinions, the issue of balance is not a strong objection. Amazingly enough, we often list only a few issues for any politician, and not every single vote, so that is a non-starter. As for description of the votes, as long as the description is reasonably sourced, the same objection has the same remedy. In neither case is BLP a problem. Collect (talk) 17:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Project Vote Smart probably wouldn't establish the notability of any given vote - but notability only delimits what topics can have articles of their own, not information can be included in an article. Kevin (talk) 00:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Later life and career of Larry Norman‎

The main article on the subject, Larry Norman, has been on the long list for over a year. The concern is that the article is being artificially shortened by extracting entire sections and creating new articles from the material. That was done with Relationship of Larry Norman and Randy Stonehill although a summary of the material was left in the main article. The problem is, the recent creation of this article has removed all of the material from the article and simply transplanted it into the new article. There is now a discussion to create another article about the musician's early career leaving only biographical material behind. I don't think this is the correct solution. I believe that article contains (the articles contain) too much fan cruft and should simply edited hard to reduce size. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Negri

Here is the revision prior to this report.

The article describes numerous allegations of criminal activity with spotty citations and a general atmosphere of presuming guilt. I'm going to begin making an effort to clean this up and delete anything potentially defamatory and/or uncited suggestions and allegations, but more eyes are needed as I don't have time right this second. --Anentiresleeve (talk) 21:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mm, this does need more work. See for example a quite different perspective, with a reliable source, at Autonomia Operaia. Rd232 ^talk 22:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Diane Colley-Urquhart

Poorly sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwa210 (talk • contribs) 22:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Pieczenik

Steve Pieczenik is in an odd situation. The only thing he is really clearly notable (in WP:N terms) for is his collaboration with Tom Clancy, but almost all of the interest in his Wikipedia article is spurred by his recent involvement with Alex Jones and conspiracy theory stuff. His article was originally essentially makebelieve, but after the first version was totally stripped down, stuff about him has been cobbled together from various sources - meaning that his article is now pretty much cobbled together from single sentence tangential mentions of him from 1980's newspaper articles and similar sources. Very few WP:RSes have ever written more than a couple words about him. As a result, it's suffering from a serious lack of cohesion. Some of the stuff in the article currently clearly doesn't belong (like the fact that he consulted with the RAND corporation on a single paper) and I'm going to edit it a bit in the next couple of days, but I would appreciate if some more BLP-experienced eyes also took a looksee at the article. Kevin (talk) 00:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Meagan Broussard

This newly created article consists of one unreferenced sentence, pointing out that she is "involved in the Anthony Weiner Scandal." I put a BLP prod tag on it, because it is unreferenced, but really this has no chance of surviving because it is WP:BLP1E. Should this go straight to AfD, or ?. Thanks, First Light (talk) 04:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it was just redirected to the scandal article. Should the redirect go to AfD, or is that sufficient? First Light (talk) 04:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The main article is under discussion at AFD and looks like being kept. As the redirect seems to be a plausible search time I don't any problem with keeping it. Off2riorob (talk) 19:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I notice that her name finally appears in the article (it wasn't there when I first posted this), so it is much more plausible now. First Light (talk) 20:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Yon

He's complaining on facebook that this entry is libelous. Here is the entire thread on facebook.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some attempts to correct the worst problems with the article, and left a note on the talk page. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How bad was it?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not very bad as such things go, but not good. The crux of it is that Yon is quite outspoken and has been involved in disagreements with parts of the U.S. military hierarchy, and in disagreements with popular military blogs. Most of the section about his disagreements with the blogs was sourced to the blogs themselves, i.e. to the other party in the disagreement. There was also some wondrously non-neutral wording of that section, for example not just stating that he'd said negative things about some people, but characterising his opponents as "serving soldiers and their spouses" ... which of course is disingenuous appeal to emotion, because I'm sure a lot of his supporters are serving soldiers or their spouses, too. Plus, some of the speculation about him from his opponents was decidedly derogatory, and the article was repeating that speculation and attributing it to those opponents (the blogs) without citing an intervening secondary source.

And of course the section was not really WP:DUE WEIGHT because his notability is as a war reporter, not as a blogosphere warrior. (Although the blogs controversy has been covered by at least one reliable source.)

Quickly reading over the rest of the article, there was at least one instance of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH being used to imply something negative. There could be more like that still in there; I believe Yon has been asked to mention on the talk page any outstanding concerns about the article. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can we call Carlos the Jackal a terrorist?

At Bruno Breguet I reverted an edit referring to Carlos the Jackal which had changed 'terrorist' to 'political militant' (note I see this as a pov edit among other things). I reverted it saying sources call him a terrorist, but the same editor has restored his edit saying "diots like George Bush use the term--a more academic definition is prudent in an encyclopedia". I notice also that 'Carlos' was called a terrorist until this [29] relatively recent edit when he became a militant. Looking at a Google search for books [30] and one for news [31] I strongly dispute the idea that we should refer to him as a militant of any kind rather than the way the sources refer to him, as a terrorist. Dougweller (talk) 07:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we could give relevant weight to both opinions - as long as they are cited. Clearly there are multiple reliables to say that he was considered a terrorist by many - are there and citations that call him a militant? We could also use attribution - who is it that considers him to be a militant? note - I left User:Petey Parrot - a note regarding this thread and requested he come here to make his case. In notice Carlos the Jackal in the lede of his article is referred to as a "Venezuelan militant" but that in the body of that article is the content — "Swiss terrorist Bruno Breguet" - I also note that Carlos the jackal is included in this cat People imprisoned on charges of terrorism - Off2riorob (talk) 09:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes we certainly can. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When in doubt, look to the NYT [32] the international terrorism brand known as Carlos the Jackal, Although the terrorist born Ilich Ramírez Sánchez preaches his own gospel in “Carlos" [33] etc. for recent wording about him. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think something like "referred to as a terrorist" would be weaseling, suggesting he might not be one. Of course supporters of any form of terrorism will normally (but not always) try to claim they aren't terrorists, but I think that's irrelevant. Dougweller (talk) 13:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kittybrewster and others, please refer to guidelines such as WP:WTA before giving out incorrect advice. We really strive to avoid direct "so-and-so is a terrorist" phrasings in favor of a general description of the person/group followed by who or what has classified them as terrorists, for what reasons, etc... Look at the leads of Hamas, Hezbollah, Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda for examples. Tarc (talk) 13:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not in his article but in an article about an associate, which says "Bruno Breguet was an associate of the left-wing political militant Ilich Ramírez Sánchez, better known as "Carlos the Jackal"." - 'militant' used to read 'terrorist'. The change is I think pov. So are you saying we should say an associate of the convicted murder Ilich etc?. I'll add that for the examples you give, I think the word 'terrorism' or 'terrorist' should appear in the first paragraph, and I'm not convinced they are all good examples. Dougweller (talk) 14:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Appearing in the first paragraph is fine, in the way I stated; none of them do, or should, begin with "So-and-so is a terrorist". In this specific case, though, is a descriptor really needed? Just say "Bruno Breguet was an associate of the Ilich Ramirez Sanchez, aka "Carlos the Jackal". The nickname is sufficiently famous enough to let the reader know what's going on. Tarc (talk) 14:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WTA doesn't put it this way, but I think for accuracy it is best to clearly distinguish the sin from the sinner. The noun "terrorist" makes the sinner the embodiment of the sin, so that he is defined wholly and completely by it. This is inaccurate; even the worst user of terrorist acts is not just a terrorist. So avoid the noun "terrorist" and use the adjective "terrorist" (to describe acts) or "terrorism" (also to describe acts). Rd232 ^talk 14:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Evans (meteorologist)

There is a situation developing at this article. Apparently the subject has been using several accounts to edit the article, including the removal of trivia which has in some cases been reverted. See WT:COI/N#Bill Evans (meteorologist). Hans Adler 14:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well...I tweaked up the global denialist accusation to make it a bit more NPOV- its a bit much to label him as a denialist from a single two line comment in reply to a magazine article. I am minded to remove some of the uncited also but have not done it yet. Off2riorob (talk) 16:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to stop re-inserting this; however, Evans has made other, similar statements in his blog. Further discussion on Talk:Bill Evans (meteorologist)#Global warming position. / edg ☺ ☭ 14:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Graham

Resolved

– appears to have been a false claim and the IP user was blocked after a similar violation by User:MisterRPGnow at Bill Slavicsek - connected ANI thread Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Bill Slavicsek

I believe content being added is vandalism and a BLP violation, but I'm looking for a second set of eyes before I revert again. Content is being added about a political talk show hosts view on Dungeon & Dragons, and the sources cited don't back it up.[34] The IP so far has ignored taking it to the talk page. Just looking for a confirmation that this should be treated as vandalism and not a valid content dispute.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I left User:107.3.67.184 - a note with a link to this thread. Perhaps the user is trying to link to some content in a thread at that webforum but its only linking to the front page - anyways its not a reliable source - a web forum http://nerdtrek.com/nerdtalk is not a WP:RS even if it did have any of the claimed content in it.so the addition is presently uncited and seemingly contentious. I am not sure I would describe it as vandalism, is the user aspparently attempting to improve the wikipedia and add some content ...? Yes could well be the answer. Is it a BLP violation ... well it is contentious uncited content. Off2riorob (talk) 15:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finding it more difficult to believe it's an attempt at a constructive edit, but it may be because I've heard the program. The subject is a conservative political talk host. I suppose theoreticaly he could have an opinion on the quality comparison of various D&D games, but I think it's far more likely that it's 'add nonsense info and laugh' type vandalism.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having not heard it or even heard of the subject I will happily defer to your deeper understanding/judgement in that regard CL. Anyways, the user has been notified and its quite likely he/she won't replace it without discussion again. Off2riorob (talk) 18:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does seem to have stopped.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Top

Hi. The article on dutch actor/presenter Ronald Top has a reference to to actress Vivian Leigh. She died in 1967 and is unlikely to have known the entertaining Mr Top. I assume there's another Leigh! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.132.238 (talk) 15:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, not the actress - a writer/producer. The source seems to be www.ronaldtop.com. I cannot find a record of a writer/producer Vivian Leigh. Kittybrewster ☎ 17:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Tammet

A couple of users - or perhaps the same person under a couple of aliases - Bill121212 in particular, persist in adding contentious and poorly-sourced claims into the article in spite of earlier warnings from editor Off2riorob. The user/s ignore all warnings in their advancement of what amounts to a tiny minority conspiracy theory viewpoint.

Wikipedia's rules for biographies of living persons clearly state that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

This has been going on, in bouts, for a couple of months at least. Please provide whatever level of editorial warning/protection appropriate to prevent an edit war.

Oughtprice99 (talk) 16:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

also 12Bill. Kittybrewster ☎ 17:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have protected the article for three days in an attempt to stop the edit warring. Please proceed along the straight and narrow path of WP:DR. Favonian (talk) 17:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The basic dispute appears to be on the one side that Tammet is a Savant and Bill appears to be wanting to add weight to the claim that Tammet is more of a "memory man" - I have never seen anything reliable to support that position but if Bill wants to present his reliable externals we can look at them and see about adding something? I looked at the sources and thought a bit of undue weight and original 2 plus 2 must equal 4 research was being given to the memory man claims from a few comments Tammet had made about his early life. There seems to be only two people editing the article and one of them appears to know Tammet quite well. The issue has been going back and forward for quite a while now - we should look at adding a small comment about it, that is acceptable to both users to resolve the dispute. Off2riorob (talk) 17:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Santorum (neologism) RfC

Uninvolved eyes would be much appreciated at Talk:Santorum (neologism)#Proposal to rename, redirect, and merge content. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 16:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Gunderson (artist)

This article is for an unoriginal student painter that is not recognized by anyone but himself and the pompous school he attends. might have made the page himself or by his sidekick. either way, hope to save him the embarrassment — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr8585 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's been nominated for deletion. Your comments are a bit over the top.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

General portals in BLP articles

There's a fairly aggressive IP who believes the Bomer article should have a See also section with the following links and portals: Lists of actors, List of people from Texas, Portal:Biography, Portal:Film, Portal:Television, and Portal:Theatre. Without knowing anything about guidelines or policy, my immediate reaction was the whole thing was screwy - or to put it more formally, unhelpful to the article. So, I removed the section. The IP put it all back in with an edit summary that read: "portals are standard on artticle; take to talk page before removing again. or take up at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal_talk:Contents/Portals)."

With respect to the links (not the portals), they are duplicative of the categories in the articles, which include 20th century actors, 21st century actors, Actors from Texas, American stage actors - and the list of cats goes on. So, what's the point of having pointers to these generic lists?

As for the portals, I looked at WP:Portal, as well as some brief discussions about the use of portals and found nothing illuminating. Certainly, the IP's claim that it's "standard" is totally unsupported. I've seen very few actor articles with these portals.

To me, this is a global issue, which is why I chose to come here rather than bring it up on on the Bomer Talk page. I also don't feel like bringing it up on every different portal Talk page, although I have considered raising it in the Actors and Filmmakers project.

What do others think?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've cross-posted this to the project in the hope of getting some responses.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Traveon Rogers

Resolved

– Phantomsteve has deleted the hoax article. Dayewalker (talk) 04:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is filled with misinformation. Traveon Rogers has never achieved what is listed in this article. Rogers is notorious in the track and field world for his self-aggrandizing efforts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.182.220.152 (talk) 04:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've DB-Hoax'ed it, none of the references appear to mention him. Google doesn't really turn up anything significant, seems like a high school prank. Dayewalker (talk) 04:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And Phantomsteve has now deleted. Thanks to him, we can mark this closed. Dayewalker (talk) 04:40, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Santorum (neologism)

Problematic Edits with Santorum (neologism) Article, violations of WP:BLP, WP:NEO

We have several editors who are continually reverting changes in the Santorum (neologism) where they are introducing significant bias into this already contentious article. Discussion was requested by one of these editors and I agreed with that suggestion, with BLP being something to strongly err in favor of, however, it seems that the biased editing is going to continue unabated.

This article likens a certain former US Senator to "the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex". Several editors seem intent on saying this is a sourced article and therefore feel that they can ignore BLP concerns, but many editors including Mr. Wales have expressed severe misgiving with this attitude. A request for rename is in progress, as are several other proposals, and it seems all one can do to keep some degree of balance in the article. Please help. -- Avanu (talk) 06:46, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Point of clarification: In any of the multiple versions of the article that I have read, there is nothing that likens the senator to anything frothy. It uses the word "santorum" for that mixture, but never says that the senator himself is. Active Banana (^bananaphone 23:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected [35] until 07:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC) by Fastily. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Rubin

It seems clear that Alan Rubin probably has indeed died but I don't see a verifiable source yet. Two good-faith IP editors are keen to update the article; I've reverted it twice. Is this sensible or should I just accept that the information is probably correct, and just let it go, on the grounds that if not verifiable now it probably will be soon? I'd be grateful for some advice from those more experienced in these matters. Apologies f this enquiry is in the wrong place - please feel free to point me elsewhere if appropriate. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 11:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a mention here, but that's probably not a RS. Regretably, they don't mention their source. Ravensfire (talk) 13:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A death assertion in an article should be backed up by a reliable source, no matter how "likely" it is that it's true. I agree with Ravensfire that the Blues Brothers website is not sufficiently reliable, particularly for this sort of claim.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. If anyone wanted to watchlist the article too, so I felt less like a lone vigilante and more like a normal editor, I'd be very grateful! Cheers DBaK (talk) 16:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After repeated uncited insertions User:Bongwarrior has WP:Semi-protected the article till tomorrow. Off2riorob (talk) 18:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'm in little doubt that a citeable source will emerge (I'm watching http://www.trumpetguild.org/news/news.htm for example) but for the moment I'm glad we can try to stick to doing it properly. It's difficult to explain to people who know what they know, of course, but it is clearly the best we can do. Cheers DBaK (talk) 19:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Worst actress in Hollywood"

So there is a user going around calling actors the "worst actor/actress in Hollywood" based on a magazine article. I can't be bothered to deal with it any further, so I am bringing it to attention on here. The articles in question are Jennifer Love Hewitt, Chuck Norris and Mike Leigh. Nymf _hideliho! 23:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted the additions for all three articles (they were putting it in the lede) and the editor has been blocked for 31 hours.[36] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:34, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They've also did this to Dennis Dugan. Another editor has moved it out of the lede and into the body which I think is probably fine.[37] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:40, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Marshall

I am the living person about whom this bio was written. In the past it has been defaced with a Hit_ler photo, and with sexual perversion text, but at this present time it is being altered en-masse, IMO defaced, by editors WLU and/or Ronsword. I have reverted the edits made earlier today, listed the problems on the TALK page, and an Admin has come by suggesting I post the difficulties to this noticeboard, before a reversion war starts.

The specific policy which is being violated is that editors WLU, and/or Ronsword, are adding incorrect factual information to a BLP, and removing relevant factual information, without first discussing the issues on the TALK page, in order to reach an editorial consensus.

The result is that my character and contributions to Science are being demeaned.

I hope somebody can help, because honestly, I have better things to do than answering a flood of emails from people wanting to know what has happened to my Wikipedia Bio.

Sincerely Trevor Marshall

Adjunct Professor, Faculty of Health Sciences, Murdoch University, Western Australia

Director, Autoimmunity Research Foundation, a California 501(c)3 corporation

Trevmar (talk) 01:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see that on the Trevor_Marshall:TALK page WLU has now claimed that he is Prof Trevor Marshall, and not me, and has said that a Nature Publishing Group peer-reviewed paper is not reliable, or something like that, along with a number of other claims. More important, he has reverted the bio to his demeaning and factually incorrect edits of earlier today. Would somebody please help get the bio back to the situation it has been in for the past few months. A number of things that earlier editors have written are not completely correct, presumably they can be corrected by consensus, but this WLU is something altogether beyond my comprehension.

Trevmar (talk) 02:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw that, and I have asked for clarification, as it is rather concerning. Perhaps I am merely misunderstanding his comment.

Trevmar, would you prefer that the Wikipedia article about you merely be deleted, to avoid misleading information being published? I do not claim that this is definitely possible, but it is one alternative that might be possible. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Demiurge, thanks for your help. I was speaking at a conference in China last year and one of the audience turned around their laptop proudly, and there was my Wikipedia bio on the display. Wikipedia is an important "go to" source for information about notable individuals. I think that it is valuable for the public to be able to read about my work, even when quite a lot is missing, as has been the case for the last few months. In fast-moving scientific fields IMO there needs to be a more reliable method to update, especially, for example, published papers, rather than rely upon a knowledgeable editor chancing across the bio page. I would not like the bio to be deleted, especially if such a move was precipitated by some form of victimization, as seems to be the case at the moment. The article did survive a deletion attempt on Christmas Day (approx) in 2007. Trevmar (talk) 03:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dirk Nowitzki

The description of Dirk Nowitzki as "an alien shit stabber disguised as a German professional basketball player," which appears at the beginning of the bio could be taken as offensive. If there is any other way to take it, then I am ignorant of the reference.

It was transient vandalism that looks like it was caught and reverted by cluebot within a few seconds of being posted. If you noticed it, you just had really lucky timing. Kevin (talk) 03:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 1,218: / Line 1,218: @@
 :::Trevmar, would you prefer that the Wikipedia article about you merely be deleted, to avoid misleading information being published? I do not claim that this is definitely possible, but it is one alternative that ''might'' be possible. --[[User:Demiurge1000|Demiurge1000]] ([[User_talk:Demiurge1000|talk]]) 03:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
-::::Demiurge, thanks for your help. I was speaking at a conference in China last year and one of the audience turned around their laptop proudly, and there was my Wikipedia bio on the display. I think that it is valuable for the public to be able to read about my work, even when quite a lot is missing, as has been the case for the last few months. In fast-moving scientific fields there needs to be a more reliable method to update, especially, for example, published papers, rather than rely upon a knowledgeable editor chancing across the bio page. '''I would not like the bio to be deleted''', especially if such a move was precipitated by some form of victimization, as seems to be the case at the moment. The article did survive a deletion attempt on Christmas Day (approx) in 2007. [[User:Trevmar|Trevmar]] ([[User talk:Trevmar|talk]]) 03:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
+::::Demiurge, thanks for your help. I was speaking at a conference in China last year and one of the audience turned around their laptop proudly, and there was my Wikipedia bio on the display. Wikipedia is an important "go to" source for information about notable individuals. I think that it is valuable for the public to be able to read about my work, even when quite a lot is missing, as has been the case for the last few months. In fast-moving scientific fields IMO there needs to be a more reliable method to update, especially, for example, published papers, rather than rely upon a knowledgeable editor chancing across the bio page. '''I would not like the bio to be deleted''', especially if such a move was precipitated by some form of victimization, as seems to be the case at the moment. The article did survive a deletion attempt on Christmas Day (approx) in 2007. [[User:Trevmar|Trevmar]] ([[User talk:Trevmar|talk]]) 03:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 == Dirk Nowitzki ==

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