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

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:13, 14 July 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)

Andrew Chenge - missing source

Resolved

– Source found and added to article.

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.

Finding source... JoeGazz ▲ 15:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found a source and added it to the article. That source should be acceptable and work. JoeGazz ▲ 14:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aelita Andre

Hello, I'm writing here because I want to clarify a few things regarding a recent series of edits made on an article that I wrote and am maintaining, Aelita Andre. Earlier today, User:Cramyourspam made four successive edits to the article, the end result of which was:

(1) The addition of critical information about the article's subject sourced only by a private blog.

(2) The addition of an autobiography tag justified with a statement that I, the article's author, "seem" close to the subject because there isn't really anything negative about her in the article. I contested this on the article's talk page, because it isn't true and because nearly every sentence of the article is followed by 1 to 3 inline citations from reliable sources, so the accusation was sort of ridiculous.

Because this user made four uninterrupted edits in a row, I undid them with four uninterrupted edits in a row. I'm afraid now that someone might see this as more than 3 edits in a 24-hour period, but this was actually a single edit in 4 parts (since the other user did not edit between my 4 edits). Additionally, these edits were done in order to remove contentious material in a BLP. Curiously, this user's page explicitly states that edits to the user's personal talk page are not welcome. Because I wanted to draw the user's attention to the article's talk page so we could have a discussion, I simply reverted the next edit that he (or she) made with an edit summary stating "Cramyourspam, I undid this only to let you know I want to talk about this on the Talk Page since you don't want messages on your page." If anyone here is interested in the full chronology of events and in everything that was said on the article's talk page, please take a look. I hope for two things from you:

(1) I'd like some form of confirmation that the situation is understood in case anyone sees, at a quick glance, that I made the three uninterrupted reverts in a row, and in case that person doesn't notice that these are all really a single change undone in the same consecutive steps in which they were created in the first place. Moreover, I want to point out immediately that the motivation behind the edits was to remove contentious, poorly sourced information in a BLP. I strongly encourage anyone interested to view this page in detail.

(2) Although an uninvolved rollbacker chanced upon the page, reverted it to its original state (what it was before Cramyourspam's first edit), and helped to resolve the issue by now, I would like some feedback on how I handled the situation so I can improve my response in similar situations in the future. Of course, if you don't have time to do that, I understand.

Thank you for your time, Armadillopteryx^talk 02:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3rr has an explicit statement in it somewhere to the effect that consecutive reverts are all counted as one - you won't have any problems there. The other user's talk page looks pretty weird - it's not something I've seen on a talk page before and seems pretty strongly contrary to the spirit of collaboration. I'm going to notify them that there is an ongoing noticeboard discussion about them - which would normally be polite but will probably be interpreted as rude in this situation but seems a good thing to do anyway. Kevin (talk) 02:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's fine. I'll check this page regularly to see when more information is added. Thank you! Armadillopteryx^talk 02:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You did well. (Incidentally, any statement on a user talk page that comments in general aren't welcome may be freely ignored. After all, "the purpose of user talk pages is to draw the attention or discuss the edits of a user".) -- Hoary (talk) 04:33, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

cramyourspam here. on the article discussion page, arm'x asked for real research. it was already in the article i used originally ("Reports of Art World Acclaim For 4-Year Old Artist Dupe Global Media" http://grumpyvisualartist.blogspot.com/2010/12/blog-post_9002.html ) which you deleted --the article on that art writer's blog. from that article (and i'll just copy the art writer's references):

[blockquote] Wikipedia sums it up well: "A vanity gallery is an art gallery that charges artists fees to exhibit their work and makes most of its money from artists rather than from sales to the public." ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanity_gallery ) According to an article by artist/gallerist/critic Lenny Campello: because a vanity gallery rents out its walls, "the main driver in having a show at a vanity gallery is not necessarily the quality of the artwork, but the artist's ability to pay the gallery to host his/her artwork." ( http://blogcritics.org/culture/article/vanity-galleries/ ) Campello continues, critics and curators ignore such venues "much like book critics ignore most self-published writers, who use 'vanity publishers'." ( http://blogcritics.org/culture/article/vanity-galleries/ )

Lest they incur bad publicity, vanity galleries don't generally admit to being pay-to-play venues, but enough information appears on Agora's website to connect the dots. From Agora's submissions page: "Please note that Agora Gallery charges an annual fee for its representation and promotion services." ( http://www.agora-gallery.com/artistinfo/postal_submissions.aspx ) From Agora's FAQ page: "If I am accepted what is the cost of the annual promotion and representation.... We offer a few options starting from $2950."( http://www.agora-gallery.com/artistinfo/faqs.aspx ) For a solo exhibit, "Please email sales@agora-gallery.com for more information" --note the telltale email address: sales. ( http://www.agora-gallery.com/gallery2/ ).

To split hairs, Agora doesn't officially require fee payment to exhibit, but instead does require purchase of promotional services. No such purchase: no exhibit. It is therefore pay-to-play --just paying for required "promotion" rather than for exhibition. There is little real difference.[/blockquote]

so there's some research. you can see that the gallery's own website explains the requirement for exhibitors to pay promotions fees to be allowed a show; wp and others explain that pay-to-play venues are vanity galleries. if you're going to argue that the gallery's own website doesn't count, you should step out of the loop and leave the article to less biased-looking writers. Cramyourspam (talk) 02:17, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's already described at Aelita Andre as being a vanity gallery, so I'm unsure as to what the point of your post was. I don't mean that sarcastically - please clarify what you meant/what action you were trying to bring about. Kevin (talk) 03:17, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just posted this on the article's talk page, but it appears the same reply is relevant here: I don't know why Cramyourspam keeps insisting on using that private blog as a source in anything on Wikipedia, much less a BLP. It's not a reliable source now and will never be, so I would like to understand why there has been so much insistence on blog use here. Armadillopteryx^talk 07:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because Cramyourspam's post here is copied and pasted from the article talk page, I'm also going to copy and paste the second half of my response here:

Listen, I'm a patient person, but I don't take kindly to your repeated personal attacks accusing me of bias, being close to the subject, etc. I would mind less than most people if you actually justified any of what you've said about me, but so far your only arguments have been variants of the fact that the article doesn't include the fact that it's a vanity gallery (which it now does, by the way) or say many negative things. Well, at best, that's a weak argument for NPOV, but nowhere in there is it justified to attack me as a source close to the subject or as a biased writer. Moreover, even your NPOV ideas can't go anywhere because until a reliable news sources publishes a critical story about the subject, we can't put in anything more negative than the fact that the Agora is a vanity gallery. We can't go into criticism of her without explicit sources of the criticism. Please read WP:BLP. Armadillopteryx^talk 07:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

( ... However, this is secondary to what Kevin noted above, which is that the Agora Gallery is already introduced as a vanity gallery in the article, with the citation being from the gallery's website, as it has been since 01:07 on 17 June.) Armadillopteryx^talk 23:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

mohamed faarax aidid

somalia has never had a president since mohamed siad barre (1991) - ali mahdi mohamed was a self-declared one but for a short period of time between january and june 1991. Please remove mohamed faarax aidid and hussein mohamed faarax aidid from somalian presidents' list. There is no somalia central state since 1991. Merci

family kocovic

AS I REMEMBER as a child about my fathers side of the family, Kocovic, my grandparents Savo and Milijana have roots in Monte Negro, now I am not completely sure how long ago was that family Kocovic migrated, however they settled in Ribnica, near Kraljevo. Savo and Milijana had Cedomir, Dragomir, Milijana (Mica), Dusan (my father) and three other kids. My grandfather Savo is killed during WW-II on his doorstep by chetniks, while his two sons where killed in Banjica, concentration camp, during WW-II. Their property has been confiscated by Yugoslavian goverment in 1945. and they are left with small block of land. All of Kocovic family has been fighting against fashist regime, some of them has perished but some of them like Milijana, Dusan, Cedomir and Dragomir survived WW-II. Kocovic Dragomir (nearly blind) and Kocovic Dusan have had carear in Yugoslav army, long time retired before civil war on Balkans erupted.

Clifford Vaughs

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

In 1969, Clifford Vaughs and Lew Irwin were awarded by the Associated Press California, "Best Documentary" for "Berkely Third World or Third Reich". Special award for "The Most Creative Presentation of the News" for "Credibility Gap". Vaughs and Irwin formed VIP (Vaughs/Irwin Productions) and produced the shows at KRLA radio, Pasadena California. "Credibility Gap" went into syndication.

J. Patrick Capps

I am the subject of this article, and while I am flattered someone thinks enough of me to create a wikipedia page, I am concerned it might detract from my work. I will request that my page be deleted as soon as possible.J. Patrick Capps Monday, June 20, 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.193.33.174 (talk • contribs)

Ernesto J. Cordero

1) In the level of PERSONAL LIFE it appears that he dropped out the Ph. D. in Economics. This is false, his current status is all but dissertation (ABD)

2) Controversy: His net earnings are not 200,000 pesos. The correct info is 145, 000 pesos. ^[1]

3)Controversy: This is the transcript with the exact words in page 8. ^[2]

Pauline Nyiramasuhuko

Her article lacks a date of birth, and there's no right-hand sidebar of vital statistics as all other biographic articles seem to have. Given that an international court has just convicted her, surely her approximate age has been stated *somewhere* ?

Zvonko Bušić

An editor identified only by IP address (66.151.103.8) recently appeared and violated the BLP policy in several ways, by adding false and libelous statements. See the talk page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zvonko_Bu%C5%A1i%C4%87 The editor has very deep POV issues and should not in my opinion be editing this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sowberryhagan (talk • contribs) 15:34, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted the IP's changes to the lead based on BLP. However, that really doesn't resolve the problems with the article, which reads like a rant. When discussing the subject's background, the section header is "Terrorist's background". In the Hijacking section, the word terrorist or terrorists is mentioned so many times I lost count. The only cite for the section is the appellate opinion (which I have to look at to see if it supports the hyperbole). In a later section there is the following amazing sentence: "Freeing this Croatian terrorist from a life sentence and shipping him to his homeland caused the disgust of relatives of the city cop he murdered more than 30 years ago." This article is a disaster.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've made substantial revisions to the article and commented on the Talk page. I've already reverted one IP's attempt to undo my changes. There seem to be two IP camps, one pro-Busic and one anti-Busic. Both are causing problems. More experienced editors watching would be helpful.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:28, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I had a look earlier and the article clearly required a wikification, well done - adding to my watchlist now. Off2riorob (talk) 17:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This group is involved in disqualifying the existed edits and throwing false accusations. On the article talk page I've provided clear proofs that all my edits are strictly supported by the US Court documents, reliable references about terrorism and articles coming from the mainstream media. This way I've provided clear and lawful qualification of this act of air piracy and bombing as terrorism. The above accusations and support to them is some kind of canvassing.--71.191.31.183 (talk) 17:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Primary American court documents ... what do the secondary reliable reports say? Please see WP:BLPPRIMARY - lookinf at the article there are a lot of primary PDF's and a court docket - the only one I can see that is in English and secondary independent and wiki reliable is http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/19/nyregion/19parole.html - and it refers to Croatian independence fighters and you seem to be moving the focus towards terrorist - - Off2riorob (talk) 17:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is there will be reliable sources that will use the word "terrorist", but that doesn't mean we can repeat it as a label of a BLP. This particular person is notable for having hijacked the plane. He was convicted of hijacking (air piracy). He was NOT convicted of being a terrorist. Even if the term is used carelessly in the mainstream media, we can't use it - it goes too far. Some people are going to think of him as a terrorist, and others are going to think of him as a political revolutionary fighting for a cause. We can't label him as either.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:07, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- There are many of them: mainstream media: Time, New York Times, textbooks about terrorism. Did you read any of thle at all? Far from enough for you to defend nonsense. As a criminal and terrorist, Busic was expelled from the US, no matter which way you are interpreting Wikipedia rules. One of the Wikipedia pillars is the Fifth pillar. Please, learn about it as bit more — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.31.183 (talk) 18:08, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Judge says in the article, During sentencing, the trial judge, John Bartels, stated on the record that he did not consider Bušić "a terrorist or a criminal" and that although his methods were wrong - Off2riorob (talk) 18:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Frankly, I don't care how many mainstream media reports you come up using the adjective "terrorist". The only way it could possibly be relevant is if the article discussed the differing points of view as to who Busic was, what he stood for, etc. Certainly a Pandora's box, but not unheard of on Wikipedia. But that is still quite different from labeling him a terrorist.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:14, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, you, Off2riorob, are supporting forgeries. Show us the document containing the quoted text! Moreover, the three other judges are clear: terrorism is terrorism. The US law is clear: this is an example of heinous terrorism.--71.191.31.183 (talk) 18:18, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To Bbb23: You do not read the Court document, you do not care about the mainstream media, Pope John Paul VI who publicly codemned this heinous act of terrorism, you do not know anything about scholars point of view about this case, but you still know more than I do. Who are you sir/madam?--71.191.31.183 (talk) 18:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the accusations against me looks like that Wikipedia supports forgeries and whitewashing. Now a petty Balkans terrorist cannot be called terrorist even though he was sentenced for an act of terrorism: air piracy and bombing (which was the root cause for a person's death and injuries of others) on the USA soil. Is this Balkans Wikipedia or something else?--66.151.103.8 (talk) 12:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IP 71.191.31.183, who was blocked for 72 hours for edit warring, is back and continues to insist on reinserting unsourced, unencyclopedic, inappropriate information in the article. I could use some more eyes. I will revert one more time but am then logging off.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:24, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is now back in the same miserable state it was before I worked on it. Some examples:

The opening: "Zvonko Bušić (born 1946) is a terrorist". It cites to the Encycloped of World Crime. We have an article about the author (Jay Nash) of that book, criticizing its many inaccuracies. In any event, given Busic's conviction and the controversy surrounding his actions, it is an inappropriate label.

The Hijacking section uses the word "terrorist" over and over. It also has far too many details considering that there is a main article on the hijacking. Finally, some of the information is simply inaccurate and not supported by the source.

The Reactions section is an incredibly slanted article on comments from the victims' families. It opens with: "Freeing this terrorist from a life sentence and shipping him to his homeland caused the disgust of relatives of the city cop he murdered more than 30 years ago."

--Bbb23 (talk) 14:27, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like that this individual Bbb23 does not read or, even worse, does not understand the references supporting the text I wrote. All his/her improvements are based on preserving blog-like nationalistic propaganda which tries to sell nonsense about the noble cause of an ordinary Balkans terrorist which crime is clearly classified by the international law and the U.S. Code as a terrorism, and for which he got life imprisonment here in the USA. Bbb23 does not offer any knowledge about law and crime, yet still he knows what is right and what is not. Just count the number of references (criminology, mainstream media, court documents) he removed from the text. What is terrorism is clear from U.S. Code Title 22, Ch.38, Para. 2656f(d); it is written in a way understandable to a fifth grader. If anything is miserable here then it is clearly an attitude not based on common sense and any knowledge of the subject under the discussion.

Shame on Wikipedia for allowing this miserable propaganda hurting us who lost our friend and relative Brian Murray!!

--71.191.31.183 (talk) 22:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BLP vandalism testing sandbox

I made this page for testing purposes a while ago and kind of forgot about it till just now. How it works is explained on the talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why this belongs on this noticeboard, although it can raise issues since the content that breaches WP:BLP is live in some page. I personally don't think this is a good idea unless we are doing this involving a fake person. I am against this. JoeGazz ▲ 18:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Hackel

Mark Hackel is an elected official whose father was convicted of a serious felony. I've been having a disagreement with another user about the issue; he wishes to include this information in Mark's article while I think it should not be. The talk page and article history should tell the tale more fully, but in short I believe the conviction is not sufficiently relevant to Mark's notability to be included and is merely inflammatory, which as I understand the policy would make it a BLP issue. Could we get some eyes more familiar with the nuances of BLP than I to see if it actually is or not? Imyourfoot (talk) 20:13, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agreed with you completely until I read the particulars, specifically that Hackel's father held the position of sheriff and was forced to resign because of this felony, upon which he was replaced by Hackel himself. This seems to a pretty significant matter concerning public officeholders and their offices and directly related to the subject of the article as the felony was the reason the subject assumed a public office. It does seem ridiculous to put his father's conviction in the introduction, though. There's no way to justify putting those kinds of irrelevant specifics in the intro to his son's article. I would leave out many of the specifics and limit the discussion to the "Macomb County Sheriff" section only. Gamaliel (talk) 23:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. You make a good point regarding how it was relevant to him becoming sheriff, so I'll go ahead and follow your suggestion. Imyourfoot (talk) 23:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work. I imagine that edit will be satisfactory to all the editors on that article. Gamaliel (talk) 17:51, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Deibert

For some time now, I have been trying to clean up a low-importance article on the American journalist and author Michael Deibert but a user registered as Context23 keeps vandalizing it. Chiefly, Context23 continues to link to what I believe is highly contentious and possibly libelous material in the form of an article attacking Deibert by a Haitian politician named Patrick Elie (one of Deibert’s specialities appears to be Haiti) in a website I have never heard of before. I researched Elie and found that he evidently has a history of making false claims (on his website, Deibert links to articles chronicling how Elie spent time in prison for falsely claiming to be a diplomat and using a false address on a federal firearms transaction in connection to some sort of apparent assassination plot), so I am very worried that this link goes several steps beyond Wiki’s no-libel policy. There is already one article linked to critical of Deibert’s writing from the New Left Review and that article falls well within Wiki’s standards. However, I find the second article - the one that Context23 continuously links to - and another one linked to by someone named Diana Barahona that accuses Deibert of libel - do not. Thoughts? Thank you for taking time to help with this! Just trying to make Wiki a better community for all concerned! MultiWorlds (talk) 00:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Read the discussion page for user Context23, they appear to have some sort of personal/animus towards Deibert, and intend to keep defacing and vandalizing article. Not sure what policy is on this. MultiWorlds (talk) 13:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, all. User Context23 is sending repeated communications/messages to me that now border on harassment. Any ideas on the policy for this? Thanks! MultiWorlds (talk) 01:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editing the 'Michael Deibert' article, comments by user: Context23

First of all I have to admit that the frequency of my edits in the past 48 hours has been excessive, I do understand that and will refrain from making such frequent edits in any articles in a given 24 hour period.

In regard to the Michael Deibert <"Michael Deibert" on Wikipedia article on Wikipedia: Wikipedia user Multiworlds User talk: Multiworlds has repeatedly deleted references with links to newspaper articles [Podur, Justin. Kofi Annan's Haiti New Left Review, January-February 2006 2006, Retrieved 6 July 2011] [Barahona, Diana. How to Turn a Priest Into a Cannibal CounterPunch. Feb 03/04, 2007. Retrieved Jul 05, 2011] [Elie, Patrick[ Haitian Activist Speaks out Against Deibert's anti-Haiti Propaganda| Haiti ProgresVol. 24, No. 2, 2006, Retrieved 6 July 2011, mirrored on indybay.org] documenting the massive amount of criticism Deibert's journalism has received, especially where it pertains to his reporting on Haiti.

The differential edits <Wikipedia:"Michael Deibert" article revisions Revision as of 00:08, 8 July 2011 by Context23 compared to revision as of 01:25, 8 July 2011 by Multiworlds do show my high frequency editing, but also serve to document that both the edition to the article as well as the references used, stay very well within the scope of user guidelines for wikipedia, and that any disputes should have been resolved on the discussion page. That of course includes me, which I must also admit that previously, I had not laid out my reasons for the edits with due diligence as could have been hoped for. I do realize that the need for discussion is implicit, but it should come from all sides involved in the editing process in order to result in Wikipedia articles that are of any value.

The range of Michael Deibert's vociferous critics includes among others Haitian, Canadian and U.S. activists for example a former Haitian government official in several administrations, political activist and writer: Patrick Elie [Elie, Patrick. Taking us to democracy like cattle to a killing house Dec 14, 2005. ZNet. Retrieved Jul 07, 2011], as well a plethora of journalists from the Caribbean nation and abroad such as Justin Podur: [see: A dishonest Case for a Coup [Podur Justin. A Dishonest Case for a Coup. ZNet. February 16, 2006. Retrieved Jul 07, 2011.]: part of a dialogue with the writer Michael Deibert].

The criticism, ranging from the very well documented and researched to perhaps more deceptive claims, gives strong evidence that any objective article about Deibert should mention both the quantitative as well as qualitative discussions Michael Deiberts book and articles have engendered. It is not within the scope of the Wikipedia/Deibert article to examine all claims, may they be proven or unproven, in regard to the journalistic merits of Michael Deibert's journalistic skills, instead, in order to have any merit, it is imperative that the article examines both any positive as well as negative connotations being associated with Deibert's media contributions.

The claim that articles that were linked to by me ^[3] are potentially libelous is especially spurious in light of the fact that Mr. Deibert very frequently uses the accusation of libel in his comments and articles [see for example the numerous comments the writer leaves in public forums.[Deibert, Michael. [1]]

Deibert's journalism has included allegations of child sacrifice: ["The charges culminate with Deibert’s uncritical reiteration of a gang leader’s claim, from his Florida exile, that a baby missing from a Port-au-Prince hospital had been kidnapped by So Anne and murdered in a vodou ritual to strengthen Aristide." by a well known Haitian activist, Annette Auguste a.k.a. Sò Anne AMR 36/003/2006: Amnesty International Amnesty International Appeal case

Some of the media's claims against Deibert may be libelous, but in much the same fashion as his spurious and undocumented claims of child sacrifice in Haiti, just to stay with one example. No one has ever brought any allegations of this sort before a court in Haiti or abroad and no documents of verifiable testimony exist to make these claims any less absurd as they are even on superficial examination, given the well documented track record of of Annette Auguste as a community activist singer and grass roots activist in both Brooklyn, NY and Haiti. Interview with noted Haitian writer Edwidge Danticat and Annette “Sò An” Auguste. WBAI Radio NYC. Oct 21, 2006.

Furthermore Vodoun, the main religion of Haiti that Deibert implicates as being involved in child sacrifice in the case of Anette Auguste, is not mentioned in academic literature as being involved in human sacrifice which is not prevalent in contemporary Haiti.

Given the facts at hand: that Michael Deibert has made several highly defaming cklaims, to date unverified or backed up with primary research materials, it should not be considered potentially libelous to include articles into the Wikipedia/Deibert article that merely serve to illustrate the contentiousness of his writing. None of the changes to the "Michael Deibert" article as edited by me, contain anything that could be construed as defamatory or libelous.

The article is very one-sided in its current form and mainly reads like a public relations piece about the author. Without any references providing a more balanced viewpoint, the article merely mirrors the authors own web-pages michaeldeibert.com and has no encyclopedic value.

comment added by: User: Context23 (talk) 01:59, 9 July 2011 (UTC) cleaned up my comments Context23 (talk) 04:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I do not think this page is the forum to discuss this further, this should ultimately take place on the Michael Deibert talk page. 04:39, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Editing the 'Michael Deibert' article, comments by user: MultiWorlds

Hi, Context23. You seem to have some strong personal animus towards Diebert, which I don't really understand but which I don't think really has a place guiding edits on any subject on Wikipedia.

It appears the Deibert did accuse Patrick Elie of libel here and apparently responds to his claim with a third party source. As already noted by others, someone not remembering being on the steps of a church on particular day does not rise to BLP standards and, at any rate, Elie had already been imprisoned for lying before. It seems important to you to present a critical view of Diebert's work, but I think the New Left Review article does that well and much more convincingly than the other two articles you have attempted to link to both of which, in my view, cross the line into potentially libelous. Somebody writing an article that you happen to agree with doesn't make their opinion noteworthy for inclusion. Diana Barahona, for instance, is mentioned almost nowhere with regards to Haiti if one does a search on Google Scholar, which is the same case with Justin Podur when it comes to Haiti (he appears to be some sort of forestry professor or something)

I found a number of articles defending^[4]^[5] Deibert and his writing, as well. Should we link to them all? It could be endless. The debate section would be longer than the article itself which was already overlong and helpfully streamlined by other editors here.

From what I can tell, Diebert in general writes very sympathetically about voodoo^[6]^[7] so I think your concerns there may be a little overblown. Deibert's writings^[8] about this So Anne person also do not reflect your comments. See following:

In July 2003, Johnny Occilius made his now-famous declaration on Radio Kiskeya of So Anne’s alleged-involvement with the baby’s disappearance and death, followed one month later by former Lavalas deputy mayor of Port-au-Prince Jean-Michard Mercier, who supported in every detail Occilius’ account and expanded upon it. Sonia Desrosiers, the widow of Roland Francois - the Port-au-Prince gang leader who was kidnapped and killed in July 2003 - then gave her own account to Radio Vision 2000. Readers and listeners are free to make up their own minds about the veracity or not of the various explanations of the child's disappearance. In my view, at least, the episode in no way reflects upon vodou, Haiti’s poignant spiritual blend of its African and European heritage, as a whole. I have enjoyed attendance at many vodou ceremonies around the country since 1997, and urge other journalists to treat the belief system with interest and respect given its political significance to the country.

MultiWorlds (talk) 00:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't summarize your positions concisely, no one will read or respond to them. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nalin de Silva

Resolved

– Editor was informed on talkpage about editing behavior and is expected to stop edits as described below.

Please look to the talk page for a little background. I think this editor's additions are still coming off as biased and problematic, but I'm not sure how to deal with them, since he seems to be trying in good faith and I known nothing about the topic. Diff:[2] ‡ MAHEWA ‡ • talk 05:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Working I will work on this and see what I can do to contact him. I would personally inform him about WP:COI and WP:NEUTRAL. JoeGazz ▲ 18:04, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've informed the editor on his talkpage. I am going to mark this as {{resolved}} since all that was needed is to speak to the author and then communicate with him to get him to stop editing the page in such a way as described above. If the editor makes more edits like the above, please re-bring this up on this noticeboard and someone may need to impose restrictions. JoeGazz ▲ 18:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Cohen

Cohen has written in The Spectator that his Wikipedia biography has been used as part of the vast left-wing soncpiracy: Diary, 9 July 2011.

See [3]. Needs attention. Brought up at ANI by someone else as well. Dougweller (talk) 12:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely full of problems. I'm addressing some, but would welcome some other eyes. --Dweller (talk) 15:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also related to the Hari business, below. David Allen Green has tweeted about this, he has a large following. Guy (Help!) 15:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I neither know, nor care, anything about the politics of this, but trying to paint someone as an alcoholic because of a single incident with three bad sources, is BLP manipulation at its slimiest. --Dweller (talk) 15:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I recall this editor's edits to Richard Littlejohn, a well-known right-wing columnist, causing BLP problems, so we probably need to look at what else he's edited. Just commenting on a point made at the ANI discussion before it was moved here that he doesn't appear to have edited recently, as I recall he does also edit as an IP. January (talk) 16:05, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This refers to David r from meth productions (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), yes? I am happy for us all to issue a final warning re edits to biographies if that would help at all. Certainly if he plays fast and loose wiht biographies he is asking for a ban, since that seems to be his sole interest here. Guy (Help!) 16:20, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the BLP problems with this article are so serious they merit restarting it from scratch. I've just reduced it to a stub, removing all the contentious content; it should only be re-expanded cautiously and in line with BLP. Robofish (talk) 23:42, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Johann Hari

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

This columnist for The Independent has recently become embroiled in several apparently well substantiated accusations of plagiarism [4]. However our coverage of these accusations (some of which emerged mere days ago) is not always as well sourced as it should be, with at least one accusation sourced solely to a blog. Attention to the sourcing of this article is needed. --TS 13:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Cohen (see previous section above) has pointed out that User:David r from meth productions appears to know intimate details of Hari's biography, has made glowing edits to Hari's own page whilst putting "vile accusations" on the articles of people Hari has had spats with, such as Cristina Odone, Francis Wheen, Andrew Roberts and Niall Ferguson. Someone might want to take a look through his edits? 86.31.137.176 (talk) 22:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Users have been attempting to make reference to the Wikipedia editing in Hari's article. January (talk) 21:59, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's now a whole section in the article on it – Johann Hari#Accusations of using Wikipedia to self-promote. It's been referenced in Damian Thompson's blog in The Telegraph which is being used as a source. January (talk) 22:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Navy–Vieques protesters and supporters

This article is a list of people -- most of them alive -- purportedly involved in civil disobedience whose only reference was a now-of-line website. I wonder what we do with that. --damiens.rf 18:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the first step of removing all redlinked and unlinked names per WP:NLIST (and, by extension, WP:BLP). I also removed that not-a-reference (website it was on is not a neutral, reliable source). However, I'm still not certain that the article itself is valid; I don't think it's typical to list people based on opinions they hold. I'm tempted to take it to AfD, but I need the input of others, because I know that my opinion on what makes an acceptable list article is not always in line with mainstream consensus, so I don't want to nominate it if it's likely to be kept. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:57, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It clearly needs reliably citing and dates adding as to when and what these people allegedly said - if its not improved in the near future I will start moving it to the talkpage so that interested users/editors can cite it and replace it. Whether its a noteworthy topic for a list is a bit dubious. Off2riorob (talk) 08:55, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

sayuki

By geisha tradition geisha do not reveal age. Sayuki is the first white geisha in Japan. Having Wikipedia reporting her age, when the Japanese media do not do so out of respect for tradition, puts Sayuki in an awkward position and at a disadvantage in her career. As a living person this is not appropriate.

Various editors keep on reverting content about Sayuki to read as if she is no longer a geisha, and put the article into the past tense. This is harmful to the career of a living person if people believe that she is no longer working and do not contact her as a result of Wikipedia editing.

The title of one of the cited articles is "First Western Geisha" referring to Sayuki. Yet the editors keep saying that another woman is the first Western geisha though there is no evidence anywhere that she debuted as a geisha or was paid as one i.e. she did not work as a geisha. To be a geisha one must formally debut in a geisha district and Sayuki was the first white woman to do so on record. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.32.102.27 (talk) 01:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These issues and others have been raised many times on this board and on the Graham Talk page. Here is one example. This is nothing new, and the IP (a single purpose account) - usually the one raising the issues - is often involved in tendentious editing of the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:05, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This IP and another IP (no doubt the same person), continue to alter the article to suit what they believe is correct and appropriate. In so doing, they remove reliably sourced information without consensus for their point of view. Does anyone think I'll have any luck requesting semi-protection for the article? I don't usually do that for content disputes, but this borders on vandalism, at least the broader definition of vandalism, and the only other option, as I did once before, is to request blocks for 3RR or edit-warring, which is much more time-consuming and tedious.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:15, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm no admin, but if I were one I think I'd consider the request. I don't watch BLP/N like a hawk, but this is hardly the first time I've seen a version of this complaint arise. You're right, it's not a valid complaint per WP:CENSOR, and it's a time sink. If it's mostly IP SPAs, it would be an effective way to reduce the problem. The thing is that it would need to be long-term to be useful, and someone will complain that a long-term semiprotect goes against WP:Anyone can edit (a valid concern). That's the sticky part... // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 15:28, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I requested semi-protection and got full protection until July 13. The article still needs work (along with a companion article), but I'm content to leave it alone. It's hard to work on the other problems with this kind of single-minded agenda in the way. We'll see if it returns after the protection expires.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:11, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Admiral Arun Prakash

I happen to be the subject of this article, so it falls under the category of "biographies of living persons". In its basic form the article is accurate and unexceptionable. However from time to time I find that someone edits it to add material which is not just unverifiable but false and concocted as well as defematory and libelious in nature. I have edited out the objectionable material earlier, but this malicious person keeps re-inserting it. I have again edited the article today; 9th July 2011. I would be grateful if a watch could be kept on this page and a recurrence prevented. Identification of the person would help me to initiate legal action against him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Funnyrat (talk • contribs) 08:53, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can view the edits to the article about Arun Prakash, and who made them, at this link.

The problematic edits seem to have been introduced by User:Mukerjee. Although he provided references supporting some of the statements he added, I don't find the references sufficient or convincing for the material he added or its tone.

I have left a note to this effect on User talk:Mukerjee, where I have also mentioned to him that I have obliterated a large section of his userpage because it contained problematic statements about other people, such as suggesting they were "frauds" or "criminals". This is a violation of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy.

I advise you to be cautious about mentioning legal action on Wikipedia. Wikipedia has a strict policy of no legal threats. This means that anyone who threatens other editors, or Wikipedia itself, with legal action, is likely to be blocked from editing until the threats are withdrawn or the legal action concluded. This does not, of course, prevent anyone from taking legal action if necessary. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:45, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the prompt response to my complaint; as well as the action taken. I was not aware of the rule about mention of "legal action" and regret using that phrase. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Funnyrat (talk • contribs) 10:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am one of the editors on the page, and the one who first added the section eventually deleted by user:Funnyrat (Arun Prakash himself, as mentioned above). The main point as summarized in the lead are:

His tenure as Chief of Naval staff was marred by the Navy War Room spy scandal which involved a close relative - his wife's nephew, Ravi Shankaran. In the scandal, a number of sensitive documents were leaked from the War Room in Delhi to international arms dealers related to the 19,000 crore (USD 4 billion) Scorpene submarine deal[1], and possibly other large Navy purchases. The navy conducted its own investigation, dismissing three officers after six months, but it took a year before handing over the investigation to the [[CBI]. Meanwhile, several actors, including Shankaran, had left the country. Prakash himself was not personally charged but the delay in handing over the case to the CBI was criticized[2]

The contentions in this section are: a) that the Navy War room spy scandal involved took place during his tenure, b) one of the chief culprits was a relative, and c) Arun Prakash was not personally charged, but the navy was berated for its delay in handing over the matter to public inquirers.

All three claims are referenced with in-line cited reports, mostly from Times of India and Outlook (magazine). The Navy War Room scandal remains a black stain against the record of the Navy in this period, and the involvement of a relative is a fact that needs to be recorded against Admiral Prakash's encyclopedic information.

I edit a lot of BOLP pages and am well aware of the basic norms. I think the three claims made above all follow NPOV norms, and are clearly based on reputed sources. The matter is verifiable, and has no original research. It is also clearly relevant to the subject.

However, it is possible that these sources (media reports) may have been superseded by subsequent investigations. If there are other references - e.g. court judgments, books etc., that give other views, such as exonerating Prakash, let user:funnyrat or others edit the page and give the references; this will strengthen the article. Without such steps, simply deleting all reference to the scandal as if it never existed, and also removing all five references, simply appears to be malafide, as I noted in an earlier edit on this section.mukerjee (talk) 14:14, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at the moment, the material in the article discussing events during his tenure as Chief of Staff, amounts to exactly one sentence. With such brief coverage, only the most significant developments during that time period, can be discussed. It may well be the case that the war room scandal was significant enough to merit mention. But we can't demand that Arun Prakesh supply references to "exonerate" himself from things of which he was never even accused. In any case, given his rather tangential connection to the events, we need to take care in how we discuss them in his biography. Such care seems not to have been taken in Ravi Shankaran, where I see you and funnyrat have also been editing.

The Arun Prakash article does indeed have a severe lack of proper referencing at present, but that should be easy to rectify and I intend to do so. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the BOLP page, and let's stick to the BOLP issues in the article. The user:funnyrat has claimed that "material which is not just unverifiable but false and concocted as well as defematory and libelious in nature." I am claiming these facts are verifiable, and anyone can check the article citations on this. Let us be specific about what is "concocted, defamatory and libelious".

The material deleted repeatedly by user:funnyrat involve three well-referenced facts (as detailed above):

a) the Navy War room spy scandal involved took place during Prakash's tenure,

b) the primary accused was a nephew of his wife, and

c) Arun Prakash was not personally charged, but the navy continues to be criticized in the media for its delay in handing over the matter to public inquirers.

These facts are all cited from respected media sources, and indeed, are not being denied by user:funnyrat or anyone else. They are also relevant to his public role, and hence his encyclopedic entry. In that case, why are references to these being systematically removed by a single user who admits to being an interested party? Please look at the last revision and let us indicate the specific violations to BOLP. mukerjee (talk) 05:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i concur with Mukerjee here. a) The issue has been covered widely in the indian media b)I dont see how the mention is "concoted" or "libelious". The only question is whether it is WP:UNDUE. IMO this is relevant to an encyclopedic article on the subject and a brief mention should be included (disclaimer: came here through mukerjee's post in india noticeboard)--Sodabottle (talk) 05:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is being muddied here by the posts above - whether any libel has occurred is not what's under discussion. You are correct to identify WP:UNDUE as being the primary concern (there are also some problems with wording). In Mukherjee's preferred version of the article, the majority of the lead and in fact the majority of the entire article is taken up by discussion of the scandal, and in fact discussion of other "related" scandals including general observations about other people who were involved in similar incidents that had no other link than the people involved being ex-naval officers. The entire discussion of Prakash's role during the rest of his tenure as chief of staff, in Mukherjee's preferred version, is limited to a single sentence. I agree that the scandal deserves a mention in the biography, but it needs to be neutral in tone and appropriate to its significance in his overall career. The sourcing also needs to be better; the Outlook Magazine piece says Prakash's role, "if any", "will be laid bare" - well, that was in 2005, so where is a reliable source relating the outcome of that? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:18, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At least, I did some research and added some relevant material. As of now the article is completely barren of references, and is missing an relevant aspect, widely reported in India, that an editor had put in after considerable labour. If you wish to contest the tone, by all means, edit it as you see fit. But do the work, don't just blank out a well-referenced section and stand aside leaving the article barren. I am taking a first shot, please edit it thereafter as you see fit.mukerjee (talk) 13:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While editing the article just now, I found a reference paper [5], which says that the leaks were not related to commerce, but more to war plans. I have therefore removed references to scorpene etc. (which were also from cited media reports) in the article. I also added a ref related to his bio; and also one more ref. Also made the navy war room part smaller, and also toned down the language. Please feel free to edit it further as you see fit. mukerjee (talk) 14:24, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Donna Simpson (internet personality)

This concerns the entry for Donna Simpson (internet personality):

I do not believe that this person meets the definition of "Notable" to be included in Wikipedia, and request that her "biography" be removed, or at least rescinded until and unless she meets the criteria for Notability in the future.

Quoting directly for the guidelines (and forgive me because I am not HTML smart, so I use old-school techniques):

"Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment."

This article is about a woman who has turned herself into living, breathing, tabloid fodder. Her only claim to "fame" is that she wants to go from 700 pounds to 1000 to get a Guinness World Record, which she does not even hold yet to be of note. Her only "notable" "accomplishment" is, allegedly, being the most overweight woman to give birth. I do not feel that, in and of itself, nor the fact that she has a pay website with pictures and videos sensationalizing her obesity and eating habits, makes her a person notable for inclusion. It is not like she is Perez Hilton, who is a truly Notable "internet personality."

She does not meet the basic criteria of Notability for any biography. Quote from that section: "Any biography: The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times. The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.

Just in that alone, she does not meet the definition for inclusion as a biography. But I will continue. The lists for notability includes: Academics, Athletes, Creative Professionals, Crime victims and perpetrators, Diplomats, Entertainers, Pornographic actors and models, and Politicians. She fails to meet the definitions of any of those subject matters. Additionally, there are People Notable for Only One Event, from which I will quote, "the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered. The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person." I fail to see how she meets this criteria.

In fact, in the entire Notability guidelines, I fail to see even one way in which this person should be included. Other than for a few fetishists, she would not be notable at all. She is nothing more than a self-styled side-show attraction - that is not slander, it is exactly what her goal is. And I don't believe that meets any criteria for Notability in Wikipedia's rules, and I suggest the deletion of her "biography."

If we put biographies of all random people who have created websites and gotten media coverage in a few sources for an insignificant facet of their lives, Wikipedia would be a free for all. I, personally, as an Academic who has done important research on the desegregation on Major League Baseball, and who has been more widely cited and sourced than this woman, would qualify for a biography if she does. And if I do, let me know. Kelelain (talk) 19:17, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Well .... she is being discussed in the press and the viewing figures show something is going on...three thousand three hundred views yesterday. We have the WP:GNG of notability which is not too difficult to attain. If you provide a concise deletion rationale - I will nominate it for deletion for you and see what the outcome is. Off2riorob (talk) 20:09, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is she's notable enough to have an article (what a world we live in). That aside, why can't Kelelain nominate the article for deletion if s/he believes she's insufficiently notable?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He may be able to but he did say, "..and forgive me because I am not HTML smart, so I use old-school techniques" - so perhaps he has never created a AFD. I think I agree with you though, the BLP could well get kept - Off2riorob (talk) 20:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know you were only trying to be nice, but why should he be spared the painful steps of creating an AfD? :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 20:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to have suffered enough having read that article. Off2riorob (talk) 20:54, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, you have a point. But now we've joined him. Try clicking on her "official" website.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:11, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I only scanned the article with one eye and I got hungry. No way am I checking out the official site. Off2riorob (talk) 21:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, my suggestion about her official website was a serious comment (you'd have no way of knowing that, though). It's a redirect to another (very weird) website, and I don't know how we are supposed to be able to tell that it's really Simpson's wish to have that other website be hers.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:50, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, serious hat ... If its not her official website (with added detail about her) we should remove it. ...note - I removed the unofficial and replaced it with the "official" - Off2riorob (talk) 21:53, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was going through the article and making copy edits when I came across her real website. I was about to change the infobox accordingly and saw you'd beaten me to it. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:10, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jackson

Resolved

– Unsourced material removed.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The lines stating that Michael Jackson (New Zealand poet) took time away from poetry to play football are completely erroneous, and should be removed..

Signed,

Michael D. Jackson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.253.145 (talk) 23:49, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it as unsourced.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:54, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Polgar

How do we feel about lawsuits against living people that were subsequently dismissed? If you look to the second paragraph of Susan Polgar#Executive Board of the United States Chess Federation, you can see that a lawsuit was filed against the subject. That lawsuit was subsequently dismissed as essentially having no grounds; my understanding is that the plaintiff (Sam Sloan) refiled the suit and it was again dismissed, this time with far harsher words (although if I recall correctly we only have primary documents on that filing). The lawsuit was reported in the New York Times, as was the suits dismissal, but only in "Gambit" (the chess section) and the local section. I'm sure that numerous famous people have had groundless lawsuits against them that were thrown out, and including them would seem to violate WP:UNDUE, especially as filtered through the stricter lens of WP:BLP. The complicating factor here, though, is that those lawsuits were connected to why Polgar was removed from her post on the Executive Board of the UCSF. Thus, even though the lawsuits were found to be groundless, they ended up causing other significant changes in her "story". My concern is that if I take out the paragraph in question (and the third as well, because it's connected), then the last paragraph explaining her dismissal lacks context. Perhaps lack of context is alright, though, given the potential harm of being associated with a negative lawsuit. Thoughts? Qwyrxian (talk) 05:27, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The content as I read it now appears to be neutral and non-problematic, provided that the sources accurately represent the content. Regards, causa sui (talk) 21:19, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Casey Anthony trial

I've just posted a brief review on the talk page of this article, and cursorily scanned the talk page. There seems to be a BLP issue here, and I have very little experience in this difficult area. Other opinions would be appreciated. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated on the talk page, there is no WP:BLP issue here because this is not a biography where we are simply presenting a lot of negativity. We are presenting the facts of a trial as they happened, including the significant outrage from the public at the verdict. One editor, Blackie Lstreet, keeps slamming the article and saying it is not neutral and that there is a BLP issue simply because we present evidence that was actually used at trial, arguments actually stated at the trial (both sides are presented), and negative reaction to the aftermath of the trial (though both sides are presented). According to all reliable sources (every single one), most of the public has reacted negatively to the verdict of "Not Guilty" in the case of Casey Anthony. And yet Blackie Lstreet acts as though this is defamation and as though Wikipedia is presenting its own opinions,[6] all because he believes Casey Anthony and most Americans believe Casey Anthony to be innocent.[7] This belief goes against every reliable source reporting on this. All one needs to do is turn on the television here in America and see that most people are outraged by the "Not Guilty" verdict. It has also sparked several different debates which should be (and are) covered in the article. And yet Blackie Lstreet insists that "Only a tiny minority have cried out against the verdict" and that there is a "silent majority [who are] apparently content to let the jury make the decision."[8] Blackie Lstreet removed information about the outrage of the "Not Guilty" verdict twice,[9][10] and was reverted twice.[11][12] Just today, he removed the entire Evidence section (among other things) under false claims and reasoning, all while introducing bias and POV into the lead, which I reverted. He was mainly reverted because just about everything in the Evidence section was presented at the trial by the prosecution. And here he removed key arguments made by the prosecution all under the summary "Remove some clutter."

Basically, Blackie Lstreet keeps undermining the article because he feels the article should reflect her innocence since she's been found "Not Guilty." And feels we are presenting our own opinions.[13] As I stated, there is nothing POV about presenting facts. We present the evidence, trial, and reaction to the verdict as it has been reported through reliable sources. Not through our own personal opinions. And we do present both sides. Flyer22 (talk) 10:30, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blackie is correct in that, under United States law, Anthony has been adjudged legally innocent of the charges brought against her, except for the four obstruction charges. Therefore, there's a careful balancing act to be had per WP:BLP. The article may be about a trial, but it's a trial of a living person involving many living persons, so WP:BLP absolutely applies. Specifically, I'm concerned about the balance between BLP's injunction to avoid victimization vs. WP:WELLKNOWN. I think that the "reaction after the trial" section is currently overlong, and may constitute WP:UNDUE regarding the viewpoint that Anthony should have been found guilty. I'm also concerned that it may be edging into WP:RECENTISM territory; the article includes minor details that were reported in the press but that seem unlikely to have long-term historical relevance. I would prefer to see the article trimmed back a bit, with some of the recentism removed—particularly where pundits are quoted at length. That would reduce my undue concerns. Because Anthony is legally innocent—remember, in the US you are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law—material that paints her as guilty must be weighed carefully to avoid victimization. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 15:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! This article seems to have been written to further or support the view that Casey Anthony is/was guilty of murder. Now that she has been found to be innocent of the charge of murder, the article has even bigger problems than it did before. The whole tone of the article is out of sync with the verdict. Under BLP policies, it is not appropriate to write an article contending that someone is guilty and should have been found guilty of murder, when the court has said she is innocent. Casey Anthony, as a matter of law, did not commit a murder. So much more balance needs to be added to the article. To prevent the article from being overly long, the many trivial details in the article (apparently included to cast Anthony in as bad a light as possible) need to be removed. There is barely any information included at all about the defense positions during the trial, and that needs to be fixed as well. Blackie Lstreet (talk) 16:30, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have restored my comment to its proper position. Flyer22 needs to stop refactoring the comments on this page and the article Talk page. Blackie Lstreet (talk) 18:00, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: People are allow to move their comments higher or lower. Flyer22 (talk) 18:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blackie Lstreet may be right "in that, under United States law, Anthony has been adjudged legally innocent of the charges brought against her, except for the four obstruction charges" (even though "Not Guilty" does not mean "Innocent"), but Blackie Lstreet has not been right in his editing (such as removing the entire Evidence section). At all. The links above clearly show his agenda. Despite what he claims, there is a careful balancing act going on. Both sides are presented in all sections. It cannot be helped that the reactions to the verdict are mostly negative. There are positive reactions in that section too. And the reactions are mostly about the significant debates. I have only kept the relevant material in. First the ratings, then the explanations as to why people have been obsessed with the trial, then reactions to the verdict, and then explanations for reactions to the verdict. All of that is relevant. To remove any of it would significantly impair that section. It would not be accurate in its reflection of the reactions to the verdict. I have done my best to accurately reflect these reactions. And that's what that section does. At eight paragraphs touching on each of the reactions and debates, it is not overly long. And I'm quite sure that all this stuff will have long-term historical relevance, similarly to the way that the O.J. Simpson murder trial has held up after all these years. But what "will have long-term historical relevance" is an opinion. And what Blackie Lstreet is asking for is to mostly portray Anthony in a positive light. He pretty much stated so on the talk page. That cannot be done. Portraying her in an equally positive light cannot even be done, considering that every reliable source out there says most people are displeased with the verdict. Asking us to make the section look as though people are divided on this issue -- half for Casey Anthony; half against would be deceptive and highly inaccurate. Some are for Casey Anthony, but not half. We must accurately report and reflect what reliable sources report on this matter. Not make the section look the way we want it to look. Just because Casey Anthony has been found "Not Guilty," it does not mean we cannot accurately report on the reaction to that verdict. Flyer22 (talk) 17:29, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although a verdict of "not guilty" does not mean that a person did not commit the crime, it does mean that legally, a person is considered innocent of the charges, because there is a presumption of innocence in the United States. Therefore, because Anthony is at this moment legally innocent of the homicide, we must take care not to imply that she is guilty, nor to lend undue weight to the opinions of those who feel that she is guilty, lest we be charged with accusing an innocent of crimes. That's a core part of the BLP policy. The article should not portray Anthony in a positive light, nor in a negative light; it should portray her dispassionately and from a neutral point of view. The aggregate effect of the copious material asserting that she should have been found guilty is to swing the article away from NPOV and toward support of those assertions. We do not have to report every opinion and quotation on the topic; a representative subset and/or a summation is sufficient, and would better serve both BLP and NPOV. This is not to say that I necessarily endorse Blackie's edits or editing pattern. However, Blackie's concern has validity. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 17:52, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken care not to imply that she is guilty, nor to lend undue weight to the opinions of those who feel that she is guilty. The section on reactions is balanced in that it presents both sides. Those who believe she is guilty (which is reported as the majority opinion) and those who do not. It then goes into explaining why people feel this way and the effects the verdict has had on American society. I am not trying to have every opinion and quotation on the topic; I am trying to adequately reflect the impact/discussions this trial has had/created. And that's what I did. A brief summary would not do that. And there is no need for one when there are no violations being had, and especially now that the article title has been changed back to Death of Caylee Anthony to partly prevent some BLP violation accusations that may arise (though I'm not sure how long, or if, the article will stay under its current title). If you look at the Talk:Death of Caylee Anthony#article not NPOV, reads as if Casey committed a murder section, an IP (as in a person who is not an editor here at Wikipedia, or so it seems) finds the article completely neutral and was turned off by the non-neutral tag. That IP came away from that article understanding how the jury found her not guilty (before the Criminal trial section was recently tweaked). That tells me that I've done my job. Objective outside opinions like that are the best when reporting on what is neutral or not about our articles. Flyer22 (talk) 20:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read WP:BLP. "BLP issues" to you means "any type of negativity presented in this article about Casey Anthony. The article has NOT been written to further support the view that Casey Anthony is/was guilty of murder. It was written from the standpoint of reliable sources. And, really, you have a problem with any negativity in the article about Casey Anthony, as you have displayed. If you had it your way, the Caylee's Law section wouldn't be there either. For example, you say, "Under BLP policies, it is not appropriate to write an article contending that someone is guilty and should have been found guilty of murder, when the court has said she is innocent." WRONG! That would mean we couldn't accurately report on this trial here at all. By your logic, we would only portray Casey Anthony as innocent. There are no trivial details in the article, and it is not overly long or anywhere close to it, per WP:SIZE. It may look overly long from the table of contents, but most of sections are relatively short.

Doesn't anyone here see what Blackie Lstreet is trying to do? How skewed his logic is? It's all about WP:IDON'TLIKEIT for him. Flyer22 (talk) 17:29, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right. I haven't followed the case or the article closely, but I'd say this.

Twelve people who considered the matter very carefully and had access to all the information (some of which we may not have) decided unanimously the person was innocent.
Its a simple fact of human nature that police and prosecutors want to close cases successfully, and easily if possible. They're only human. It's a simple fact that police and prosecutors make mistakes; whether this happens "often" or "sometimes" I don't know, but it doesn't happen "never".

Given #1, and assuming the probability or at any rate possibility that #2 is in play, the only way to approach this article is "here is a person who has suffered a terrible loss followed by a horrific unjustified hounding". I think that any whiff or hint of anything else should be quashed mercilessly. Herostratus (talk) 17:10, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- comment - the tone of the article should reflect the recent verdict - if sections need rewriting that should be done as fast as possible. User:Blackie Lstreet and User:Herostratus seems on the correct BLP point. There will by all likely be previous reliable external s with all sorts of speculation and titillation in - however we have editorial control and clearly need to throw out some of those reliable externals that ended up incorrect or with commentary that now with hindsight appears attacking and undue. Off2riorob (talk) 17:36, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The trial is over the prosecution and the media didn't get the result they wanted. The jurors say there wasn't the evidence. So WTF are WP editors trying to rerun the trial blow by blow for? This should be a precise of the event not some "You're the Juror" game. John lilburne (talk) 18:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am a little unsure what you are commenting on. Anyway - the reassessment of content to reflect the current position is completely normal and necessary editorial task. Its just updating and removing of detail that suddenly seems undue when new information is assessed. Off2riorob (talk) 18:36, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Off2riorob, the tone of the article cannot reflect the recent verdict when it comes to the Public and media reactions. What would you have us do, leave out any mention that most Americans have disagreed with the verdict and that this has sparked a national debate? According to various reliable sources, there have been very few trials like this that have caused such an extensive debate about the jury and the jury system. The only other one has been the O.J. Simpson murder trial. These facts should be in this article in regards to this trial's impact on society. There is no doubt that scholars will study this trial for a long time to come. Should we leave out all of that from this article, too, when that time comes? Saying Wikipedia should hide or downplay the widespread public response to this trial is silly. No reliable sources out there reflect that most Americans or even half of Americans believe that Casey Anthony is "Not Guilty." And we shouldn't try to make the article look that way either. Blackie Lstreet's view on this whole thing is over-exaggerated and skewed. He removed the entire Evidence section, I remind people yet again. And as seen above, he says, "Under BLP policies, it is not appropriate to write an article contending that someone is guilty and should have been found guilty of murder, when the court has said she is innocent." What???? That is bogus. If that were the case, we could not report on the societal impact of this trial at all.

lilburne, what I have presented in regards to the reactions is precise. And there is nothing wrong with an article being extensive in its detail. Just like we are when it comes to our math, science and history articles. If we are not going to report on this trial's impact accurately and comprehensively, then we should not report on it at all. Flyer22 (talk) 18:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Find an article that deals with press prejudging trials, and press reactions to trial verdicts that didn't pan out the way they wanted. John lilburne (talk) 20:39, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Off2riorob my reading of the article is that it is a rerun of the trial evidence as presented by a what seems to be a biased press. Evidence that the jury, who heard the whole of it, found unconvincing. One cannot write a NPOV article made up from reports from a "trial by media" circus. John lilburne (talk) 20:39, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not "a rerun of the trial evidence as presented by what seems to be a biased press." The Criminal trial section, for example, presents both sides. The Public and media reactions section presents both sides and goes into analysis about these reactions. You don't need scholarly sources to go into analysis about the public's response to a trial. Would they be better? Yes. But we must work with what we have at the moment. And the public largely being upset about the verdict -- that's not made up by the press and the section on it is not giving undue weight to those who believe Anthony is guilty. Flyer22 (talk) 23:14, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Public and media reactions in the immediate aftermath of a trial are not encyclopaedic, they are NEWS. Talk about if and when something happens as a result, and how the concrete effects actual affect anything. For example if they actually do make law changes and how those changes actually pan out. Apparent in another case which resulted in Megan's Law the result on the ground, as far as protection is concerned, is nada zip, nothing. So far lots of heat and bugger all light. John lilburne (talk) 07:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But, lilburne, that is your opinion that immediately covering such aftermath is not encyclopedic. For example, should we not have covered the aftermath of Chris Brown's domestic assault of Rihanna so early on? Should we still be waiting until this is documented by scholarly sources? Or does this only apply to trials and history? I'm saying that while I understand where you are coming from, that is the first rationale like that I have ever read. It would also slow down Wikipedia significantly if we had to wait for scholarly sources for almost everything. Speaking of aftermath in general and not just as "immediate," there is no way to cover the O. J. Simpson murder case without discussing the reactions that verdict had on American society. In fact, there is a lot of scholarly material out there available discussing that verdict and the case as a whole, seeing as that trial spun several debates that should be adequately addressed in that article (which needs fixing up, by the way). There is nothing unencyclopedic about discussing public reaction to a controversial verdict. Not discussing it would make the O. J. Simpson murder case article incomplete, because it would not be discussing its cultural impact. Public reaction is what made that trial notable. That, and the fact that a celebrity was accused. But we don't give Wikipedia trial articles to every celebrity who goes on trial. We simply mention it in their article and that's it. The reason the O. J. Simpson murder trial even has a Wikipedia article is because of its cultural impact. The reason the Death of Caylee Anthony (or Casey Anthony trial) article exists is because of its cultural impact. If the cultural impact is not discussed, showing why the topic is even notable, then the article should not exist at all. Just because we only rely on news sources and not scholarly sources at the moment does not mean we should not yet have a section reflecting cultural impact. I understand you feel we should wait until scholarly sources are available, but I disagree. And if we did that, this article wouldn't be here at all. I understand that you feel it shouldn't, judging by what you stated below, but it does. And since it does and I doubt it could be successfully deleted, I am trying my best to work with the sources we do have. We'll just have to agree to disagree. I prefer scholarly sources when there is a choice of using them over news sources, too. But right now, we just don't have that. Flyer22 (talk) 14:43, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not discussing public reaction, it is reporting on public reaction, no analysis - because none has been done, just reportage. The OJ article has nothing on the cultural impact except to say that whites think he did it, and blacks think he didn't. I can't see any impact statement in there on American culture at all. Answer this what changed? Again it is simply reportage. Chris Brown and Rihanna is once again reportage, boyfriend punches girlfriend. What has changed? In this present case we have child goes missing and parent fails to report it for 5 weeks, child is later found dead, parent arrested, media declare parent guilty, but prosecution fails to prove murder case at trial, parent instead sentenced of minor infractions and released almost immediately. Public and media think that, murderer or not, a more severe sanction should be applied to someone that fails to report their child missing for several weeks. Did I miss anything? When you don't have scholarly sources often less is more. John lilburne (talk) 15:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is your perception that it "is not discussing public reaction," and you are saying that because we are using news sources. The section is doing both -- it is reporting and discussing public reaction. Such as discussing why the public has been fascinated with the trial, opinions offered from psychologist and the like. As for the O. J. Simpson murder case article, I did state that article needs fixing up, didn't I? Given the buttload of scholarly sources out there about that case, that article would already be detailing a lot of that information if I were interested in fixing up that article. Chris Brown and Rihanna? What should be mentioned there about change? Other than whether or not Brown has changed for the better? My using that instance as an example was simply to show that Wikipedia doesn't wait for scholarly sources to cover topics. Nor should it. And that there may not ever be any for some cases. In the Anthony case, what has changed is people's belief in the justice system. And possibly a law to help ensure something like a child going missing for 31 days never happens again. Anything else, we'd have to wait and see. And I am saying that just because we have to "wait and see" (though there is no doubt that scholars will be documenting this trial for years to come)...it does not mean how the impact the case has had on American culture at this point in time should not be covered. Also the belief that "When you don't have scholarly sources often less is more." doesn't apply to a lot of instances on Wikipedia, such as certain celebrity controversies (Chris Brown) or fictional characters. But like I stated, I agree to disagree. Flyer22 (talk) 15:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem comes when the article has an undue amount of this 'cultural impact' stuff. People are much more polarized when the events are current, and that doesn't represent the realistic view that a long term article will have. It is bias toward passion and sensationalism. For those of us who don't care much about this case, it appears misguided and overzealous to see people push for the inclusion of these things. I've see the same problem with articles about Julian Assange, the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords in Tuscon, the War in Libya, and others. It just happens. But that doesn't mean we can't keep a cool head and separate the wheat from the chaff. -- Avanu (talk) 14:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is not an undue amount of "this cultural impact stuff." There isn't even a such thing as "an undue amount of cultural impact stuff." Various Good (GA) and Featured (FA) articles have significant amounts of "cultural impact stuff." There isn't a problem when the material is balanced and relevant. And the section I created is. It's not some consistent attack on Casey Anthony, as made out by Blackie Lstreet. Others at the talk page have agreed that it is not, including an IP (that I mentioned below) who agreed that the entire article is neutral. Only one paragraph is fully dedicated to people disagreeing with the verdict. The other stuff is a combination of things, all relevant to the topic. This is not about me keeping a cool head, except for when arguing/combating Blackie Lstree (which I admit that I should). As many editors can attest to, I am rationale in my editing. It's about the fact that we only have news sources to rely on this matter at the moment, and that's all we can work with to build and mold this article until scholarly sources are available. The 2011 Tucson shooting article? Yeah, I was there (and still am), as mentioned below. And that's a perfect example of not being able to wait until scholarly sources are produced to cover a topic. Would I prefer scholarly sources? Yes. I mentioned that. Plenty of editors I have worked with and/or hang out at my talk page know this. But we do not have that in this case, and should not have to wait for them to adequately cover this topic. Flyer22 (talk) 15:26, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"the societal impact of this trial" - hmm, the sounds a bit overreaching. Currently its just press coverage and newspaper sales, any long term impact is yet to be seen. I would say things we could look at, for example, if the article includes a lot of peoples opinion about this and that and the weight of those currently included opinions is reflective of the subjects guilt then those opinions could be trimmed for weight - or comments/opinions from people can be merged and rewritten to reduce the weight of the comments that are currently included from prior to the not guilty of murder result. Trim some of the media and public reaction that is perhaps now included unduly and given the verdict given undue weight. You don't need to include it all, you can just say, there was some degree of trial by media. Off2riorob (talk) 18:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree with Off2riorob here. The "aftermath" section is currently barely readable and smacks of recentism. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:19, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer22, as for what "most Americans" think about Casey Anthony, I'm not inclined to say that matters one flip (mostly because I think "most" people don't even stop and think about it much). That being said, we do often include some degree of media coverage or commentary in articles. Your reactions to other editors indicate to me at least that you are very emotionally involved in this article, and it might help to take a step back for a bit. There are tons of issues more important in the world today than Casey Anthony and her situation. I've seen this several times now when an article is hot in the press and gets a LOT of attention from a bunch of very very zealous editors who put in VERY biased and point-of-view-driven material. We're an encyclopedia, not the news media. As long as we're not inaccurate or violating BLP, there will be time to improve the article as the days, months, and years pass. Have a lemonade, enjoy the summer, and think about things like debt ceilings or Kate Hudson's new baby. -- Avanu (talk) 19:27, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Fuchs, I'm not seeing how the article is currently barely readable and smacks of recentism. But I'll get to that in a moment.

Avanu, I would have to disagree that "what most Americans think" about Casey Anthony, doesn't matter a flip or that they don't care about it much. If that were the case, this trial would not have become a national media obsession. It would not be on television 24/7. The verdict would not have outraged so many. There wouldn't be a bill proposal titled Caylee's Law. The Wikipedia article on this trial wouldn't even exist. So forgive me if I respectfully disagree. You speak of my reactions to others as concluding that I am "very emotionally involved in this article." No, I don't like to see what I consider silliness, such as downplaying or or outright hiding the impact this trial has had on society. I am not the one expressing personal feelings about Casey Anthony. Blackie Lstreet is; it's all in the links displayed above and on the talk page. I am only interested in presenting what reliable sources state, as we should do, unlike some here. I don't need to be told that "there are tons of issues more important in the world today than Casey Anthony and her situation," as if this all I care about and I don't have a life. Further, you have no right to imply that I a "very, very zealous editor who put in VERY biased and point-of-view-driven material." I did not put in any biased point of view material whatsoever! And my response to Off2riorob below will show that. I am never about bias in any article I work on, and I hate being accused of such. I put in every significant aspect of this trial's impact. Excuse me for wanting to reflect this section accurately and comprehensively. You say "[a]s long as we're not inaccurate." Exactly. I am striving for accuracy here. And I don't see it as violating BLP whatsoever.

Off2riorob, "the societal impact of this trial" - that phrase is not overreaching in my view, when looking through reliable sources discussing the trial and verdict's impact. It's true that any long-term impact is yet to be seen, but that is another matter. In the case of long-term impact (whatever that means; it could mean different things to different people), I certainly believe this trial will be documented by various scholars. But we have to wait for that. Anyway, so you're saying trimmed for weight? Not to take away from the fact that most Americans, according to every reliable source out there, have rejected the verdict, right? Because I don't see how we can leave out the fact that the verdict has sparked such a national outrage; that's one of things that has made this trial so notable. And on that note, I want point out again that the section is not simply a whole bunch of negative reactions. I am not one for a whole bunch of redundancy. This his how it goes Casey Anthony trial#Public and media reactions:

The first paragraph starts out with the fact that the trial became a media obsession (ratings, etc.).

The second paragraph goes into why.

The third paragraph goes into the negative response about the verdict.

The fourth paragraph goes into the positive response about the verdict.

The fifth paragraph goes into the impact it had on the Internet (that's the only paragraph I didn't add).

The sixth paragraph goes into why the general public has so strongly rejected the "Not Guilty verdict.

The seventh paragraph talks about the gender gap, about how the trial has divided men and women.

The eight paragraph talks about various explanations for why the jury chose a not-guilty verdict.

All of this, I believe, is relevant to the Public and media reactions section because it covers every aspect of this trial's impact on the nation. I mentioned higher that I have done my best to accurately reflect these reactions. And that's what that section does. This is not about reflecting a lot of negativity, this is about comprehensively covering every aspect this trial has had on American society. I can't see any valid reason that we shouldn't -- why we should only mention part or half of its impact. There is enough room to mention all of it. Like I said, there have been very few trials like this that have caused such an extensive debate about the jury and the jury system in America. Two, to be exact.

I will also start a discussion about this at the article talk page to see what the other main editors think of the current version and what they may want to keep or cut out, or whether they want to keep it all. Flyer22 (talk) 19:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This trial was made into a big deal because the media got to have all the things they like to have. Murder, lying, poor little child, white girl everymom who doesn't look like 'the type'. I really hope the only thing this trial has done to society is make us realize how the media caters to the lowest and basest things possible. And I hope those who are so emotionally wrapped up in this trial actually do something constructive rather than dwelling on this. Too bad we can't focus on real issues, like several undeclared and expensive wars that kill far more children. Or a debt crisis that could affect more families than we can count. But sure whatever, its a "national media obsession", so it deserves more credit. The very fact that you use the word 'obsession' should probably be a strong indicator that there might be POV problems. -- Avanu (talk) 20:07, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is your attitude with me? Did I get into a past debate with you and piss you off? I think I might have. I see you around enough. That's the only explanation I see for your rudeness, unless you are just naturally like that. I used "national media obsession" because that is covered in reliable sources (which have been drilled into my brain from looking at so many sources about this) and because that is what it is. I suppose the constant media coverage, protests, reported explosions on Twitter, Facebook and YouTube didn't convince you of an "obsession." But whatever. It doesn't matter how it was made a big deal (with the exception of a child having died). The fact is...it is a big deal. The fact remains this verdict shook the world's belief in the justice system like no other verdict since the O.J. Simpson trial. Reliable sources state that this is something we can learn from and may impact jury selection in the future. All I am doing is going by reliable sources, trying to better the article and you are sitting here belittling me for working so extensively on a Wikipedia article, all because it has to do with a mother who may have killed her child and not something to do with war? Wow. So fixing up this article is not doing anything constructive? I should be working on a war or debt crisis article? Well, nice to know that editors working to fix up any article here may be viewed as "wasting time" if not viewed as an "important enough" by a certain editor. Never mind that I work in various fields on Wikipedia and simply decided to take some time and significantly contribute to this article. I shall defer to you next time there is an "actual article" I should be working on, my grace, or when I should be doing something "better with my life," like belittling a fellow Wikipedia editor over his or her choice of an article to work on. Flyer22 (talk) 20:57, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- come on guys, look for the middle point for a bit of agreement - I do think the main issues here is to be aware - as in the press, is our article. - the reporting from legal people seems to be that the trial by press reporting was a factor in the outcome - our wikipedia article was a part of that. We need to report all trial articles extremely cautiously as they are "pre judicial" - and on more that one occasion such reporting has been quoted as affecting the outcome of a trial. If we had reported that way, the article would not have the current weight issues that users are now asserting. Off2riorob (talk) 21:05, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"this verdict shook the world's belief in the justice system" or maybe it didn't. It seems clear you feel very strongly about this article. That's the point I was making. You seem to be looking at this as needing to fix an article so that people see Casey Anthony in the proper light, whatever that is, but really people murder other people in the US and around the world every day. The significant thing here is how the media is playing it up, nothing more. -- Avanu (talk) 21:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- This article had a quarter of a million views in the last two days. Off2riorob (talk) 21:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe it didn't? You'd have to provide a reliable source for that. I can provide reliable sources for my assertion. It seems clear you love to put words into people's mouths. That's the point I was making. And, uh, no I am not fixing up the article so that I can portray Casey Anthony is a "proper light." I am fixing up the article because it is needed. It barely had anything in it before I started fixing it up. I get passionate about all articles I work on because I'm just that I'm kind of Wikipedian, which others can attest to. And, again, I don't need to be told that people all over the world die or whatever else condescending line you have to spew at me. Why are you even at this talk page? You are not helping. You're just belittling me, etc. Must be due to some exchange we had at the 2011 Tucson shooting article. Flyer22 (talk) 23:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just weighing in here to say, where do we take this? BLPs have serious issues, especially when they concern debatable/scandalous material. Please see this post at DSK sexual assault case. I am just reacting to this editor's edit summary "about ready to quit Wikipedia", something needs to be done, it is too time-consuming and debilitating to try to edit articles about (sensationalist) stuff happening in real time. Should we open a village pump discussion? I don't know. All I know is that I got caught up in DSK and ended up at the AN/3RR board and was later accused of tag-teaming on the fork article, and basically I don't give a shit about DSK, but I do give a shit about Wikipedia and this experience almost convinced me that WP is a pile of horseshit run by self-promoting "guardians" of (their interpretation) of WP pôlicy. So, what are we going to do? Lose editors or define a more specific, enforced policy for BLPs? CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 21:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we just need to stick to the 'facts' as much as possible, leave out the media circus stuff. What will we do when some nutball decides to go out and 'avenge' Caylee because of all the media attention? The media will do its usual faux apology stuff -- "where did the media go wrong? Story at 11", but as we saw with the highly contested Santorum article, Wikipedia is a player in things to an extent. Yes, we're not Nancy Grace, spending night after night ranting and raving against people, but Wikipedia is a voice that people use to fact check and review things. -- Avanu (talk) 21:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, the media is sticking to facts in this case. Flyer22 (talk) 23:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just looking at this article for the first time. And, frankly, it's ridiculous. How can the "aftermath" section of the trial be half the article, especially given that the verdict was less than a week ago? At just a quick glance, there are several things which should be cut--for instance, claims that Cindy Anthony may face perjury charges--isn't it a direct WP:BLP violation to report that someone may face criminal charges when no such charges have been filed, even when reported on by reliable sources? Tbe idea that Casey Anthony could make money on the trial is somewhere between a commonplace and irrelevant to this argument: we can't treat simultaneously treat this as an article about the trial (to avoid WP:BLP1E) and include extensive details about Anthony's personal life not directly related to the trial. And the section on Caylee's Law, which, at this point, is nothing other than some drafts written up in some random state legislatures, with no evidence those drafts will ever actually become votable bills; probably something should be included on those, but a single sentence would be more WP:DUE, to me. I just started from the bottom, and only scanned really quickly for things that were obviously questionable. If this weren't an immediately hot topic, normally I'd be bold and excise those parts immediately, but I'll start by raising them here. I assume that much of the rest of the section is between UNDUE and totally unacceptable; I don't actually think there would be any real harm in completely removing that section and restarting it (Of course, I know that won't happen and wouldn't actually do it, but I still think that it means something that we are, by name, an encyclopedia and not a news source). Qwyrxian (talk) 21:39, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly how is the article "ridiculous" simply because the "aftermath" section is longer? We can't relay every detail of the trial, especially without copyrighting a lot of information. The verdict has had more impact than the actual trial; that's just a matter of fact. And of course they're going to be sections dedicated to the prosecution/defense, jurors, etc. Those sections aren't even that big. How is it a claim that Cindy Anthony may face perjury charges? It's not exactly a claim or a WP:BLP violation when it's true. The sources clearly demonstrate that authorities have proof that she lied on the stand. We are simply reporting that information. There's also nothing wrong with including reports that Casey Anthony could make money post-trial from book deals, etc. The jailhouse letters are related to the case, seeing as she wrote them while behind bars. Not everything in the article has to be tied to the trial. That is an aftermath section -- meaning after the trial. Such as the letters were released after the trial. And as for Caylee's Law, I cautioned against that article being created (before I knew it had already been created). You say "a single sentence [about it in the article] would be WP:DUE, to [you]." Yes, to you. Your opinion. All I see here are opinions and different interpretations of what WP:BLP is. And the section on the reactions? I don't see how removing that section and restarting it would help at all. It wouldn't be a better, more comprehensive section than the one I have implemented, and getting rid of it would not mean that we are any more of an encyclopedia than we already are. The content is encyclopedic. I'm familiar with writing encyclopedic articles, much in the same way that I'm familiar with getting articles to GA or FA status. With this article, my first goal was to build it up, because there was almost virtually nothing in it before I arrived at the article a week ago. It was a lot of work gathering the references and putting all that together, whether it looks like that to you or not. From there, the tweaking has started, and others have been helping out. It's not like I planned to leave the article like that forever. I always build an article up first, then get to tweaking. Flyer22 (talk) 23:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that everything in the article is news of one sort or another. There is no independent or objective analysis there is just quotes from media wonks being media wonks. Reportage does not make an encyclopaedic article. John lilburne (talk) 01:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Independent or objective analysis? Where will I get these "independent or objective analysis" sources, considering that the case/trial is still fairly new? It's not as though there's a bunch of books about this case on Google Books or Google Scholar already. And it's not as though we should just wait until there are. Of course most of the sources in the article are going to be from news organizations. As long as nothing is completely one-sided, I don't see a problem. There are objective opinions, and not just from "media wonks" either. And right now, that content accurately reflects all sides of the topic. We have to take things one step at a time. Flyer22 (talk) 01:19, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the reaction needs its own article, so it can be summarized in the main article and not dominate it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer22, your last point here, "where will I get these independent or objective analysis" (that the don't exist), is exactly why the aftermath section is way too long, undue, and, in several cases, is a clear BLP violation. The fact that there hasn't yet been any independent analysis is a clear indication that topic is fundamentally not encyclopedic. Now, of course, that's not a view everyone agrees with, so I'll drop it. But, moving back to my specific points, on Cindy Anthony...it is radically different to say "she lied on the stand" than to say "she may face perjury charges"...especially when one of the two linked sources says that she won't! To me, there is no question, no doubt, that that sentence is a direct BLP violation. This article doesn't need "tweaking", it needs a hatchet to cut half of the undue recentism. You seem to have this idea that simply because a whole bunch of things have been reported, that those should all necessarily be included in the article. While I can understand that sentiment (it's a common one for people who are close to a subject), and it can even be helpful in some cases, when that sentiment leads to including significant speculative, negative claims about living people, it must be checked by those who do not have a close interest in the subject. Significant harm has been done to the image of these living people by the news media; for us to perpetuate that harm by repeating it under the guise of encyclopedic summary is exactly why we have WP:BLP. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Qwyrxian, you're right I disagree with your first view. Even with "independent or objective analysis," the aftermath section would still be as long as it is now or longer, because there is no way to cover the aftermath without covering all these points. With as much widespread debate this has caused, we shouldn't accurately reflect that widespread debate? The defense and prosecution's statements after the trial? What these jurors have to state when there is so much debate about them and their verdict? We shouldn't mention the Anthony family? These sections are not even that big. In this case, I'm not seeing WP:UNDUE in accurately, comprehensively covering the aftermath. I suppose a case can be made for not having a section on Caylee's Law, when there is an article on it, or the combined section of Caylee's Song, so I'll drop that (though that's part of the aftermath too). Plus, the article's title has been changed backed to the Death of Caylee Anthony. You may also have a point about Cindy Anthony. But we can just change that to "she lied on the stand" and why (which is backed up reliable sources), and leave it at that. I of course disagree that the article "needs a hatchet to cut half of the undue recentism." Because I don't see any undue recentism. But we aren't going to agree there at all. It's not that I believe "simply because a whole bunch of things have been reported, that those should all necessarily be included in the article." If that were the case, there would be more in the article right now. Such as every last detail of what happened at trial. I'm saying all the reasons the public have been debating the verdict should be accurately reflected in the Public and media reactions section. I don't feel we have perpetuated any harm by accurately reflecting this information. It's not as though the article is filled nothing but a bunch of venom directed at Casey Anthony or the rest of the Anthony family. It's not even mostly filled with that. The aftermath section is simply about the reactions, of everyone, including the jurors' reactions. This is not "under the guise of encyclopedic summary." The aftermath is a comprehensive, accurate reflection of all sides of the reaction/discussion/debate. It's about making a comprehensive, accurate encyclopedic article. Something I have experience in achieving. I would state all of this even if I hadn't been heavily involved in editing this article. Quite frankly, I've always been like that, and people have felt that it's made me a good editor. If some feel it makes me a bad editor, then so be it. Flyer22 (talk) 13:43, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I looked through some of the remarks on here, and it's the same ongoing thing regarding the problems that editor Blackie Lstreet has had with the Casey Anthony trial article. I'll repeat what I said in the article talk, and add afterwards...

Of course there's been some POV in wording and tone in SOME parts of the article. As an example, where it said that Baez "rationalized" away some evidence instead of the more neutral "explained". Which the edit warrior Blackie Lstreet correctly pointed out and fixed. But he seems to be going overboard with his contentions, seeing "POV" even when it's NOT really there. He has some kernels of truth in his position, but is exaggerated. Even neutral explaining of what happened, if it doesn't seem positive to whichever side, will be seen as POV or biased. And that view is an over-reaction. Some objective facts are just negative sometimes. That's just too bad. Deal with it. It does not mean Wikipedia itself agrees with it necessarily. All articles and editors need to be careful with tone, wording, and style, in reporting and stating things. But there's NO excuse to violate 3RR. Or to see things that just aren't there. And calling it "clutter" is not a WP argument or justificaiton.

But I have to say that while I think it can be commendable that Blackie wants to ensure a neutral and NPOV tone in this sensitive article, he has also demonstrated an obsession with placing his own spin and in seeing "POV" even when it's not really there, and abruptly removing whole parts of sections of this article with no regard to their noteworthiness or context in the article.

His stated position is that his own removals and his own wordings are much more important and descriptive of the subject than what he has removed, which he deemed as "clutter". I feel that Blackie's arguments are usually based on reasoning such as wp:ilikeit, wp:idontlikeit, wp:otherstuff, and seems to be violating WP:OWN. And accusing others of what he himself has become guilty of. When editors note the reliable sources and pertinence of stuff that he has whole-saled removed, Blackie initiates a series of repetitive and endless talk page posts attempting to justify his over-reactive edits. No matter how many other users disagree, and no matter how many links to guidelines and policies are offered, Blackie insists his perspectives are correct and he becomes wp:disruptpointy. Blackie seems to interpret WP policy and editor conduct rules to suit his own justifications and continually responds to editors who disagree with him with posts of redundant justifications of his own invention.

Taking elements of truth (that I even have agreed with in part), but then going bananas with it, and arguably edit-warring. Again, there's been SOME amount of POV in this article and it needs improving here and there. But to remove whole paragraphs simply because "I don't like it" has no valid WP justification. And using the front excuse of "POV" after a while starts to wear thin. There was NO valid excuse, as one example, in removing the matter of "Ashton smiling" and the reaction of Baez and what was said, as that was reliably sourced and pertinent in the goings-on of the closing arguments. Calling that "clutter" is tantamount to "wp:I Don't Like It" which not only is invalid in votes but in also edits as well. Hashem sfarim (talk) 03:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I fully endorse Qwyrxian's statement above. Can't find anything to add. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 03:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It used to be said, for good reason, that one couldn't write a history about something until at least 30 years after the event. The nearer we are to an event the less likely we are to give an a) an object analysis, and b) be fully cognisant of all the facts. These articles DSK, the Kercher affair, Joanna Yates, NOTW, et al, are not yet ripe enough for articles whose details will be anything other than dubious. John lilburne (talk) 07:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thoroughly agree with John there, there is too much real-time reporting on these BLPs/cases and it is aggravated by Twitter, lack of fact-checking by journalists and unfounded rumours that fly around the WWW in a few seconds. In fact, thinking about this the other day I came to the conclusion that BLPs are almost the exact opposite of what an encyclopaedia is about. I'm sure Hitler did and said a lot of things that Wikipedians would have wanted to include - "omg he said this or he did that" - but finally pale into insignificance or get lost in the fog of time because there is other more salient stuff that appears to be important after some time has passed. Okay we have information overload now, but even if Hitler had had a video blog on YouTube recording his every thought and so on, I'm sure the historians would sort the wheat from the chaff and present us with the essential and not the bullshit detail.

And just reading through the above comments, how can an aftermath section be half the article? We don't know the fallout, it is still happening, what is the aftermath of Fukushima? Well, we don't know because the reactors are still fucked, half the power plants are still down, the government and energy companies are not exactly "coming clean", for all I know there are still huge fishing trawlers stranded on buildings several miles inland and maybe baby foetuses over there are growing a sixth digit on each hand and foot.

The fork for DSK was created because the sub-section sexual assault case had grown into a many-headed hydra and was becoming impossible to manage and dominating the whole BLP, giving more weight to this "potentially" minor incident (NPOV) than to his whole political and professional career. That's all (for now) folks. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 20:08, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Screebo, the BLP issues (what little of them were in the article) have been taken care of. As for how can the aftermath section be half the article? Simple. There's more to cover regarding the aftermath of the trial, and the media attention following the aftermath has certainly been more extensive than it was before or during the trial. Basically, there isn't much to say about Caylee's death itself. There isn't a lot to say about Casey's arrest and the evidence surrounding her. And we can't say too much about what happened during the trial without covering it blow-by-blow. That leaves the aftermath, and there is a lot more to say about that as compared to the former topics. The aftermath of Fukushima is quite different than the aftermath of the Casey Anthony trial, LOL. We do know the fallout in this case. And I can't think of anything else that will happen beyond what we've documented (which, by the way are only the significant things...not trivia). But we'll see. And that said, the aftermath sections are not that big. If you look at them, they are relatively short. Flyer22 (talk) 02:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Today's interesting development is a 100K suit filed against Casey by a team that searched for Caylee, while Casey (according to her attorneys) knew the child was already dead. Casey will now be put in the position of either forking over 100K or refuting her own attorneys' explanation. The drama around this incident is only just beginning. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know, Bugs. That's already in the article, "hidden" in the Civil cases section. Flyer22 (talk) 03:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone here offer any advice on how to get some oversight for this article? Would an RFC be appropriate? It seems that Flyer22 and a few others are in total denial about what their jury nullification agenda is for this article. Flyer22 will listen to none of the advice given to her on this BLP board. They are blocking any info on the defense side of the case and any efforts to improve the article. Flyer22 and crew are trying to use Wikipedia to publicize their personal views that Casey Anthony is guilty of murder even though she was acquitted, and thereby present an article that is along the lines of a nullification of the verdict. They are even refusing to allow a NPOV tag on the article (which I just once again restored)or to include the defense side of the case in the lede. ( I just added it back in, but they will delete that and the NPOV tag.) This article can never meet Wikipedia standards under these circumstances. Please let me know if anyone here can help or if there is some formal procedure I should go through to get some help. Blackie Lstreet (talk) 03:07, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's you who's in denial. Members of the jury have openly stated they thought she was guilty, but the state didn't prove its case. That's not "innocence" or "exoneration" in the English language. Also, I'd like to hear your theory as to how she's going to deal with the $ 100,000 fraud suit filed against her today. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness! Now it's "me and crew"? Didn't know I was in a gang. If you look at the Talk:Death of Caylee Anthony#Consensus for keeping or removing the non-neutral tag section or any other section I have created about your disruptive edits, you will get your answer. I did listen to the concerns here, but the concerns here were not even mostly about BLP issues. The fact is...there were not a lot of BLP issues in the article to begin with. What little, so-called BLP issues were there have been removed. In addition, these removals (tweaks included) were done by a couple of editors from this Noticeboard, helping to address any perceived BLP issues in the article. Now it's you being disruptive again, seeing problems where there aren't any and painting all of us as Casey Anthony haters trying to bias the article. Baseball Bugs doesn't even know who he considers guilty in the Anthony case. And I have never stated my personal position on the Casey Anthony verdict. I have, however, repeatedly stated that I am only trying to present an accurate reflection of the topic as a whole (as I do for all articles I significantly work on). It is you who has stated you believe Casey Anthony to be innocent and that you want us to portray her ONLY as innocent, and it is you who is trying to remove any negative thing associated with her, such as the entire Evidence section! And when you're not doing that, you're trying to rename it to "Potential Evidence." Flyer22 (talk) 03:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blackie Lstreet has twice summarized my own good faith attempts to improve this article as disruptive. In fact they were merely collaborative, and most recently Blackie Lstreet appended their own edit to content more closely resembling my own attempts. Furthermore there are efforts within this thread which indicate a concerted effort of which further insinuations suggest I am a part. This is simply an incorrect assumption. Best regards - My76Strat ^talk 04:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it may be best to:

Remove the entire "Publicity and Aftermath" section (temporarily)
Fully protect the article for 7 days, in a minimalist state that meets BLP.
Get these issues sorted out before moving forward.

This is not something that should be discussed in terse edit summaries. The entire article has devolved into one, big edit war. I believe a break from editing it would help everyone involved, not the least of which is Wikipedia, as a whole. Chickenmonkey 04:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, and point 4 would be to put Blackie on ice for awhile for edit-warring over the POV tag (for which I've reported him to the edit-warring page). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:07, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No editwarring on my part at all. I am trying to alert fairminded Wikipedians to a big problem on this article. I think they get it. But concrete steps need to be taken to get this article into much better shape and compliant with BLP and NPOV. Right now it is far from neutral and accurate. I like ChickenMonkey's ideas, and agree that stripping down to a minimalist article and protecting it for a while would be helpful, so long as it is not preserved in its present POV state. The aftermath section definitely should go. Blackie Lstreet (talk) 04:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed editwarring on your part. Look at WP:EDITWAR. And of course you would like ChickenMonkey's ideas. That way, it would remove an accurate reflection of the public's, including's the jurors', reaction to the verdict. But notice he said "temporarily." And knowing you, next would be the Evidence section.

I can't agree that anything things to be removed just to appease Blackie Lstreet. Why should we remove the public's reaction (which only has one paragraph dedicated to those who believe Anthony to be guilty), the prosecution and defense's response, the jurors' response, etc., etc. all to appease this user? He is the only one who feels that the article is non-neutral. And he isn't even complaining about the Publicity and aftermath section. He is complaining about everything. He, need I remind people again, has tried to remove the Evidence section more than once. He has tried to retitle it to "Potential evidence" more than once. It is anything that speaks negatively about Casey Anthony...that he has a problem with. He has stated that she should ONLY be reflected as innocent. We cannot work anything out with Blackie Lstreet in that case. Besides the fact that nothing will satisfy him, except painting Anthony as completely innocent, he doesn't discuss things on the talk page. He just starts section after section of complaints, about the same thing, and completely ignores any ongoing discussion addressing it. Flyer22 (talk) 04:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The aftermath needs to stay, as that's where the real truth of the matter will come out, which so far has not been the case. The family are a pack of liars and the jury couldn't figure out ~~which of them actually killed the child (for all we know, all 3 of them might have been in on it)~~ who did what. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball Bugs, I can't tell you not to edit articles related to this event, but if that is your attitude, perhaps it would be better for you to step away and let other, less opinionated, editors handle the situation. I assume good faith, and I assume you haven't let your personal opinions alter how you've edited that article, but your comment is a clear BLP violation and probably should even be removed from this page. Chickenmonkey 04:39, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sources call them liars. She's now also being sued for fraud, thanks to her tale about the drowning. There's a good chance the truth will eventually emerge. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:15, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the article is problematic, starting with the actual title Death of Caylee Anthony. I would like to point out there is a Category:People acquitted of murder with 115 articles about individuals, only a few as famous as Casey Anthony. Therefore the article should be about her. (Note that even the Lindbergh kidnapping article is not named for the child, Charles Lindbergh, Jr.)

Obviously Casey will continue to be in the news, especially if she does tell a story of a dysfunctional family, an accidental drowning and some parental knowledge of (or demand for?) a coverup (because family members in Florida are prosecuted in child drowings?), and then crazy behavior as a result, which is what the defense obviously insists is the truth. And which theories have been profered by some media pundits since the verdict. Who knows what other news worthy (or at least notable) things will happen next. (See some of the bios under that category.)

A balanced BLP can present facts, trial evidence, and WP:RS commentary on both. The question is, is HLN and Nancy Grace, WP:RS? In any case, much more reliable sources obviously have commented on and explored the case in the last week. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to most editors at the article, the article is not problematic. The title of the article is the only main issue all editors keep fighting over at that article, which you just brought up now. But according to most of those same editors, the article is fair and balanced. It includes sources from various reliable sources, not just HLN and Nancy Grace or even mostly HLN and Nancy Grace. Nancy Grace is barely even used as a source in the article. Flyer22 (talk) 05:05, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've mostly been a lurking editor who comments ocassionally and who's made just two edits I believe to the article itself. I came to this article from a board report, AN/i I believe but not sure. It took awhile to catch up on everything, from reading all the threads, to reading the article with checking out the sources, it takes time. I think the editors there are trying real hard to co-operate with each other except for Blackie Lstreet. Being a new editor this editor needs to listen more and learn to co-operate. The article is ok right now. Does it need work, you bet but it will get there. Everyone is trying hard to show both sides in this article. There are new things going to be coming up as time goes on. The new lawsuit is mentioned but don't forget she is supposed to be getting out this weekend too. Let's all just show some patience here. There are enough editors watching this article, so BLP vios should be caught quickly. Let's all just see where this all goes and add the important stuff and then some of the other stuff will definitely have more of a weight problem to be removed. Remember there is no deadlines here. I do agree that the title of the article is a problem too. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is probably hard to find someone from Florida, such as Crohnie, dispassionate about this case. My efforts to raise awareness about the problems with this article have fallen on deaf ears with people like Crohnie and others who frequent the talk page on the article. That is why the problems were referred here for review by neutral uninvolved editors. And what the article needs is oversight by a neutral uninvolved editor or administrator through some sort of RFC or other process. I like Chicken Monkey's proposal, but don't know how it can be implemented. Would this have to be done by an administrator? Otherwise, I would like to get some sort of review process going with this article. Information tending to show the defense side of the case is being blocked from inclusion, even though the defense won the case. For example, even the basic fact that Casey Anthony's defense asserted that the child died accidentally in the swimming pool keeps getting deleted from the lede, the last time by Crohnie http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Death_of_Caylee_Anthony&diff=prev&oldid=439418748. Overall, the article is being written as some sort of rebuttal of the jury's not guilty verdict, with a suppression of anything that is not damning to the defense. A more biased article there could not be. Blackie Lstreet (talk) 14:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness, give it a rest. "[A] suppression of anything that is not damning to the defense?" No one at the talk page agrees with you. No one there sees a BLP or POV issue, including Crohnie. If Crohnie saw such serious BLP issues, Crohnie would have removed them by now. Chicken Monkey's proposal can only be implemented through consensus on the talk page, something you're not familiar with achieving. And Chicken Monkey's proposal is a suggestion of temporary measures to calm you down. There is nothing actually BLP about the section at all. The public reaction is a BLP issue? The defense and prosecution's response is a BLP issue? The jurors' response is a BLP issue? The rest is a BLP issue? No, no, no, and no. None of it is. Editors here (uninvolved editors you so requested) and at the article have already taken care of any potential BLP issues. And Crohnie is one of the editors who keeps removing what you call the "defense's side" from the lead for the reason explained in this edit summary. Crohnie also clearly stated above, "I think the editors there are trying real hard to co-operate with each other except for Blackie Lstreet." As a lurker, Crohnie was pretty much an uninvolved editor.

It's pretty clear that Blackie Lstreet will accuse anyone who doesn't agree with him as biasing the article. It's also pretty clear that he cannot work with others, no matter how many times he is advised to, and has a skewed interpretation of how Wikipedia works. It's time to ignore this editor. Flyer22 (talk) 15:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear here Blackie Lstreet. I am a Floridian but Florida is a big state and I knew nothing about this case until about a week ago, probably less than that and it was quite limited in what I did know. My RL has had me in the hospital dealing with my own needs so please lose the bad faith you keep saying. Editor's do not agree with you, get used to it because that happens to all of us. I came to the article like I said from a noticeboard. I haven't commented that often nor have I edited the article that frequently, three times I think now for the article. You need to chill out and stop the slow edit war you keep going on with. Remember 3rr is not needed for an edit war. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Leigh Jones

[14] I reverted this new editor's edits but he just put them back in. I tried discussing it on the talk page [15]. Isn't this slanderous to the person? Dream Focus 10:52, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The slander is in refering to her casual sex partner as an 'assailant'. A Federal court jury has made recent relevant findings about Jamie's lies on this — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheologianOfSatan (talk • contribs) 11:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've started working on the article. It's very messy from a legal/POV/BOP/libel point of view. We can report only what the sources say, not what we think things mean. For example, when a jury rejects Jones's claim that she was assaulted, we can say that. However, we cannot say that her allegations were false. As a reader, we can draw that conclusion from the jury's findings, but as an encyclopedia, that's a big leap and cannot go in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:38, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More eyes either on this article or on this discussion would be great, as users are still adding "False accusation of rape" as a see also, adding a "hoaxes" category, etc. Let's get a consensus either for or against this sort of thing, so we can stop the back and forth. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find it rather disturbing that Jones' allegations are stated as uncintested facts .. she lost not only her EEOC complaint but also her lawsuit. ZHurlihee (talk) 17:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a BLP disaster zone. Needs more eyes. MastCell ^Talk 16:23, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been fully protected for three days. There have been ongoing discussions at the article's Talk page prior to the lock. I'm not sure the article is any longer a "disaster zone". I've done a fair amount of work on the article trying to sort out what is attributable to whom. The principle events are (1) the incident itself and Jones's allegations and (2) the lawsuit Jones brought against KBR alleging sexual assault and the verdict. There are some less important events, such as testimony before Congress and the EEOC complaint, that are also reported on. Most of it has been cleaned up, although there is always room for improvement. As an aside, contrary to what Zhurlihee states, the result of the EEOC's investigation subsequent to Jones's complaint went in Jones's favor - for what that's worth - clearly, the trial was far more important than the earlier complaint to the EEOC.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

article is locked from editing, but is in dire need of more sources, more reliable sources and better formatting for the existing sources that identifies important bibliographic information like author and date. here are a few additional sources i found:
- Prisco, Amy (November 20, 2009). "Case Summary: Jones v. Halliburton Co" (PDF). Rutgers Conflict Resolution Law Journal.
- Turvey, Brent E.; Petherick, Wayne (2008). "Case Example: Investigative Use of Forensic Victimology". Forensic Victimology: Examining Violent Crime Victims in Investigative and Legal Contexts. New York: Academic Press. pp. 24–32. ISBN 978-0-12-374089-2. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)
- Tsotakos, Alexis (2009). "Protecting the Rabbits from the Panel of Foxes: The Case Against Mandatory Arbitration Clauses in Non-Union Employment Contracts". Upper Level Writing Requirement Research Papers (Paper 31). Washington College of Law.

—Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 01:47, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Zoellick

Robert Zoellick advised Enron and Fannie Mae; Robert Zoellick is in contempt of Congress for refusing to answer a GAO inquiry into transparency at the World Bank. The International Financial Institutions: A Call for Change A Report to the Committee on Foreign Relations United States Senate, March 10, 2010, at 24 http://www.foreignpolicy.com/files/fp_uploaded_images/int_fin_inst2.pdf Congress refused to appropriate a capital increase for the World Bank until the GAO study is completed and necessary reforms are in place. http://foreign.senate.gov/hearings/hearing/?id=33c66777-5056-a032-525aaOa5806634e9 http://kaygranger.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=12&parentid=4&sectiontree=4,12&itemid=983 [See March 9th statement to Secretary Geithner] The inspector general of a $22.7 billion global health fund whose financial management was entrusted to the World Bank is reporting mismanagement. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/23/global-health-fund-fraud_n_812801.html I have been commenting about Robert Zoellick's lawlessness at the World Bank in the media: http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUS412&q=karen+hudes+robert+zoellick&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=

On May 25, 2011 I testified at the European Parliament about this scandal at the World Bank, and the Chair of the European Parliament's Committee on Budgetary Control, Luigi de Mastris, wrote me on June 1, 2011: "I share the opinion expressed by the Members of the Committee that it was very interesting and inspiring to learn about your case at the World Bank." I am asking for help editing Zoellick's biography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.96.75.44 (talk) 11:16, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I advise you to be very careful with anything you write about living persons. Please review our policy on biographies of living persons. The Huffington Post article that you link to, does not even mention the name "Robert Zoellick". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed the WP:BLP and any edits will be fully documented. I am seeking advice whether to run proposed edits through this forum first. The links are to various articles, all of which concern the World Bank under Zoellick's presidency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.96.75.44 (talk) 21:46, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Demiurge, I read the policy, and that is why I am seeking guidance in this forum. Any proposed edits will be consistent with the policy and documented. Any suggestions whether it is advisable to run proposed edits through this group first for comment? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.96.75.44 (talk) 21:38, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's fine to discuss proposed changes here. Equally, discussing proposed changes on the talk page for the article, is a good idea. In fact, the talk page is possibly a better place, since discussion there will be more likely to attract the attention of others interested in editing the article, both now and in the future.

My concern is that you have very strong views on this subject, and thus you may find it very difficult to write neutrally (see WP:NPOV). From what you have written above, you are engaged in travelling the world, and also commenting in numerous social media forums, to highlight what you perceive as the "lawlessness" of this individual. That does not make you ideally positioned to edit the Wikipedia article about them in a neutral manner; and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for raising awareness of issues (see Wikipedia:Advocacy).

To mention some specifics, Wikipedia does not consider commentary on forums or comment pages to be reliable sources (which would cover much of what is led to by the Google search you linked). Also, Wikipedia avoids linking to primary source court or legislature proceedings for material about living persons, especially if negative or controversial. Writing conservatively about living people means that we must be very careful when writing about people being accused of something but who have not been convicted of anything or found responsible for any wrong-doing.

Going back to the Huffington Post link, that piece not only doesn't mention Zoellick, it also doesn't even mention the fund that it discusses, having any link with the World Bank at all! If this is the sort of material that you plan to add to the article about Zoellick, then I am tempted to suggest that it would be more beneficial to spend your time on other things. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment Wouldn't you have strong views if you were fired for trying to enforce international securities laws, and were now trying to prevent a currency war? Here are proposed edits in italics. The sources are numbered at the end.

On April 20, 2010 Robert Zoellick declared open access to the international statistics compiled by the World Bank. US Congress refused to approve a capital increase for the World Bank until Robert Zoellick cooperated with a GAO inquiry into transparency at the World Bank requested by Senators Richard Lugar, Patrick Leahy and Evan Bayh.

Even though she previously had expressed the desire to hold no further political office (specifically ruling out another four years as U.S. Secretary of State in a second Obama term), she has been in formal discussions about taking up the post, according to three different anonymous sources. President Zoellick's successor has to be approved by the 187 country members of the World Bank since the 66 year Gentlemen's Agreement for appointment of the World Bank President by the US ended.

The sources for the two statements in italics: 1. The International Financial Institutions: A Call for Change A Report to the Committee on Foreign Relations United States Senate, March 10, 2010, at 24 http://www.foreignpolicy.com/files/fp_uploaded_images/int_fin_inst2.pdf http://foreign.senate.gov/hearings/hearing/?id=33c66777-5056-a032-525aaOa5806634e9 http://kaygranger.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=12&parentid=4&sectiontree=4,12&itemid=983 [see Congresswoman Kay Granger's March 9, 2011 statement to Secretary Geithner]

2. April 24, 2010 Statement of the Board of Governors, available at http://www.imf.org/external/np/cm/2010/042510.htm 74.96.75.44 (talk) 11:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- comment - hi, if you want to add something please consider what we primarily do here at wikipedia - we report on what secondary sources have asserted is notable and have as such independently reported on. Your desired addition above and its external support falls well outside of that remit. Off2riorob (talk) 11:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you arguing with the authority of the sources cited (a Congressional report? a Congresswoman's statement?) or whether it is notable that Congress refused to approve Robert Zoellick's request for funding? 74.96.75.44 (talk) 12:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, we have no idea whether that's notable (and significant in Zoellick's overall career) or not. So we depend on what independent reliable sources say about it, instead. This is the sort of thing you need to be providing as a reference - in this instance it only just falls short of verifying the first of your proposed changes. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not buy your argument that Congress' decision to turn down Zoellick's request for funding has no significance for his overall career. What about the decision of the 187 countries in the World Bank to rescinded the Gentlemens' Agreement for appointment of the World Bank President by the US during Robert Zoellick's Presidency? Either one of these developments is a rebuke to Robert Zoellick. Taken together, they indict Robert Zoellick's Presidency at the World Bank. 74.96.75.44 (talk) 14:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do an NYT search - many articles on Zoelick. It is, however, not up to Wikipedia editors to "indict" anyone at all. Collect (talk) 14:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Zoellick has indicted himself through the following facts: (1) After Robert Zoellick refused to cooperate with a Government Accountability Office inquiry into transparency at the World Bank requested by Congress, Congress refused to appropriate funding for a capital increase for the World Bank and (2) Robert Zoellick's Presidency of the World Bank has ended the 66-year-old Gentlemen's Agreement that the US may appoint the President of the World Bank. These verifiable, notable facts have bearing on Robert Zoellick's biography in Wikipedia, which is misleading and inaccurate without their inclusion.74.96.75.44 (talk) 19:06, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is going nowhere fast. You have been given advice and don't seem interested in taking it. I suggest you take it to a blog ..failing that - to the article talkpage and I suggest you add reliable independent sources or don't assert anything. Off2riorob (talk) 22:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for putting the issue so succinctly. I am asking Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee to tell me whether you are right or whether the following sources are reliable and independent:

1. The International Financial Institutions: A Call for Change A Report to the Committee on Foreign Relations United States Senate, March 10, 2010, at 24 http://www.foreignpolicy.com/files/fp_uploaded_images/int_fin_inst2.pdf http://foreign.senate.gov/hearings/hearing/?id=33c66777-5056-a032-525aaOa5806634e9 http://kaygranger.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=12&parentid=4&sectiontree=4,12&itemid=983 [see Congresswoman Kay Granger's March 9, 2011 statement to Secretary Geithner]

2. April 24, 2010 Statement of the Board of Governors, available at http://www.imf.org/external/np/cm/2010/042510.htm 74.96.75.44 (talk) 11:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)74.96.75.44 (talk) 10:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I provided considerable background information to the Arbitration Committee on this topic, and the Arbitration Committee informed me that it is for serious conduct disputes (that is, editors misbehaving) which the community is unable to resolve. Disputes about content (that is, what articles say) are resolved by discussion on article talk pages. Having fulfilled my obligation to explain in this Noticeboard and on the Zoellick bio talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Robert_Zoellick#Transparency_at_the_World_Bank why the proposed additions (supported by independent and notable sources) improve Wikipedia's article on this subject, I then made the edits in accordance with the following Wikipedia policy:

"In most cases, the first thing to try is an edit to the article, and sometimes making such an edit will resolve a dispute. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The argument 'I just don't like it', and its counterpart 'I just like it' usually carry no weight whatsoever. Limit talk page discussions to discussion of sources, article focus, and policy. The obligation on talk pages is to explain why an addition/change/removal improves the article, and hence the encyclopedia." Demiurge 1000 then "reverted" the edits. There is strong consensus that the creators and major contributors of pages and media files should be warned of a speedy deletion nomination. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SPEEDY Issues are to be resolved by discussion with the other editor or administrator in the talk section. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review. I answered Demiurge 1000's criticisms as follows: See "Zoellick is also trying to leverage his long U.S. diplomatic career into the bank's first general capital increase in more than 20 years, an issue that will be debated this week at meetings of the institution's governing board." World Bank gets help from sovereign wealth funds to invest in developing nations, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/17/AR2010041702921.html The applicable procedures for selection of the next President of the World Bank are in Strengthening Governance and Accountability: Shareholder Stewardship and Oversight, http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DEVCOMMINT/Documentation/22885978/DC2011-0006(E)Governance.pdf. See also MPs Call for World Bank Shake-up "The World Bank is in 'desperate' need of reform, which should include ending the arrangement under which its president always comes from the US, a parliamentary report has said." http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/231867. Currency1 (talk) 15:30, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you are actively engaged in a controversy involving the subject of the article, you must not edit the article itself; it would be an out-and-and violation of WP:COI. As you describe your situation, almost nobody in such a situation would be able to write objectively. The only way to keep yourself safe from being blocked for COI is to avoid the subject entirely, or else to suggest clear reliable sources on the article talk page, without letting it become a diatribe about the subject. Our rules on bLP apply to article talk pages also. DGG ( talk ) 17:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Fisher

A different set of eyes might be valuable at David Fisher (architect). I'm not sure exactly what is going on, but there seems to be a bit of an edit war going over some of the content. There have been various unexplained attempts to remove some of the negative material, which have been reverted. The problem being that the material being removed appears to be mostly sourced to documents from the legal firm that is suing him, which raises questions of objectivity. - 121.214.219.40 (talk) 15:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I made a minor edit on the article, but don't have to clean it up totally currently - about to board a flight. I agree that the article as it stands currently is inappropriate - primary source documents should not be cited like that, especially when they are hosted by the opposing law firm. Although the newspaper articles cited are going to be appropriate sources, it's probably inappropriate to be sourcing those from copies of the documents hosted by the opposing law firm as well. Kevin (talk) 17:57, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Best to delete the entire paragraph that's sourced to these docs. It's 100% unencyclopedic to repeat legal claims or findings as if they're something that makes any sense in plain speech. That paragraph is a bunch of legalese that doesn't help the reader understand in the slightest what actually happened in court, much less what he actually did. Instead it just gives some scary sounding and because they're primary sourced out of context BLP violating legal charges. Surely a case this big is well covered in the press. If anyone wants to re-add a description of the fraudulent activity and legal history that's properly sourced and told from an encyclopedic perspective that's fine. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Calle Jonsson

I just finished copy-editing Calle Jonsson. I went into it thinking I'd stub it, because it looked pretty much like an accused-of-a-crime good candidate for AfD. When I dug into it, I found that it's actually a notable case: Jonsson, a young Swedish guy, was vacationing in Greece when he was accused of stabbing a Greek man. The case was shaky, and the Swedish press reported on it quite a bit. He was tried and acquitted, but then the Greek supreme court demanded a retrial. On top of that, the Greeks charged him and his parents of perjury and defamation for claiming that the Greek police took liberties with the law in his case during the first trial. He was eventually acquitted again this year, but in the meantime the whole thing seems to have put a lasting chill on relations between the two countries.

So, I think I've got the article reasonably neutral, but it's more about the trial than Jonsson. I think it's now a WP:BLP1E article. There's a six-month-old hat suggesting a merger with European Arrest Warrant, but I don't think that's an appropriate merger: the Jonsson article is notable enough to remain a standalone, and it's not really about warrants. I'm thinking it needs to be renamed, but I'm having trouble deciding what it should properly be called. Thoughts? // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 22:11, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a fun read, and I made some copy edits to it, but I don't think I'll be of much help in suggesting a name. All I can come up with is something mundane like "Calle Jonsson attempted murder case".--Bbb23 (talk) 23:57, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work. Really good additions. definitly no merge of the article now.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Using userspace to call living people without convictions, "criminals"

User:Mukerjee#Recent edits contains a list of articles about people that Mukherjee has edited recently. The list also contains comments about the people concerned.

When I noticed that numerous entries in the list described the persons as "fraud" or "criminal", that not all the people thus described had any criminal convictions, and that at least some of them were still alive, I redacted the entire list and left a polite note for User:Mukerjee asking him not to restore it until any problematic entries had been removed.

Mukerjee has now restored a version of the list, and the following comments there about living persons, are still concerning;

Raghuraj Pratap Singh not convicted of anything, although his Wikipedia article says "There are already three criminal cases, pending against him." Mukherjee's userpage describes him as "Indian criminal-politician".

D. P. Yadav not convicted of anything, although his Wikipedia article says he has been charged with murder nine times. Mukherjee's userpage twice describes him as a "criminal-politican".

Although I'm sure that the principal intention of the list is merely for Mukherjee to keep track of his recent contributions, it still seems to me that the comments about these two living persons should not be made in this way. Is this an appropriate use of user space? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clear violation of WP:BLP IMHO, and emblematic of a major problem on Wikipedia (which I really hope ArbCom will address). Collect (talk) 09:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He did remove the criminal from one entry that you deleted, but apparently not all. I'll do so now and leave a word. —SpacemanSpiff 09:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am mainly a content editor, and those lines have perhaps been there since 2005 or so. Quite possiby, these rules are newer.

What takes my goat is when an editor, who finds two lines objectionable in a list of a hundred items, blanks the whole section rather than edit those two lines. Maybe I have been on wikipedia too long. No doubt I am "emblematic of a major problem in wikipedia". Go ahead, bury me with your hatchets. mukerjee (talk) 13:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct that at the end of 2005, WP:BLP contained no instructions about what one should not say about living persons on userpages. Although, maybe that's common sense. It's worth noting that even back in 2005, WP:BLP said "add only people convicted of a crime in a court of law to Category:Criminals" ... watch out for that one.

As for blanking the entire list; well, the list had four or five uses of "criminal" as a label, one of "fraud", and one or two of "liar". Looking at the list - which as you say, was rather long - it wasn't immediately easy for me to be certain that these were the only problematic statements about persons, or for me to quickly confirm which of these 100 people were still living. So I blanked the whole thing, and invited you to fix the problems (since you surely knew the subject matter better) before restoring the list. Seemed sensible at the time. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request

I would like to add the five FBI audio files to the following section of the 1985 Rajneeshee assassination plot article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1985_Rajneeshee_assassination_plot#Investigation

However, i am not quite certain about what the appropriate template for multiple audio files would be. I would appreciate it if someone would help me out in this regard. The accompanying caption should be as follows:

Conversations between Rajneeshpuram mayor Swami Krishna Deva and John Mathis, a mediator with the federal Community Relations Service; recorded by the FBI in the fall of 1984. In these phone intercepts, the mayor pleads with Mathis to provide details about a secret federal investigation. The "Geraldine" referred to in these tapes is Geraldine Thompson, the chief of staff for Oregon governor Victor G. Atiyeh.

Thanks. Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 07:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- I am no interwiki expert by a long chalk and am learning as I post here - but I think rather than add them here we usually just add an interwiki link to the other wiki - such and such a wiki has files related ot this topic. See like this in the external link section- 1985 Rajneeshee assassination plot#External links - So you might add - a template like this .................. and add it to the specific section that discusses that topic. Off2riorob (talk) 21:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Korn

Resolved

– Speedily deleted as spam. – ukexpat (talk) 19:43, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a big advert, with most of the references appearing to come from court documents or similarly unacceptable sources. Any thought as to whether this qualifies for speedy deletion as spam? Thanks, 99.170.154.183 (talk) 18:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like spam to me and tagged for deletion as such. – ukexpat (talk) 18:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

William Goldman

This article contains erroneous information stating that William Goldman is also S. Morgenstern. However, William Goldman is only the person who abridged S.Morgenstern's books, as stated in the introduction of Goldman's abridged version of The Princess Bride. Also the site did not have enough sources, but was not changed or taken off the site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.126.49.122 (talk) 19:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you're incorrect about Morgenstern. Morgenstern was a pseudonym and plot device created by Goldman. I've added a reference to the article to validate the fact. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 20:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Soon and Baliunas controversy#Criticism_and_controversy

Considerable material has recently been added to this section of the article regarding the sources of Willie Soon's research funding and support, citing sources that don't explicitly connect the funding to the subject controversy. The funding revelations came from a Greenpeace investigation [16], whose tenor may be judged from their title:

CASE STUDY: Dr. Willie Soon, a Career Fueled by Big Oil and Coal

Of all the climate deniers, one scientist has been particularly closely involved in the campaign against the climate science consensus for the majority of his career: Dr. Willie Soon.

The most detailed press reports on the Greenpeace allegations appear to be from The Guardian and Reuters. Both stories mention the Soon and Baliunas controversy, but draw no direct connections with that controversy to the long list of what Greenpeace considers prejudicial funding, nor are any given in our article.

This funding material belongs (if anywhere) in the Willie Soon article. Using it in Soon and Baliunas controversy gives the appearance of endorsing an apparent "guilt by association" PR campaign by an activist organization, and appears to be a serious BLP violation. --Pete Tillman (talk) 22:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian and Reuters are not "activist organizations". If our coverage is based on those sources, then I don't see any reasonable basis for saying that we're "endorsing a PR campaign". Nor do I see how a simple mention of the subject is a BLP violation, since the material is covered in reputable sources (e.g. Reuters) and Soon has admitted receiving the funding in question. The question of where properly sourced coverage belongs—in Willie Soon or in Soon and Baliunas controversy—is an editorial one, but not a BLP question. MastCell ^Talk 23:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that both the Guardian and Reuters mention the 2003 J. Climate Research paper. This is not a case of WP:SYN, this is simply reporting what the sources say. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:31, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, there is nothing from the Guardian article other than a passing mention of the S&B controversy, although the Reuters article does say, "About 5 percent of the [S&B2003] study's funding, or $53,000, came from the API, they said." I guess it is reasonable to include a sentence to report this. However there is no good reason to turn the S&B Controversy article into a general discussion of Soon's funding over 20 years, which is what appears to be happening at present. For one thing, Soon's says nothing about Baliunas's funding. This is WP:COATRACK and given the guilt by association type claim, agree that it is a WP:BLP issue. Alex Harvey (talk) 02:22, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

these are the facts, as reported by reputable sources, and Soon has confirmed that he has received over $1million in funding from energy companies, there is no BLP issue. The article should outline the researcher's funding record because it is notable, in the context of the article, which is about a controversial paper, co-authored by a scientist well known for his stance on global warming. It's of interest in an encyclopaedic context, because a general reader will now have a better overview of the controversy surrounding Soon. Ignoring this recent assessment of Soon's funding, over an extended period, as reported in the press, doesn't make sense, because it has a direct bearing on our view of Soon and his earlier research. This has nothing to do with a "guilt by association" problem, it's simply how it is: he is a scientist with a track record of receiving funding from the energy industry and other groups who are opposed to climate change legislation. Why does aversion to detailing these facts exist here? It has been widely reported.Semitransgenic (talk) 03:31, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the article is about the Soon & Baliunas 2003 controversy, not the Soon controversy. I fail to see how funding Soon received after 2003 be thought to be relevant to events in 2003. So the rest of it belongs in Soon's biography article, not this one. Alex Harvey (talk) 06:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

not sure I agree really, in 2003 there was an insinuation that Soon might not have been an objective participant in the research, because of certain funding contributions. At that time, the issue could have been brushed aside, however, since 2003, Soon has demonstrated a willingness to accept funding from companies/organisations that the press view as having particular agendas with regard to global warming legislation. This places the 2003 research paper in a different light; it recontexualizes this earlier enterprise. For those reasons, it is notable in the context of the article section Soon and Baliunas controversy#Criticism_and_controversy. --Semitransgenic (talk) 11:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"This places the 2003 research paper in a different light..." This would appear to be WP:OR, unless you can show RS support. I didn't see any in the cites you gave, except the limited bit re API funding that Alex noted above, and that was already in the article prior to your new adds. --Pete Tillman (talk) 19:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Pete, but lets not play word games here, that is an opinion, expressed in a discussion about content, it exists independently of the content I placed in the article, which most definitely is not OR it is RS.

The Guardian item clearly states:

One of the world's most prominent scientific figures to be sceptical about climate change has admitted to being paid more than $1m in the past decade by major US oil and coal companies.

and

he has been heavily funded by coal and oil industry interests since 2001, receiving money from ExxonMobil, the American Petroleum Insitute and Koch Industries along with Southern, one of the world's largest coal-burning utility companies...since 2002, it is alleged, every new grant he has received has been from either oil or coal interests.

and

freedom of information documents suggest that Soon corresponded in 2003 with other prominent climate sceptics to try to weaken a major assessment of global warming being conducted by the UN's leading climate science body, the Nobel prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The Reuters report also states the following:

Beginning in 2002, Soon's funding mostly came from oil companies, including Southern Co (SO.N: Quote), one of the largest coal burners in the United States, and the American Petroleum Institute, according to documents uncovered in a Freedom of Information Act

This is new information about the 2001-2003 period, with additional new information about Soon's research funding since then, it discusses Soon's position as a scientist, who is sceptical of global warming, and who, for a decade, has been receiving funding from the energy industry and other groups who are opposed to climate change legislation. I fail to see how this is not notable in the context of the article, and I fail to see where the BLP violation exists here.

This is, as I have stated from the outset, a content dispute, perhaps we should move to a more appropriate dispute resolution forum? --Semitransgenic (talk) 12:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's all fine, and probably some of it should go onto Soon's bio page -- with appropriate disclaimers, that the source is a overtly-hostile investigation by Greenpeace. And not in boldface ;-] You did include Soon's overall disclaimer, which is a good start. We also need his funding statement from the original paper added at Soon and Baliunas controversy#Criticism_and_controversy -- ie, the $53K from AIP was properly acknowledged at time of publication, along with the other 95% of their funding.

But you still don't seem to appreciate that, by BLP, NPOV and SYN rules, you can't put 20 years of Soon's funding history on a page that's concerned with a single paper, published in 2003! Unless a RS clearly and explicitly draws that connection, and so far you haven't presented one. Would you respond to this specific problem, please? Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pete, the continued claim of a BLP violation is a false charge, it's getting somewhat tendentious. There is also no synthetic conclusion presented, the content reflects what is stated in sources. And you are now claiming there is an NPOV violation, but I didn't write the news. You are failing to acknowledge that irrespective of the original source of the new information regarding Soon's funding, multiple news sources [17][18][19][20][21] have carried this story. It relates directly to the article, because Soon, a man who is one of the world's most prominent scientific figures to be sceptical about climate change and who has been paid more than $1m in the past decade by major US oil and coal companies, just happens to be same the guy who co-authored the controversial paper the article is about. Soon's funding history is of course relevant here. --Semitransgenic (talk) 09:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[outdent] With due respect, you are still missing the point. Just because Soon got money from various sources over 20 years, doesn't mean you can WP:COATRACK all of this into an article on a single incident in his (and Dr. Balunias's) career. Can't you see that? --Pete Tillman (talk) 17:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

but there is no point, because the BLPV is non-existent. Quite clearly Soon's research career is notable due to both his scepticism and the fact that he has received over $1 million worth of funding from companies and groups that are opposed to climate change legislation. As co-author of the discredited paper the article is about, it's worth addressing this news. To ignore this in the article is wilful ignorance of reported factual information that has recently come to light, I don't see how that serves encyclopaedic interest. --Semitransgenic (talk) 21:47, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Omer Tarin

Dear Sirs I am a bona fide PhD research scholar and a relatively new Wikipedia editor and have been trying to do my best in this regard, and am learning how to work as per your required format. Some time ago I created a page (as above) on a Pakistani poet, in fact on whose work Im actually doing my doctoral research. There were some problems with the formatting and citations sources which Ive tried to fix and shall be amending further and adding more sources as I proceed. However, now, as of July 2011, criticism has been made that the material is 'autobiographical' or 'edited by subject' or not 'neutral'. Im at a loss to understand this, please. How and why? I am an objective and properly trained research scholar of integrity and have not done any thing mala fide, indeed have tried to do my best to represent the life and work of a poet and scholar who on the basis of my original ongoing research I find to be worth adding to Wikipedia, as a practitioner of poetry from Pakistan. I would request you to please help me in editing this article, thank you.

Khani100 (talk) 05:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the "autobiographical" tag was added in error. I have removed this tag (the editor who added it has already been given some advice about being more careful adding such tags).

I've also removed some of the other tags which no longer seem to be relevant.

A suggestion is that the "See also" list is much too long and wide-ranging. You might have a look at Good or Featured articles on poets, for example James Whitcomb Riley or Philip Larkin, for ideas on what sort of material to include. (Can anyone recommend Good or Featured articles on poets that aren't dead, please?) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Manton

AustFacts (talk · contribs) is identifying himself as the subject of this BLP and getting into a revert war over content. He was previously templated for vandalism and reported to WP:AIV. I protected the article pending someone looking into this and hopefully coaching the confused and somewhat bitten user. Regards, causa sui (talk) 07:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I left him a note and a link t this thread. The article does have a couple of issues - the externals one has nothing about the subject in it - and the other is already used as a citation. The user was trying to remove them, perhaps he will comment here and we can look at the issues he has. Off2riorob (talk) 19:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's the policy on libel on BLP talk pages?

A load of pretty aggressively libelous (not to mention hurtful) material has been posted by an IP user on the talk page of a BLP.[22] What's the policy on this? Can this be blanked by other editors? Should it be cleared from the history by an admin? I've never dealt with this sort of thing before, and it would be good to know. Thanks in advance, Sindinero (talk) 12:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removed as violating WP:BLP as containing unsourced contentious claims about a living person. "Libel" is not required to invoke WP:BLP Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick and helpful response! Sindinero (talk) 12:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Wiley Price

Looks like this article has been hacked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.199.163.25 (talk) 15:31, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've stripped it down to a stub for the time being. Thanks for bringing this to attention! -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 15:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Spellings

Irrelevant details about a non-notable lawsuit persistently added by IPs (mostly recently here), with inflammatory wording "Controversy academic fraud case". There is only one third party reference for this suit, (here), which does not mention Spellings. Goverment figures are frequently named in lawsuits through no fault or action of their own, there's no reason to think this case is any different. I suspect someone has an axe to grind. There's certainly no controversy. Hairhorn (talk) 19:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Has since been removed by another editor, but would still value some input. Hairhorn (talk) 19:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The desired addition is laid out on the talkpage here Talk:Margaret_Spellings#.22Controversy_academic_fraud_case.22 - Off2riorob (talk) 20:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Four parties have filed Federal Tort Claims Act cases have been filed to the Office of General Counsel against her and the actions of other employees of the Department on July 1, 2011. The brief has also been sent to President Obama and U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder because of criminal misconduct by employees within the AAEU. Unlike the suggestion as noted by Hairhorn, a Federal Tort Claim is on a person or the person's actions which commit the Tort. Spellings, and other employees are named in the brief. The lawsuit as noted in the Portland alliance was the underlying lawsuit which then caused two additional civil actions, including complaints filed to Spellings herself. Those complaints were upheld against the two accreditors by Spellings et al. The controversy however continued which has now led to the FTCA cases against Spellings (and others). Unlike the suggestion, when you have actual statements from Spellings giving the approval to commit a tort in writing, it is not simply "through no fault or action of their own."

As to "briefs not being source materials" it would should be noted that other sections of wikipedia due in fact use briefs as source materials. To claims otherwise, is simply misguided and illogical based on the community. The FTCA brief is over 300 pages in length and maintains several thousand documents. FOIAs have now been filed by other 3rd parties who have learned about this case to seek additional materials and we are working now to get several news paper articles written. - Randy Chapel- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ka7hvz (talk • contribs)

I see you have been repeatedly adding this since 2009 - please stick to a single account. WP:Other stuff exists or WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS - does not mean it is relevant in this case. There are many poor policy violating issues across the wikipedia but that is not an excuse to create another one. As for your desired addition - three legal dockets and a unreliable external do not make for an addition to a wikipedia BLP.Off2riorob (talk) 21:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two people have added to this actually and there are actually many other legal dockets concerning the fraud Off2riorob and several websites/blogs going up. it would seem that you have particular issue with facts and successful actions against the accreditors and Feds from coming to light, which causes several of us who have now read/learned about your edits to wonder your true intent here. What I can assure you now is that there is going to be other newspaper articles on this subject -- but then again, I am sure you will continue to attempt to cover up - just like spellings and the Department have already been doing (check the IP history).--ka7hvz (talk) 22:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"several of us who have now read/learned about your edits" - who is this "us" .... please be aware that editing as a group is against policy. - Also - I am from the United Kingdom and couldn't care less about whatever you think I care about. My interest in this issue is in regard to Wikipedia:Policy and guidelines only. - If and when independant reliable reports assert some notability of this issue and it is notable to the subject of the Biographies actions/life story I will add it to the article myself. Off2riorob (talk) 22:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As noted in the article that you removed, there are several people that have been affected by what Spellings et al has done. As to the point that you are in the UK - figures. us Americans know what kind of wankers you are over there in the UK.--ka7hvz (talk) 23:23, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please take care with the personal attacks - WP:NPA - If you continue your editing privileges will be restricted. Off2riorob (talk) 23:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You opened with personal attacks Off2riorob. People have lost everything. Families have been damaged and destroyed as a result of what has happen.--ka7hvz 23:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I told you - I am only interested in Wikipedia:Policy and guidelines - where have I personally attacked anyone? Off2riorob (talk) 23:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to come up with reliable, third party sources to back up your edits, Ka7hvz, because I don't see a one. That is why all your edits have been reverted. Hairhorn (talk) 00:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The civil settlement agreements cannot be published. The FTCA claims and settlement can be because of open records laws. "...reliable, third party sources" will be forever debated I am afraid (some claim Fox News is not reliable or unbiased for example). It is however clear that shortly 3rd parties will be publishing on this topic and when that happens, yes there will be new edits.--ka7hvz 01:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The actual case involves the complaint of 2 students against their college. The escalation to any conceivable party is merely the peculiarity of US law--trying to involve not just the college but the agencies that accredited the college, the govt. agency that certifies the accrediting agency, the people at the govt agency that deal with the agencies that oversee accredition matters, finally the person in charge of the govt department. If the case is covered in major RSs, which I doubt, there could conceivably be a mention at the article on the college, but this would require much better sourcing than presently available. If the case is in fact itself actually notable , which I doubt even more , there could be an article on it.As far as I can tell, the Chronicle of Higher Education, the primary publication for actual controversies in US higher education, has not even mentioned it in a note (if I missed it, I'd appreciate the cite). Everything beyond that is an attempt at Soapboxing, a form of publicity or promotion, and one of the things which is not appropriate here, or in any other encyclopedia. I would dismiss the complaint at Wikipedia, with prejudice, unless the real sourcing according to RS becomes available--and even so, unless the Secy was personally involved in a major way, and the sources for that involvement unimpeachable, there would be no mention in the article on her. Any continuation of this would strike me as an attempt to disrupt the encyclopedia, and I have warned the user accordingly. DGG ( talk ) 01:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In reference to DGG's statement - let's review (I have left off all the citings and links to this, but can source each sentence as a result). 34 CFR § 602 is the SECRETARY'S RECOGNITION OF ACCREDITING AGENCIES. In the US, the Feds are unable to directly approve a degree or program. This is actually bared by the Constitution and is actually in the domain of the state. As a result, the concept of accreditation was developed in order to handle the millions of dollars of title 4 funds sent to schools and to handle quality in education as national/regional reliable sources - this according to the feds themselves. The Office of Civil Rights actually handles part of this as does the Office of Inspector General.

BOTH ATS and NWCCU were cited as being apart as they are the national and regional accreditor for the school in question. Both were in violation of 34 CFR §§ 602.15,.20,.22,.23. Diane Auer Jones only cited ATS and NWCCU for 602.20 and .23 violations on May 8, 2008 due to my March 2007 complaints to Spellings herself to which Spellings ordered Carol Griffiths to investigate. It is actually Congress that has put into place how this is done and the primary unit required to handle this is the AAEU. 34 CFR §§ 602.30-38.

According to the federal code, citing accreditors for not keeping schools accountable and not maintaining policies based on federal regs is done by a senior Department official. Sara Tucker was one of the senior officials who was involved in failing to cite ATS and NWCCU on .20, .15 and .23. so was Diane Auer Jones and Cheryl Oldham. The actual letters in Sept and Aug of 2008 were first authored by Nancy C. Regan under the direction of the Office of General Counsel.

As early as Jan 15, 2009 forward, Arne Duncan has been apprised of this mess that Spellings left and now has been handed 4 FTCA claims which name some 20 employees of the Department. The FTCA provides a limited waiver of the federal government's sovereign immunity when its employees are negligent within the scope of their employment. Under the FTCA, the government can only be sued 'under circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred.' 28 U.S.C. S 1346(b) These four Federal Tort Claims have several causes of actions, including negligence in citing ATS and NWCCU as required under statue, among many other claims. The brief that has been submitted to the Office of General Counsel is over 300 pages in length and the first stage of it was over 100 pages in details sent on July 1, with several thousand pages of supporting evidences. A fifth claim is being contemplated to be filed. These claims have been received by the Department's Office of General Counsel who for the last 7 months has come under fire over this case and how it has been handled by the Department. As of July 8, Charles P. Rose is no longer General Counsel at the U.S. Department of Education and Philip H. Rosenfelt has taken over.

AAEU was audited by the Office of Inspector General dating all the way back to 2003 over failures within the unit in doing its job. Like in the case of the former MMU (which has now been renamed after the oil spill in the gulf), when a government unit fails to do its job and people get hurt and in the MMU case, people died, FTCA claims can be filed. There actually are articles regarding the downward spiral of accreditation in America and the lack oversight involved, including senators asking questions at recent hearings and in the media (Sorry - the Chronicle of Higher Education is not "the" primary source here. google 'accreditation senator' 'accreditation fix' and so on).

In this case, negligence has actually damaged and personally injured students and their families at this point. The AAEU with ATS and NWCCU have oked schools offering degrees that violate state laws, decisions cases and federal statues, while demanding that students and their families don't filed complaints and are gagged for life. Such cases here in Ca has been raised and won by the State's attorney general against schools. Hence why there are FTCA cases being filed, since FTCA cases are based on the state you are filing in.

When there are actually letters signed by people who, by law, must give account for millions of dollars and the oversight that accreditors provide to the nation, it is more than just relevant - at least senators think so. At this time, the Department is being hit with many FOIAs seeking information about the cover up and this will continue. This has also spilled into the efforts of two congress persons and in about 3 weeks time from this writing, likely will go to the media and national press. Two civil FOIA cases are now being put together.

To that end, no other additions to Spellings BLP have been added by me or the other students, until further articles concerning these cases are done - articles well beyond the Chronicle.--ka7hvz 03:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I have no doubt there is room for a discussion about current issues involving the US accreditation process.Any regular reader of the appropriate news sources will know of a number of instances, Where it should be covered and whether this should be a separate article depends on the degree to which it becomes a major issue. It certainly should not be written by anyone having a grievance about a particular instance--that's a violation of WP:COI, and the sort of intense COI that almost nobody can correct for in their editing. Whether any of this goers in the bio of the Sec'y depends on what the sources say. Suits against a US agency normally name the head of the agency because of the general oversight, but the degree to which personal involvement is present varies. Even if there were some personal involvement with respect to accreditation in general ,it would still have to be shown in this case. That you wrote a letter to her after which the agency took some action is not personal involvement. Everything else you say is pure Soapbox. Wikipedia does not exist to right wrongs. It is not a mechanism for government reform, but an encyclopedia.

As you admit you are one of the parties to the case, in order to prevent the introduction of further bias, as a totally uninvolved administrator I hereby warn you that I shall block you for COI should you do any further editing on her bio or anything on the topic of this particular case or this particular college. Depending on your editing, it might be extended to anything on the topic of the US higher education accreditation process. Any uninvolved administrator is welcome to review either this warning, or the possible block. DGG ( talk ) 17:07, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Van Amstel

Could someone take a look at recent edits to Louis Van Amstel. I'm not familiar enough with BLP to know whether action is needed here or not. Station1 (talk) 22:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about BLP issues, but it's terribly written and very boring. I started just to make minor changes to it but got tired and need to sign off. If I had to remove one more wikilink from Dancing with the Stars and put it in italics, I was going to scream. I'll look at it later.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:27, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there are indeed BLP issues.
In this edit [23] an IP has tried to remove the Louis_Van_Amstel#Personal_Life section and provided a summary, I work for Louis van Amstel and have been requested to remove this section as it is ficticious. I removed this section once before and it had been re-posted!! Should not be on here. This section begins, "Van Amstel is openly gay. Growing up, he was bullied for being gay. When he was 15, his mother reassured him that if he ever felt different, he could talk to her. At the time, he did not know what she meant, but afterwards, he began experimenting and learning about himself, opening up a whole new world to him outside of dancing." And so on. This material is ostensibly based on Windy City Media Group, aYouTube Video, and PerezHilton.com. Alex Harvey (talk) 05:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've removed the YouTube cite as a copyright vio, and I've added a tag to the Personal section for more references. It's hard to wade through the article because of the way it's written, but I suppose I should look more closely at some of the more controversial sections.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, an IP has tried to undo all the changes I've made to the article. Putting aside all the formatting changes (and things like misuse of flags and wikilinks), the IP has restored the YouTube reference, which is a copyright violation, removed the maintenance template I added, and inserted information that is not sourced and is probably a BLP violation (reference to alcohol). I posted many warnings and reverted more than I should (based on the copyright vio I felt it was justified). I've now asked for the IP to be blocked. I'm signing off shortly, so I have no idea what will happen. I've left in the last reversion by the IP (so the article is now in a compromised state) because I don't want to keep reverting while my block request is pending.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now I've seen everything. User:Jww047 edited WP:AIV and replaced my report of the IP to his/her report of me. I assume an admin will notice the behavior and revert it. So far, no one has.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:56, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Facial composite as infobox image of a BLP

Example images of the individual for comparison: [24], [25], [26]

Article: Aafia Siddiqui

Relevant policies: WP:BLP, WP:MUG

I am looking for outside advise on this issue that addresses the given arguments and i urge involved editors not to disturb this discussion.

Problem: The image in the infobox reduced the individual of this biography to a FBI created Facial composite and presents her in a false light. It shows how Dr. Siddiqui might have look at that time in the view of the FBI. It is not an authentic image of her. The facial composite shows her in a false light and therefore violates WP:BLP, WP:MUG.

Proposed solutions: The Facial composite should be removed from the infobox.

Possible counter arguments: There are no authentic free images available. Solution for that: The facial composite could be moved to the relevant section in the article body.

Additional input on how to use Facial composite in BLP's in general are also welcome.

Independent views and comments by editors who are not involved in the dispute are welcome. Thank you. IQinn (talk) 02:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would be quite loath to use a "facial composite" for any living person as an image with exceedingly few exceptions (such as a composite leading to apprehension of an unkonwn person is a notable case). It does not qualify as "fact" to be sure, and in most cases would be essentially a "pictorial opinion" of an artist (trying to make it fit the current BLP requirements and wording). Collect (talk) 03:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not seeing a problem. Five other editors have weighed in at Talk:Aafia Siddiqui#BLP to tell iQinn that the photo is compliant with Wikipedia’s policies. The consensus was that WP:MUG is intended to prevent the use of unflattering images like this mug shot of Nick Nolte when there are perfectly good alternatives such as this image of him, which is not unflattering and is the one actually used in the article. The above picture of Siddiqui looks more like a passport picture, and is free use because it came from the U.S. government. If there is a better image of her that is already in the public domain, that’s great. The reasoning of the five other editors is quite clear and consistent. IQinn’s “Possible counter arguments” above, gives short shrift to the facts since there known and existing counter arguments. His post would seem a little less disingenuous if he revised it to “Known counter arguments” and did a better job of capturing what has truly transpired over there. Greg L (talk) 03:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As Collect points out, this isn't an image of the person in question: it cannot be used in an infobox as in illustration of the subject. The absence of an authentic image is a red herring at best - there is no requirement that an infobox should have an image at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:20, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course its an image of the person, just as much as this is an image of George Washington and this is an image of Obama and so too (is this one). It doesn’t matter if the FBI took an existing picture of Siddiqui and modified to make it clearer; if it is a reasonably accurate facsimile of her from an RS and isn’t unreasonably unflattering (cherry picked just to cast her in an unflattering light) then it’s perfectly OK for Wikipedia to use the image to illustrate the subject in question. Greg L (talk) 03:31, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Utter nonsense. - our readers don't need to be told the George Washington image isn't the actual subject, but an artist's impression. The 'composite' is intended to look like a photo, and as such is misrepresentation. And no, the FBI isn't 'RS' in this instance - they are clearly an involved party. But I return to my earlier point - there is no requirement for the infobox to have an image, so why insist on including one which isn't actually a photo of the subject? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Poppycock. It would help if you familiarized yourself with the facts. Right under the photo is a caption states “Facial composite, created by FBI for a wanted poster.” And it’s cited. So there is zero misrepresentation. You guys are all getting sucked into a vortex phenomenon when an editor who won’t abide by consensus goes forum shopping and misrepresents the facts. Don’t let it happen to you. Greg L (talk) 03:54, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(I'm not sure what is supposed to follow "utter nonsense" and "poppycock".) I agree with Collect and Andy. The image shouldn't be used. The caption doesn't eliminate the misrepresentation. Why don't you come up with a WP article of a BLP that uses a facsimile photograph of the person in the infobox? If you can, then we can remove it from that infobox, too.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:02, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think readers expect to see a photo in our infoboxes. It's OK if it's a painting or whatever for people who lived before cameras. The reader will understand in that case. In this case, I think a lot of readers will ignore the caption, and think this is a photo. I'm not worried too much about the subject, but I think we may be misleading our readers. The image should probably be put below the infobox, and a photo should be put in the infobox. Possibly a non free one. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:09, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be only one 'fact' here - that editors are trying (why?) to insert an 'image' into an infobox that isn't what it appears to be. Unless they can give a convincing argument that this is necessary, it should not be included. Infoboxes should be used for uncontroversial 'information' (hence the name), not for questionable 'facimiles' originating from involved parties. Frankly, the image is hardly useful anyway - where I live (London), this could be any one of hundreds of women of South Asian ancestry one might see on the street - she looks stressed out, but that isn't unusual, who doesn't? I'm certainly not going to start looking at everyone to see if they look like an FBI 'facsimile' of a terrorist - I probably look like one myself.AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This subject has been discussed at length here. Iqinn misconstrues what the plain words of wp:mug state. Iqinn also above takes the interesting tact of not only leaving out reference to the relevant discussion, and leaving out the points of those who disagree with him (all who commented there, unanimously), but then goes so far as to ask that those who took part in that conversation (all of whom disagreed with him) not comment here.

WP:MUG states: "Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light." That policy has nothing to do with the matter at hand. As has previously been pointed out to Iqinn. This is not "out of context". Rather, it is in context -- it is properly captioned to state precisely what it is, it is in an infobox that provides the context of her criminal charge, criminal penalty, and criminal status, and it is in an article that describes her "wanted for questioning" alert for which the image was used. This is a poster child for "in context" use of an image.

We could stop there. But perhaps it is also worth mentioning that Iqinn's "false light" protestation misses what a false light representation is. There is no "false light" here -- this is not an instance of a picture taken to suggest something "false" about her -- that she was shooting up heroin when she was not, or shooting someone when she was not, or kissing a goat when she was not, or has lots of acne and a crew cut when she does not. Those are "false light" images. Nothing here of the sort. In fact, it defies credulity to suggest that the FBI in its wanted picture put out anything other than their best effort to reflect what she does in fact truly look like. There's simply nothing to that argument.

As to whether this is an image of the person -- of course it is. It is a composite image. "Image" doesn't mean "one-click-of-the-camera-photo". It can even be a portrait, a composite, or any other likeness that qualifies as an image. If a photo is available of her that is free appears (doesn't appear to be one at the moment), that would be fine as well. Alternatively. But there is nothing to the "this isn't an image" line of thought. --Epeefleche (talk) 06:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This photo should be removed. I don't think I would want my biography illustrated by a "wanted" photo put together for the purpose of arresting me by the FBI. I don't think anyone would. So per WP:MUG the photo is presenting the subject in a disparaging light. Alex Harvey (talk) 06:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Collect (!) and think the photo is unsuitable for use in the infobox. It's fine for use in the article in proper context and with a clear legend. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:53, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with Collect, AndyTheGrump, Bbb23, and others here - the image is essentially guesswork and misleading. There is no immediate imperative that an image must be included in an infobox, and a misleading one is worse than no image at all. It's no different than adding a reference that doesn't support a string of text, just to be able to say there is a reference. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 14:09, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in the "take it out" camp too, for the reasons stated by Collect, AndyTheGrump, Bbb23, and the others. – ukexpat (talk) 15:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I really fail to see the problem here. We're upfront about what this image is in the caption, and it doesn't appear to misrepresent her in any way. Drawings and paintings and prints are used in infoboxes here all the time, so I don't see a compelling reason to disallow this usage. did find another photo of her in this terrorist bolo. Perhaps editors could look into the copyright status and appropriateness of using it as an alternative. Gamaliel (talk) 17:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You mean the image on the left. I think it might be free as it seems that it has been published by the FBI as well. IQinn (talk) 22:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The image seems acceptable to me. Photography doesn't always equate to verisimilitude. The argument is made on the article Talk page that the composite image is not an "authentic image" but I think there is some flexibility between authentic image and inauthentic image. This image doesn't have any glaring inconsistencies with the other photos it has been compared to. Bus stop (talk) 20:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - We know the image in question is manipulate or even completely computer generated. Is this Aafia Siddiqui? Isn't it original research WP:OR when we as Wikipedia editors compare manipulated images to original ones and make a judgement about that? It seems to me that way. You think this facial composite would be suitable to represent the subject of a biography? Where do we draw the line? IQinn (talk) 22:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. This is obviously the best effort by the FBI to accurately represent the image of the person, an image which they created so that people would recognize her, and help the FBI find her. It was not created to make her look bad (indeed, she looks far better than some other images we've all seen). Let's apply a reasonable dose of wp:common sense.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Iquinn .no it is not. FBI website is considered a RS. several other RS have used the same image.[27], [28]--Wikireader41 (talk) 23:55, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUG states "Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light." This persons only claim to fame is that she is a convicted felon and a suspected top ranking al-Qaeda militant. Nothing in WP:MUG saying composites cannot be used. It is not as if we are using a composite of Lindsay Lohan in her BLP. This person is not notable for anything except that she is a criminal. If she was not that she would not even have an article. we are not presenting her in false light one bit so the image needs to stay unless a better public domain image is available.--Wikireader41 (talk) 21:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Facial composite allowed for criminals but not for Lindsay Lohan? Do you think that we should not give people convicted in a US court the same BLP rights than anyone else? Do you think this Facial composite has a criminal touch so it suits her? IQinn (talk) 22:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

well Aafia is ONLY notable ( by WP standards) for her criminal pursuits and associations. She has no other notability and would not have an article if she was not listed as one of the most wanted al-Qaeda terrorists by FBI ( using this image). We are not misrepresenting her here by putting a facial composite. IMO we would not be misrepresenting her if we put a ( public domain) picture of her in prison clothes. It would be different if it was putting a facial composite for somebody who was notable primarily for another reason ( other than being a criminal). She has the same BLP rights as anyone else not to be misrepresented in their picture. the point is she is NOT misrepresented and her image is not being used out of context.--Wikireader41 (talk) 23:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree mostly with this position - she is only a notable criminal and as such the mugshot in the infobox if cleanly labeled as a composite seems admissible. Off2riorob (talk) 23:50, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the objection Iqinn is raising is not that it is problematic because misleads the readers into thinking the subject is a criminal. She is a criminal. His objection, as I understand it, is that WP:MUG does not make exceptions or differentiate between convicted criminals and those merely accused or charged with crimes. I think if you're going to take up the view that the composite image is okay because she's a convicted criminal, you would have to explain either (1) why we ought to take exception to that policy here, (2) why the policy doesn't actually apply at all (i.e. why the rationale motivating the policy does not apply to this case), or (3) why the policy should be amended to permit mugshots for convicted criminals. I hope that helps. Regards, causa sui (talk) 00:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I had a fresh look at WP:Mug and the point seems to be - "not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light. " - is this picture disparaging? - thats a judgment call...personally I do not find this picture disparaging. - but if someone else did per WP:BLP and WP:MUG and it was moved into the body of the article I would not object. Off2riorob (talk) 00:10, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For wp:mug to apply in the first place, the image has to be used "out of context". As you point out, in your quote. It is clearly being used "in context" -- properly described, in an infobox that discusses her criminal charges and conviction. So, there's not even a judgment call involved here; wp:mug doesn't even apply (to this image which is not, btw, a "mug shot"). And, further to your point that you do not personally find the image disparaging, I agree -- we all know what a disparaging image looks like .. and this would be one example.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I did not see a policy that says facial composites can't be used in BLP. WP:MUG clearly talks about Images rather than photographs. IMO a facial composite and mug shots would be OK in any article ( BLP or not) as long as the primary notability of the subject is that they are criminals. I would object of course to putting a mugshot in an article ( BLP or otherwise) if the subject was primary notable for another reason like Ms Lohan ( of course the only reason somebody gets a mugshot is because they encountered Law enforcement somewhere- this could be a relatively trivial matter as drunk driving or you could be one of the most wanted al qaeda terrorists)--Wikireader41 (talk) 00:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(←) It's an interesting case and doesn't strike me as clear-cut either way. But the discussion here does suggest to me that while some people think it is not strictly a BLP issue, there are lingering concerns about whether it makes sense from an editorial standpoint to use a composite where we would usually have an actual photograph to illustrate the subject. I'm tempted to try to pinch this off (forgive the expression) and go to the next step (something like DRN) before the original disputants start going around in circles with each other again. causa sui (talk) 00:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a quick look its about eight to five policy considered comments to err on the side of caution and remove the pic from the infobox to the related section of the article body. I also note - this pic is almost spammed across the project in ten articles on en wikipedia alone. Off2riorob (talk) 00:50, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What people have said has somewhat convinced me it's OK, but since it's a BLP, we should probably still err on the side of caution, and put it lower with a detailed caption. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is my position as well. Off2riorob (talk) 01:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added " (not actual photograph)" for now where possible. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:07, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@ causa sui would also like to add if the intent of WP:MUG was to put a blanket ban on using Mug shots ( or composites) in BLPs it would have stated so in plain english. something like "Mug Shots and composites should not be used in BLPs". Clearly it does not say that and only prohibits use of Mug Shots "out of context" and in a "disparaging way". a clear cut situation violation would be use in Lindsay Lohan. Sometimes it is useful to think about the intent of the policy rather just rely on "plain reading" . We clearly don't want to put mug Shots on BLPs of people who are not notable for criminal activity and thus defame them. I would have had no problems with a mug shot in the article on Timothy McVeigh even when he was alive. Ditto for Richard Reid & Zacarias Moussaoui who in fact are alive.--Wikireader41 (talk) 01:29, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think WP:MUG is particularly relevant here. :) What I wonder, though, is if a composite based on what eyewitnesses think someone looks like can ever be used as a reliable depiction of what they genuinely do look like. I'm presuming that this is effectively a artist's impression based on accounts, and under those terms I wouldn't have thought such a depiction would be seen as reliable enough for an infobox. It would be reliable, of course, as a depiction of what eyewitnesses thought they saw, or who the FBI believed they were looking for. - Bilby (talk) 01:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

well Aafia lived for a long time in US prior to being declared wanted by FBI. I am sure FBI had access to her drivers license photo(s), visa photos, college photos etc. Its not that Aafia was some never before seen militant and FBI was basing the composite on third party descriptions. just a plain comparison of her other pictures on the web will confirm that the composite is of the same person.--Wikireader41 (talk) 01:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We can not be sure about something we do not know. You do not have any information about how this facial composite was created. This is pure speculation. The second suggestion to compare an artistic facial composite with original images to decide if the person looks identical or similar enough is clear WP:OR and would lead to chaos. There are already opposing opinions about that. I do not think that is the case.

Collect, AndyTheGrump, Bbb23 summed it up the right way that was endorsed as well by many other editors. Lately Bilby says almost the same. You are driving circles. Let's try to find consensus. Wikipedia is all about compromises and consensus. There seems to be also a large number of editors who think the problem could be solved by moving the image to the body of the article. Not my first choice but how about we solving the dispute by following their advise? IQinn (talk) 02:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

well she look like it and the image has been used in articles on aafia in several RS.[29], [30]. any rebuttal to that ?? wikipedia runs on RS. can you point to a single Rs which has raised concerns that the image is NOT her ? No you can't. What you are saying (that this presents her disparagingly is certainly OR)--Wikireader41 (talk) 15:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IQinn—it would be original research if it were created by Wikipedia editors, but it is not. It is the result of deliberate effort by a responsible entity—the FBI—to create a likeness of the individual. Bus stop (talk) 16:05, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quick wiki poll

Trying to find consensus.

Please indicate if you think that the Facial composite used in the infobox of Aafia Siddiqui should be moved to the article body.

Move to article body IQinn (talk) 02:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as-is. It meets both policy, and common sense. It is an image (though some editors above thought that a non-composite photo, not an "image", was what we need). There is no reason to think that it is an image that lacks verisimilitude -- just the opposite, under the circumstances. In fact, many photos can lack verisimilitude -- we know from the purpose for which this image was created that it was created to accurately reflect the person. It is not a mug shot. At the same time, it meets the criteria of wp:mug--it is clearly put in context. It is the best image we have, that we can use in the infobox. And, by way of contrast, this image and this image are two of the more popular non-composite images of her. And this is the image that her own supporters use for her.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in infobox. It is common sense to use it in the infobox—as long as the caption under the photo clearly indicates that it is a composite (as is currently the case). GFHandel ♬ 06:19, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as-is per Epeefleche V7-sport (talk) 06:21, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Move to the most relevant section - there is clearly enuf assertions that the FBI composite picture is disparaging to require us to err on the side of caution as per WP:MUG in a WP:BLP. Off2riorob (talk) 06:49, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Move to another section where the composite is discussed. [31] Even the non-free photos (except for one apparently post-beatdown) show her in some kind of headgear. I do not think she would willingly present herself bare-headed; it is therefore equivalent to "situations where the subject was not expecting to be photographed". Thundermaker (talk) 10:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Move or remove per my (and others's) comments in the previous section. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Move - and any caption should make clear that it is an impression of the subject, not an 'image'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Move - per the many arguments above. I'd be happy with complete removal as well per Stephan.Griswaldo (talk) 14:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
re-Move Why stick a supposition in the info box? John lilburne (talk) 14:48, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep image in Infobox. There is no issue with the image being merely an impression—not any more so than any other image—in fact verisimilitude is what is aimed for by the FBI. The image aims to be representational. I do not think it aims to present the subject unflatteringly. Bus stop (talk) 15:07, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is Like User:Bus stop, I do not think it aims to present the subject unflatteringly. The only question should be “What is best for the article and for the reader?” The photo composite is from a reliable national investigative police agency with the intent to make the likeness as clear as possible. If this was a painting of an individual, like this one of President Obama or this one of George Washington, there would be no need for the caption to say “Oil painting representation of what the president appears like;” it’s obvious. When the image is so realistic it appears like a plain photo but really isn’t, such as with many astronomy images like this binary pair, the captions usually say something like “Artist impression.” Until a just-as-clear, free-use image becomes available (other non-free-use ones invariably show here with a scarf around her head), the existing image, unaltered by any wikipedian, with the current caption (“Facial composite, created by FBI for a wanted poster”) is how to best serve the reader with encyclopedic information so they better understand the subject matter. Greg L (talk) 15:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Move or delete The "composite" is not an "oil painting" where a person presumably was at least seen by the artist <g>. Collect (talk) 15:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Move I have not been following this discussion, but my initial impression of the image is that it is clearly disparaging. I certainly would not want a similar picture of myself in circulation. Placing it in the body of the article, with a caption that makes its origin clear, would let readers form their own judgement about the image.--agr (talk) 15:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is I do not see how this image woukld present the subject disparagingly. we have a precedent of using mug shots on BLPs of people notable for criminal activities alone.Timothy McVeigh,Richard Reid & Zacarias Moussaoui are examples--Wikireader41 (talk) 15:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Move to an appropriate section of the article or remove entirely. The infobox image in a biography should be an accurate portrayal of the subject's appearance at the time that the image was created. Photographs and painted portraits generally meet this standard; 'best guesses' by a law-enforcement agency do not. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Move or better yet remove per TenofAllTrades and others. Smallbones (talk) 17:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is. per Epeefleche and GregL. It's not like the FBI is making this image up from their imagination. It's labeled clearly (and should be) as a composite, and until a real-McCoy picture becomes available, this is best.SteveB67 (talk) 22:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment - We really should close this down, drive by votes are unhelpful. There are good faith policy driven reguests to move the picture from the infobox and a fair degree of support for that, as such under erring on the side of caution we should make the move and close this vote down. Off2riorob (talk) 23:05, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DSK & Housekeeper libel case

I could do with input over whether this information is a BLP problem. Brief overview; some tabloid paper published a trash allegation (see the content) and she is suing them for libel. There is disagreement over whether we need to record the specifics of what allegations they made - I say they don't. A couple of others say they do. I partially see their argument, but also think that favouring privacy and caution is a sensible move.

I'm particularly worried this is a subtle attempt to put a POV into the article and undermine the housekeeper. Relevant discussion: Talk:Dominique_Strauss-Kahn_sexual_assault_case#Moot_court_facts --Errant ^(chat!) 07:58, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My problem here is that leaving out the reason for the lawsuit confuses the reader. She's filing a libel lawsuit for what?? It's not for any of the things mentioned above. But a reader won't know that, unless they actually click on the references. And we should never force readers to read references to get important information.

As for BLP, there are numerous precedents of libel lawsuits where the details of the libel are included in the article. Is there any reason why more stringent BLP standards should apply to this unnamed housekeeper than to Ashley Olson, Clark Jones, or Jose Santos?

As for his POV worries, I have the same concern from the opposite perspective. :-) -- Bob drobbs (talk) 08:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My POV worries relate to the person originally placing the material, who was desperately trying to disparage the subject, and when that failed tried this more subtle approach. I disgree that it is particularly important what the allegations were. Is there any reason why more stringent BLP standards should apply to this unnamed housekeeper; this is never a good argument. People tend to use it when I (and others) enforce WP:BLPCAT and it usually just results in BLP being applied to the new examples too :) As it stands... I suspect the WND article needs tweaking per WP:BLPNAME, and the others may need looking at. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:01, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Errant, are you assuming good faith when you accuse other editors of "desperately trying to disparage the subject"? Please play nice. And I wasn't joking about my own worries about POV. I've seen a consistent trend in trying to cover up absolutely notable, though negative, information about the housekeeper even when the references were rock-solid and the information was coming from the prosecutor.

As for enforcing things regarding libel cases, my position remains clear and consistent. _If_ a libel lawsuit is notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia, then the reason for the lawsuit also merits inclusion. It's simply a joke for an encyclopedia to remain intentionally vague and force it's readers to go to cited references for facts and details. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 09:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is important to remember that there are two living people affected by this controversy and BLP policy applies to both. As far as I can see, the housekeeper is not even named, so it seems a bit extreme to be hiding reliably sourced information about her relating to accusations against her which she says are false, while at the same time presenting an entire article in gory detail about accusations she has made against DSK which he says - and now the prosecutors possibly agree - are false. Alex Harvey (talk) 11:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article in question is about the case against DSK not every subsidiary case arising from it. Keep the thing focused and remove all references to libels and unsubstantiated accusations. John lilburne (talk) 11:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Even if the newspaper claims are correct that doesn't make her allegation against DSK untrue, and if the newspapers claims are incorrect that doesn't make gher claims against DSK true. John lilburne (talk) 11:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Alex; we've consistently been keeping the nastiest of the tabloid allegations about DSK out of the article (thankfully) and I was trying to apply the same policy to the housekeeper. Consistency is good. @Bob; the user in question is the typical sort of SPA trying to spin the article, I'm not worried about calling that out. AGF is no suicide pact :) @John; the reason I have resisted this is stubbornness because on the talk page I was told either the allegations go in or we "compromise" and take all the content out... which I find an objectionable argument.. FWIW I think it is relevant given that it relates to the mass of allegations that have surfaced r.e. the housekeeper in the last few weeks, that she is going after the tabloids who are publishing them. --Errant ^(chat!) 11:30, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It will hardly come as a shock to hear that I'd favour removal of most of the article anyway. This is the problem with articles like this, they are simply disguised news, where the emphasis ebbs and flows as the days and weeks go by. There will always be pressure to add this or that bit of reported tidbit gossip or allegation, as the article is magnet for BLP violations and will remain so well after the legal processes have concluded and the news agenda has moved on to other things. This article should never have been started, that it was is a demonstration of the immaturity of the project, that editors can't wait before they start spinning their own slant on the news event of the day. I know that you and others have been mindful to keep as much of the tosh out as possible, but tosh creeps in day by day. It is inevitable as speculative news reports get written day by day, and editors want to keep up with the latest developments. John lilburne (talk) 11:55, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These are actions on the part of the housekeeper. Impeccably reliable sources are reporting actions that the housekeeper chose to initiate. No one forced the housekeeper to file a libel suit against the N. Y. Post. She is responsible for her own actions. They are reported here in the New York Times. This is exactly one sentence long in our article, seen here.

"Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. "

There is no "privacy" whatsoever in a filed lawsuit reported in the New York Times.

"Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment."

We are not spreading "titillating claims". The issue at the heart of a lawsuit that the housekeeper chose to initiate will be decided by a court of law. Nothing is "sensationalist" about reporting about one more lawsuit in a battle of lawsuits. There will be a legal outcome and it will have bearing on the primary lawsuit involving sexual assault.

BLP does not mean leaving out relevant parts of a story because the story itself is sensitive. We are expected, by BLP, to exercise a "high degree of sensitivity". But it would seem exceedingly difficult to report about a case involving accusations of sexual assault to omit all references to sex.

The above quotes (underlined) are from WP:BLP. Bus stop (talk) 12:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whether goose or gander, WP:BLP still applies. Contentious claims, even about a person not named, require the same standards we apply to all BLPs. The Duke lacrosse case is a good example where "titillating claims" were "reliably sourced" according to those adding them to articles. Wikipedia is better off recognizing the WP:DEADLINE we have in an encyclopedia than in promoting such stuff. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:48, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the reference to "goose or gander" is all about. BLP applies, but it should not be misapplied. The point about a person not named is that the person should be named. We are only not naming the housekeeper in this article because most reliable sources are not naming that person. We are simply following reliable sources. We are not following BLP because BLP is mute on this issue. While it is true that there is no deadline it would seem contrived to deliberately omit eminently relevant information that a source no less prestigious than the New York Times is giving substantial treatment to. The entirety of the N Y Times article is given over to the thread of this issue of the lawsuit filed by the housekeeper against the N Y Post. Omission of that would be a contrivance. Bus stop (talk) 13:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bus stop, it is simply incorrect to suggest that "we are only not naming the housekeeper in this article because most reliable sources are not naming that person". There are plenty of reliable sources that have named her. We are not naming the housekeeper because we have made an editorial decision not to do so, after consideration of the appropriate WP:BLP policies. Article content is not determined by outside sources. They provide it, we decide whether it is relevant to an article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AndyTheGrump—you mention in your above post, "the appropriate WP:BLP policies." Can you please tell me what "appropriate WP:BLP policies" you feel supports the omission of the housekeeper's name? Bus stop (talk) 18:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Could we just add a comment that gives the detail without the need to repeat the claimed defamation/demeaning portrayal - like,....

On July 5 the maid filed a libel suit against the New York Post, claiming that in articles the post published about her in early July they had subjected her to humiliation, shame, scorn, emotional injury, embarrassment, loss of standing in the community, loss of self-esteem, public disgrace, severe and extreme emotional distress and “ridicule throughout the world.” Off2riorob (talk) 14:48, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- This is essentially what I have been pushing for - but the other editors on the page are sticking fast to the idea that either we detail the allegations or the whole lot goes. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:53, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Errant, I'm sorry that you find my argument "objectionable". The corollary of my argument above, is if the details aren't important enough for readers to care about, then the lawsuit isn't either, and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. It should be deleted.

Off2riorob,'"… had subjected her to humiliation, shame, scorn, emotional injury, embarrassment, …"

I find your suggestion extremely POV. You're going to cherry pick details from the case to tell the story you wish to tell? _If_ this libel lawsuit is indeed notable enough for inclusion in the article, then how about a compromise where we include the reason for the libel lawsuit _and_ her alleged reaction to it? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 17:50, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am with Errant completely about this - I see you have just removed the compromise Bob - it seems unless you get to add the specific claimed insult/libel defamation you start posting in capitals and reverting - as for your edit summary - it is far from an irrelevant factoid - it represents that there are some issues or at least she feels issues with the way she has been portrayed in the media. Its quite acceptable editorial judgment under WP:BLP that we do not need to repeat and republish a specific insult to the subject to add detail about it. Off2riorob (talk) 18:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Off2riorob—the housekeeper's accusations against DSK of sexual abuse are very clearly related to the degree to which she is believable in a court of law. The lawsuit that her attorneys file against the NY Post are to reclaim some of her recently eroded credibility. There is not justification for failing to mention this relevant detail on BLP grounds. The best reason is that the NY Times is a reliable source. An entire article in the NY Times is devoted to the lawsuit the housekeeper is filing against the NY Post. The reader obviously has a need to know the concrete reason for the housekeeper's attorneys bringing the charges against the NY Post. Bus stop (talk) 18:53, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We arew not making a guilty/not guilty case, or trying the case in our article. The reason is that she feels the reporting by the New York Post was insulting and libelous. - Every time I look at that publication I am amazed that it is a major city paper. Off2riorob (talk) 18:57, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What I removed was _not_ a compromise. John lilburne reverted my change which kicked off this discussion with an edit summary: irrelevant detail about an irrelevant factoid. I just took his change one step further. _If_ this libel case is an irrelevant factoid, then it has no place in the article. However, if the lawsuit truly is notable, then the critical details also need to be provided. There is no violation of WP:BLP in that.

As for "acceptable editorial judgment", it seems to me that you're trying to engage in POV censorship, under the guise of editorial judgment.

Suggested compromises: 1) Delete the entire line since it's only tangentially related to the article and probably not historically notable. 2) Provide specifics of the alleged libel _and_ specifics of her claimed reaction to it. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:55, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What iyo is POV censorship is imo NPOV BLP consideration. It is no more tangent than at least half the current article - as I said, it reflects her position that she has been insulted/libeled in the reporting of the case. Off2riorob (talk) 19:01, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Off2riorob It would be highly inappropriate to dismiss a complaint of rape, simply because the person was supposedly a sex worker, as such this is completely irrelevant to the case. John lilburne (talk) 19:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the allegations against DSK, not about his alleged victims legal issues with the press. Regardless of the truth of the press allegations they have no bearing on the case. If all we knew was that this person was suing about a statement in the press, we would not be putting it in any article. It is only being considered because of the relationship with DSK. Keep it focused folks. John lilburne (talk) 19:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John lilburne—all moralizing aside, the case for nonconsensual sex is diminished with the addition of prostitution as a factor. That is why the NY Post lawsuit is relevant and the reason why it should be mentioned in evenhanded but concrete terms. Bus stop (talk) 19:30, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No if bloody well is not. NO is NO! Whether the person is a prostitute or not, one is not empowered to rape them. Show me a US law that says otherwise. John lilburne (talk) 19:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John lilburne—there is no "rape" in allowing eminently reliable sources to provide us with guidance on propriety and you shouldn't even be utilizing language such as "rape" in a discussion on a Talk page unless you are using the term literally. This The New York Times article is showing us that the reporting of the lawsuit against the New York Post is reportable information. Bus stop (talk) 02:39, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Off2riob, I think you read a different WP:NPOV article than I did: "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources."

What exactly do you feel is NPOV of about cherry picking certain information about this libel lawsuit? Do you really think that is the way to represent all significant views about the libel case?

I took an _unofficial_ tally to help understand where we are:

Hide the reason for the libel lawsuit - 2 votes (Errant and Off2riob)
Include reason for the libel lawsuit - 2.5 votes (Alex, Bus Stop, Bob)
Delete the entire thing as non-notable - 1.5 votes (John, Bob)
I'm not sure of their views - (Andy, Collect)

Now, we don't have consensus here. However, Off2riob since it seems you're in the _minority_ will you at least stop engaging in reverts until we get some sort of consensus? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 19:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus to repeat the claimed libel in the article. - I personally see the press attacks on her and the legal report/claim of libel as noteworthy, if consensus develops against that I will happily accept that. Off2riorob (talk) 19:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Off2riob, you still have not explained how _your_ definition of WP:NPOV matches with the definition in the article: "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources."

It seems to me that you're just trying to put forward your own POV, actively seeking to censor information which could possibly put the housekeeper in a negative light, totally irrespective of the actual BLP and NPOV rules. And, it seems pretty questionable, under the argument that there is a lack of "consensus", to feel that you have a right to make whatever, possibly POV edits you want, even if they're contrary to the views of the majority here.

Finally, it seems likely that consensus isn't going to happen here without compromise. Are you willing to try to seek some sort of compromise? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 20:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will compromise on anything apart from the desire to include the claimed insulting/libelious remarks in our article. Off2riorob (talk) 20:54, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To reiterate my position:

I find it "objectional" that some are attempting to cast this as a binary situation, where we have to have one or the other. That is absurd.
The fact she has filed a lawsuit is of minor relevance especially in relation to the press discussion of her credibility. Not to include it does not seem proportionate
The meat of the allegations, though, are not necessarily as relevant and I favour privacy in such a case - so as not to repeat tabloid allegations (and, yes, it would be repeating them) [this is consistent; we touch on the fact that people have attacked DSK in the press, but avoided giving the more vitriolic attackers a platform[
Bus Stop's argument is, in my personal opinion, morally objectional and steeped in a specific POV; more to the point, though, it consists entirely of his own original research e.g. The lawsuit that her attorneys file against the NY Post are to reclaim some of her recently eroded credibility. and I feel we can discard it. I am not sure what he intends to achieve with such an argument :S
I am inclined to agree mostly with John lilburne; except that I think that some of the elements being reported about the housekeeper are of roughly the same relevance with this. And much as I despise this approach - I feel it brings balance to the section.
I could buy a compromise that was slightly more specific about the allegations, but that does not simply repeat them... perhaps "allegations related to her personal life"?

Hopefully that sums up my view :) --Errant ^(chat!) 21:07, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I have a new way to express this; a number of tabloid allegations have been made about the housekeeper - we don't report them for BLP reasons and because they are of no real relevance. The housekeeper has filed a lawsuit over some of these allegations. The latter is worth a brief mention, the former is still not useful. --Errant ^(chat!) 21:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At this point in time I think that the addition is unjustified. I also recognize that the some others are hell bent on adding what I consider irrelevancies. So with that in mind "the housekeeper has vigorously denied allegations, by some media publications, about her personal life and legal remedies are currently being sought". Otherwise as with Off2riorob. John lilburne (talk) 21:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with John lilburne. The article is about DSK, not about the housekeeper. This article is being used by too many contributors to spin the story one way or another, and we would serve our readers best by sticking with facts of direct relevance, rather than titillation and hype. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:38, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To Andy. I have to strenuously disagree with one of your statements, because it is important. This article is not about DSK. The article is about the case, which DSK is only one part of. And any attempt to limit this case to only talk about DSK, and ignore the rest of the case, is extremely POV. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 21:54, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Off2riorob, I'm sorry but your position doesn't seem supported by BLP nor by NPOV. Once again, can you please explain, citing what WP:NPOV actually says, how you can justify deleting the claimed libelous remarks which are at the core of a lawsuit which you describe as "notable"?

As for compromise, I'll compromise on anything other than writing about a lawsuit, while censoring basic details of that lawsuit.

So, unless you see another option here, the only compromise which I see that remains possible, is to delete the libel lawsuit in it's entirety from the article. Would you accept a vote on that? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 21:54, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The basic details of the lawsuit is that she is suing them over defamatory tabloid remarks. What else needs to be said? And why? It is far from censorship; just applying the same editorial discretion we have to every other tabloid underhand remark about both subjects. FWIW I agree this is about the case, not DSK. --Errant ^(chat!) 22:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The defense theory is that there was consensual sex during which the maid turned on DSK, attempting to make him look a like a rapist. We also know that many insiders expect that the charges will be dropped by the prosecutor, which implies that the defense theory is difficult to be dismissed as unreasonable doubt. But then, for consensual sex to have happened in the given circumstances almost certainly implies that DSK had made an appointment with the maid for having sex. So, the allegation was already out there between the lines of all the other information about this case. Therefore this isn't a big deal. Count Iblis (talk) 23:02, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is entirely OR/guesswork and of no relevance whatsoever to the discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:07, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ErrantX, first of all, your premise is faulty: "suing them over defamatory tabloid remarks. She is actually suing over statements which she alleges are defamatory. The statements could be true, or they could be false. But we should not be making judgments either way.

Have you already made up your own mind about the merits of her libel lawsuit? Are you deliberately trying to lead readers toward a certain POV in regards to the merits of that lawsuit? If not, we must give readers the information they need to make their own minds.

And no reader can make a discernable judgment as to the merits of her libel case without being given the statement in question. If this libel lawsuit is indeed notable, we absolutely have to give them the main specifics of the case so that they can make up their own minds. As for tabloid' remarks", we are _not_ quoting a tabloid. We are quoting the NY Times.

Without the facts, how can a reader make an informed decision about the merits of the case?!? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 23:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Include it all, and let the reader decide. It's all been covered a ton in RSs. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"suing them over defamatory tabloid remarks. She is actually suing over statements which she alleges are defamatory; you're splitting hairs, over the lack of one word. Which should clearly be implied... I am now not being neutral? Hardly. --Errant ^(chat!) 08:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we do well as a community when we follow the RSs. When we stray from them, it is often because someone is wiki-lawyering to suit his own POV, IMHO. I've seen more than the usual dose of straying from following the RSs at the DSK article, unfortunately. Of all the comments here, the one that I thought most compelling was that of Alex Harvey, to the effect that "I think it is important to remember that there are two living people affected by this controversy and BLP policy applies to both." If (and only if) supported by proper RS coverage, I think the information is notable and worthy of coverage, both as to what the charge was and the libel suit. It is obviously inextricably wound up with the DSK matter, so mention at that article is appropriate.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason or necessitation at all to repeat the claimed libel/disparaging insult in our article - and jonny insulted him by calling him a **** ** *** ***** - all the dashed bits are unworthy of repeating in a wikipedia BLP - encyclopedic article, as is the claimed demeaning insult here. Off2riorob (talk) 06:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your view of necessitation may, of course, differ markedly from the subjective view of another editor. We avoid such problems when we follow the RSs. I'm sure that there are editors who -- if not bound to follow RSs, but only to follow their own subjective view of necessication -- would prefer to delete/censor references in all wp articles to rape, prostitution, sexual abuse, abortion, pornography, sexual anatomy, profanity, and every detail of every 100,000-times-viewed sex scandal article that is currently on wp. We don't go down that road, and the way we cut short efforts at subjective personal viewpoints taking over the project, is to follow the RSs. That keeps us all honest.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amen to Epeefleche.

Off2riorob, we are now speaking about a lawsuit. Maybe the statements from the Post were libelous; Maybe they were 100% accurate. But it's not our job to _guess_ who is right in a lawsuit or to put forward a particular POV about it. Our job in regards to this lawsuit, must be to simply provide well-referenced, notable facts, and allow the readers to make their own decisions.

Once again, without knowing the alleged libel, how can a reader make an informed decision about the merits of the case?!? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 08:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a dangerous argument. Because, by your argument, reciting the alleged libel in the article equally leaves the reader wondering "hmm, so where did they get this information from". So perhaps we need to add the information provided by an anonymous insider to clarify this? And then note the claims about cleaning staff being pimped by their union for context (because we would not want to imply falsely she was going this alone)? I argue that this is all material a reader can actively search out if they desperately wish to - from an editorial perspective we can only cover a brief factual overview of the case. In this situation the Post published potentially defamatory remarks about the housekeeper, the housekeeper is suing them for libel. I do not yet see a substantive argument to support the idea that the actual defamatory remarks are of significant enough relevance to be noted when played against the privacy of the individual and our BLP policy which cautions us to be reserved in relating facts about living people. I make the point, again, that much spurious comment has been made about both of these people - and we have successfully managed to keep that out of the article. --Errant ^(chat!) 08:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Errant, see Epeefleche's comments. There is no danger here, when all we are doing is using factual, notable information, from reliable sources.

The real danger seems to come from POV censorship. By implying that the Posts remarks were "spurious", it would seem that you have already made up your mind about the libel case. Is that true? Or could the Post's story about the housekeeper actually be correct?

And I'll ask again, how do you think a reader can make an informed decision about the merits of the case if they don't know what the housekeeper is claiming was libelous? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 09:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares whether the Posts story is correct or not? It could sensibly be described as unsubstantiated rumour, sure, which is why we do not use it to source information for the article. But I could not care less about the outcome of a libel case, or indeed the entire sexual assault case, which involves two people I don't know from Adam and the politics of two countries I am minimally interested in, at best. You seem to be making a meal of words to try and imply I am sitting here desperately trying to make sure the housekeeper isn't criticised, which is nonsense - I apply my views on WP policy consistently across all of the many articles I have been involved in (i.e. hundreds).

And I'll ask again, how do you think a reader can make an informed decision about the merits of the case if they don't know what the housekeeper is claiming was libelous? it is not, and should never ever ever be our job to do this. We are not here to present things to allow people to make up their minds - we are here to record the historically significant material. This is, of course, one of the problems with writing about an event as it happens - weighting the material is hard and we are left with untied loose ends which are left "for the reader to assess". Sad.

Even with that said, your argument makes no sense whatsoever - how does reciting the allegation help with any form of understanding to the reader? You want to add the word "prostitute" to the article without context or clarification. There is an obvious conclusion any reader is going to draw - why are you so eager for them to draw that? If we were presenting the aspects of the alleged libel fairly we also need to detail it beyond a one word description - otherwise, yes, it is a BLP violation. To explain this, consider; the reader still would need to dive into the source material because this might be a well substantiated allegation (i.e. perhaps the Post is reporting on prior convictions or arrests relating to this) or it could be more spurious (anonymous information). Do you see how problematic that simple statement becomes? --Errant ^(chat!) 10:56, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we could work a compromise here - avoiding the word "prostitute", although I have no good suggestion for a replacement phrasing, and include comment on an anonymous source (third party sources have mentioned this). --Errant ^(chat!) 11:02, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What term could one would use in place of the word "prostitute"? The New York Times chooses its words carefully too. It uses the word prostitute twice in this story. The first paragraph of the NY Times story reads:

"The hotel housekeeper in the Dominique Strauss-Kahn case filed a libel suit against The New York Post on Tuesday over a series of articles it published during the Fourth of July weekend claiming that she was a prostitute."

Our article should use plain words. The above paragraph also uses the word "claiming". The reader can reasonably be expected to know that "claiming" leaves open the possibility that that which is being claimed is false.

Prostitution also happens to be a fact in the real world, just as sexual assault—frequently by men against women—also happens to be a fact in the real world. We should be stating reliably sourced information in evenhanded but concrete terms. Bus stop (talk) 13:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares whether the Posts story is correct or not?

Are you kidding me? If you think no one cares about the merits of the libel case, then how can you argue that it's historically notable. This is why I think your arguments for the inclusion of the case, while excluding certain facts, are motivated by POV concerns.

You want to add the word "prostitute" to the article without context or clarification.

I am happy to _add_ context and clarification, so long as it's well-referenced. I just don't accept that we should censor facts and replace them with generalities. What context or clarification would _you_ like to add?

There is an obvious conclusion any reader is going to draw.

And what are these obvious conclusions you think readers are going to draw? I've drawn no conclusion yet. Have you already made up your mind about the case, and are basing your edits and arguments on that?

Perhaps we could work a compromise here - avoiding the word "prostitute".

How about "hooker"? But seriously BusStop and Epeefleche are right. We shouldn't be trying to whitewash the facts to find some word choice which doesn't sound quite as bad. We should simply be sticking to the facts as listed in numerous RS. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 20:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, unless your a typist looking for practice you should stop wasting your time posting here - we are not going to repeat this claimed insult/demeaning allegation in our article. Just as we are not going to name her either. This sort of push against policy and guidelines is a waste of your time. To call a spade a spade - three Jewish focused editors - you, User:Bus stop and User:Epeefleche want to add the the accuser of the Jewish person, a Muslim... is a claimed prostitute, it is so tiresome as to be laughable, in a really sad way. - move along - the level of partisan POV is deafening. Off2riorob (talk) 21:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The blatant POV problems are on your side in demanding that we include a questionably notable libel suit so as to paint the housekeeper as more of a victim, while hiding factual well-referenced facts about that lawsuit. There is absolutely nothing in the wikipedia rules against providing notable, well-referenced, facts about a lawsuit. As for implying that the views of 3 editors should be discounted because they're "Jewish focused", that's absolutely uncalled for. Do you typically turn things personal when you run out of arguments? You _really_ need to stick to the merits of the arguments, rather than making ad hominem attacks.

However, above you have said that you will "compromise on anything apart from the desire to include the claimed insulting/libelious remarks in our article. Does that mean that you will agree to a compromise of the deletion of this libel lawsuit from the article? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 21:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A spade is a spade. I am lucky in that I do not give a damn about either of these people. I don't support the removal of the simple fact that the maid has felt insulted by a newspaper and is taking them to court. If consensus is to remove that legal challenge I would accept that. I object to users demanding to include and repeat the insult unnecessarily in our article. Off2riorob (talk) 21:50, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding me? If you think no one cares about the merits of the libel case, then how can you argue that it's historically notable. This is why I think your arguments for the inclusion of the case, while excluding certain facts, are motivated by POV concerns.; uh what? You brought whether the Post was correct or not into this - as I keep saying I have zero opinion really. And frankly care not one jot what occurs in this case. This is what I was pointing out in my last comment, in direct response to your tedious accusations. As I said; I employ the same dispassionate views for every BLP article I have ever edited; hence getting annoyed when snotty people start accusing me of clear POV or whatever nonsense :) My interest is in recording this even for posterity with careful consideration for the privacy and the hisotrically relevant material. Per the sources; it appears other people are interested in the libel action, and on this I base my view of inclusion. --Errant ^(chat!) 22:10, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we could consider including in our article the language, "The Post knew or should have known that they were false." The inclusion of that language would make it perfectly clear that the charges (by the New York Post) of prostitution are vehemently denied. I think we can use The New York Times as a source for that language. Bus stop (talk) 22:49, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The claimed libelous insult/defamation will not be repeated in our article. - as a deal - if the BBC repeats it then I will add it myself. Off2riorob (talk) 23:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Holmes - Musician & Composer

RICHARD HOLMES <copyvio redacted> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vonskrappes (talk • contribs) 10:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a board for notices about problems with existing articles, not a place to request new articles. You need to go to Wikipedia:Articles for creation instead. But please note what you have written above is a verbatim copy from this website and can't be used as the wording for a Wikipedia article as it is a copyright violation. Voceditenore (talk) 11:29, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blog gossip?

This biography about a blogger includes some paragraphs about a supposed controversy created when a law professor publicly criticized – in her own blog – the bio's subject. The event was somewhat covered by some sources, but I'm still in doubt if this belong to this article.

I've tried to contact the editor who added the information but she is inactive for some days. I would welcome informed opinions on the matter. Thanks, --damiens.rf 14:50, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Althouse is a notable blogger and this was covered in a reliable secondary source, so it may meet the bar for inclusion. Gamaliel (talk) 15:29, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article contains only one source covering the controversy, the Salon.com article "The blogosphere's breast debate". There's also a huffingtonpost.com blog post where a notable feminist activist gives his opinion, but it's still a blog post: "Feministing: Feminist? Or Just -Ing?".

Do we really have a good reason to cover this episode on her bio? --damiens.rf 17:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scooter Libby

Resolved

– replaced both with archive links

Please note all links to ****** in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scooter_Libby article should be reviewed as the site registration must have lapsed and it is now being used by spammers. Perhaps you should link to http://web.archive.org/web/20090105171826/http://wilsonsupport.org/ instead — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.211.59 (talk) 15:41, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced both of them. Thank you for this report. Off2riorob (talk) 07:18, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Religion in infobox

There was a bit of a low-level edit war going on at James Randi with a new user removing "None (Atheist)" from the infobox. That user is now blocked for edit-warring. The only other place that I can recall seeing "religion" in an infobox for a person is at L. Ron Hubbard. It seems to me that this would be better dealt with in the body of the article and/or categories if religion is an important facet of a person's notability. Is it customary to have religion in infoboxes? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes -- it is in the template. It is not an either/or situation (same as reflecting nationality, or date of birth, or location of death in both the article body and infobox). The infobox is summary in nature.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:33, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me rephrase my question - the existence of the parameter aside, is it customary to have the person's religion specified in the infobox? It does not appear to be generally used. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:41, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not 'customary' -- not every field in an infobox is expected to be filled in. One on religion should only be used if it is relevant to the person's notability, and furthermore, it must be sourced by self-assertion if relating to a living person, per WP:BLPCAT policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly is not customary to include an individual's religion in the infobox. Only if the religion is reliably sourced and specifically tied to the individual's notability should it be included. Although this is pretty basic BLP policy, it is also reiterated in the instructions for Template:Infobox person. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone offer up some other articles in which this is used? If it is rarely used, perhaps it is worth discussing the wisdom of having that parameter at all. Epeefleche, if you have examples, please post them. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:08, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The infoboxes of ideological/holy leaders and religious figureheads will sometimes include the category (example Ghandi, Jimmy Swaggart).--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

religion = none or = atheist and variations thereof is particularly silly way to abuse that attribute. The attribute is about the presence of religion rather than it's absence. Oddly, no one ever puts party i.e. Political party = none/not interested. I think all of those religion = none or = atheist need to be removed. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, except in situations wherein the subject specifically self-identifies as "atheist". --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is a requirement for inclusion: see WP:BLPCAT. But it also has to be relevant to the person's notability. Why we have to go over this discussion repeatedly, when policy is clear, is beyond me... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...which I already noted in my message posted at 16:59 above. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Atheism isn't a religion. It can't be included in an infobox using the religion attribute because it's impossible to find a reliable source that says that someone's religion is atheism. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What does relevance to notability have to do with religion? Is the year in which someone was born relevant to their notability? (Yet that is noted in an Infobox.) Is their nationality necessarily relevant to their notability? That too is noted in an Infobox. Bus stop (talk) 18:20, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"What does relevance to notability have to do with religion?" I find it disappointing that you can spend as much time on this board as you do and still ask that question. Your posts here in general show a flawed and unfortunately lax view of WP:BLP, what it represents, and how it is enforced. Equating a year of birth with someone's religion is a non sequitur; one is immutable fact, the other a personal identification with a social/cultural construct. If you don't agree with the policy, then start an RfC to change it; repeatedly requesting clarification for information that has been explained to you ad nauseam does nothing but exhaust the patience of other editors. Again, if you believe WP:BLPCAT is flawed, then take measures to initiate change, but please stop the constant battle with those trying to abide by and enforce it. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:20, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm flipping through a couple of biographical dictionaries on my desk, and whilst they give a DOB/DOD none of them feature religion unless the person was a theologian, or their religious upbringing was otherwise a part of their notability. John lilburne (talk) 19:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is an argument to be made that "religion" here is shorthand for a more general classification of religious belief. In such case, I don't think it is unreasonable for "Atheist" to be a valid value in that field. Assuming, of course, that the field should exist in the first place.

I don't see the value of having "religion" in the infobox at all. If the person's religion is relevant, it will be covered in the body of the article and in categories. I don't tend to classify people by religion, so my view may not be shared - does anyone have a sense of whether or not this is desirable for readers? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. If someone's religious beliefs are relevant to their notability, it should be discussed in the article, where it can be properly sourced, and its relevance demonstrated. If it isn't relevant, it shouldn't be in the infobox in any case, per WP:BLPCAT. Too often, Wikipedia BLPs are treated as if they were a database cum dumping-ground for random 'facts' that are only relevant to the person including them - or are inserted to push some POV or another. Infoboxes just make this sort of unencyclopaedic nonsense easier. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AndyTheGrump is right, however I'll also say that if we allow atheism to be described as a religion in the infobox we're going against our NPOV policy however we try to explain it to ourselves. Dougweller (talk) 21:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the value of listing someone's birthday in the infobox at all. Or what town they were born in. They almost never relate to the person's notability. Still -- RSs do reflect them, and that's what matters. We follow the RSs. We don't replace their approach, per our own POV.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:55, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources report all kinds of trivia that we choose not to include here (for the most part) because this is an encyclopedia. No one in this discussion has suggested that we do not include information about a person's religion if it is both relevant and properly sourced. The question is, simply put, should religion be a parameter in the infobox? You suggested earlier that it is commonly used. If you can offer examples, that might be helpful to this discussion. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care a lot about a person's religion (or lack thereof), but I think it's perfectly fine to list it in the infobox if the subject themself cares enough about this issue to discuss their beliefs publicly. (I was one of the editors that reverted the Randi article, so I was involved in this edit war, even though I didn't realise it was one until I saw the page reverted again later.) As to the question if this is parameter is in use, just check a few politician biographies, most of them list the religion. --Six words (talk) 21:50, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is a mistake to refer to atheism as a religion. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 22:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not referred to as religion, the box reads "Religion - none". Atheist is only in brackets, because that's what he identifies as. If he self-identified as agnostic, secular humanist, bright or whatever, that would be in the brackets. --Six words (talk) 22:30, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Depsite the fact that I'm about to disagree with many people with whom I usually agree here goes. James Randi is absolutely notable as an atheist, because he is a professional skeptic. I don't know if "Religion=" is the right place to mention it but I would support, 110% the notion of putting the fact that he is an atheist in his infobox. I usually don't support religious categories or religious labels like these but in this case it is well referenced and intimately tied to his notability.Griswaldo (talk) 22:33, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Griswaldo, for Randi, skepticism in general is his notability. It is what he does and why he is known. For many people whether they are atheists or Baptists or Jains is irrelevant for their notability; for religious leaders, and in this case, leading skeptics, the religious belief (including lack thereof) is entirely relevant. LadyofShalott 00:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, fine, if he actually had a religious belief, but he is on record as saying he hasn't. Can Wikipedia be so arrogant and POV as to assign religion to a BLP subject who has stated he does not have one? Furthermore, saying "skepticism in general is his notability" is irrelevant. Skepticism isn't a religion, and if you look at Skepticism you will find religion isn't mentioned, apart from Religious Skepticism whose own page states in the lead, "Religious skepticism is a type of skepticism relating to religion, but should not be confused with atheism.". Moriori (talk) 01:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well I said I wasn't sure if "Religion=" was the right place for it so please don't assume that I'm arguing for that. The "skepticism" of the sort that Randi is a professional example of (scientific skepticism) is absolutely correlated with atheism and also with secularism. There is a reason why Paul Kurtz is the founder of both Committee for Skeptical Inquiry and the Council for Secular Humanism.Griswaldo (talk) 03:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Randi's atheism may (or may not) come from his skepticism, but being a prominent skeptic does necessarily not make one a prominent atheist. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that people are missing the point. Randi has said he is an atheist (as I understand it - though the particular source in the article is problematic), and in his case it may well relate to his notability. There is no reason not to discuss this in the article if it can be shown to be relevant - I'd say that it is. This shouldn't be taken as justification for a simplistic (and questionable) reduction of his belief system to "religion = none (atheist)". If it is relevant, discuss it properly. Infoboxes should be used for uncontroversial facts, not assertions which should be backed up by an explanation in the article as to why they are relevant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:48, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Randi talk page has an OTRS note confirming that Randi himself approves of the article saying he is an atheist. The question of whether we say he is an atheist has been answered—we say it! The question being discussed here is whether we say it in the infobox. I think it is perfectly apt to say in the infobox that his religion is "none", and that he is instead an atheist. Binksternet (talk) 03:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy. In this case I do not think an explanation is needed. I think it is obviously meaningful. I also think the subject of the entry would be more than happy to have the in his infobox, but don't ask me to source that directly.Griswaldo (talk) 03:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@AndyTheGrump, exactly, I completely agree. @Binksternet/Griswaldo, it can't be apt to use an infobox attribute about the presence of something to indicate it's absence. It's the opposite of apt. It's wikitaxonomy. What next, |criminal_charge=none ? Many people might be happy to have that in their infobox.Sean.hoyland - talk 03:29, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well Sean I have no idea how criminal records are recorded in basic social surveys (if they ever are) but religious belief, and the lack thereof, usually fall in categories called "religion" or "religious self-identification" or "religious affiliation" and so on. People who do not affiliate with religions, are called "religious nones" in the sociological literature. These surveys also use terms like "martial status" and "employment status" when many of the respondents might not be married or employed, or "income level" whether or not one actually earns an income. So while I understand the logic of your argument I don't agree with it's applicability here.Griswaldo (talk) 03:47, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Point being that if there were characteristics of an individual listed by category, and I wanted to figure out if they were an atheist or some kind of religionist I would, because of clear convention, look under a "religion" type of category. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 03:50, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind that we're only talking about the infobox here. criminal_charge is an infobox person attribute just like religion. It's only used for people with criminal convictions whereas the religion infobox attribute is often used for people without religious convictions. Strange but true. There is something a very odd going on there with the way people think about these things when it comes to infoboxes. For a given person, the religion attribute may have a null result, they don't have a religion and yet people want to note that null result. Why that null result and not others ? In Japan, it's the blood group that is a significant characteristic of a person, in other places it's other things, in Wikipedia it's the religion or lack of religion. It's arbitrary.

Category membership is a different matter. Categories are simply for finding things that are members of the same set. There are however an infinite number of sets a person is not a member of and we don't categorize on the basis of non-membership of those sets. I too would like to be able to find people who describe themselves as X using categorization but I'm not interested in finding people with a null result for a particular characteristic.

And while I'm doing all this complaining, I may as well lay into the whole notion of putting religion in infoboxes. It is of course nonsense. Someone claiming that their religion = X and RS reporting that does not make it a fact on the same level as actual facts like DOB, nationality etc that we record in infoboxes. We might as well have a pretty/clever=Y/N attribute for people who describe themselves or are described by RS as pretty or clever. I'm sure Nuon Chea considers himself to be a Buddhist despite the overwhelming evidence that casts some doubt on that claim. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is; a lack of criminal conviction is not often relevant to a persons notability. Randi has (self-proclaimed) no religion, and this relates to him being an Atheist. It is a topic he has written about, as a rationalist, and is a core part of his notability.

There is a sensible commentary here that "religion" is quite a specific term (although we get around that by using "none") and it would perhaps be better termed as "religious views". At the end of the day; his notability is related to his atheism/lack of belief and he is explictly happy with that definition/label being applied. This satisfies WP:BLPCAT which suggests that for contentious categories we favour privacy. The point of that policy is not intending to preclude categorising people, but to ensure it is done with adequate sensitivity to the subject. The discussion about the merits of having religon= at all is, I feel, a discussion with significant merit, but actually only tangentially related to this specific article ;) --Errant ^(chat!) 11:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I am convinced that the use of infoboxes for trivial information is too widespread on Wikipedia, and that material which is opinion about a person, rather than simple factual statements, should not be used whether on religion or on any other material which is not clear and demonstrable fact. Andy is right again. Randi would not be harmed in any way by making the "atheism" reference in the body of the article and not in the infobox, nor would a lot of people be harmed by having material currently in their infobox be only present in the article. Infoboxes != articles, so lack of an objection is not a reason to ignore this larger issue. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Sean. "In Wikipedia it's the religion or lack of religion ..." Really? I don't buy that. I think a very few people of certain self-identifications are obsessed with labeling others who belong to their group, and I think for others religion becomes conentious needlessly, but I don't think Wikipedia as a whole is obsessed with religious labeling. For most people the religion attribute is a "null" result in the sense that it doesn't matter one bit. But for some people it is a very big part of who they are as notable individuals. For James Randi this is the case, and for scientific skepticism in general there is a meaningful link between secularism and skepticism. I agree that 99% of the time this is a useless category, but I do not think we should be throwing the baby out with the bath water. When I used the term "category" I meant in the general sense, not in the Wikipedia sense. People like Richard Dawkins or James Randi fall into the category of the Pope and other religious figures. It is meaningful to label them based on their religious/non-religious identities, because their public personas are intimately tied to those identities. Your last point is irrelevant to this discussion because we are talking about a clear cut case, and not a controversial one.Griswaldo (talk) 11:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Errant. I agree and I would welcome a more general discussion about infoboxes or about the religion category within them because such a discussion does have merit. However, such a discussion needs to be more general. As long as we are going to label some people in this way, we need to be consistent.Griswaldo (talk) 11:48, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Collect. But Randi is not harmed by having it in the infobox either so I fail to understand that particular argument. Look, are we trying to discuss the religion field more generally or the James Randi entry, or "none (atheist)" as a legitimate answer in that field? I think we need to focus the discussion to the more general topic if that is what people really want to discuss, and preferable in a more suitable place.Griswaldo (talk) 11:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another way of looking at it is that the absence of a criminal conviction is a key but unstated prerequisite to people being able to be wiki-notable in the first place. Someone like Natalie Portman probably wouldn't be where she is today and have a Wiki article with an infobox/categories/the whole works if she had spent her youth carjacking despite being both pretty=Y and clever=Y, bless her. My point was simply that there is inconsistency that I suspect is a function of the rather opaque way editors model people. If, in Randi's and related cases, this is about what someone is known for, why not use the | known_for = attribute rather than misuse the religion attribute ? Sean.hoyland - talk 11:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Silly me I thought James Randi was noted for being a stage magician, and debunker of paranormal flimflammery. John lilburne (talk) 12:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He's highly regarded by beard enthusiasts Sean.hoyland - talk 12:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Collect; you make a sensible point here. The infobox should contain the name, and image of the person, some basic & clear facts (nationality, occupation, maybe DOB) and then a "notable for" field which is freeform enough for us to summarise the article. I've never been a fan of using infoboxes to categorise people. --Errant ^(chat!) 12:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually this sounds most sensible to me in general, as per Sean's latest comment as well. As I said, I think there is merit to the broader argument of getting rid of the religion field altogether, but we can't decide that here.Griswaldo (talk) 13:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone want to get the ball rolling on the relevant template talk page? --Errant ^(chat!) 13:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rolling. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:02, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of infoboxes is to provide structured data, which can then be used as the data in a semantic wiki, where ever piece of information had its assigned function, and one could construct categories or lists ad hoc for any combination. I would very strongly support using this for all properties of a person that do not require freetext to deal with--i.e., every definable discreet fact, religion & ethnicity are among them, as Is birthplace and high school and first occupation and all successive occupations, etc. , This can then be used as a true semantic wiki, to construct readable articles out of standardized arrangements of the descriptors. At present the available people infobox parameters go a good way towards this--if they were all applied, it should be possible to do a query that would generate the lede paragraph of an article. For some other simpler areas to write about, such as scientific journals, the infobox journal could if fully used generate most or perhaps all of the full article.

This would have the great advantage of permitting standardized reproducible layout of basic information, and, if a fixed vocabulary was used when applicable, of permitting people to search on any combination of categories whatsoever.replacing our current category system.

But at present there are two problems. One, is that the full use of them duplicates much or the article--many of the people infoboxes filled in most completely are the ones used for promotion. Saying everything several times over is a favored technique of PR writers. Two, is that the same terms that cause problems in categories cause problems here. For example I can describe my nationality as"American," but an American immigrated from, say, Poland, ancestry, might want to call himself a Polish American, with the terms coordinate , or an American of polish descent, or want to describe himself as having dual independent nationality. With enough work, these differences can be coded for in cases where we had the information: we could instead of debating whether to call someone a Jew, describe whether or not he is a Jew according to several different definituions, e.g. Jewish under orthodox halacha & also a/c reform halacha, practicing (each) of the sects of the Jewish religion. The person who would then decide whether this is important or relevant would be not us, but the reader, just as it should be a/c NPOV.

We should therefore not remove any of the existing parameters from the templates, but expand them. That something is difficult to edit does not meanwe solve the difficulty by not including it. Whole fields are difficult to edit. Indeed, I've heard it proposed we should omit all blps, because of the difficulty they cause. DGG ( talk ) 14:05, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I really don't see a problem here - using the parameter isn't obligatory, but if the article subject is vocal about their belief, why shouldn't we mention it in the infobox?

The "criminal conviction" argument is a bit silly in my eyes. We don't usually include "criminal conviction=none" because that's "normal", i.e. unless reliable sources tell us there's a conviction, we assume there's none. It would be great if the same was true for one's (religious) beliefs, but it isn't, many people don't only assume you're religious unless you explicitly state the opposite, but also assume you're part of one of the "main religions" (quite often forgetting that Buddhism and Hinduism are world religions, too) because to them, that's "normal". There's no harm in allowing (not mandating) religion or lack of religion to be mentioned in the infobox. --Six words (talk) 14:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I agree with DGG. In particular I agree that we should expand the existing parameters, or fields. I have suggested more possibilities rather than fewer possibilities as concerns Infobox fields myself, in another thread. In particular, I have suggested that there be a field for "Religious identity". My reasoning is that the availability of "Religious identity" potentially bypasses the sticky question of whether or not someone is literally of a religion. It responds to the reasonable point often raised by others that religion is only a "social construct". I think a field such as "Religious identity" should be added to Infoboxes that already have fields such as "Ethnicity" and "Religion". In a field such as "Religious identity" it may be possible, depending on what support in sources is found, to indicate what an individual feels his/her orientation may be, without the necessity of demonstrating any conformance with any particular religious doctrine. I think this also opens up to a greater degree the possibility of non-objectionably inserting such designators as "atheist", "agnostic" and "None" in that field—also again subject to the availability of support in sources. Bus stop (talk) 14:50, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While all valid views, perhaps they would be better expressed in the discussion on the template's talk page now that a discussion has been started there. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bus stop, we aren't going to add fields to infoboxes just so you can insert your POV-pushing garbage. Troll elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)DGG; the goal of using semantic, infobox-coded data to automate the lead sentence is not an approach I would ever support. IMO. Because I find it such a restrictive/formulated setup :) Now; I could buy the argument of expanding, say, PERSONDATA to include more semantic data for use in other situations. But for display on Wikipedia in the article I believe the most optimal approach is not to duplicate information and to give a much more "freeform" option for editors to summarise the individual in question. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AndyTheGrump—Wikipedia has terms that have definitions. All reasonable editors agree on the policies that are arrived at by consensus. Just as we have agreed at some past point in time that there are fields in some Infoboxes for "ethnicity" and "religion" so too can we agree at some future point in time that a field be included for "religious identity". You don't have to agree with my suggestion, but (in response to your post here) can we please try to disagree amiably? Have a great day. (I won't be responding to further posts if I consider them nonconstructive.) Bus stop (talk) 15:48, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, but when I asked you to provide a reliable source for what 'religious identity' meant, you didn't - it seems that you made it up to mean someone I want to label as Jewish in as vague a way as possible. Nobody agreed with you there, and I see no indication of anyone agreeing with you here either. This is a discussion about removing a questionable field from an infobox, not one about inventing new ones to argue over. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AndyTheGrump—no, it is not "Fine". You have to tone down the level of personal attacks and upgrade the level of civility. I am referring to this edit. I haven't called you a "troll" or referred to your input as "garbage" so please try to do your part to maintain mutual respect in these discussions. Bus stop (talk) 21:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of infoboxes is to provide structured data Fine if every BLP could be reliably sourced and kept up-to-date, but it cannot. The religion tag in particular is added at the whim of editors, and often the source for it is based on scant information, regarding family background. Thus you have a semantic wiki that is incomplete and full of inaccuracies. Such a beast is useless. John lilburne (talk) 18:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently there has been a similar issue with regard to using the "religion" parameter for atheist (Kari Byron) discussed here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Bosley

The subject of the article is a news anchor. Her article has been persistently but sporadically vandalized by anon editors who keep inserting a ridiculously long, unsourced section about an alleged incident that is a serious BLP violation. The incident appears to true, but obviously something like that should be kept out until proper sourcing is provided, and in any case the length and salacious detail do not belong. This has been going on for at least five years, and obviously the anon editors involved have expressed no interest in creating a properly sourced, BLP-compliant account of appropriate length.

I've semiprotected the article for six months. I'm hoping some editors here can also put this page on their watchlist. The more eyes on it the better to keep it BLP compliant. Gamaliel (talk) 19:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JJ Perry

JJ "Loco" Perrry was born in Louisville, Kentucky October 25, 1967. His mother was Varda Zamir (maiden name) Perry. His father is Christopher C. Perry is a native of Louisville, Kentucky. His mother was a native Israel who imigrated to the US with her parents at a young age and became a naturalized citizen. JJ Perry's parents divorced when he was a child. He grew up in Louisville, Kentucky. I am his father. Christopher C. Perry — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.92.196.172 (talk) 23:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You must be very proud of him. I know that my children are important to me as well. Do you have any questions or concerns about Wikipedia's policy on biographical articles we can help you with? --Jayron32 23:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) - Hi, I have posted a list of helpful links for you on your talkpage. Although I appreciate you assert personal knowledge of these details, we still require WP:RS to support article additions. If you are aware of any independent locations that may support these claims we would be grateful if you would present them here for discussion, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 23:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rob is correct, and I think you will find the links that he posed to be useful. Please note that you are not constrained to suing on-line sources; just remember to cite any non-online sources properly, and ensure that they are what we refer to as "reliable sources". Congratulations, btw -- I see that among other things, a major RS reported that your son was a co-winner of the 2004 Male Stuntman of the Year Award at the World Stunt Awards. I've reflected that in the article -- adding notable facts like that one, supported by reliable sources (as I did in that instance), are what wp looks for when seeking to determine if someone is notable for its purposes.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gabe Garcia (soccer)

The person mentioned is not notable for a Wikipedia and is just clutter on Wikipedia's website. Wikipedia living biography article needs to be deleted. This article has poor resources about this person. [[32]]

Thankyou again, Crackofdawn (talk) 07:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel that way, feel free to nominate the article for deletion and get the opinions of other editors. This link to Wikipedia's deletion process will get you started. Dayewalker (talk) 07:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Malkovich (and Robert Fisk)

This issue concerns how to handle quoted material that the original reliable source has apparently redacted because it was part of what was considered defamatory material. In the final paragraph of John_Malkovich#Personal_life_and_political_views, the text beginning "When interviewed by The Observer, Malkovich elaborated on his comments:" and ending "it gives them more oxygen." is sourced to an article that was subsequently amended (as noted in the current online version as well as separately.) The quoted material is still widely found on non-reliable internet sources such as blogs, which is what leads me to guess that it was indeed originally present in the article, though some of that chatter may be a secondary result of the WP article itself.

The simplest fix would be to remove the material in question from the WP article. A more difficult solution would be to have the print edition checked for the material and have the citation reflect that. Thoughts? Thanks. Rostz (talk) 13:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relying exclusively on your summary, I'll say that if the original source redacted the content because it is potentially or actually defamatory, that ought to settle the issue immediately for us as well. There are WP:V concerns here, but the BLP issue is clear-cut. It is out of the question for us to include potentially defamatory content that is not supported by the sources, let alone something that was specifically redacted by that same source. Regards, causa sui (talk) 16:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good enough; removed. Rostz (talk) 17:10, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Mecklenborg

Material that is unsourced or poorly sourced is repeatedly being added to this page. This should not be inserted and must be removed immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chinacat7 (talk • contribs) 17:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not so sure about the sourcing, but you are definitely right to revert edits which turned nearly half the article into blockquotes from one of this individual's strong opponents on a controversial topic. I've left a little note for the editor concerned.

Please be careful with any edits that remove references, though. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

George Watsky

There has been some vandalism of George Watsky lately. I am editing on a smart phone at the moment which can be limiting. Would someone with rollback rights revert to the July 8 version by Sophomoric? I think that's pretty clean. And if an admin could take a look to see if some level of protection might be appropriate? Thanks. Cullen328 (talk) 21:02, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted to Sophomoric's version, having examined the edits in between. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:10, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Demiurge1000. Cullen328 (talk) 21:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Little Boots

Hello this is my personal biography page and the information here is consistently incorrect and misquoted with either no references to back up or sources that aren't actually true to begin with. Please could you let me know how I can lock this page to stop this from happening in the future? Many thanks.

^ http://portaltransparencia.gob.mx/pot/remuneracionMensual/consultarPuesto.do?method=showEdit&idPuesto=CFGA001&_idDependencia=6
^ http://www.hacienda.gob.mx/SALAPRENSA/sala_prensa_estenograficas/eca_20110221_conf_pib.pdf
^ Wikipedia user Context123
^ "The rise and fall of Haiti's 'savior'". November 25, 2005. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |1= and |2= (help)
^ "In Defense of Michael Deibert'". March 25, 2011. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |1= and |2= (help)
^ "Thoughts on recent Haiti commentaries". February 09, 2010. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameters: |1= and |2= (help)
^ "Haiti carves visitor niche with 'Voodoo tourism'". May 20, 2002. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |1= and |2= (help)
^ "Response regarding a few points". March 10, 2011. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |1= and |2= (help)

[1] ttp://portaltransparencia.gob.mx/pot/remuneracionMensual/consultarPuesto.do?method=showEdit&idPuesto=CFGA001&_idDependencia=6

[2] ttp://www.hacienda.gob.mx/SALAPRENSA/sala_prensa_estenograficas/eca_20110221_conf_pib.pdf

[3] Wikipedia user Context123

[4] "The rise and fall of Haiti's 'savior'". November 25, 2005. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |1= and |2= (help)

[5] "In Defense of Michael Deibert'". March 25, 2011. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |1= and |2= (help)

[6] "Thoughts on recent Haiti commentaries". February 09, 2010. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameters: |1= and |2= (help)

[7] "Haiti carves visitor niche with 'Voodoo tourism'". May 20, 2002. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |1= and |2= (help)

[8] "Response regarding a few points". March 10, 2011. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |1= and |2= (help)

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

@@ Line 1,266: / Line 1,266: @@
 :I've reverted to Sophomoric's version, having examined the edits in between. --[[User:Demiurge1000|Demiurge1000]] ([[User_talk:Demiurge1000|talk]]) 21:10, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 ::Thank you, Demiurge1000. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 21:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
+== Little Boots ==
+Hello this is my personal biography page and the information here is consistently incorrect and misquoted with either no references to back up or sources that aren't actually true to begin with. Please could you let me know how I can lock this page to stop this from happening in the future? Many thanks.

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