Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

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

Ray Lewis

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

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)

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

J. Patrick Capps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J. Patrick Capps (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Ernesto J. Cordero

Ernesto J. Cordero (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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.

3)Controversy: This is the transcript with the exact words in page 8.

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* ?

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)

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,[1] all because he believes Casey Anthony and most Americans believe Casey Anthony to be innocent.[2] 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."[3] Blackie Lstreet removed information about the outrage of the "Not Guilty" verdict twice,[4][5] and was reverted twice.[6][7] 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.[8] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

1. 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.
2. 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)

• - 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• - 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)

"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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

You seem to be totally missing the point that John and I are trying to make - it's very hard to be objective and report on the aftermath of something which is still happening, so no, it's not very different from Fukushima at all. In the Baby P case in the UK, the child actually died in 2007 but if you look in the aftermath section you will find "fallout" right up until 2009.

And, after having a quick look at the "Aftermath" section of the Casey Anthony trial article, it is absolutely huge and what's more, contains a lot of horrible ref-stacking (no less than seven references for one measly statement, a sure sign that there has been some warring going on). CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 17:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not missing any point. I just disagree.

There's nothing "absolutely huge" about the "Aftermath" section of the Death of Caylee Anthony article. All of the sections are relatively small. Just because things are divided into subsections, as they are necessary in this case, doesn't make the section "absolutely huge." And there's nothing horrible about ref-stacking "one measly statement" when that "one measly statement" is covering a few or several topics, such as media commentators, lawyers, and psychologists weighing in. One or two references alone do not always cover everything. It's not a sure sign that a lot of edit warring has been going on, considering that there has not been a lot of edit warring going on with that section. Only once did someone try to edit war over something in that that section, and that was Blackie Lstreet removing the fact that people reacted to the verdict negatively...which he was reverted on by two different editors (myself not included). Certain lines being ref-stacked is due to what I stated above -- one or two references alone do not always cover everything. And when something is likely to be viewed as a controversial statement , I like to make sure it is more than well-sourced. We obviously aren't going to agree, so I'll go back and work with the regular editors of the article now. Flyer22 (talk) 19:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Your dismissive comment aside, I would like to reiterate the fact that you are not taking on board what several editors are saying: to whit, the aftermath section carries undue weight and it is difficult to get a decent, balanced view of the fallout from the case as it is still ongoing (the fallout not the case). I chimed in here as this seems to be an ongoing problem with BLPs concerning court cases/scandals which are high profile. Sorry for having the temerity to offer my opinion on this issue. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 20:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Not agreeing is dismissive? Okay. But despite what you state and your belief that I only listen to people who think like me, I did take the BLP concerns into mind (as well as others). And as stated below (and agreed upon by a few editors from this noticeboard), they have been taken care of. I disagree that there is any undue weight with the "Aftermath" section or that it isn't a balanced view of the fallout. Outside editors have also weighed in agreed that the article as a whole is fairly balanced. The Aftermath section covers all the relevant responses, such as the defense, prosecution, and jury. And it would be like that even if all the news media were done with this story. Most of the news media aren't even focusing on this story anymore, certainly not to the same extent they were days ago. There is no more fallout to address, except for the civil cases and possibly Anthony needing protection (and I doubt those will be so huge as to need big sections; the two civil cases are already covered in one combined section). To add anything more about what the media, public or jury thinks would be unnecessary, seeing as all of their feelings on the matter are well-covered. It's not like we should list what each individual juror thinks, if the others come out and speak. I really don't have much more to state on this matter. I appreciate your opinion and was not trying to dismiss it as nonsense or any such thing as that. Flyer22 (talk) 20:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

No, not agreeing is not dismissive, but the comment so I'll go back and work with the regular editors of the article now is, IMHO. This is the BLPN and the whole point of someone bringing something here is to get outside input i.e. not just the opinion of the regular editors, so to me it sounds like you're saying "please go away now, your opinion is not as valuable as that of the editors I know/recognize".

And linking to a diff of something I redacted from my comment less than 30 seconds after posting it is just plain ridiculous. I redacted it as a) it was unnecessary and b) it wasn't really what I meant, what I meant was that you seem to be stating what I have said above i.e. "shoo! I don't know you, so please go away, and I'll go back to working with the regular editors". Just to clear that up! So now let's all go and do something more worthwhile than bloat this talkpage discussion even more ;-). CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 17:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Saying "We obviously aren't going to agree, so I'll go back and work with the regular editors of the article now" is not being dismissive after listening to everything you had to state. That's knowing when to agree to disagree. It's not like I'm obligated to do what you think should be done, especially when other editors also do not feel the same way.

I felt that repeating that statement was necessary because it seemed to be what you believe. And either way, you believe that I'm being dismissive of your thoughts because you don't share the same opinion as myself and others. Which is not true. However, I apologize for repeating that statement, since you believe my doing so to have been unfair and unnecessary. That was not my intention. My intention was to clear up the misunderstanding. Flyer22 (talk) 17:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

[list of celebs] also expressed outrage via Twitter just so that you know ... when an article is mentioning what a bunch of people on twatter think, it can generally be assumed to have lost its way. John lilburne (talk) 17:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

In this case, it can generally be assumed that the article is accurately and adequately covering the facts, since the way most celebrities, and a significant number of people in general, responded to the verdict was through Twitter. Just so you know. Flyer22 (talk) 18:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but I must disagree, your statement comes across as haughty and dismissive, you seem to sidestep or ignore most observations that I and other editors make about the bias, or recentism or undue weight of the article (your response to John above is typical of your "so what? I don't want to take this on board" type of response, IMO, Twitter is ephemeral celebrity/wannabee yacking and not really very encyclopaedic).

And I don't think that I am trying to obligate you to do anything, and several editors feel the same way as myself about the issues mentioned above and have said so here but you seem to be turning a deaf ear. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 19:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

You can disagree. You can say I'm haughty, dismissive or whatever. But you are wrong. You are wrong because I have listened to editors here and fixed perceived BLP issues; this has been stated by a few editors from this very noticeboard. You are wrong because only one editor in this discussion -- Blackie Lstreet -- stated that the article is biased. That same editor who, according to all regular editors at the article, does not describe how the article is biased. These editors did not see what Blackie Lstreet saw, and neither did I. I still don't, especially considering that changes have been made since this discussion was started (per below). Blackie Lstreet has one agenda regarding that article, which is clear to all regular editors there, even a few outside editors (as stated below). You seem to be neglecting all of this (the edits to improve this article since this discussion, the editors who state that there are no longer any BLP issues, and the editors who state that there is no undue weight). And if you aren't neglecting that and just disagree with how these people see things, then fine. That is your opinion. You cannot convince me that relaying a significant aspect of the disagreement with the verdict -- the Twitter overload, including celebrity disagreement -- is unencyclopedic simply because we are mentioning Twitter. With all due respect, that is B.S., pure and simple. And since you cannot accept an apology, because you either find it disingenuous or only want to keep stressing how right you are (or both), then it is clear that it is time to move on. Flyer22 (talk) 20:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your permission, and I will. I mentioned bias AND recentism AND undue weight which expands the number of editors to more than Blackie, but in your usual fashion you choose to ignore the best part of what is written and fixate on a small part.

I can't really see where I'm trying to stress that I'm right, I'm trying to tell you that you're not listening but obviously you can't take that on board because ... you're not listening. Oh, and by asserting that "you are wrong. You are wrong because..." you are basically saying "I am right".

So, bla bla bla bla, you're wrong, bla bla bla, let me tell you what your opinion/attitude is, bla bla bla, that's just bullshit, bla bla, bla, go boil your head, bla bla bla, so long and thanks for all the fish! CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 21:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome for my permission. But to be clear, a number of editors did not mention bias (unless we are counting Blackie Lstreet and yourself). And the point is...a number of editors have stated that there is no bias or undue weight and that the real concern (BLP issues) has been addressed through editing of the article. But, yeah, whatever is definitely it. Your inability to see that you are trying to stress to me that you are right and that I am wrong about how the article should be, and that I am not listening because I happen to DISAGREE with you, says it all. Thank you for showing your immaturity. Have a good rest of your day. Flyer22 (talk) 21:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

How old are you? 5? I know that you can read and write English but do you understand the significance of the words? I'm tired of dancing around your pretentious posturing, you win, you're right, god I'd like to have wiki-sex with you and so on, do not wish things in such an insincere manner, I think I'll go and have a good crap now to "have a good rest of my day", I hope that that was suitably immature (a question of finding the right level). In the word DISAGREEABLE there is DISAGREE. ;-) CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 21:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Right, turn your childish and ignorant behavior on me. I'm the one who is acting like they are 5 and cannot understand the significance of words. Yeah...right (sarcasm). Flyer22 (talk) 23:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I believe it may be best to:

1. Remove the entire "Publicity and Aftermath" section (temporarily)
2. Fully protect the article for 7 days, in a minimalist state that meets BLP.
3. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Editors on the article talk page may not agree with Blackie Lstreet, but several different editors here think that there are very serious problems with the article as written. I'm going to go there now and raise one of the minor but most obvious ones, if it isn't already.Qwyrxian (talk) 02:09, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I see that my biggest concern is a little bit fixed (the perjury issue); I'm going to try to catch up on the talk page there. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any serious problems, Qwyrxian. I've looked upon various GA and FA articles, and have contributed to some, including ones about real-life people (such as Angelina Jolie). The only issues this article has may be that it needs better restructuring in a few parts, it certainly needs more information and copyediting in certain parts, and of course there is the matter of the article title that most cannot agree on (no matter what title is used). There are no BLP issues. As I stated above, any perceived BLP issues were fixed and/or removed (such as the perjury charges). And everything in the article is fairly neutral, according to every editor at the article (regular, new, IPs). Even the Public and media reactions section has been tweaked away from overquoting. There is nothing wrong with that section as is, considering that only one paragraph is dedicated to those who believe Casey Anthony to be guilty, and the rest is analysis of why people are interested in this case and discussion of all the relevant debates it has caused. The problem with Blackie Lstreet is that he acts as though there is not going to be any negative talk of Casey Anthony. And worse, that there should not be any. That is impossible, considering that the general American public is upset by her and the verdict. The section dealing with the Defense, prosecution, and jurors, for example? It cannot be helped that most of the jurors did not even want to deliver a not-guilty verdict, and that most of them seem to believe that Casey Anthony is guilty (if not of murder, then of something else). Should we not include this information simply because these jurors are not talking positively about Casey Anthony? No, I don't believe so. And, no, I don't find it WP:UNDUE to include a few of their opinions showcasing why they reached a verdict that has shown itself to be highly controversial. Basically, Blackie Lstreet acts as though including these things is trying to paint a biased article, because it's not mostly about how innocent Casey Anthony is and a few parts deal with those who believe her to be guilty. Flyer22 (talk) 08:01, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

>Blackie Lstreet may be right "in that, under United States law, Anthony has been adjudged legally innocent of the charges…

This is incorrect. In American jurisprudence (based on English jurisprudence), a judgment of 'not guilty' is not the same as 'innocent'. If you dust off your law books, you'll find it means– and has always meant– the court did not find the party guilty.

I.e, not guilty ≠ innocent. --UnicornTapestry (talk) 15:09, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I stressed on the talk page more than once that "innocent" is not the same thing as "Not Guilty." I was simply quoting ⌘macwhiz in that comment. And so, as you may know, your response is truly directed at ⌘macwhiz, as well as Blackie Lstreet. Flyer22 (talk) 17:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

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 [9], 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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 [10][11][12][13][14] 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)

[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)

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)

Would you please read WP:Coatrack: "When a biography of a living person is a coatrack, it is a problem that requires immediate action. Items may be true and sourced, but if a biography of a living person is essentially a coatrack, it needs to be fixed."

By BLP, you can't do what you are trying to do. I may have to kick this up a level to get it resolved. --Pete Tillman (talk) 15:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

It's hardly a coatrack to show reliably sourced views on S & B's funding in relation to the controversial paper. These views go back to 2003, and both the criticisms and the responses by S & B should be shown. The article itself doesn't show the controversy as ending in 2004 or thereabouts, it notes the revival of controversy when new information came out in 2009 – or do you think that's a coatrack and should be deleted? In my view proper coverage of this continuing controversy is appropriate, and is not a BLP issue in the "controversy" article. The issue shouldn't be overweighted or the S & B controversy discussed in depth in their individual bios, but a brief mention and link to the "controversy" article is appropriate. Also, by the way, this wasn't just a Greenpeace investigation: they got the information released using freedom of information acts, and Reuters did their own analysis of that public information. . . dave souza, talk 18:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

It is OR/SYN at this stage to fit this material into the S&B controversy article unless and until reliable sources explicitly make the same connection for us. That is, a reliable source needs to say explicitly that Soon's $1million funding over the entire 20 year period is relevant to the S&B controversy of 2003. At the moment, we only have Wikipedians asserting that it is relevant. Alex Harvey (talk) 07:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

again, false charges. there is no OR, facts are stated as they appear in the sources, and there are no synthetic conclusions in the added content. I don't agree that this is coat racking, and essays are opinion pieces, they are not policies. I see no consensus here for the removal of the information concerning Soon's research funding and I believe it is relevant in the context of a the "controversial" dis-credited paper he co-authored. And again, this is not a BLPV so further discussion in this current location is not appropriate. --Semitransgenic (talk) 13:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you agree that there is no reliable source asserting that Soon's 20 year funding record is relevant to the S&B controversy? If not, show me the source that says this. And it is a BLPV when editors feel that someone's reputation (in this case Baliunas's) is being smeared inappropriately so this seems as good a place as any to discuss it. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

S&B is reported as an example of research stemming from this 10 year history of funding, to bracket this off and view it as somehow isolated from the overall pattern presented in the reports is to inaccurately represent what the sources are reporting. They are discussing a pattern of behaviour, S&B is part of this pattern, the reports are therefore relevant to the article, it is wilful ignorance to contest otherwise.There is no evidence here of an attempt to "smear" Baliunas, and I don't see how presenting information on Soon's funding history casts aspersions. There is nothing libellous or derogatory presented.--Semitransgenic (talk) 10:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you are making a logical mistake here. The articles assert that (A) S&B03 paper is relevant to (B) Soon's 20 year funding history. If so, then of course any discussion of Soon's 20 year funding history must make mention of the S&B03 paper. The rest is the wrong way around however. This is not the same as saying that (B) Soon's 20 year funding history is now relevant to (A) the S&B03 paper. Now I have argued that events after 2003 are of no relevance to the 03 paper because they can't be seen as causes of events in the past. You have argued that these later events recontextualise the earlier events. I don't really agree. What is needed is a reliable source that makes your argument about recontextualisation, otherwise it is OR and thereby a BLPV. Alex Harvey (talk) 08:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC) edited Alex Harvey (talk) 14:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Alex, I disagree with your assessment, this edit does not constitute a breach of policy on BLP and it is not OR. I feel the information is certainly relevant. To clarify again, the main period centred upon in the press reports is roughly a decade, beginning in 2001. There are excerpts above that quite clearly evidence this. I have offered all I have to say on the matter really, can we move to the next DR phase please? --Semitransgenic (talk) 15:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I can't see this is a policy based argument. You're just telling me what we already agree, that the material is reliably sourced. I could add reliably sourced material about Napoleon Bonaparte and I am sure no one would disagree that it would not be relevant. But I do agree that this discussion isn't going anywhere. As I am not involved in the dispute I can only suggest Pete Tillman might want to escalate the issue. Alex Harvey (talk) 01:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Valenti herself addressed the controversy in a Guardian column in 2007. So I think I'll add this as a counterweight. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 23:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

@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)

@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)

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)

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)

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

@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)

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)

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

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

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)

(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)

(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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

As I explained, I recognize the difficulty in expressing this and some other concepts clearly and unambiguous in a single word or phrase in a few special cases, and I am not attempting to judge the one that gave rise to this discussion. However, it is wrong and unproductive to make rules on the basis of special cases, since Wikipedia provides for making exceptions whenever necessary. DGG ( talk ) 14:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The same issue is now coming up on the Dominique Strauss Kahn bio page. Is there any way to move this conversation toward consensus and apply the same decision there? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 00:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

As I've pointed out (and has been repeatedly discussed on the DSK talk page previously), nobody has provided a source where DSK self-identifies as Jewish by faith. We cannot label him as such in an infobox, plain and simple, per WP:BLPCAT policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Self-identification would by definition make it a primary source, because the person is THE primary source about themselves. What a secondary source calls him would be the most appropriate think, plain and simple, per Andy's comments about primary sources being illegit. And it is very nice that the BLPCAT policy states something, and it's something to consider here, but per EVERYTHING in Wikipedia, consensus at a specific discussion trumps EVERYTHING (except US law and Foundation directives because someone always has to trout out those exceptions so I'll state them first).Camelbinky (talk) 00:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

So what are you proposing? That we amend WP:BLPCAT? If so, this isn't the place to debate this. As for your other points, I'm not going to even bother responding. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—not all religions are the same. You are requiring that Dominique Strauss-Kahn be "Jewish by faith". Please note the following:

"A Jew is any person whose mother was a Jew or any person who has gone through the formal process of conversion to Judaism. It is important to note that being a Jew has nothing to do with what you believe or what you do."[15]

I have taken the liberty of adding the underlining. Bus stop (talk) 01:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

"www.jewfaq.org" is not an arbiter of WIkipedia policy. In any case, note this disclaimer "This site is created, written and maintained by Tracey Rich. I do not claim to be a rabbi or an expert on Judaism..." [16]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—can you provide a source to support a countervailing view to the one I've presented above? Our aim is to inform. If we are speaking of the Jewish religion shouldn't we be measuring individuals up against the standards of that religion? Or when testing to see if someone is a Jew or not should we measure them against the standards of another religion? Please provide a source to support any assertion you wish to make, as I have above. Bus stop (talk) 01:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Our aim is to inform using quality reliable secondary sources. We should not be measuring anybody against any set of religious standards -- that's original research. Furthermore, BLP standards for religious self-identification also apply. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 01:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Arglebargle—we have it said about Dominique Strauss-Kahn that "he has always been open about his faith". The source is the Jewish Daily Forward. It repeats numerous times that Dominique Strauss-Kahn is Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 01:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

If you think that qualifies as 'self-identification' with the Judaic faith, then take it to WP:RS/N and ask for confirmation - it doesn't look like it to me. 01:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

No. If you wish to propose an amendment to WP:BLPCAT to state that it doesn't apply to people of Jewish ethnicity, then do so - but not here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—you say "If you wish to propose an amendment to WP:BLPCAT to state that it doesn't apply to people of Jewish ethnicity, then do so - but not here."

Policy is as applicable to Jews as to members of any other religion, obviously. I don't think there is necessarily a need to "propose an amendment". But Jewish identity is not dependent on such factors as "belief", "practice", or "worship". Policy needs to be applied to the particular religion under consideration. Obviously different religions are going to have different definitions of themselves. We should respect each religion for the definition that it posits for itself. Bus stop (talk) 02:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Now there's a nice example of a circular argument. We are debating whether DSK is Jewish by faith, and you propose that we determine this according to the rules (supposedly - this seems to be a matter of some debate) of the Jewish faith, which of course are only applicable if he is a believer in the Jewish faith, which he is because the rules of the Jewish faith says he must be, even if he has given no indication that he is, but that doesn't matter, because as a Jew he is a member anyway... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Andy, what is your obsession with the Jewish people and your inability to understand that being a Jew and Jews identifying others as Jews has NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGION, as has been pointed out to you numerous times by numerous editors at length. It is not the Jewish faith that says he is a Jew, it is our culture that says someone is a Jew by birth. Your unhealthy obsession with Jews and any discussion regarding race, religion, etc and having to declare that things have to be "fair" for whites and "no special treatment for other groups" is getting annoying. I'm thinking maybe a break to do some real editing in the encyclopedia would do you some good. You've been here only one year, obviously have not gone through the archives of different policy pages and learned WHY things are the way things are (obvious to me from your comments at the 5P page and elsewhere). You should really have some deference to those who've been here longer and have actually participated in many more discussions and know what was actually intended by the wording in specific policies and which policies are not used in the specific way in which they are written. There is a large amount of "oral law" in Wikipedia. You need more experience at editing before you continue to be so forceful in pushing your "conservative" literal viewpoint on policy. Frankly I suggest Busstop just simply ignores you and disengages and that in future discussions those of us with opposing views to you simply ignore your remarks which are not educated.Camelbinky (talk) 05:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Camelbinky, I suggest that you (a) take note that this discussion revolves around the use of a 'religion' field in an infobox, and (b) read WP:NPA. The next time you make snide, malicious, and entirely false allegations about me being a 'conservative' (laughable), having an 'obsession with the Jewish people' (really?, As opposed to Bus stop and yourself. Yeah, right...), or as being 'uneducated' (as I recently pointed out, I have a first class honours degree in anthropology from a leading UK university, and as such I suspect that I know a little about issues of ethnicity, and about identity politics in relation to faith), I shall report you. (And incidentally, I suggest you read your postings before clicking 'save page' - you are simultaneously accusing me of being 'conservative' and of lacking 'deference to those who've been here longer'. A simple failure of logic). Finally, if you think that "policies are not used in the specific way in which they are written", I suggest that you take measures to see that either policies are followed, or that the policies are rewritten. The bureaucratic intricacies of Wikipedia are complex enough without there (supposedly) being 'written' rules, and then 'oral' ones which contradict them (presumably you can't provide a source to back that up?). AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

"We should respect each religion for the definition that it posits for itself"...but we are talking about people not religions. Policy requires that we respect and reflect the definitions that human beings posit for themselves as reported by reliable sources. When it comes to religion, set membership is decided by the person, not how the set posits itself. I don't necessarily agree with that approach because different people use the same set name to mean different things e.g. a missionary and a serial killer may both self identify as religion=X, both mean it quite sincerely according to their understanding of how religion X posits itself, and have their self declared set memberships reported by RS. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

What is missing from the arguments of Sean.hoyland and AndyTheGrump are sources. This is a source that tells us how we determine whether someone is Jewish or not. But you don't have to accept that source. Please feel free to present a different source which perhaps articulates a countervailing means of determining membership in the group known as Jews. By the way Dominique Strauss-Kahn is saying that he is a Jew in this, the Jewish Daily Forward article. The article reports references Dominique Strauss-Kahn makes to himself as a Jew. The first sentence of that article reads in part: "…Dominique Strauss-Kahn worried aloud that his Jewish identity would be exploited during France’s upcoming presidential campaign." Throughout that article there are many more references that confirm that Dominique Strauss-Kahn is a Jew. Sources matter, and I would suggest Sean.hoyland and AndyTheGrump try to bring sources as doing so would tend to support their arguments. Bus stop (talk) 05:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't possibly understand why you would expect me to take that seriously. You present a source telling me which decision procedure I need to use to classify a human being and the procedure is independent of statements by the human being. We aren't the Kymer Rouge. We don't go around classifying people into "new" and "old" people because a decision procedure says that is the right way to classify people. Such things have nothing to do with Wikipedia's policies regarding how we treat human beings. No one needs to provide a source to verify or dispute how other people classify a living person's religion because it's irrelevant and rightfully so. If a person considers themself to be a Jew and they say nothing more than that on the matter, transforming that statement to religion=Judaism is not okay. That transformation of information is not supported by information that originates from the person. I have seen exactly the same transparently invalid transformations applied to Arabs. Source says "born into a X community" or "his parents were X" gets transformed to religion=X, Islam, or Islam. It is so obviously wrong and against policy that it shouldn't even be necessary to discuss it. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll not waste anyones time by adding to Sean.hoyland's comments here - he is totally corrrect, and entirely in accord with Wikipedia policy, so nothing more needs to be said. I will however point iout that the source tha Bus stop claims "tells us how we determine whether someone is Jewish or not" is a website ('Judaism 101: Who is A Jew') containing the following statement: "This site is created, written and maintained by Tracey Rich. I do not claim to be a rabbi or an expert on Judaism...". I have already pointed this out to Bus stop (more than once I believe), but he persists in misrepresenting it as a 'reliable source', which it clearly isn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The first sentence of that article reads in part: "…Dominique Strauss-Kahn worried aloud that his Jewish identity would be exploited during France’s upcoming presidential campaign.".

I'm now leaning towards inclusion in the Strauss Kahn instance based on WPCAT. _However_ to Bus Stop and anyone else who thinks Jewish self-identification necessarily implies a religious belief, I'm sorry but you're wrong on that point. Jewish self-identification _can_ just as easily refer to a feeling that one is a part of the Jewish nation or ethnicity. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 16:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Eugene Fama

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

Why should an article about a scholar/scientist/academic include information on his private life, such as how long he's been married, and about his hobbies (unless he's famous for them)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.187.187 (talk) 18:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

A biography should give a well-rounded overview of the person's entire life, assuming that reliable source material is available. It is not necessary to limit the biography only to discussion of the person's most notable accomplishments. Of course, it would be an editorial mistake to give undue weight to minor aspects of the person's life. In the case of Eugene Fama, the section devoted to family and hobbies is brief, and serves to humanize him, in my opinion. Cullen328 (talk) 19:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Totally agree, plus his daughter and son-in-law both also being notable, is worthy of mention in the brief manner that it's covered. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The IP address seems to have a point, and I disagree with Cullen and Demiurge. Wikipedia isn't designed to try to "humanize" people. It's intended to record historically notable facts. So, unless his family life is described in reliable secondary sources, it has no place in the article. As for a brief mention of his notable daughter, that could perhaps fit into the intro or a "see also". But there is no need for a "personal life" section. It's exactly that: "personal". -- Bob drobbs (talk) 17:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Hope Solo

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

Hope Solo plays FOOTBALL not SOCCER — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.221.244.60 (talk) 11:02, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I think as they call it soccer in the USA and she is a USA player and plays there its usual in wikipedia articles to use expressions/descriptive local terms. Off2riorob (talk) 11:06, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I am well aware that this game is called "football" in most of the English speaking world. However, the practice on Wikipedia is to use the terminology and spelling common to the geographic area that best corresponds to the topic of the article. In the United States, the game is called "soccer" universally, and "football" refers to a completely different game. Similarly, we use the spelling "colour" in articles about British painters and "color" in articles about U.S. painters. Offt2riorob is correct. Cullen328 (talk) 15:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

It is worth noting that the word "soccer" originated in England and was common there until the 1970s. See Names for association football. Cullen328 (talk) 15:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Having grown up in Manchester in the 60s and 70s, I would take issue with that - we never called it "soccer", it was always "football" or "footie". Maybe it was a regional thing... – ukexpat (talk) 16:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Jay Brannan

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

I have removed the cat per BLP and OTRS ticket #2008020210003368. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Jay Brannan has repeatedly indicated that he does not wish to be labelled as gay in his Wikipedia biography, and repeatedly deleted this information from his biography.

• Talk:Jay_Brannan/Archive_1#Deleting_LGBT_info and following sections,
• Talk:Jay_Brannan#LGBT_tag,
• User_talk:Jaybrannan,
• Jay Brannan's blog: Dear Wikipedia.

As far as I can make out, we complied with his wish at one time [17], but the article now again contains the "LGBT musicians" category, as well as the sentence "The New York Times stated in 2006 that Brannan was sometimes compared to Rufus Wainwright, "another openly gay young singer-songwriter".

Given the BLP subject's feelings about his being characterised as "openly gay", I think we should lose the LGBT category, as well as the quote "another openly gay young singer-songwriter", because it seems just like a backdoor way of stating in the article that Brannan is gay. His defining characteristic, and what makes him encyclopedically relevant, is his music, not his sexuality.

Current status: [18], [19], [20]. --JN466 12:04, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Oppose removing category. Support removing NY Times sentence. While I support removing mentions of 'openly gay' in the lead and agree that his music is what makes him notable not his sexuality, I think removing the category is a step too far. He is gay, heh, and a lot of his most well-known songs are about unambiguously LGBT subjects.

The comparison to Rufus Wainwright should be removed per WP:DUE though. It's taken completely out of context and sounds dismissive. Not the original tone of the sentence. See article.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 12:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Oppose removing category. Extensive discussion on talk page ended with keeping the category because Brannan talked about his outing in an April 2007 interview with Zoo Magazine and the New York Times also describes him as openly gay in an article/interview. There is nothing to suggest he didn't offer this information freely. If being gay is insignificant to his career, why does he joke about it in the intro to his official video for "Can't Have It All", makes a parody about having a guy's baby in "Housewife" and sings about a "Half-Boyfriend" (all songs on his first album), not to mention the unsimulated gay sex scene in Shortbus?

Importantly, note that Brannan's complaint about the article was made before it was completely rewritten. We respect subjects' wishes when it comes to libelous information, which doesn't include homosexuality, especially when it's been frequently referenced by the subject himself. Hekerui (talk) 13:11, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Not a vote - He has stated quite clearly against portrayal of him in this gay category and objected to the repeated attempts at wikipedia to label him in such a manner and as such he requires removal WP:BLPCAT. Off2riorob (talk) 13:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Remember, this was a totally different article in 2008 when he objected. And he still hosts this magazine interview where he talks about his parents dealing with his homosexuality on his own website (!). Hekerui (talk) 15:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Has he specifically stated not to be in the category? His only objections as far as I can see is the previous focus on his sexuality as the primary notability point rather than his singing career (and I would actually agree strongly with that). But is it really sane to completely remove all mentions of it and pretend like it doesn't exist despite all reliable sources otherwise? It's not even libelous, he is gay. The category is a small, unnoticeable thing at the bottom of the article and would satisfy due weight easily enough. He is very famous in the gay community, and I'm guessing at this point that some of you have never even heard any of his songs. Try Housewife.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 15:49, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Remove. Per WP:BLPCAT. There is no source in the article in which he self-identifies as gay. I won't even touch the notablity obstacle of BLPCAT as it's an almost impossible hurdle to overcome. I'd also reword the NYT sentence. The "openly gay" quote is gratuitous and irrelevant. As an aside, I do not favor removing the cat simply because he wants us to.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:37, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Fine, I put in how he talks about how his parents think/thought about his homosexuality. That's self-identification. Hekerui (talk) 15:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

[21] Well, we also have his past communication directly to us that he objects, very strongly, to this categorisation. I see no reason not to respect his wishes; it's his sexuality, and his should be the final word. --JN466 16:37, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment - This appears to come down to a question of whether or not Wikipedia editors should exercise editorial judgment and exclude something that has been reported in reliable sources because the individual has specifically and explicitly requested it. In this particular case, I believe that we should. Issues of sexuality, race, and religion should always be handled sensitively in BLPs. This is a very clear-cut request to simply not label the person's sexuality. It is unlikely to be viewed in a negative light outside of Wikipedia (as other cases of omitting information have been). I was involved in this BLP some time ago, but frankly got tired of dealing with intractable editors. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:24, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm not sure what you mean by "intractable editors", but if you mean those who disagree with you, say that. And I for one do disagree with you. If information is otherwise notable and reported inn reliable sources, it should be included unless there's a policy that prohibits it. I know of none that prohibits this unless you want to rely on the notability prong of WP:BLPCAT. I also don't get it. The article that Hekerui cited to is on Brannan's website. Why is he willing to openly discuss his being gay but we can't note it?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I would say that ours is not to reason why, when it concerns someone else's sexual identity. If they say they don't want to be identified as gay, we should say fine, and remove it; anything else is invasive. It's a question of sensitivity, and whether he is gay or not should matter much less to us than it matters to him. (By the way, I am familiar with his music.) --JN466 16:59, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Forgive me, but that makes no sense. This is an encyclopedia, not a forum for article subjects to pick and choose what they want in their articles. Also, even though you've qualified it, the phrase "ours is not to reason why" flies in the face of everything we do. Finally, although not particularly important, what does your famliarity with his music have to do with anything?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:04, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

It makes sense to him. For those interested in his reasoning, there is a section about it in the FAQ on his website: [22] (it's the long section at the bottom of that page). Again, I feel that someone else's sexuality, and how they want to present it in public, is rightfully their domain, and we should not go against their wishes. It's not kind, not humane, and not respectful. I accept that you can disagree with my view in good faith. I can see both sides of the argument. But in the end, someone's sexuality is absolutely and unquestionably their own. (The comment about my being familiar with his music was a reply to Obsidian Soul, above.) --JN466 17:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't feel particularly strongly about the issue either way, but here's another thing to think about: removing every mention of his sexuality in his article will only make it likely that it be added again and again by users unaware of his wishes and these discussions. I know I would if I was some random reader and see absolutely no mention of it whatsoever. Frankly an 'eh?' moment.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 17:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I know. :) I guess we could place a comment at the top and bottom of the article, and we can rightfully describe gay themes in his work. I'm not saying it's easy, or that this isn't an unusual case. --JN466 18:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Horrible idea in my view. Thanks for the pointer to the FAQ, but his preference of not wanting to be labeled a gay singer is irrelevant to the WP article. He's entitled to dislike the label - and it's not uncommon for people to eschew labels and to want to be "famous" for what they do, not who they are - but just as he can't control the world and how they view him, he also can't control this encyclopedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:27, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Rob has boldly removed the category pursuant to Brannan's request. I haven't touched it, but I'm not real happy with the removal without a consensus for doing so - which I don't see.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I restored it. Off2riorob may have problems accepting it, but when an article subject discusses his homosexuality in reliable source then that should be included as fact in that subject's article, even if the subject later is not liking it. Brannan's objections were made before the article was totally rewritten and are several years old, the article does not put an undue emphasis on them. Stating facts about sexual orientation is not libel. Hekerui (talk) 19:20, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Rob made two changes. He removed the comparison quote and the cat. As I think I said above, the comparison quote is unnecessary to the article. It's an offhand comment by the source that has little to do with Brannan. However, I think the cat should remain until we've reached consensus. If people want to remove it pending consensus, I would not object to that, but Rob removed it as if we'd agreed. I don't know how long it will stick, but I undid the restoration of the comparison quote, leaving in the cat. I don't want to have this be a flip-flip situation, though, so I probably won't touch it again if other editors start bouncing it back in a different direction.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

For a reader it is a starting point for a comparison in sound and content - male, singer-songwriter-ish, gay perspective. I didn't censor its wording when first putting it in, because ... why? I still don't see how that is libelous, but I rephrased it, so we can argue about the more important fact: Wikipedia does not remove non-libelous reliably sourced content from articles based on years old complaints that fly in the face of a subject's own utterances. Hekerui (talk) 19:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for rephrasing. Did someone say it was libelous? I certainly didn't. I said it was gratuitous, meaning it was irrelevant to the article. I understand your point about "gay perspective", but I'm not sure if it's true, and if it were, it would need more than that single quoted phrase for the reader to understand its signficance.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:42, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, that was not directed at you but snuck in there inartfully because I was thinking about the next sentence. Hekerui (talk) 20:08, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. FWIW, I agree with the deletion of the comparison quote; it really stuck out, and I think there is enough of a consensus here for dropping it. Happy to keep the category for now, until we have a consensus on that. --JN466 19:49, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Again - using categories to make a statement which is not borne out by strong reliable sources in a BLP is contrary to [[WP:BLP]. Unless the person self-identifies in a sex or religious etc. category, it ought not be applied by Wikipedia. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:06, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe we have shown self-identification clearly in the comments above and on the article talk page. Hekerui (talk) 20:10, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

To me, this is a case where pursuing the political agenda has caused and continues to cause grief to a living person. Is that really in line with WP’s BLP policy? To quote Jay Brannan, from the FAQ-section of his current website [23]: "i think it's time that everyone, the "gay community" included, allow gay people to take their place in the world as real people, rather than continuing to be defined and separated by their sexual orientation. i want the freedom to be myself, unafraid and uncensored, without having to market myself based on a sexual orientation, or attaching that sexual orientation to my name as a title."

He continues,

"i understand why gay people of a certain generation still have this obsession with their sexual orientation, and maintain this sort of "us against them" mentality. they weren't allowed to be gay for most of their lives, so they are still really excited about it, and feel that they need a community of other gay people for support … i have turned down thousands of dollars that i could have made by exploiting my sexual orientation and building a career in the gay industry and in gay media. because i want to be a musician and an actor and a regular person...on the same playing field as everyone else. i'm not interested in being a professional gay, and i refuse to make my entire life and career about that."

This artist has asked several times for his biography to be removed from Wikipedia altogether, both on the article talk page and on his user page. He tried deleting the contents of the article, with edit summaries such as “subject of this article desperately wants it deleted. he knows you don't care.” and “you are ruining my life”. When his edits got reverted, he tried to add a new section named “Wikipedia Controversy” to his biography, which also got deleted.

Given that WP usually has the opposite problem, with editors spending a lot of time removing vanity articles created by companies or non-notable musicians, here’s a case of an artist who does not want to be included on this site. In light of the evidence presented above, is there really any legitimate let alone compassionate reason to deny his request?--Draco^E 21:16, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

There's no "political agenda", just a dispute between those who wish to follow policy and those who wish to make an exception.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:23, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

If "following policy" becomes tantamount to bullying someone on a very public site, maybe it's time to review the policy? [24]--Draco^E 21:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

LOL, and now because he's unhappy with Wikipedia and expresses it on his website, we are bullies. We should remove all information from all articles if the subjects complain. That'll do it.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:07, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Bbb23, if there is a policy that requires the sexuality of all BLP subjects to be identified I am not aware of it. On the other hand, WP:BLP states "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy". What policy is it that you are following? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLPCAT. Your policy statement is so broad it could be interpreted almost however you like. In any event, I mostly took umbrage at the use of the phrase "political agenda". If you don't agree with my summary of the dispute, that's fine.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:07, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

So in your world, if I were to apologize for any reference I made to the LGBT political agenda, as perceived by you, you'd be more inclined to look at the facts in this particular case in the cold light of day? Fine. I apologize profusely, for what it's worth, in the hope of making you see that "It's the damage that you do and never know. It's the words that you don't say that scare me so."

Here's the subject of an article who feels violated by having his private life exposed to all and sundry on a site that claims to be a neutral encyclopedia. When in fact, it seems like you're far from letting him - the subject of the article - have a fair say in how you choose to represent reports on his life and his choices, hiding behind policies that can obviously be used to equal wikipedia to some of the worst gossip sites on the internet if you're willing to go there. Users like you and User:Hekerui are trying their best to make this an exercise in Jay bashing, which is ironic given your declared and perfectly obvious agenda. However, at this point, I don't give a care about how you may justify your behavior to yourselves - fact is Jay.Brannan.Does.Not.Want.To.Have.An.Article.On.This.Site. There are plenty of out and proud gay people - a lot of them much more notable than Jay Brannan who publishes his songs on his own label (usally reason enough for many of you folks to dismiss other bands/musicians as non-notable) willing to wave the proud flag of gay liberation. For what it's worth, I know of a secretely heterosexual couple who pretend to be lesbian/gay to sell more records to their gullible fans. Jay Brannan is about to release a new album. Do you really want to be known as one of the biased editors on a nominally neutral site accused of promoting an It Gets Worse (once someone on wikipedia gets obsessed with you) agenda? This here fellow is barely 29 years old. As far as I can recall, Clive Barker, these days an out and proud representative of the gay community, was well into his 40s before he ever spoke about his sexuality. Anyhoodle, why are some of you people so obsessed with people's sexual preferences? There's more to love than boy meets ... [25] ... for all I care! --Draco^E 00:19, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I must have misunderstood the definition of "apology" in the dictionary. Now I'm a "Jay basher" (along with Hekerui - at least I have company) and I have a "declared and perfectly obvious agenda". This has zip to do with privacy. Brannan just doesn't like the label, which is his prerogative, but he doesn't get to dictate what his article says. This is my last comment on this issue. You need to get a grip.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Please, no soapboxing. He talked about his outing in a magazine interview and had unsimulated gay sex in a movie, so violation of privacy regarding sexual orientation is not an angle I think applies. Hekerui (talk) 10:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm aware of that. I'm also aware that this was BEFORE he asked you to delete his article. As for the “soapboxing”: call me old and old-fashioned, but is there a snappy Wikipedia term to describe what you're doing as anything other than profoundly unethical?--Draco^E 11:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Hekerui, does having unsimulated gay sex in a movie mean that one is gay? Is it possible that person is bisexual, or simply an actor? It may not be relevant in this case, but you seem to take that sex scene as some kind of proof, so I am curious. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

No, you misunderstood me there, I merely used that example to show that concerns of privacy can't be so serious - having yourself filmed having sex is the most obtrusive thing. I did not mean that as evidence of sexual orientation. It merely shows that you can't be so uncomfortable with being called gay when you have yourself filmed giving oral sex. The other sourced content we got is clear enough on sexual orientation. Best regards Hekerui (talk) 21:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• Remove I am sorry but I find it both supremely hypocritical, as well as unethical, that mostly anonymous Wikipedians feel, why they feel this I can't imagine, that they have a right to refuse a plea like this from a living person whose privacy, and god knows, possibly his safety too, they have violated. If the rules don't make it possible to comply with this request, then the rules are wrong. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
• Keep. OK, I read his website, and now I get it. It's not that he's not gay, or is ashamed of being gay, or doesn't want people to know he's gay, or is afraid that being identified as gay will harm his career, or anything like that. It's a political stance. He doesn't think that anyone should be identified as "gay" because there is no "gay" or "straight" we are all just humans. (This is a simplification, but I think this is basically where he is coming from, or maybe it's more that the label "gay" has been co-opted and commercialized -- something like that.) Fine, but we don't edit articles to conform to the subject's political wishes. For example: there is an article I was recently involved in, where the subject is a hateful bigot. Well we aren't going to say that but we do identify him as a "conservative commentator" which is what he is. But his supporters don't want the article to identify him as a "conservative commentator" but rather as as "human rights activist". (His schtick is that he is boldly standing up for the human right to be hateful bigot in public.) Well guess what? He doesn't get to be described as a free speech advocate, because that'd be misleading. And Brannan doesn't get to have his Wikipedia article serve as part of his campaign to not label people as "gay" or "straight" in general. Herostratus (talk) 16:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Herostratus, for once I disagree with you—it could have something to do with the fact that you are disagreeing with my wife, DracoE. :) Your conservative commentator's politics are public; his comments are made in a public arena. By all means, we can say that Brannan played a gay sex scene in a movie, because that is in the public domain. But his personal sexuality is and remains a private matter for him, and there is no public interest comparable to the public interest in correct characterisation of public political comment. There is no legitimate public interest in someone's personal sexuality. On matters of personal sexuality, we should respect the BLP subject's wishes, if they bring them to our attention. It's just the decent thing to do. --JN466 22:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Does he have the right not to be used as part of a campaign on Wikipedia to label people as 'gay' for no other reasons than the usual 'I've got a source for it' tagging? Or are Wikipedia editors allowed to engage in politics, but the people in our articles not? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Is this about something that some one wants to cover up, like a criminal record, a drink or drug habit, financial impropriety, or voting conservative? If not then hat is the problem with respecting their wishes if they ask to be referred to simply as singer Jay Brannan, not as a "green eyed" singer Jay Brannan? John lilburne (talk) 23:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I empathize with people editing their own articles who get hit with all kinds of rude templates rather than fair explanation. And I understand his point about not wanting to be pigeonholed into some narrow little category based on sexual orientation. Nonetheless, we cannot discard the facts. We can only tell the biography with a bit more sensitivity. And understanding (or predicting) what is sensitive or offensive is not always simple to do. Wnt (talk) 02:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Adding in sexual orientation is an editorial decision, much like in years gone by newspapers any article that mentioned a woman would introduce her as "Jane Doe, mother of four, ...", or "Molly Mcquire, spinster, ...". The newspapers, more or less, seem to have grown up. John lilburne (talk) 06:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I think we can avoid saying "Jane Doe, mother of four..." while still providing a sourced statement in the article that she has four children, listing their names and ages. Wnt (talk) 16:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Er, no. There is no automatic requirement to put children's names in articles "The names of any immediate, ex, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject" (WP:BLPNAME). How does knowing that Jo Notable's eldest son is called Jake 'increase our understanding' of Joe? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

No we can't; currently it is almost impossible for editors to refrain from adding any old crap to articles regardless of the data's relevance to the article's subject. A large portion of the BLPs aren't actually biographies they are mostly vacuum cleaner bags of random suckage from gossip magazines. John lilburne (talk) 17:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• Categories involving sexuality require self-identification per WP:BLPCAT. Per the FAQ on his website, Brannan does not self-identify as an "LGBT musician". He takes strong exception to that label. What else is there to discuss? The cat should go. --JN466 18:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Gone. The policy requirement for self-identification with regard to sexual categories is clear and unambiguous. It is not only not fulfilled here, but the categorisation is explicitly contradicted and objected to by the BLP subject. --JN466 19:05, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The Wiki article does not start "Jay Brannan, gay singer-songwriter", which is what the faq opposed. Brannan says in the faq he is "not particularly proud or excited to be gay", but that doesn't mean one can't mention it or that it is a lie. And self-identification is clearly established with this and the other interview sources given in the article, and the grounds for removal seem frivolous to me. Hekerui (talk) 19:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

He is now categorised under "LGBT people from the United States". The "LGBT musicians" category is gone. I think that is in line with WP:BLPCAT policy. --JN466 19:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

That edit made no sense, he is a musician, so putting him in the subcategory is advisable. We should not use topcategories when we can put articles in diffused subcategories. This category does not suggest "gay music" but "gay and making music". If he were a gay runner we would put him in Category:LGBT sportspeople from the United States, which does not suggest "gay sports" but "gay and doing sports". Hekerui (talk) 19:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry, please read WP:BLPCAT, and read his FAQ. The requirement for self-identification with any category involving sexual identity is absolute. The question he answers in his FAQ is, "why do you hate being called a "gay" singer-songwriter". He gives plenty of reasons, and explains why he does not see himself as a "gay singer/songwriter". He simply does not identify as an LGBT musician. He strongly objects to the category, and does not identify with the category. As it is a sexual category, and requires self-identification, adding it is against policy. --JN466 19:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Come on Hekerui, why should we want to insist on offending and misrepresenting the man. He has said he is gay, so categorising him as a gay person is within policy. But he really hates being classified as a "gay singer/songwriter". Just be kind to the man, and take the cat out again. It's no skin off our nose, but plenty off his. --JN466 19:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

He hates being called "gay singwriter", meaning someone who plays gay songs to gay audiences, and the FAQ bears that out. Nowhere does he deny being gay or being a musician, in fact he says that he is gay, just not "excited" about it. The current page does not say he is someone who plays gay songs to gay audiences and you seem to misunderstand the categorization, which I tried to illustrate with the analogous example of Category:LGBT sportspeople from the United States. I honestly think you misunderstand the category name. Hekerui (talk) 19:59, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Hekerui, per Talk:Jay_Brannan#Categories, you seem to have been involved in this biography, and this particular dispute about the LGBT categories, for several years, always restoring the LGBT category. Don't you think it might be time to take a step back? Numerous people have disagreed with your understanding of the category over the years. The subject wrote to the Foundation a while ago and expressed his unhappiness. It looks to me like you are trying to WP:OWN the biography of this person, and riding rough-shod over his wishes, refusing to make even a minor adjustment to the categorisation to reflect his concerns. This kind of behaviour does not enhance the project's real-world standing in any way, shape, or form, and I am asking you to please stop. --JN466 21:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree and refixed. John lilburne (talk) 22:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Although a fan, he is gay and he does express himself in several videos about his sexuality and in his music which expresses homosexual relationships and struggles. Even if a celebrity states they wish to not want to be called "gay" in their Wikipedia article, doesn't mean we should remove the category, as he states himself as "gay". Secondly, is there even a rule like that on Wikipedia? AJona1992 (talk) 22:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Per WP:BLPCAT, he has self-identified as gay, so I can't, won't and didn't oppose an "LGBT people" category (I added it myself). The present issue is not the "LGBT people" category, but the "LGBT musician" category. He doesn't want to be pigeonholed as an LGBT musician. BLP tells us to rely on self-identification in matters of sexuality, write conservatively, and if there is any doubt, put the interests of the subject first, especially when it comes to matters of sexual identity. To me there is enough of a grey area to go with his wishes. Above all, I don't see any vital interest of Wikipedia being compromised by doing so. So he won't appear in Category:LGBT musicians, but will appear in Category:LGBT people from the United States and Category:Songwriters from New York. What's the problem with that? And what is the cost/benefit ratio of refusing? Sometimes we should compromise, otherwise we come across as a bunch of people, generally acting under the cloak of anonymity, who wilfully and wantonly force labels on people who are not anonymous, including labels of sexual and artistic identity that those people don't identify with. It's a net loss. --JN466 02:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• When did you add the category? BLPCAT applies only to the gay part, not the musician part. He's self-identified as gay, he's a musician, he belongs in the category. The category even has a note (rare): "People who are gay, who are musicians, and who are from the United States should be listed in this category. A listing here does not imply that a musician focuses on gay lyrics, issues, or audiences."--Bbb23 (talk) 14:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Sources support the use of the category, which complies with WP:BLPCAT. Except in very limited circumstances, which don't apply here, article subjects should not be able to dictate the content of their articles.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
  • You know, Bbb23, if you look at Jaybrannan (talk · contribs)'s talk page, it should be really clear that he has not been able to dictate anything here, and that in fact Wikipedians dictated to him how his sexuality was to be described. --JN466 11:32, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
    • I don't need to look at the Talk page. Wikipedia should be deciding what's in its articles. That would be normal.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• Remove. It seems to me that BLP is often ignored by Wikipedia editors because of the tendency of some of them to act like computers. We're about reliable sources, so all attempts to use reliable sources are good. BLP requires that we be especially careful *not* to take other principles to extremes. Yes, there are things we shouldn't include for BLP reasons even though they have been published in reliable sources. Reliable sources was never supposed to mean automatic approval to put tmaterial in, and this is especially so for BLPs. Ken Arromdee (talk) 08:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• comment Currently the article is over categorized Category:LGBT musicians from the United States is a subcategory of Category:American musicians according to the categorization rules he shouldn't be in both. Can some one sort that out please. John lilburne (talk) 11:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• Remove per BLP - which trumps every other rule, btw - and per Rob, JN466, Ken Arromdee. I cannot believe we are having this discussion again. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
• To put it bluntly, why the HELL does this article even exist? What part of this from the BLP policy don't you understand? "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. 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." I read things like this comment from the subject of the article or the blog entry linked above. Really? I don't think I have ever been this disgusted with Wikipedia in my life. Of course this categorization should be removed - any admins advocating to keep it should surrender their bit forthwith as they are obviously unqualified to have anything to do with BLP enforcement - and I think that with a person of marginal notability where the subject is begging for the article not to exist, the thing to do that promotes human dignity is to delete the article. --B (talk) 14:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
• Wikipedia is intruding into Brennan's life by having an article on him. You might think that is a controversial view, but it's a fact. In most cases this intrusion is welcome, in other cases not so much. We should be mindful of any distress we cause to people by our decision to write about them, and in this case it's pretty clear that the subject really does not want this information included. There's no evidence that he's ashamed of his sexuality or anything, it seems he just doesn't consider it of any actual importance to his work. And you know what? He's right. It's a textbook case of WP:UNDUE. I know that our LGBT editors are very keen to claim their own, and to do what they can to fight the manifold injustices of discrimination that have been inflicted on their kinfolk. That is an understandable desire but it's not part of Wikipedia's mission. It's nice if we can smite injustice while publishing great content that everyone wants to read, but not at the expense of causing distress to people. He seems to see this as the equivalent of a permanent Gay Pride gathering outside his front door - only worse, because Wikipedia is one of the most visited websites in the world and probably the first place most people will got to read about him. As noted above, he is not an out-and-proud gay activist, it's no part of his public persona. Please, let's show a little class here. Guy (Help!) 16:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

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

Our category system: Minority-tagging

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

---

Thread was obtrusively large on the noticeboard and has been moved to the archives. If anyone would like to read it its here - Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive123#Discussion regarding categorization of living people - Off2riorob (talk) 09:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

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

Stephanie Mills

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

In the biography of Stephanie Mills, the article states that Stephanie Mills dated Michael Jackson. This statement is untrue. I grew up during the Michael Jackson and the Jackson 5 era. This is the first time my ever hearing this. I believe the writer of the article is mixing the Wiz (the play) with the Wiz the(movie). Michael Jackson appeared in the movie with Diana Ross--not in the play with Stephanie Mills. Michael Jackson dated Tatum O'Neal maybe Brooke Shields, but not Stephanie Mills.

Cynthia Purdy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.25.130.67 (talk) 05:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• - Stephanie seems to have said that they did date and that she thought they would marry. There's a recording on utube called "Stephanie Mills on dating Michael Jackson (The Wiz)" - Off2riorob (talk) 10:36, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

That is what is cited as a source in the article. I would say leave it in, although YouTube is mostly not considered a reliable source. In this case it's from her and the information doesn't seem harmful. BigJim707 (talk) 23:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The uploader is not a reliable source (and even though I assume the recording was not tampered with: it is common to remove YouTube links if it is not from an RS). The original program could be cited but right now it looks like contributory copyright infringement on our part.Plug of an essay: WP:VIDEOLINKCptnono (talk) 10:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

craig james football player and analyst

Craig James (American football) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The current listing for him includes, in the third para, reference to him not having charged with any wrongdoing, "other than the murder of five hookers." This is out of left field, and obviously both wrong and defamatory, and should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.73.121.23 (talk) 15:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I removed the phrase and added a tag to the last sentence of that paragraph, which is favorable to James but unsourced. I left in the phrase about him not being charged with any wrongdoing, even though I hate those kinds of negative fact phrases. Honestly, I don't think any of the SMU troubles belong in the article. The only connection in the source I see to the SMU issue is that James was on the team. It's been in the article a long time, but I'm going to think a bit about removing it entirely.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I thought about it and removed the paragraph. It's too remote and, even with the unsourced qualifier, it has negative and unwarranted implications.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Jamie A. Koufman

Jamie A. Koufman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I was hoping for some assistance from editors more experienced with BLPs than I am with a situation. I recently made some changes to the article to removed what looked like an unduly promotional material - it does not help that the BLP looks unreferenced (aside from the list of publications, which does not appear to be actually sourcing any material in the article). I was contacted by Weintraub.a (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on my user page, who reports that they are a representative of the subject of the BLP and was unsatisfied with my changes to the article. I replied to the user talk page here (a copy of their message to me can be found there), but would like some more experienced eyes on the situation so that I know what I'm doing is in compliance with policy. Thanks! Yobol (talk) 16:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you did the right thing trimming a bit of the fluff and removing the embedded externals. I remove them on sight also - if they have any value, rather than simply removing them I try to use them and format them with ref tags or as external links. They were all primary externals but rather than remove and leave the new article hanging totally uncited I suggest trying to format and replace, possibly in external link section, as that can help to assert a bit of notability and protect it from imminent deletion while a young article is under development - New users attempting to create can find it hard when some of their work is deleted (even if it requires it) so unless they are showing clear bad faith or creating attack type content, communication and assisting the newcomer is a primary objective. Off2riorob (talk) 17:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the response and eyes on the page. You are right, changing them to ELs at the end of the article or references would have been a better way forward. Let's see if the editor who messaged me will respond. Yobol (talk) 17:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

sadeg faris

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

Sadeg Faris is a reputable scientist that was victim of trumped up charges by Malaysian Govt to take his business. Repeated posting of libellous information on his page is hurting his business and reputation. This has been removed, but keeps regularly reappearing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Francazz (talk • contribs) 20:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Watchlisted - some content is being added supported by a blogspot which imo is not a relaible wiki source - Off2riorob (talk) 20:33, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it's extremely notable that his company was seized for money laundering. I'm re-adding at least some of the content with appropriate sources. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Paul Abbott

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

Unattributed content pertaining to an alleged rape and sectioning could be libelous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.98.132.211 (talk) 05:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Removed by User:Dayewalker - Off2riorob (talk) 09:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Vanessa Amorosi

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

Ralph Carr Management is trying to correct the birth date for the subject but keeps getting reverted. OTRS ticket 2011071810003841 comes from the same domain as the reference for this claim, http://www.ralphcarr.com/web/rcm.htm. The birth date should be 1983. You can see a link to the management's site is at http://www.vanessaamorosi.com/links/. – Adrignola talk 14:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Birth year is now corrected/edited to 1983. The article is semi protected for a month. Off2riorob (talk) 21:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

TMZ and WP:Circular

I wanted to alert people here about another thread I started at RS/N as it relates to celebrity profiles on TMZ.com.

• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#TMZ_and_WP:Circular

It appears that they are taken directly from Wikipedia and therefore are not reliable per WP:Circular.Griswaldo (talk) 15:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Userpage posting

• User:Context23 repeatedly posting material in violation of BLP rules

Hello, Wikipedia. It has come to my attention that in the discussion section of their user profile, user Context23 has repeatedly posted potentially libelous and defamatory material in violation of BLP rules. These postings seem to exclusively focus on Haiti. I have deleted the offending material and posted on the page a note to Context23 as follows:

Hi Context23, and welcome to Wikipedia!

Your articles here are violation of the policy on biographies of living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if there are other concerns about the biography of a living person, please report the issue to the biographies of living persons noticeboard. If you are connected to the subject of this article and need help with issues related to it, please see this page.

BoukiSenSen (talk) 20:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Please explain how those links to articles are libelous, I'm not seeing it. Dayewalker (talk) 20:57, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I would also like to know why anything I have posted to my own Wikipedia user page could be seen as libelous. I have just a working list of published articles and some other info. These articles are available all over the web and mostly have been so for a number of years and to the best of my knowledge nothing has ever been taken down for claims of defamation. As a matter of fact, a few of these articles are linked to from Wikipedia articles themselves and others have extensive footnotes backing up all that is said in them. Context23 (talk) 22:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Added comment The user BoukiSenSen on the user talk page has deleted a request for a dialogue about the blanking on my user page [26] Context23 (talk) 23:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I've asked for clarification at BoukiSenSen's page, I can't see what the problem is with merely having links to artiles on your talk page for future reference. Dayewalker (talk) 02:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

There are four articles - "Michael Deibert and Elizabeth Eames Roebling Attack IPS Journalists Writing on Haiti" "How to Turn a Priest into a Cannibal" "A Dishonest Case for a Coup and "A Few Notes About "Notes From the Last Testament" the accuse Deibert of intentionally falsifying reporting, which is an actionable libel if Diebert would decide to take issue with them, as he evidently has on his own blog. Additionally, the only person who claims to offer any proof of the accusations leveled - a Haitian politician named Patrick Elie - has himself evidently been imprisoned for two years for lying in the past. So, for those reasons, I believe that link to those four articles - though not the others - are in violation of Wiki's BLP policies which specifies that "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous." I think that re-printing the material here leaves Wikipedia and Context23 open to legal action and thus must be removed accord with BLP policies. BoukiSenSen (talk)

I'd like to get further opinions on this one, but I can't see how merely linking to an article in user space is any kind of a BLP violation. Dayewalker (talk) 22:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree it is not really a BLP violation, (although there may be BLP violation content within them and they may not be WP:rs that could be inserted into any wikipedia articles. The user is now specifically requesting the removal of four externals, perhaps the user would as a sign of good faith remove them from his user page and keep them locally - or would he consider NOINDEXing his user page to stop the page showing in google search results? The subject of one of our articles seems to have blogged that he considers something in them to be libel. Off2riorob (talk) 22:09, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I could of course remove the links, but then I still like to know why they are offensive. For example the Justin Podur article I have in my link list (which is a rejoinder to something Deibert wrote about Justin Podur, quote: "...Mr. Podur does what many of Mr. Aristide´s supporters abroad do when confronted with inconvenient facts: He lies.") Is measured in tone and does not use anything that could be construed as libelous.

I do not find myself in agreement with all the articles that so vehemently criticize Deibert, but they are part of a dialogue that is necessary to comprehend the [U.S.] media and it's reporting on Haiti.

Out of curiosity, why are the Deibert related links offensive, most are using measured language and are partially written by academics such as Justin Podur. I have a link in my list that calls Mac McClelland writing "It’s sensationalist, inaccurate, irresponsible, and perpetuating of stereotypes or racist tropes, they say. This is about harmful journalistic malpractice.". Why is one offensive and the other not?

I am open to de-indexing or removal of the links, but like a little more explanation as to why that would make any difference. Context23 (talk) 02:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

To me, your use of your userpage for assembling links and references is entirely acceptable. However, in answer to your question, Wikipedia userspace is not designed to be used for promotion of one thing or another, and anything placed in Wikipedia userspace is prone to be taken way-too-seriously by search engines (and some humans) just because that's where it is. So if someone has a problem with how your userspace shows up in their favourite search engine, then that's a totally sensible reason to nowiki your userspace. After all, it doesn't stop you using it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I am all open to not having that show up in search engines, but I would very much prefer to know why each one of the links could be seen as defamatory. What is the issue with "Michael Deibert and Elizabeth Eames Roebling Attack IPS Journalists Writing on Haiti" for example is a piece by a Brooklyn based newspaper editor Kim Ives (currently of Haiti Liberte) detailing attacks by Deibert on other journalists writing. Nothing defamatory here...

I don't intend to promote (or demote) anything this is more about having a link-list which definitely could reside on my own computer. That is not a problem.

RE BoukiSenSen's comments (just one, since I do not want to monopolize this space): Patrick Elie: a former Haitian Drug czar and government minister and official under two Haitian presidents as well as a political activist and biochemist by training. [27]. The fact that he was imprisoned for several month in a case with political connotations, does not make his statements libelous. So far nothing concrete has been mentioned as to why Patrick Elie's writing should not be linked to. It is all over the internet and referenced by many others in their own articles. If we are talking the removal (or making invisible) of links, this appears as limiting speech. There can be very important reasons for that and being harmful or defamatory certainly fits such criteria. Please do give me a reason besides "someone is offended by the links" Context23 (talk) 03:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure where Context23 (redacted) is coming from. There are four articles in his list that could be construed as libelous or defamatory. Those are the ones we are discussion I have no opinion on the other ones. redacted, but that still does not absolve you from following BLP standards here on Wiki. When redacted states that "Patrick Elie was imprisoned for several month in a case with political connotations," this is false. Patrick Elie was convicted by a federal grand jury on two counts of making a false statement to a firearms dealer and on one count of impersonating an accredited diplomat, and spent nearly two years in jail. Please see link here. Patrick Elie's documented history of lying and fabrication makes linking to his potentially defamatory and libelous statements here even more problematic.BoukiSenSen (talk) 14:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I have redacted some of your comment; it does not appear Context23 publicly lists his identity on Wikipedia; with that in mind your comment amounts to an outing, please do not do so again. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

In terms of the issue of the links - they do not appear to contain anything particularly libellous or indeed anything (IMO) a reasonable judge would accept to a civil case. However, perhaps the polite thing to do, in this case, is simply to remove the links if they serve no particular purpose. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi ErrantX, Accusing someone in print of intentionally lying is definitely libelous and defamatory in the US, even more so in the UK.BoukiSenSen (talk) 15:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Chisten88‎ has now appeared on the page to make the same edits and accusations as BoukiSenSen above. Dayewalker (talk) 02:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

And before that Multiworlds as can be seen in the edit history of my user page. [28] Context23 (talk) 03:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Adnan Oktar

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

The second sentence of this article is: "In 2007, he came to international attention when he sent out thousands of unsolicited copies of the Atlas of Creation[2] advocating Islamic creationism to schools, colleges and science museums in several European countries and the USA." I took out the word "unsolicited", which I expected to be a noncontroversial edit. For one thing the verb "sent out" already implies that he initiated the action. For another the info on his action being unsolicited (and the word) is already in the body of the article, it doesn't seem to need to be in the intro as well. For a third, it seems to give a somewhat negative feel to the sentence. My edit was quickly reversed with the note that we shouldn't change the words of the sources. I raised another issue on the talk page about the first sentence which described him as an "Islamic creationist." The article itself makes it clear that he has a number of related interests (most of them unpopular in the West which is perhaps part of the problem). Anyway creationism is only one aspect. When I mentioned this on the talk page I was told by another editor that this is what English language sources say about him so (if I understand correctly) that should be what WP says about him too. I don't much like Mr. Oktar, and indeed he might be a very dangerous individual, but still I think WP would be better with an article with a more fair-minded tone. BigJim707 (talk) 22:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the use of the word "unsolicited". I don't agree that "sent out" implies that it was unsolicited. I can send something in response to a request, for example, in which case it was solicited. I also don't see a problem repeating the word in the lead. I'm actually more troubled by the use of the phrase "he came to international attention" preceding the sending out. I haven't read the article, so I don't know if that's really a fair characterization, but usually those kinds of phrases mean editorializing by WP editors. As for the use of the phrase "Islamic creationist", that bothers me, too, as it sounds like we are saying that's all he is, and even a glance at the article indicates that he is more than that. I don't have the time to really dig into this right now (maybe someone else will), but I'll try to look at it later.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I tried to tweek the article a little but got rebuffed by a couple of the regular editors there. I feel like I'm too much a lightweight here to get into a struggle with them. BTW in this case international attention seems to mean the attention of people with a special interest in the creation/evolution controversy. Not that they are bad people but kind of a small group, although it's true that they are found internationally. Most of the rest of us didn't notice. BigJim707 (talk) 01:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Given that the mass & "unsolicited" nature of this distribution is a large part of what brought it media notice (and thus, Adnan Oktar notability), I think its retention is a reasonable emphasis. This topic is always likely to have a fairly high level of difficulty given (i) fairly narrowly-themed coverage in European sources & (ii) fairly heavy censorship (of critical views towards it) surrounding it in Turkey itself (is Richard Dawkins' website still blacklisted in Turkey for its coverage of this topic?). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 06:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

'cept that a huge number of organisations send out 'unsolicited' material to schools, other organisations, and households. Daily we get 'unsolicited' stuff, save the children, guide dogs for the blind, veterans associations. Around xmas we get sent packs of cards from various charities asking us to give generously to the cause. The other week we got a plastic bag thing to put in the bog to reduce water usage per flush. All of it 'unsolicited'. The issue here is content of what was sent NOT the 'unsolicited' which is being used a pejorative. John lilburne (talk) 06:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with "unsolicited" ether. It's factual. It's supported by the RS. And it provides important detail to the article. Readers should know that he sent out thousands of copies to people who didn't ask for them, instead of sending out thousands of copies to people who signed up for his mailing list. As for it giving the sentence a "negative feel", there may be some truth to that, but it's the facts of his actions which some people might find somewhat "negative", not the actual word. And we shouldn't cover up facts simply because some people might judge those facts as being somewhat negative. The questions are if it's notable and from a NPOV. I'd say so. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 22:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

If that is NPOV then the packs that were sent out as part of the darwin200 celebrations were unsolicited too. Of course no one in their right mind would describe them as such as we all approve of the message. John lilburne (talk) 00:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Some of the tone for the article seems to come from this New York Times story. The author seems to feel that the books are somehow a threat to science. I think that attitude is more scary than creationism itself. Besides that, Mr Oktar's actions, like all human behavior, are the result of evolution -- so what is there to complain about? BigJim707 (talk) 19:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, it is not important what is scary or not. The fact is, that this source uses the term 'unsolicited'. As do Der Spiegel, Science, Slate.com, The Economist and The Guardian. These newspapers and magazines all can be regarded as WP:RS. Thus, my guess is that the word 'unsolicited' is in place in the article.Jeff5102 (talk) 20:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I guess it doesn't do any harm, really. It just seems a little gonzo. BigJim707 (talk) 23:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The Guardian article is pure gonzo journalism, the NYT a bit less so, the Economist is more normal. BigJim707 (talk) 23:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

There are a number of other phrases, other than 'unsolicited', that are similar in all those reports. Its as if they are all working from the same press report. John lilburne (talk) 07:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

This sometimes happens. I've seen other times when "buzz words" from one news report are repeated in others. Probably especially if the story starts in the New York Times since it is so influential. BigJim707 (talk) 14:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

My mistake. The article in Science was first then the Guardian then the Times. BigJim707 (talk) 15:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The use of similar phrases is what you might expect if those articles all are about the same person. But if you want to challenge the sources, please explain if they do not fulfil the WP:BLPSOURCES-standards.Jeff5102 (talk) 10:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Please note that my, fairly minor, edit did not remove the word from the article itself, just from the intro to try to get a more neutral feel. I don't think I took any information out of the article at all. Nor did I intend to challenge any of the sources, or for that matter the accuracy of the article -- which seems quite factual, and well sourced. BigJim707 (talk) 14:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Anthony James Hall

Anthony James Hall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There's been a bit of a three-way edit war going on at Anthony James Hall (a minor Canadian left-wing academic) today: two spas want to downplay all negative content and puff the article up with bad sources, a second editor has been removing positive sourced content, and GcSwRhIc and I have been reverting in the middle. More eyes on the page would be helpful. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I made a few edits and will keep it on my watchlist. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:59, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! —David Eppstein (talk) 17:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

carolyn carlson

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

Carolyn Carlson was raised in Fresno,California. We haven't seen her since graduation. We are having our 50 yeat class reunion Sept 24th at Fort Washington Country Club and would very much like to see Carolyn, Sincerly, Carolyn Roberts Mefford and Janice Carlson Lawrence — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.126.229.178 (talk) 03:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

This isn't the place to try to contact the subjects of Wikipedia articles. This is the place to report and discuss serious problems with such articles. You may want to try some of the external links listed in the article to contact her. Good luck. Cullen328 (talk) 06:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Angelina Fares

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

The body of Angelina's sister Maya was found on 15 July ([29]). Her murder was covered extensively in Israel's press over the weekend, both on account of her being Angelina's sister and because it's suspected that she was honor-killed. Would a mention of this be within the scope of the Angelina Fares article?—Biosketch (talk) 07:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

IMO not unless there is something to connect the killing with the subject of the BLP or unless the subject comments extensively about it. The subject of the article is herself not very notable, a beauty contestant that didn't win and withdrew after threats - if you add this honor killing claim about her sister then you actually would have an article about Attitudes to womens freedom in the Israel Druze community. Off2riorob (talk) 16:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so either. Though it may belong on the Honor killings page. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 22:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I echo what the other editors said and will add that if the murder becomes notable (see WP:EVENT and WP:NOTNEWS) it may be suitable for its own article, but merely being related by blood to a notable person doesn't confer notability (WP:INHERITED). Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Laura Stack

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

Paid for article, tagged with COI about 10 days ago. Since then a number of single-purpose accounts have been repeatedly removing the tag (User:Bamanh27, User:DME2010, User:Cottreda, User:Pcola30). There's only so much good faith I can presume so there is a strong suspicion of sockpuppetry. Whats's the best way to proceed? doomgaze (talk) 17:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

We might also want to take a look at National Speakers Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- created by the same editor, and lists Stack as a president. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 17:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bamanh27 although it may be a duck. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

No quacking at all - all four accounts unconnected....... I think the way to go is just to ask - is this article notable or not? I think Stack is notable as an author/businessperson and perhaps the group may be less notable than her - Is the group wikipedia notable? I made a few edits tin an attempt to make the Laura Scott BLP a bit less promo and I don't see that the COI template is really of benefit to the reader or to other editors, and if no one objects I will remove it later.madeOff2riorob (talk) 18:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• Also Dianna Booher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- same author, lots of crossover to Stack (the article even cited some commercial blurb of Stack's as a source until I removed it). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 19:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I think Brooher is notable, there seems to be a fair number of reviews of her books behind paywalls in google news. The organisation and Stack I'm less sure on. doomgaze (talk) 19:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

A list of not notable books a dubiously notable speaking group and lots of primary externals - I don't think the project would be less informative if all three of the paid for and mostly self promotional articles were deleted. Off2riorob (talk) 21:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Keith Vaz

Resolved

 – small clean up and watchlisted

Could someone have a look at this page? It has recently been extensively edited by IPs to include unsourced opinion/ allegations which can't possibly appear in the article. Regards JRPG (talk) 20:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Archived, and left a note to remember that BLP applies just as much on taklkpages and in articlespace. Off2riorob (talk) 21:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks once again. JRPG (talk) 21:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

No worries. Thank you for the report. Archiving of soapboxing type attacking talkpage posts is easy and satisfying work. Off2riorob (talk) 21:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Robert Petkoff

This article for Robert Petkoff recently acquired this notice:

A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page. (July 2011) The remainder of this article (content appearing below) may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please improve this article if you can, and move or remove this notice if appropriate. (July 2011)

I have followed the template for a living person/actor for Wikipedia and believe that it follows the neutral viewpoint and content for a Wikipedia article. Please help me "clean up" or revise this article if it needs revising. Thank you.

Cwands (talk) 23:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Wendy Deng - libelous passage

Please remove libelous content from section titled Early Life and Education. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.55.97.3 (talk) 00:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• I believe that the problematic content has already been removed. And if you see anything like that again, in most cases you can just remove it yourself. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Identifying a person's religion based on criteria stipulated by the religion

Above, it was asserted that because a person's grandmother is Jewish, we should assert that they are Jewish. It worries me that this discussion is even being had. I recall seeing a similar discussion around "you did a Scientology course so you're a Scientologist." Surely it is inappropriate to label a person with a religion because the rules of the religion say they're a member, rather than basing it on what the person says. Isn't it time the community took a clear position on this? (Forgive me if it is clear somewhere and I've missed it.) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you. Reliable sources are required. It would be a violation of several policies to conclude someone was Jewish based on that "their grandmother is Jewish." It would also not necessarily be correct according to Jewish halacha. Such reasoning would be in violation of synthesis among other policies. Bus stop (talk) 06:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I also agree. If a reliable source reports that a certain person identifies themself as Jewish, then I believe most editors would agree that can be mentioned in a biography. If a reliable source states that a person is Jewish but it is not clear that the subject self-identifies as Jewish, then there may be room for debate, which may become heated. If all the reliable sources say is that a grandmother was Jewish, then I think almost all editors editors would believe that identifying the subject as Jewish would be wrong. Cullen328 (talk) 06:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

As long as it is clear that someone saying "I'm Jewish" is not the same as their saying "My religion is Judaism". --JN466 13:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

JN466—an observant Jew is not very likely to say "My religion is Judaism". I think it might be more constructive if we discussed actual language as might be found in reliable sources. Bus stop (talk) 14:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

We have to be careful whether we're talking about identifying the article subject as Jewish in the body of the article, or in an infobox or a cat. Unfortunately, editors do not agree whether BLPCAT applies to Judaism, which makes it that much harder. Regardless of that, though, identification of the subject as Jewish, just like any piece of information, even if backed by reliable sources, should be sufficiently relevant to the article to justify inclusion.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Bbb23—you say that "...identification of the subject as Jewish... ...should be sufficiently relevant to the article..." How do we determine if it is sufficiently relevant? Doesn't the inclusion of that piece of information in accounts provided by reliable sources tend to imply relevance? Bus stop (talk) 15:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

No. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:55, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

In response to Bbb23's question as to whether WP:BLPCAT applies to Judaism, the answer is yes, unless someone can provide a reliable source that states that Judaism isn't a religion. As I've already suggested, if people think it shouldn't apply to Judaism, they should discuss getting the policy revised, in the appropriate place. Until they do, policy is clear - we do not describe a living person as Jewish by faith unless a reliable source is provided that they have self-identified as Jewish by faith. There is nothing more to discuss on the matter here - changes of policy should be debated elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• This entire situation is a total "lose-lose" with regards to determining a consistant policy. If we were to remove a label from an article about a person (religion, race, nationality, ethnicity, gender) we're labeled as bigots because we want to suppress the information about that group as being noteworthy, since by removing the label we are somehow indicating that the label isn't important to that person; that the group is not worth noting, or that we're somehow trying to minimize the contributions of that group to human history ("You can't remove the Jewish label from the Sandy Koufax article because that means you are trying to minimize the contributions of Jewish people to baseball, that makes you anti-semitic!"). Contrawise, the exact same charges of bigotry are used against adding the label to articles; since it indicates that the label is somehow more important than the accomplishment, or colors the accomplishment, or whatnot, the label is used to marginalize and seperate members of groups from the "mainstream" or "normal" ("You can't label Sandy Koufax as Jewish in his article! What does that have to do with Baseball? You don't label every Christian or Athiest ball player prominently, so why even mention it in the Koufax article! Because you want to "tag" Koufax as Jewish, that makes you anti-semitic") I have seen both of these arguements more times than I can count; and so which is it? Is labeling a person by a group affiliation "bigotted" or is removing such labels "bigotted"? The answer is there is no one-size fits all policy regarding this issue, and considered editorial decisions need to be made on an article-by-article basis as to which labels are relevent and appropriate, and how they are to be used (whether in the lead sentence, or mentioned later in the article, or in an infobox, or as a category, or whatever). In different individual articles, different standards need to be observed, because the relationship between the label and the person is different. So, do we need some categories which identify people by their religion? Yes. Does that mean that every person who observes that religion MUST be placed in that category? No. --Jayron32 17:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

  The issue is whether the person being tagged is noted for the tag. So if when a person is mentioned people in the wider community are inclined to add the tag as an adjective "Oh that Christadelphian business leader", "She's a great runner and a Seventh Day Adventist", "Wonderful dancer and Jewish too" then the tag is justified. If the tag isn't generally known within the wider community then tagging is less justified. If every Jewish ball player is tagged then someone like Koufax becomes just one amongst 1000s and is notability for being Jewish is diminished. John lilburne (talk) 17:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

John lilburne—you do not know that "If every Jewish ball player is tagged then someone like Koufax becomes just one amongst 1000s and is notability for being Jewish is diminished." (I provided the underlining in the previous quote.) You are expressing an opinion. I am reluctant to accept opinions that result in the omitting of information—unless of course there are other—substantial reasons that a particular piece of information should be left out. I don't think we should omit that a mediocre Jewish baseball player is/was Jewish in order not to diminish the standing of Sandy Koufax. I don't think we should be constructing one article with mindfulness to enhancing another article. Bus stop (talk) 18:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

That is no personal opinion. If one lumps everyone that ever held a baseball bat into the same box with him, then his name become just one amongst many. How do you distinguish him from the rest here? He is already lost amongst the soso's. John lilburne (talk) 20:54, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

John lilburne—We do not withhold information from one article in order to improve another article. We should be including information in accordance with applicable factors to the article that we are working on. Bus stop (talk) 12:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Where did you get 'withhold information' from? The issue is tagging and labelling not withholding information. What the tagging does is to turn what could be a useful resource, for example the most prominent X or Y, into an alphabetic list of names that is information light. John lilburne (talk) 13:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Andy, your post above makes it clear that you have a limited understanding of Judaism. It is a religion -- but it is not only a religion. The slightest familiarity with Jewish identity in Israel would make this clear to you -- and that way of being Jewish is not limited to Israel. I would have thought that all of this is clear to you from the endless discussion of Miliband. I suspect it comes from a desire to take a black-white position on BLPCAT -- be that as it may, your view is absurd. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Pardon? Have I ever stated that Jewish identity is only about religion? I happen to be arguing the exact opposite - that being ethnically Jewish isn't in itself evidence of being a believer or follower of the Judaic faith. This debate is about "Identifying a person's religion", and as such, the non-religious aspects of Jewish identity are beside the point. BLPCAT policy states that we can't state that someone is of a particular faith unless they self-identify as being of that faith. If you think that BLPCAT is wrong on this, I suggest you propose that it be revised. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I think most educated people are aware that being Jewish is an ethic identity as well as Judaism being a religion. It seems like common sense to me that we shouldn't say a person is Jewish unless the person self-identifies as such, and we shouldn't say that their religion is Judaism (or put "Jewish" in an info box under religion) unless they say they follow the religion. And then we should say what branch of it. BigJim707 (talk) 19:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree with BigJim707. --JN466 20:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

@Andy -- great, then there's no problem with "xxx Jews" categories for people who identify as Jewish in an ethnic sense. BLPCAT isn't relevant. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that follows at all from what Andy said. The "xxx Jews" categories are subcategories of religious categories and need to be treated as such. People should not be put in these categories solely for ethnic reasons. We have numerous "of Jewish descent" categories which do not conflate religion with ethnicity. These categories are where people who identify ethnically but not religiously should be put, if relevant. Yworo (talk) 20:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Let's be clear about this. If someone self-identifies as ethnically-Jewish, they can go into a category for ethnically-Jewish people - DSK for instance is correctly included in the category French people of Jewish descent. Have I ever suggested otherwise? (Though personally, I'd rather eliminate the use of categories, list and infobox fields regarding ethnicity altogether - that is a debate for another time and place). What is incorrect is putting people into categories based on religion, without the appropriate sourcing for self-identification for such categories as BLPCAT requires. I note that DSK is also in the category French Jews which seems odd. Either it duplicates French people of Jewish descent, or it is a religion-based category, in which case DSK shouldn't be in it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• • Jayron is right above about how both adding and removing the category label can be viewed in a jaundiced light. I still think the underlying reason is the inequality of our labelling (local) minority groups, but not majority groups. If if we make it normal practice to label men of European descent / white American policitians / etc. as such, then there is nothing invidious attached to labelling women of Chinese descent / American politicians of Asian descent / etc. as such. Bad-faith interpretations only become possible if some groups are labelled and others are not. --JN466 20:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
    • On the contrary, bad-faith interpretations are only possible if random, arbitrary standards, which have no bearing on the individual nature of each subject, are followed. That is, there is always a correct way to deal with the proper type of labeling of each individual person, but that correct way is not unversal across all of Wikipedia, it needs to be handled on a case-by-case basis, guided by the joint principles of verifiability and self-identification and most importantly of relevence. Your solution (label everyone with everything) is actually a horrible way to do this, because it never ends. My children would be Male White French-Canadian/Blackfoot/English/German Christian Americans. That's just stupid. You can't possibly label everyone with every arbitrary label which may apply to them, you need to pick and choose labels which are relevent, even if in some cases that would be no labels at all, and in other cases that would be something else. You also need to decide how to handle the label: In some cases a category may be appropriate, in other cases it wouldn't. In some cases it should be a prominent fact in the first sentence, in other cases it maybe something mentioned in the lead, in other cases a brief sentence in the "personal life" section. There is no one-size-fits-all principle which will allow us to equitably make it work for every article. Look at the person, look at the source material, and decide what works in that one case. --Jayron32 20:32, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
      • Jayron, I would maintain that labelling Caucasians for race just like we label everybody else is something we should look at. Someone being Caucasian may not be notable to Caucasian readers, but it may well be notable to black or Asian readers. Otherwise I agree with you in principle, but the reality is that on an open site like this, appeals to editorial judgment don't work, and contributors applying what you describe as "arbitrary standards, which have no bearing on the individual nature of each subject", will continue to contribute here and do their thing. This is after all the website anyone can edit. Arguments about whether the statement "I'm Jewish" justifies the infobox statement "Religion = Jewish", whether a BLP subject having an Italian or Mexican grandmother justifies categorising them as an Italian-American, of Hispanic descent, etc., have been going on for years, and we are not making any progress. The problem is systemic and it will continue unless we change our basic approach. --JN466 00:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

BigJim707—you say (several posts up) that "…we shouldn't say that their religion is Judaism (or put "Jewish" in an info box under religion) unless they say they follow the religion." I take issue with the implication that we should not put "Jewish" in an Infobox after the word "Religion". In fact that is how reliable sources construct their own Infoboxes.

NNDB, the "Notable Names Database", has an Infobox for Ed Miliband. That is found here. Please note the field reading "Religion: Jewish".

NNDB also has an Infobox for Jan Schakowsky. That is found here. Note the field in her Infobox reading "Religion: Jewish".

The Washington Post is a fairly reliable source. They use Infoboxes too. The following are 3 different examples of Infoboxes the Washington Post has published for Jan Schakowsky:

Jan Schakowsky Washington Post Infobox example One.

Jan Schakowsky Washington Post Infobox example Two.

Jan Schakowsky Washington Post Infobox example Three.

I believe there is nothing particularly wrong with straightforwardly noting that individuals are Jewish in Infobox fields. The locution "Religion: Jewish" is standard English. This is applied to Jews whether they are observant or nonobservant. Bus stop (talk) 21:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

BLPCAT explicitly says that we do not do this unless the person self-identifies their religion, in categories or infoboxes, regardless of whether other sites follow other policies. Such sources don't apply to articles about living people. They are not reliable for this information. For non-living people, a preponderance of sources is indeed sufficient. Yworo (talk) 21:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Bus stop, how exactly does pointing out that NNDB makes a false claim that Ed Miliband is Jewish by religion support your case? I think most of us are already aware that NNDB isn't a reliable source, and we don't need further evidence for that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Yworo—WP:BLPCAT of course says nothing at all about the locution "Religion: Jewish". By what reasoning do you conclude that the construction of a field in an Infobox of a living person cannot read "Religion: Jewish"? Bus stop (talk) 21:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course it does. To quote the relevant portions "Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question ... These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates, and {{Infobox}} statements (referring to living persons within any Wikipedia page) that are based on religious beliefs or sexual orientation". Clearly, the infobox "locution" you refer to is "an infobox statement based on religious belief" and so BLPCAT certainly applies and requires citation of self-identification with said religious belief. Duh. Yworo (talk) 22:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

"Jewish" refers to both ethnicity and religion. To use "Religion:Jewish" it would make sense to ensure the subject specifies that it is the religion it is affiliated to, not the ethnicity. --Topperfalkon (talk) 22:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Yworo—perhaps I am not making myself clear. I am not asking a question concerning our WP:BLPCAT requirement for "self-identification". I am asking about the word-construction of Infobox fields. Do you have any objection to the word-construction "Religion: Jewish" as a parameter in an Infobox? Bus stop (talk) 22:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Shirley its - religion Judaism. Off2riorob (talk) 23:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Off2riorob. "Jewish" is slang when applied to the field religion, the correct designation would be "Religion: Judaism" which would make it clearer that this is a religious identification rather than an ethnic one, since the word "Jewish" is ambiguous but the word "Judaism" is not and can only mean the religion rather than the ethnicity. Sloppy language does not help clarity. The fact that other sources are sloppy does not mean that we have to copy them... Yworo (talk) 23:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I should perhaps point out that BLPCAT also requires that "the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources". AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

It should also be specified the branch/sect of the religion as it seems important - there are these quite differing factions - Orthodox Judaism including Haredi Judaism, Hasidic Judaism and Modern Orthodox Judaism. - Conservative Judaism - Reform movement in Judaism, - Karaite Judaism, - Reconstructionist Judaism. - Jewish Renewal. - Humanistic Judaism, the last one seems a bit secular. Off2riorob (talk) 23:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that "faction" is the accepted term - perhaps "denomination" but even that doesn't do justice to the variations and their overlaps. Also, many Jews who consider themselves religiously observant do not accept rigid subdivisions - see Conservadox Judaism. Others (such as myself) embrace an even broader overlap, though the article on Reconservadox Judaism hasn't yet been written. I agree with Off2riorob that Humanistic Judaism is really atheism or humanism with quasi-religious trappings. However, some might argue that Reconstructionist Judaism also falls into that category, if you take Mordechai Kaplan's teachings at face value. As for "Jewish" versus "Judaism", I think if you ask American Protestants what their religion is, the most likely answer will be "Christian" rather than "Christianity". Similarly, most religious Jews will answer the same question "Jewish" rather than "Judaism". We should use common language rather than make pedantic distinctions, in my opinion. Cullen328 (talk) 01:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Cullen328 is correct in pointing out above that "We should use common language…" in Infoboxes. I believe we should be following the precedent set by for instance The Washington Post which constructs Infoboxes about Jews to read "Religion: Jewish". I don't think this would be "slang" as suggested by Yworo above. What would suggest that this is slang? Bus stop (talk) 12:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

It's slang because "Jewish" is an adjective when referring to the religion Judaism, whereas the Religion infobox field should logically contain the noun form (see Malcolm X usage)--Topperfalkon (talk) 13:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

What about sects. Differing sects of Judaism. As per the comments here, Jewish cats seem clearly to require clarification - Religious Jew - and - Person of Jewish descent (ethnicity) - inclusion in the first primarily when the subject has self identified as religious and inclusion in the second through primarily reliable citations. I also think as it is often asserted that someone with minimal Jewish ethnicity/genetics is a Jew that we should also create cats to clarify this, such as Person with one Jewish grandparent and Person with one Jewish parent - that is informative to readers and removes all vague who is a Jew misinterpretations. - or to defend the majority - Person with three non Jewish grandparents - Off2riorob (talk) 16:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

So much משוגעת in one short post... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

This is the en wikipedia - not the h-brew wikipedia - Just posting an insult in an attempt to derail good faith discussion because you don't like it is disruptive. If you can't post in English don't bother at all. Off2riorob (talk) 18:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Lets not forget Jewish person of American descent, Jewish person of French descent, Jewish person, as designated by insert phonebook here, Jewish person who doesn't declare themself Jewish but who we all know is, so there. John lilburne (talk) 19:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Off2riorob, the categories are already organized that way. The "xxx Jews" categories are subcategories of the "xxx people of Jewish descent" categories. Ethnic identification places a subject in the parent "of Jewish descent" category. Self-identification as a religious Jew moves the subject into the "xxx Jews" category. In those cases where the categories have not been messed up by people unaware of this distinction, the "of Jewish descent" categories are placed within various ethnic supercategories but not any religious categories; all the religious categories involved should only be placed on the "xxx Jews" category, not the parent. Thus everything is properly organized. The only problem is that a small set of people refuse to accept this distinction and continue to insist on putting people who only identify ethnically or for whom there is no source supporting religious identification into the "xxx Jews" category rather than into the ethnic parent category. Yworo (talk) 19:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Yworo, indeed, that seems to be the main problem and may be a point to add a note about somewhere in guidelines.. I was watching your discussion yesterday on User talk:Nomoskedasticity#Difference between .22French Jews.22 and .22French people of Jewish descent.22 and I was informed by your comments. I also am strongly in favor of the position that users/editors/readers are confused and the creation of category to assist clarification , such as Religious Jew - is required to assist resolving this repeated dispute. Off2riorob (talk) 19:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that might help resolve the recurring issues. I'd say every "XXX people of Jewish descent" should be changed to "XXX people of Jewish ethnicity" and "XXX Jews" should all be changed to "XXX religious Jews" or "XXX adherents of Judaism". This would also have the benefit of discouraging adding people to the "Jewish ethnicity" categories simply because they had a grandparent who was Jewish and rather require that they really identify with the ethnic group. Whether someone has a single Jewish grandparent or great-grandparent is simply not encyclopedic and is of no interest to anyone except people who like to tag Jews. Not everyone interested in tagging such relationships is doing it for the love of Judaism, and that concerns me greatly in this whole matter. In some cases, such tagging may be used to incite harassment, especially in countries where anti-Semitism is strong. People travel, etc. and we should not be "tagging" people who do not already self-identify as Jews ethnically or religiously. Having a Jewish ancestor is simply not a notable aspect of a person who does not self-identify as Jewish. Yworo (talk) 20:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Hear, hear! Probably the most sensible suggestion that I have seen on these issues so far (which are being dragged out all over the place), there are definitely pro-/anti-semite taggers trying to further their own agendas, and genuinely confused people who, because they see "had a Jewish great-grandparent", want to cat people as Jewish. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 21:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Yworo—I think we should be choosing our Category names from the terminology that is in actual use. There is of course actual terminology supporting the placement of any individual into a Category, but there seems to be a disconnect between language picked for Category names and the actual language commonly encountered in reliable sources. For instance you mention Category names with the word "ethnic" or "ethnically" or "ethnicity" but we do not ever encounter such terms in actual reliable sources. We encounter instead terms such as "nonobservant", "secular", "nonreligious", "assimilated", and "non-practicing". These should be the pool of terms from which we should choose a term for our Category name. ("Nonobservant" would be my choice.) Similarly you mention a tentative name for a Category: "adherents of Judaism". But that language is never encountered. I think real-world use matters. Frequency of use would also matter. I think names of Categories should be reflective of the actual language frequently encountered in the sources that actually support the placement of the majority of the individuals into the Categories in which we will find them. Bus stop (talk) 00:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Bus stop, I hear you, but it's simply not practical have a subcategorical relationship that way. That is, "observant Jews" could never be a subcategory of "nonobservant Jews", so this would require yet another category to contain them both causing even more confusion. Further, categories names should really describe the placement implied by their inclusion in their parent categories. All or almost all of the "of Jewish descent" parent categories are explicitly ethnic, such as "People from xxx by ethnicity" and "Ethnic groups in xxx". I see no objection however to using "XXX observant Jews" rather than "XXX adherents of Judaism". Yworo (talk) 18:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

This is actually the problem - sources almost are never informative or bothered to say if a Jew is religious or not and there are users that assert that they are without specific reliable support. I think Nonobservant Jew and Observant Jew might be beneficial/informative creations.Off2riorob (talk) 10:26, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Off2riorob—a person may be observant, nonobservant, or in-between—and many are in-between. I disagree that "there are users that assert that they are without specific reliable support." At what article have you seen editors assert that the subject of the article was observant in the absence of the support of reliable sources? Bus stop (talk) 12:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

SereneSereneSerene and Anthony Weiner

User: SereneSereneSerene has twice added POV-pushing edits to Eliana Benador (SereneSereneSerene is a WP: SPA who only edits the Benador article). In both of these edits SereneSereneSerene wrote that Anthony Weiner "was said to be Jewish" and "is allegedly Jewish" respectively. He's not "allegedly Jewish", he's Jewish (as mentioned in his article) and to say otherwise is a BLPVIO. What action needs to be taken to prevent this from happening in the future? I think SereneSereneSerene may have a conflict of interest in addition to having BLP-violating endencies. Difluoroethene (talk) 16:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

You properly reverted the edits. Serene has been notified of this discussion. One step at a time. The Benador article needs a fair amount of work. I've done a minor amount. Also, I will probably nominate Benador Associates for deletion.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Undue? section in hip-hop DJ page

Mister Cee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has a section entitled "Gay Oral Sex Bust". While this section is sourced (weakly), it seems a bit sensational and out of place. Opinions? The Interior (Talk) 19:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I think there was a previous discussion at the noticeboard about this but there was no consensus to remove it..or rather, we did remove it until "after the verdict"

• - Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive114#Mister Cee

As I remember there were at the time (pre trial/verdict) reasoned cries that removal would have censorship issues, - large possibility of someone re-adding it if you remove it....Mister Cee#loitering violation - I changed the header to a less exciting one. If someone is interested in Hip hop, a bit of article expansion about his music would help to take some of the weight out of it. Off2riorob (talk) 19:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Steve Lerner

• Steve Lerner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article creator admitted writing his autobiography back in 2006, which largely accounts for the tone and quality of the article as it stands today.

I became aware of the article when welcoming a new user who within 1 minute after account creation as his very first edit removed maintenance templates from the article marking the edit as minor. Said user, with no article edits beside Steve Lerner, has in less than 1 month performed a total of 5 "cleanings" of maintenance templates from the the article, added unsourced contents, issued multiple no-edit orders, made several PAs, and tossed generalized accusations around, talk page section q.v. Pay special attention to the his claims of notability of the article subject without adding RS and his unorthodox notability criteria "Notable people are notable not just because of googling something- they are notable because of acheivements, which are not measured by Wikipedia editing standards, but by real world existence." (My emphasis.)

A look at editing and contribution patterns suggest at least a COI, another talk page section q.v.

I have done a minimum of work on the article today, e.g. converted external links to incites. Could a pair of fresh eyes cast a glance on the article and give opinion on notability and maybe do some pruning of excessive prose and unsourced contents? Thank you —MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 22:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I've pared down the article significantly, but it still needs even more work, and I'm not sure whether Lerner is even sufficiently notable to warrant an article. I don't have much more time right now, but I'll try to look at it again later. In the meantime, I am watching the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

 Redflag Thank you Bbb23 and Threeafterthree for your efforts, but EditorCool777 (talk · contribs) is back. He has left some nonconstructive comments on the talk page, and has reverted the article to where it was more or less a week ago. Including removal of maintenance templates for the 6th time. Will somebody perform a rollback, please? Thanks. MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 17:01, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Sent to AfD (after reversion of the tags deletion). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Lerner (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Penelope Trunk

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

There has been some informal discussion about deletion of this article as being nothing more than a vanity page for a blogger of questionable notability. I would like to formally nominate this page for deletion, but am not sure of the exact procedure and would like to request assistance from an admin or more experienced editor (read: someone who knows how to do this getting the ball rolling). Thanks in advance. --Entrybreak (talk) 23:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I can help you/create it for you - what is your reason for nomination? Off2riorob (talk) 23:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

She's published a book as well. [30] Gamaliel (talk) 23:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, looking around she seems to have a small degree of notability and is getting hwe name in the press so to speak - here are some articles she is mentioned in http://www.penelopetrunk.com/press.html - and this article already in our article is all about her http://host.madison.com/news/local/article_b4bd14a8-af0f-11de-8a1a-001cc4c002e0.html - perhaps the article just needs a little improvement. Off2riorob (talk) 00:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Generally? Non-notability. More specifics are that 4 of the 7 references in the article are to the subject's own blog. And her book sales at Amazon barely rank in the top 700,000. It seems the only time she got an real national media attention was when she Tweeted about her miscarriage as it was happening. I was looking at her blog earlier, and these days seems to be more about the problems in her personal life than about career advice.

--Entrybreak (talk) 00:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• - Fails WP:Author - Wikipedia:Notability (journalists) is a failed proposal. Level of coverage in independent reliable citations fails to clear the minimal requirement of WP:GNG. Single noteworthy reportable issue that received a decent independent level of reporting was the tweeting of her miscarriage creating WP:BLP1E issues. Off2riorob (talk) 00:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps if we leave it a couple of days someone may edit to assert notability/improve the bio - I saw she won an award in one citation. Off2riorob (talk) 00:23, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I guess the question I'd raise about the award was how notable was it?

--Entrybreak (talk) 00:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps not very, it was here, - "After Penelope Trunk won an award for writing about sex online, her blushing employer asked her to start using a pseudonym." Off2riorob (talk) 00:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

So, is the consensus here to nominate for deletion, and open it up to discussion? Off2riorob could you put it up, if you agree? Thanks, again, for your help.

--Entrybreak (talk) 02:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I have sent it to Afd: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Penelope Trunk (2nd nomination). – ukexpat (talk) 14:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Anya Verkhovskaya

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

Anyaverkhovskaya (talk · contribs) has been engaged in an edit war trying to blank the article. causa sui (talk) 05:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Eleanor Daley born 1955

This is a query regarding The Song of the Music Makers. I learnt this song during my time at Junior School in England and would have been about 10 yrs of age at that time in 1950. I remember the song clearly even the words of the first verse, possibly only in unison so am wondering where Eleanor Daley would have sourced these words initially. I still sing solo (mezzo) and am always interested in songs I now sing or have sung in the past which come to mind now and then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.184.1.55 (talk) 08:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you're in the wrong place; try the Wikipedia:Reference desk. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit war on BLP between two SPA's at "Ergun Caner"

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

Dseppling (talk · contribs)

MosesModel (talk · contribs)

Saw this when I looked over recent changes a dueling edit war at BLP. Not sure what to make of the sourcing or the allegations. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 18:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

DSEppling who identifies himself as "the Executive Vice President of Ergun Caner Ministries" has been making massive deletions to the Ergun Caner wiki. The additions I made in response to this come from a number of sources. 1. I cited his brother's book about their conversion. 2. I cited the book Ergun Caner co-authored with Emir Caner, Unveiling Islam. 3. I cited two unedited videos of speeches Ergun Caner gave to the USMC in North Carolina. 4. I cited two articles written by David McGee about events that Caner spoke at in Bristol, VA. 5. I cited once, the blog of the man who acquired the videos by the Freedom of Information Act. I attempted to appease DSEppling by adding the only content that I could find that he wanted added. Everything else was massive deletions. I asked repeatedly why the Caner brothers were not legitimate sources for Ergun Caner's wikipedia page. I am sorry for the 3 revision rule. I did not know about it and I will not break it again. Please do not block me. MosesModel (talk) 14:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Also if I may, I would like to make a polite case for the inclusion of the two viddler videos. One, they are unedited. I would never cite an edited video in this Wikipedia entry. Two, I only typed what Ergun Caner said. I made no judgement statement to whether or not it was true. However it is definitely true that he said it. In one video, he is introduced as Ergun Caner and in both videos he self-identifies as Ergun Caner. His speeches to the troops should be part of the Wikipedia page and it is not libel. MosesModel (talk) 20:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Jacob Arabo

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

Hi all, could a couple of editors put this page on their watch and maybe check the ips in these diffs: [31], [32].

Basically, while modifying and checking a ref, I discovered this info which is of major notability and includes THE NY lawyer in vogue at the moment, a certain Ben Brafman, so I added this paragraph which is obviously irritating the subject or their associates, and has been deleted twice so far. Being off-wiki recently, I missed the second delete, so a few more eyes would be appreciated. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 21:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I've done a little rewording of the conviction information. I've also removed the Jewish references as they are not well-sourced. I agree with you that the conviction information belongs in the article. Why is there such a long list of songs in which he's named? Can't we just say he's named in a lot of them and include just a few? Seems like a ridiculous section to me. It's not like he wrote the songs. Anyway, I will watch the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Good stuff, hadn't really noticed the cats, someone came by and removed the whole song section so that's all good. Yes, keep watching please, I'm sure someone will come and do a "drive-by" edit to delete that info again. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 11:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Jesse Csincsak

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

Article has been greatly expanded today, by an account claiming to be Mr. Csincsak. The additions are non-neutral, poorly sourced, and contain content that's probably not appropriate for an encyclopedia, including a hint that their program idea was lifted by another producer. The user has already been warned re: inappropriate external links and COI, but has ignored the warnings and continued to work on the article w/o discussion. I'm guessing the mass will be reverted, but would like some other editors to have a look re: content and whether stronger actions are needed. 99.0.82.226 (talk) 21:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The article is written like drivel. The Csincsak account has been warned. I've nominated it for deletion as a non-notable athlete, although you contributed to the deletion discussion saying that his notability is as a TV reality star. Maybe other editors who are more familiar than I am with TV reality shows and the threshold of notability required to justify an article here will comment.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed that he doesn't seem notable as an athlete, and the article is of negligible quality. I don't follow reality TV, so I've never heard of him, but his personal life has been covered by major newspapers and Us Magazine. 99.0.82.226 (talk) 00:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I saw the People and the Us magazine cites. What major newspapers?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Following the 'news' link on the AFD page: [33], NY Daily News and Washington Post. The people/gossip sections for sure, but it counts.... 99.0.82.226 (talk) 01:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesse Csincsak (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Michele Bachmann

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

Some editors have continued to add gossip to Bachmann pages. It was reported by anonymous sources that Bachmann suffered from severe "incapacitating" headaches, for which she requires heavy medication and has been hospitalized on multiple occasions. Unfortunately no person is willing to lay claim to this statement.

Per WP:BLPGOSSIP one should be wary when using anonymous sources. Additionally from WP:BLP Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[2] Users who constantly or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing.

That she has migraines is fine for inclusion, but the result of those is purely conjecture and POV. The medicine she takes for treatment is protected by medical privacy laws and patient/provider confidentiality rules. Conjecture about the medication is a very POV and not suitable for a BLP, especially when it is made by an anonymous person. Arzel (talk) 23:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

More broadly, there's also a question over whether a journalist who maintains the confidentiality of his sources is engaged in gossip. Are all news stories that use anonymous sources merely gossip? Recall that significant reporting on the Watergate scandal involved a famously anonymous source, Deep Throat. Was that reporting just gossip?   Will Beback  talk  00:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Revision of history is always a touchy issue. The better question would be at the time of the initial watergate report would this be something that would have been covered here? Obviously the end result is that the anonymous reports were verified by other sources, but the initial accusation of a crime would most certainly not have passed BLP issues. Arzel (talk) 04:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that's a correct interpretation of WP:V or WP:BLP. The Washington Post is a highly reliable media source. If we adopted the view that no news reporting which includes unnamed sources may be used as sources for issues relating to living people then it would have a serious impact on writing. Ironically, it could even lead to a preference for lower quality sources who are not so scrupulous about indicating that they are using unnamed sources in favor of sources which simply make the assertions without identifying the source in any way.   Will Beback  talk  05:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

That seems like strange logic. Your example would fail WP:V. I don't see how requiring named sources for contencious issues would ever result in a preference for lower quality sources. Accusations against someone should always be backed up and attributed to the accusor, with some obvious exceptions in which case the accusor is the victim of a crime or a minor. This appears to be little more than a vindictive accusation against Bachmann. It would also be undue weight to give their unverified accusation extra weight. It would be all but impossible to Bachmann, or anyone else for that matter, to defend themselves against such accusations without revealing private medical information. Patient medical information is highly sensitive information, and we should always err on the side of caution when accusations regarding personal health are leveled against a living person. Arzel (talk) 14:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

It is indeed normal for sources to remain anonymous to the "end-reader". The question is of how seriously the sources' story is taken, and by whom. I'd never heard of the "Daily Caller" before and don't know how credible is; my impression is that it's well below any newspaper whose website I'd normally bother to look at, though not below some "news" sources that are often cited in all seriousness in Wikipedia. This CBS story takes the story seriously (and refrains from poohpoohing the "Daily Caller") but it also speculates about who the sources might be and what motives they might have. -- Hoary (talk) 01:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

This seems to me to be one of those "wait and see" situations. That is, leave it out of the article for now, without prejudice to including it at some later date should the story become more firm. Wikipedia doesn't need to "scoop" anyone on the story, if we don't include some random factoid like this as soon as it hits the wires, so what? If it becomes an important issue, we can wait until after it becomes an important issue to include it in the articles. Taking the time to get it right doesn't seem to be a bad idea. Just wait it out; either it will blow over and not be a big deal (in which case we shouldn't have ever had it in the article in the first place) or it will become a significant, long-lasting, and deep story in actual reliable sources, after which we can add it. Again: There is no impending need to rush every factoid into an article the second a single source publishes it. Take the time to get it right! --Jayron32 01:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

This is an example of the kind of edit that flagged revisions would help screen. Cla68 (talk) 02:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

This is an example of a situation where flagged revisions would be nearly worthless if not an outright failure. The information is sourced and would likely be flagged as OK by someone quickly. I'd have a hard time (without a pattern being there) taking a bad faith stance on the hypothetical approver...but don't doubt for a second that someone would check off on the edit. Whether it is sourced well enough or where it fits as far as WP:UNDUE goes is a different story. --Onorem♠Dil 02:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Yuri Dojc

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

Could you please check the deletions by users Dupontrocks and myself (Halibutron) of vandalism by a guy variously named KosherSlivovitz (current) and Spravodlivost2008 (2008) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuri_Dojc

For a guy who is supposedly insulted and slandered by comments made in a private Yahoo forum chaired by Dojc, he sure seems to want the world to know about it, neatly avoiding mentioning that the private comments were made by *other *people*, and not Dojc at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halibutron (talk • contribs) 03:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

They're good deletions. The article was also bloated with advertising. I've deleted both the legal stuff and the advertising. -- Hoary (talk) 06:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I thought that I'd sorted out the problems, but it's clear that one editor has a dim view of the subject of the article and is keen for the article to reflect this. More eyeballs, please. -- Hoary (talk) 13:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I've deleted the article: Dupontrocks had created it by lifting the text from this page. -- Hoary (talk) 13:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

John Varty

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

• - the vesion on July 16 prior to the redirect

After the protection period expired, the John Varty page was redirected to Running Wild, a movie he made with Brooke Shields. All info about his documentaries on the Discovery Channel and The National Geographic Channel and they awards they've won, is gone. He plays a major role in tiger conservation. Tigeralert (talk) 07:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Revision history shows there was a recent content dispute and problems with a lack of reliable sources WP:RS that discuss/report on the subject. Off2riorob (talk) 12:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Vaibhav Kala

• Vaibhav Kala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Possible re-creation, very promotional BLP with no footnotes.  Chzz  ►  14:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Casey Anthony: removing prosecutor error during trial from trial section

A couple editors keep arguing that even though multiple WP:RS show prosecutors say that during the trial they gave corrected evidence (that there was only one chloroform search) to the defense which provided it at trial and even though prosecutors were about to give this evidence to the jury, this information does not belong in the trial section. One therefore reverted this new edit of mine (which also corrected some factual errors). Two of us feel it is a serious BLP violation not to put this in the trial section but an earlier section where the exculpatory value is not perfectly clear, especially to casual readers. Please comment on this narrow issue. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

See the discussion about it at Talk:Death of Caylee Anthony#Trial section error to understand why some of us don't view it as BLP issue. The information is already covered right above the Criminal trial section, in the Excluded from trial subsection. That heading is perfectly clear to readers. This information, while presented to prosecutors, was excluded from trial (from the jury). How does this not belong in the Excluded from trial subsection? And if included there, why should it be in both sections? I could understand if we were leaving this information out, but we are not. Flyer22 (talk) 15:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm shocked that anyone would excluded multiple inclusion of key evidence from the article. BTW ya'll do know that the examiner of the hard disk had informed the prosecution that the data given was highly flawed. John lilburne (talk) 15:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

To make it easier to understand, beside NY Times article saying the prosecution witness alerted the prosecution during trial, this is the most relevant part of the text related to the period of the trial (which does include jury deliberation period):

The prosecution stated they discussed the issue with defense attorney Jose Baez on June 27th and he raised the issue in court testimony and in closing.Ref 1 Baez asked Judge Perry to instruct the jury about this search information, but prosecutors disputed the request. On July 5, furing deliberations, prosecutors were about to give the jury corrected information about the one search, but the jury reached a verdict before they did so. Had the jury found Anthony guilty, this would have been grounds for a mistrial.[Ref 2

{Later note: the WP:RS info in quotes above actually was removed in total in the editors edit, with some minor tweaks later. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

John lilburne, I'm not sure why you're shocked. Though there is need for "multiple inclusion of key evidence" in some instances of this article, that is not what this is about. The discussion linked above goes over it. This "key evidence" was not included at trial, so why does it belong in the Criminal trial section that goes over evidence that was? Why is it not better left in the Excluded from trial subsection and only that section? And exactly how is it a BLP issue when this information is presented quite clearly for readers to see? Carolmooredc completely removed it from the Excluded from trial subsection, which makes no sense to me. "Presented to the prosecution" does not negate the fact that this information was excluded from trial. Flyer22 (talk) 15:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you denying that the two sources above are accurate? Reliable? Both talk about things that happened during the trial regarding exculpatory evidence. To remove the WP:RS supported details of how such evidence was handled during the trial, and then to move it to a section and write it in such a way that it is not really clear that this was in fact exculpatory evidence (in fact the word is not currently used) is clearly a BLP violation. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not about denying that the sources are reliable. It's about not seeing it as BLP issue when the fact that Bradley admitted this is right there above the Criminal trial section for everyone to see. The subheading Excluded from trial is quite clear. Why you act as though our readers would not find this information is beyond me. Flyer22 (talk) 16:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I would propose a compromise - actually I already made the edit, only seeing this discussion after the fact. The compromise is that we maintain the material in question as is, with a simple redirect at the end of the sentences: For updated information, please see: "Excluded from trial" Section. This is similar to the way it is done i law journals. I realize this is not a law journal but I think it is only way that I know to maintain the intergrity of the actual testimony (Flyer's and my opinion) yet note there is more to the story in another section, i.e., Excluded from the trial Section. If consensus is different, you may change or delete my edit as of course you already know. Mugginsx (talk) 16:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

That is essentially what I suggested when I brought this up and I fully favor it. Also, to be clear, almost all the sources I've read say that the correction was mentioned during the trial, either at closing, in the trial or both.LedRush (talk) 16:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I like Mugginsx's compromise proposal. And I tweaked it. Something like this was also suggested by LedRush. Does this compromise work for you, Carolmooredc? Flyer22 (talk) 16:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Putting something in a section saying it was excluded when clearly it was included is an absurd logical fallacy. Even if I beef it up with the removed information above and say exculpatory several times and give it its own section, the fact is many readers will not make the connection if it is not in its chronological and logical order. They will still think she did 84 searches and chloroformed her kid. If that's not a BLP violation.... Non-involved editors opinions needed. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

It was excluded from trial. "Presented to the prosecution" does not negate the fact that this information was excluded from trial. It was not evidence used at trial by the prosecution. This means it belongs in the Excluded from trial subsection of the Evidence section. You act as though our readers are downright stupid. How are they not going to "make the connection" when the subheading is quite clear, and when the Criminal trial section now says "Bradley later retracted his '84 searches' assertion" and points readers right to the section that discusses it? It is clearly no longer a BLP issue, if it ever was. It's also funny that you are now making the "chronological and logical order" argument when that is the main argument I have made for keeping this later information out of the Criminal trial section. It's clear that you are just wanting things your way, since you are unwilling to compromise. LedRush already accepts the compromise, yet you are fighting it for reasons that make no sense. Flyer22 (talk) 16:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Since I don't necessarily agree with prosecutors that Baez referring to it was sufficient notice, I guess I could go by my own notion it was not properly presented at trial. If WP:RS details like those I just put in the excluded area are left, and if it is clearly re-stated that this information later was found incorrect and the prosecution failed to properly tell the jury in a timely manner, with dup refs, then it will be acceptable. So let's see if people trying to get rid of the information in the excluded section, and fight a proper short exposition of what happened with repeated refs, then we'll see if there is a BLP violation. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind you including anything about this in the Excluded from trial section. I'm saying we do not need all of this (or any more) information about it in the Criminal trial section and why that is. It is not a BLP issue, especially since it is now made clear in the Criminal trial section that Bradley later retracted his testimony about the 84 searches...and points people to further information about that. Four people are for all of the details about this being in the Excluded from trial section; no one is trying to get rid of it from that section. Flyer22 (talk) 17:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I have now made changes that make it clear just what happened in both the Excluded section diff and the trial section diff. The latter being just two sentences that clearly state what happened and clearly direct people to the relevant section. These two sets of changes address my BLP concerns with this issue which have expressed many times at the talk page. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

And like I stated in altering your change, "[We don't] need the second line. Trimmed. Fixed [proper] formatting. It is not up to you to decide what compromise is acceptable. This is enough, as four editors are for it. It's up to you to convince us otherwise, and you haven't." Flyer22 (talk) 17:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I added this bit in because it is needed to show that this information was not presented to the jury. Flyer22 (talk) 17:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Kathy Chitty

I suppose this is forum shopping, but some eyes on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kathy Chitty (3rd nomination) maybe. Maybe I'm wrong, but in my opinion the person's an unnotable private person and as she's "quite shy" and "very private" and has shunned the limelight maybe let's cut her a break. Herostratus (talk) 15:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

BLP errors in mentions of James Cantor (me).

user:Jokestress continues to add erroneous/misleading material about me (and my colleagues) to WP pages.

• The current instance is her erroneous claim that "The term homosexual transsexual has been promoted by psychologists including Ray Blanchard and James Cantor since 1989 as part of Blanchard's transsexualism typology".[34]

• Although she changed "promoted" to "used"[35], the statement is still incorrect and must be removed. (I wasn't even in this field in 1989. I have an easily documented history of using multiple terminologies, not just the terminology Jokestress falsely attempts to associate with me.)

• user:Jokestress maintains off-wiki attack sites spreading other misinformation about me and other scientists who disagree with her views. Indeed, her harassment of scientists, and even of their children, has become vivid enough so as to be mentioned in the NYTimes.

What's the best way to handle both the immediate BLP problem and the long-term, slow-burning one?

Although I have long maintained on my user page this pledge not to edit the historically problematic articles, I have not been able to convince user:Jokestress to hold herself to the same standard.

— James Cantor (talk) 17:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

As someone familiar with the long and passionate dispute between these two, I must state that it is highly inappropriate for Jokestress to edit Cantor's Wikipedia biography or other information about him...just as it would be if Cantor were to edit hers, Andrea James, or information about her. They have been cautioned against doing so more than once. Flyer22 (talk) 19:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Just for the record: Jokestress' edit was not on the page about me (James Cantor), but was an edit to Androphilia and gynephilia, on which she named me and adding incorrect information about my record. This has occurred in the context of the proposed deletion of that page or merger into Sexual orientation.— James Cantor (talk) 19:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I removed the content you have specifically complained about. diff - If User:Jokestress is really keeping attack sites about you she should stop editing content about you here, she has a clear conflict of interest/inability to edit from a NPOV position - I would also like to see User:Jokestress voluntarily repay your declaration and stop editing content related to you on wikipedia. If not and the patterns continue, the WP:ANI might be a better place to report in future. It says in the Newyorktimes article that User:Jokestress went so far as to " download images from J. Michael Bailey's Web site of his children, taken when they were in middle and elementary school, and posted them on her own site, with sexually explicit captions that she provided."NYT article - that she should have done that off wiki and that she is the main contributor to that persons wikipedia BLP is incredulous. She is clearly unable to edit the subject neutrally, I think she should be topic banned. I suggest if she refuses to voluntarily stop editing your BLP and Mr Baileys you should take a little time to write a complaint, include diffs of any policy/NPOV violations/misrepresentation of sources and report the user at WP:ANI Off2riorob (talk) 19:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Off2riorob. Of course, I agree with everything you said. There have been multiple AN/I (and other) reports over the long history. Although I would entirely support and contribute to any discussion of the problem, if I were the one to actually initiate it, it would quickly get interpreted/distracted by being called my personal grudge, rather than an external view.— James Cantor (talk) 22:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Ian McCartney

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

Would appreciate some outside input on this as myself and another editor strongly disagree on the treatment of his expense claims relating to the United Kingdom Parliamentary expenses scandal and his stepping down as an MP while the scandal was still raging, citing health problems related to his heart condition. I've tagged the article for {{npov}} and have been attempting some clean-up. The contentious issue is attempts to cite a connection between the scandal and the stepping down, as far as I can see reliable sources have not made the connection explicitly enough for it to be citeable and I think the article has been getting attempts to use WP:SYNTH to make this connection.

A statement in the article "McCartney was one of 98 MPs who voted in favour of legislation which would have kept MPs expense details secret" I removed as not properly cited was reinstated with another source. Sources given: Times, Daily Mail, Telegraph. I would disregard the Mail which is not generally considered a reliable source for anything controversial, so the most I think could actually be cited to the sources is that he voted in favour of the Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill which (it has been claimed?) would have prevented MPs' expense claims from being made public, but again I think this has synth problems as the Telegraph source, the one that makes the connection between the Bill and expenses, doesn't mention McCartney. Would at a minimum need a reword but is it notable that he voted in favour of this bill? January (talk) 20:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I truly don't think tha with headlines such as Expenses row labour mp to step down the article wasn't reflecting wider coverage of the matter. But i have no objection to others looking in on this.RafikiSykes (talk) 21:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Article titles are not reliable content to include in wikipedia articles - editors create them wilh a degree of editorial leeway and they are designed to attract attention, to be titillating.disclaimer - I have not looked at the article yet. Just a comment about that bill - it was misrepresented as I remember and the statement that it would have kept MPs expenses secret was not wholly correct. It was as I remember only a vote to keep some of the private/personal detail private. Its a while ago now but the claim was removed from a lot of MP BLP articles. Off2riorob (talk) 21:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/5339908/Ian-McCartney-claimed-for-champagne-flutes-and-700-table-and-chairs-MPs-expenses.html the foi is relevant to this article as it was only following its defeat that he repaid the 16000 so it is directly relevant to his actions concerning expenses.RafikiSykes (talk) 21:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

That seems to be where you are moving into original research and unconfirmed assertions as if facts - the comment you made asserts something unknown. I have made a few edits to a neutral position, I think its better now - Perhaps if users agree the NPOV template could be removed? Off2riorob (talk) 22:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Will read over it more fully shortly to be sure but you look to have reflected the skepticism in the coverage pretty fairly without being too cut happy so seems fair to me. RafikiSykes (talk) 22:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps some of this quote from Ian to the relevant section would make things seem fairer as it is a quote from him speaking about his actions etc. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/5373428/Labour-MP-Ian-McCartney-to-stand-down.html "Following the publication of details from Mr McCartney's expenses claims, the MP said he was "appalled" that his reputation could be undermined by "misrepresentations, misunderstandings or, as I genuinely accept, real concerns and revulsion about the failings of the system of MPs' expenses". He added: "This is a system that has put at risk the reputation of dedicated public servants like me."

I wouldn't add it, I don't see as its really required to balance the current content and it seems a bit soapboxy, perhaps the other users will disagree though - perhaps wait for some feedback from User:January. Off2riorob (talk) 22:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I must add that although I have added some balance to the FOI content, I still don't really support its inclusion. Its just so cherry picked from all the votes he made, adding that one is leading and suggestive of motives that are unknown and unknowable. I actually support its removal for these reasons. Off2riorob (talk) 22:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. While the rewritten version of that statement is better, I would still consider the second part of it to be synth (I don't think it's possible to avoid synth on this) and the whole statement undue weight.
I don't think the additional quote from McCartney is needed either, Off2riorob's edits have balanced out the content. January (talk) 10:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind the wording as it currently stands as it still reflects skepticism in the coverage. I will be expanding other sections anyways as he has been on daily politics etc talking about his work on the minimum wage and other topics so will be adding more sources in other areas.RafikiSykes (talk) 13:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Robert W. Harrell, Jr.

This individual is a politician in South Carolina. Information that reflects negatively upon him has been removed from his biography on more than one occasion and replaced with puffery, likely written by members of his staff.

Harold Covington

This was already a mess that settled down and sat quiet for years, but has recently (the last couple of days) gone to pot when the subject of the article showed up and started removing what he considered scandalous talk page posts.

Let's start from the beginning. The article was created at 08:51 UTC on May 4, 2006. On May 8, an account showed up at the article under the screenname User:HaroldCovington and started making...colourful edits (I won't link every single diff. but they are among the earliest edits) to the article. Later, after being continually reverted, he headed over to the talk page and make more interesting edits, including the very first item on the talk page that contains a five year old legal threat (which never was properly retracted, BTW). 26 hours later, he took off after exchanges with User:Dogville and didn't come back - at least noticeably - until July 18. At that point, he made this edit (this IP shows up again later) and many more in a talk page edit war. Here's another diff.; look at that edit summary, and look at a lot more of this war through the 20th (two days ago).

Suddenly out of nowhere (because the IP was blocked for 24 hours by User:Courcelles), User:NorthwestVolunteer happened to show up and three times made - well, that edit in this sentence. User:Your Buddy Fred Lewis also appeared around this time, and also took to reverting edits on the talk page (though it's such a mess by now I can only assume he's reverting Harold's edits because he seems to not agree with Harold's edits either). Suddenly another twist; User:Forky1138 has a go at removing content - the exact same content that User:NorthwestVolunteer removed. An SPI was completed; I referred to this under the talk page war zone via the "Okay, That's A LITTLE Better" section, where I linked to here. As of yet, Forky1138 has not been blocked.

BTW, in telling this story, I forgot to tell the tale of this showing up at AN/I which is where I first became involved. Not knowing a thing about the history of the article, I attempted to extend an olive branch to the IP editor before I started poking around and finding the displeasing history. Even then I attempted to remain friendly, and he did respond directly to me on a couple of occasions.

Finally, after everything that had happened, he decided to request page deletion via the ticketing system by sending an e-mail to the info-en-q queue. I clearly can't see this ticket, or if it's been handled, but on the IP talk page (which also includes his e-mail address, I'm not sure that's extremely wise of him) I had told him quite bluntly I'll be happy to set up an AfD with his brief rationale (which I asked for there, and which he later went into an essay after I explained why to keep it brief). I also, in a light way, didn't hide the fact that by now he was pissing me off. =)

As a final twist, another IP removed the same content (it actually happened twice, one right after the other). User:Will Beback reverted the second. This one got reverted by User:SlapChopVincent, who also reversed one last IP editor before Will put down a 24 hour lockdown.

The talk page has a lot of additional information he's posted regarding how he feels he's being stalked on here by two people who he's had off-wiki contact with in real life (one whom he's banned from his own blog) and further threats of legal action. Some of this also spilled onto the IP talk page linked above.

Now as for the article itself. There is a lot of unsourced content. I started looking through Books sources at Google and found something for the first unsourced remark, but have yet to add it because of the constant nature of the discussion and his constant belittling of editors at WP in general (still going legal on us, though understandably because of a link that never should have been referenced in the article) and because he later started requesting deletion of the page (which is where I stopped searching in my second reference search without a result posted). The article needs a LOT of cleaning up, but there is no doubt that the subject is notable and AfD would take us nowhere. Unless WMF honours his request, deletes the article, and locks down the area (they did this with Andrew Stewart Jamieson and I've considered asking Philippe more about Covington's situation but haven't yet), I fear we're going to have Covinghton continually coming back and continuing to remove content that he feels isn't accurate in order to look the best he possibly can, even from the talk page (where he shouldn't tamper with things, period).

I was drained from this yesterday and missed the protection edit, requesting it at WP:RfPP only to be told I missed it (oops). However, 24 hours is not enough. The article does have issues and could use a complete rewrite (lately YBFL has been making edits which I have not reviewed), but after the 24 hour stoppage in action expires, I guarantee you that IPs and newly registered accounts - whether Covington himself or defenders of him visiting from his blog - are going to be back attempting to remove content from the talk page again. I think we need a long lockdown on this, and optionally I am thinking of creating an archive page that could be given permanent semi-protection so that IPs can't touch it. I can truthfully say, however, that while anyone commenting is welcome, this will definitely need administrative assistance. As a final note, the IP contribution page for 24.113.172.237 suggests he is blocked; he actually is not, so please keep that in mind. CycloneGU (talk) 22:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I forgot to add and will briefly note a comment I made to Will on his page as well. Covington made this statement among what is on the article's talk page, suggesting that as soon as protection expires, he's going to go right back into it and force us to babysit him again. That is why this needs attention; I don't know if he's just going to go away after the lockdown expires. CycloneGU (talk) 23:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Note for those with OTRS access, the ticket number is Ticket:2011072110016071.Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 23:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes it is, I included a Wikilink to it above in the area regarding it as well. =) CycloneGU (talk) 23:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Ooops, sorry CycloneGU, I missed it. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 23:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, having the visual aid for quick reference is not a bad thing. =) CycloneGU (talk) 23:26, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you archive the talkpage and start again? The article should be improved as much as possible by the interested experienced users that are there - raised up to GA status would be a good idea. - I would semi protect the BLP for a few months. Off2riorob (talk) 23:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that archiving what is there (the talk page) and semi-protecting it (so that he can't simply edit it on a whim since archives should not be edited NEway) is the best idea. I have held off archiving for the time being. But it still doesn't change the fact that the article's subject wants to violate WP:COI and is making legal threats for which he should have been permanently banned five years ago. That is just as much a part of this scenario as the contents of the talk page. CycloneGU (talk) 23:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I think we should be really polite to anyone who wanders along and then after advice, warn and block. Keep a real tight ship on the article and on the talkpage, in the way of a fresh start I would also, if most of the article content is cited and not in anyway promotional - remove the COI template of shame. I would also consider removing the brothers claim of illness as that is upsetting him and he says its completely false - his brother it seems is an opinionated person against the subject and giving an interview to the Southern Poverty people who are a strongly opinionated source against the subject - is there another source for that personality disorder claim? Off2riorob (talk) 23:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

By means of a brief update on my way to bed shortly, the archive is set up and was fully protected about an hour ago after I tidied up the erroneous topics of mere equal signs. So that part is done. I am hopeful by one of his last comments that he is satisfied and won't act up again, but I can't be sure; after all, he did try to revert some of those talk page posts after the message in question. He can't revert them now. In any case, while I don't think the user's conduct is discussed here, I think the article itself might still merit some discussion. CycloneGU (talk) 06:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Eric Topol

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

Please review revision history of Eric Topol for violation of fair and balanced weight of achievements relating to Topol. Repeated revisions made by MastCell to negatively weight the topic of Vioxx. This not being the most prominent event in Topols career, yet MastCell continues to insert sentences throughout that implicate this. Topols page should present appropriate, relevant data with due respect to fair weight and context - and this is not currently the case. Nor does the page read as a resume and this should be removed immediately. It lists his achievements and his many contributions to medical society. Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starriekittie (talk • contribs) 23:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any unbalanced editing by MastCell. What in particular do you object to? You could always start a discussion on the article Talk page. What's your interest in the article? It's the only one you've edited on Wikipedia. As for the resume tag, it's clearly warranted. The article needs more third-party reports on Topol's achievements, rather than just listing them.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing the page. My concern was not with the content of including the Vioxx information, this should certainly be included. My concern was that it was repeatedly inserted in multiple sections and is not being considered neutrally. By reviewing his other accomplishments it should be obvious that being one of the top most cited researchers in America, or being the first to administer t-PA or even leading the Cleveland Clinic to the top heart hospital in America for so many years in a row would be considered the most prominent aspects of his career. I understand that in a lead paragraph there should be some discussion of each of the main points of the article, which is why the older versions of the lead paragraph do mention his public dispute with Merck and Cleveland Clinic - but it did not need an entire paragraph devoted to this (again undue weight). Also, when the page was ready for revisions in 2010 it was posted to the community for review before it was changed. The changes that I made today were minor from that version and I dont object to all that MastCell revised, certainly, just the continued harassment about the Vioxx case. I use other names for editing wikipedia pages, but I edit Topols with starriekittie for personal reasons. I feel very strongly for the work of genomics as it has done many things for my family and I feel that all those who work in this field should be represented fairly for the work they do. I am fairly new in the wiki community all things considered, although I have read through all the policies and examples and read many pages for ideas and constantly use wikipedia as a resource. I would welcome adjustments to make it less of a resume and more of a detail of contributions to society. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starriekittie (talk • contribs) 23:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Except when doing so would defeat the purpose of having a legitimate alternative account, editors using alternative accounts should use provide links between the accounts. Links should ideally take the form of all three of the following:

1. Similarities in the username (for example, User:Example might have User:Example public or User:Example bot).
2. links on both the main and alternative account user pages, either informally or using the userbox templates made for the purpose. To link an alternative account to a main account, use the main account to tag any secondary accounts with {{User alternate acct | main account}} (using the main account shows it's genuine) or {{Publicuser}} if the account is being used to maintain security on public computers. The main account may be marked with {{User Alt Acct Master}}.
3. links in the alternative account signature: if not linking to both the alternative and main account, link to the alternative account, and if necessary provide a note there requesting contact be made via the main account, or simply redirect the user talk page.

Editors who have multiple accounts for privacy reasons should consider notifying a checkuser or member of the arbitration committee if they believe editing will attract scrutiny. Editors who heavily edit controversial material, those who maintain single purpose accounts, as well as editors considering becoming an administrator are among the groups of editors who attract scrutiny even if their editing behavior itself is not problematic or only marginally so. Note that email is generally not considered a secure way of communication. Concerned editors may wish to log into Wikipedia's secure server then email the arbitration committee or any individual with checkuser rights through a secure connection to Wikipedia's computers.

Editors who have abandoned an account in order to edit under a new identity are required to comply with the clean start policy. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The first two sentences of the lead don't mention Vioxx. That is followed by two sentences (not an entire paragraph) about Vioxx. Then there is a separate paragraph about his current positions. I suppose you could reorder it, but I don't see two sentences as undue, and if you reordered it, Vioxx would then have its own paragraph, which might make it more prominent. Vioxx is only mentioned in its own section and in the lead, so I don't know what you mean by "inserted in multiple sections". I'd be careful about labeling MastCell's edits as "harassment".

I'm disturbed by your statement about your alternate accounts. Please read WP:SOCK#NOTIFY.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• First of all, I think Eric Topol is among the top physician-scientists in the U.S., and probably the world. I think the article should convey that. But we can convey that without turning the article into a c.v. or press release. Secondly, I think it's a bit silly to minimize Topol's role in the Vioxx episode (and, more broadly, his role as a prominent critic of the pharmaceutical industry); the New York Times notes that Topol "has cultivated the persona of a Naderesque crusader against drugs he deems dangerous, as well as their makers."

  These aren't mutually exclusive - we don't diminish Topol's scientific and administrative achievements by describing his role in the Vioxx controversy. We can do both, and in fact a neutral, encyclopedic article needs to do both.

  I mean, until my "harassing" edits today, the lead of the article didn't even mention the Cleveland Clinic. How can you write a serious lead about Eric Topol without even mentioning the Cleveland Clinic, where Topol was (as the New York Times notes) the "public face" of the institution ([36])? I'm not sure how to understand Starriekittie's reaction. I guess I should just say that a) I have enormous respect for Topol and I don't see how my edits suggest anything else, and b) I think this is a case where Starriekittie's personal agenda is getting in the way of writing a serious, neutral encyclopedia article. MastCell ^Talk 04:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Anders Behring Breivik

It's pretty clear to me that Anders Behring Breivik should redir to 2011 Norway attacks as it is, quite simply, the clearest of all WP:BLP1E cases.

However, to establish agreement for that would take a week, by which time it will not matter.

I am thus concerned about our true belief in our BLP policies.  Chzz  ►  02:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it is as clear as you present it. After all, WP:BLP1E mentions John Hinckley as a counterexample, and it seems likely that Breivik will prove to be as notable. Also this was not "one event" as he is linked both to a bombing that killed at least 7 people, and a later shooting spree a considerable distance away that killed at least 80 people. We don't have a WP:BLP2E guideline, as far as I know. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Chzz, do you really think that Breivik is "likely to remain" a "low profile individual"? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know; I don't think it is my place to assume or speculate (in terms of this article). Are we, now, in the business of predicting the future? The article is all about his facebook page, his twitter... of a person alleged to have perpetrated crimes. Today. Before today, he was certainly not notable. If BLP1E means anything, this is it; if it doesn't - then, fair enough, let's update policies.

"it seems likely that Breivik will prove to be as notable" doesn't cut it, for me. That's pure opinion. Whether I agree is irrelevant.

John Hinckley, Jr. - there's books about him, of course. Now. But there were not, on the day it happened.

We're supposed to reflect RS, not generate news.

This is a living person, known only for one event; today. We've discussed that; we've formed a policy. If the policy is wrong, it needs changing through consensus - but, we cannot ignore it.  Chzz  ►  06:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• I think it will be a waste of time to turn this into a redirect. We had this same discussion in regards to Jared Lee Loughner a few months ago, and right now it is a full fledged article. What's key to me is the phrase in BLP1E is the phrase "and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual" then that person should not have an article. Well, to be frank, with an event this big, he's not going to be a low profile individual ever again. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Our current policy states, Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them.

The article fits that, live a glove.

If the policy is wrong...then we need to change it.

Otherwise...I have no idea why we're ignoring it.  Chzz  ►  06:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

You really think he's going to remain low profile? For what he did, it's certainly one of the biggest crimes in the past few years in Norway. They are definitely going to be holding a trial and it's going to be a huge media frenzy. Silverseren^C 07:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• The use of "his alleged Facebook profile" definitely appears to violated WP:SELFPUB: "there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 08:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

@Silver seren - yes, I imagine he will be notable, Soon. For now, we're speculating.  Chzz  ►  08:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The best course of action when dealing with a possible BLP1E exception is to wait a week or two and see if the coverage has continued. If it has dried up, then merge. Silverseren^C 09:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree in principle that, for now, Anders Behring Breivik should redir to 2011 Norway attacks and should not be a separate article; all the info about him either a) relates to the inciden, or b) is OR.  Chzz  ►  09:14, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

IMHO, it can be unmerged / un-redirected later if required - but for now, it's as clear a case of BLP1E as ever I saw. Once some other sources have published stuff on"him, himself" - as opposed to "him, the current perp" - then we can article-ise him. For the meantime, this is sure exactly the kind of situation that BLP1E is designed for? Pesky (talk …stalk!) 09:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• (Making just a singular indented comment so it is addressed to all of you) This discussion really shouldn't even be about merging or anything, as the merge discussion closed as "No consensus to merge". By the way, Chzz, you really shouldn't have archived it. It makes it look like you're trying to hide the discussion. I know you're not, but that's the appearance. Silverseren^C 09:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• An article talk page consensus cannot possibly override project-wide considerations and consensus like BLP1E. The IDONTLIKEIT "consensus" to not merge is therefore entirely invalid. --87.78.54.22 (talk) 09:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

@Silver seren Blimey, that really is clutching at straws; and not a nice accusation at all. I archived several parts from the talk; I explained why. The merge discussion was closed as no consensus - ie, a keep - and I archived it, just trying to keep some order in the pages. Seriously; can nobody try and keep any kind of order - no matter how neutral - without being lambasted?  Chzz  ►  09:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

People are emotionally involved. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 09:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

If SilverSeren feels that his emotional involvement may cloud his encyclopedic judgment, he should disengage for the time being. --87.78.54.22 (talk) 09:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, who is this? Silverseren^C 09:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

@ the IP: I think that was probably a little unfair on SiverSeren - he did make it clear that he wasn't actually making that accusation. I'm just pointing out that we're all a little 'touchy' on this one. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 09:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, but SilverSeren was actually making that accusation, then he quickly lampshaded it by claiming that he didn't. Anyway, nuff said. --87.78.54.22 (talk) 09:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm the guy who lets you know you that you need to keep your emotional involvement and your encyclopedic contributions strictly separated. Unlike this. And unless and until you can do so, please disengage. --87.78.54.22 (talk) 09:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The fact that you're pulling up a diff from an entirely different conversation means that you are either stalking my edits (the most likely one) or are the logged out version of someone from that dispute. Silverseren^C 10:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

See, you're jumping to conclusions and making accusation yet again. I merely looked up your contribs (it's a public record after all) to keep track of the discussion. I noticed the ED talk page edit and since I used to be an occasional ED reader, I was curious and followed the link. Anyway, it is entirely irrelevant who is saying this. What matters is that you're currently acting agitated (and in more than one discussion), and that's not a good thing. Please don't dismiss valid feedback on the grounds of who said it. --87.78.54.22 (talk) 10:14, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I said that I know you didn't mean it that way. My first thought was that you did, but then I saw you had archived other stuff. But archiving it immediately after it had closed gives a bad impression, especially since it was hatted, so it was taking up negligible space. Silverseren^C 09:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• This is a fantastic example of crystal balling; as of this moment there is no evidence Breivik meets the standards required to take him above BLP1E; you're citing the Daily Hatemail, for gods sakes, a paper that's horribly reliable to determine if Ann Coulter's grandmother was a secret nazi pedophile who slept with Princess Diana and good for bugger-all else. Redirect it, and if the article later passes our inclusion requirements, we can recreate it. We don't keep things around "just in case"; we're an encyclopedia, not a lonely old lady with a bad case of hoarding. Ironholds (talk) 09:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• Then create a new merge proposal, it's as easy as that. Get consensus for the merge. Silverseren^C 09:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Nah; I'll tell you what...get a consensus for the keep, instead. Until then, [37]. Show evidence that the article meets policy inclusion; don't expect to keep it "in case".  Chzz  ►  09:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I reverted you before seeing your comment here. And, no, that's not how it works. If it had been no consensus, leaning toward merge, that would be something, but no consensus FOR the merge means no merging. Silverseren^C 09:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Please read my reply to your comment above. I'll quote it here for your convenience, just in case: An article talk page consensus cannot possibly override project-wide considerations and consensus like BLP1E. The IDONTLIKEIT "consensus" to not merge is therefore entirely invalid. --87.78.54.22 (talk) 09:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

^This. I have no interest in petty bickering. I've spent my last 20 hours trying to make this article decent, and I'm quite proud that Wikipedia has done a better job than other media. At this point though, I'll step away from the keyboard. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  10:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The consensus is that it is not a BLP1E violation, therefore it is not overriding any policy, the consensus is saying that the article falls under one of the exceptions to the BLP1E rule. Silverseren^C 10:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

That is counterfactual. The opponents in the merge discussion barely mentioned BLP1E, they simply opposed the move "for now", just like you. Whether Anders Behring Breivik poses an exception to BLP1E was not at all discussed in the merge discussion. Please re-read it if you're actually unsure about that. --87.78.54.22 (talk) 10:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

BLP1E cannot be determined right in the aftermath of an event. BLP1E says that an article should be merged if the subject doesn't have lasting, enduring coverage. That cannot be determined right now, since the coverage is still ongoing. If you're saying we should apply BLP1E right now, then it would be clear it is an exception, since there is current coverage. But, of course, that's not how it works. We have to see if the coverage dies off or not. There is no problem with having the BLP up and allowing people to work on it. If the coverage doesn't last, then it will be merged, no harm done. But if it is merged now, then users cannot continue to work on it and it is detrimental to the article if it ends up staying. Silverseren^C 10:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

As you can see, information about him is expanding as we speak. Give it a little time. Silverseren^C 10:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

BLP1E cannot be determined right in the aftermath of an event? Yes, it can. It is a very simple calculus. Is the living person in question notable only for the one event? If so, they should not have a separate article. Period. If additional info (and with it, notability independent of that one event) emerges at a later point, an article may be spun off at any time. The question is not even whether to merge, it is whether to have a separate article. You're simply rendering the issue in terms that suit your inclusionist preferences and trying to educate you is of no apparent use. I'll now follow Chzz's example. --87.78.54.22 (talk) 10:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Um, have you even read WP:BLP1E? It specifically states in the oft overlooked second paragraph "If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented—as in the case of John Hinckley, Jr., who shot President Ronald Reagan in 1981—a separate biography may be appropriate. The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources.". Silverseren^C 10:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Right, and the persistence of the coverage can be judged only after some time has passed. Until then, there should not be a separate article. --87.78.54.22 (talk) 10:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• This discussion has already been held at Talk:2011 Norway attacks/Archive 1#Merge from Anders Behring Breivik and the redirect proposal has already been rejected. This is absolutely not a clear BLP1E case, because the person is the perpetrator of what is an extremely significant event. The scale of the massacre far exceeds the atrocity committed by Seung-Hui Cho, both in sheer number of deaths and the political ramifications. BLP1E says the following (highlighting is mine): "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." Note that there are now several articles in the media which are looking at Breivik's background, and he is most certainly not going to be a "low-profile" individual any more than Timothy McVeigh was. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• That's what i've been saying. Silverseren^C 10:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• ...and you're both wrong (sorry for breaking my promise). Are there currently any reliable sources that cover Anders Behring Breivik in any other context? No? Then BLP1E applies and the article needs to be merged, and the talk page "consensus" should be completely ignored as invalid based on overriding policy concerns. --87.78.54.22 (talk) 10:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• All of the sources in articles that are exceptions are specifically in the same context as well. That's because it is that event that they are notable for. So your comment doesn't really apply. You're not going to get independent of context in anything for any of the exceptions, but that doesn't change the fact that they are exceptions. The important part is continued coverage after the fact that creates notability. Silverseren^C 10:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• "the person is the perpetrator" Now, step back, and wait a second. He "has been accused" of a crime. Please note, BLP applies as much to talk pages as articles. We must _not_ be claiming he is guilty in here, and we should be assuming his innocence in our decisions whether or not to respect his privacy. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

BLP1E is policy language which says, in effect, in case A, do one thing, but in case B, do another. People who insist that case A applies generally are ignoring essential policy language. In practice, there's been a strong consensus that perpetrators/accused perpetrators of major acts of terrorism are sufficiently notable to receive individual articles (Timothy McVeigh, Mohammad Sidique Khan, Jamal Al-Gashey). BLP1E and BIO1E standards are functionally identical; the decision does not turn on whether the individual survives the event or is later executed. There is no basis for removing/redirecting the individual article. We also shouldn't forget that an important consideration underlying BLP1E was sensitivity to the privacy interests of surviving victims, not perpetrators. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

We see here the reason BLP is considered such a laughing-stock. Not even editors here at this chat page take it seriously. The existence of the article on the subject of this thread flies in the face of all the reliable sourcing which states without doubt that no human being can be notable for only one event. Would Leonardo da Vinci-- once a living person himself-- be allowed an article here if he had only painted the Mona Lisa? Get serious! Without The Last Supper, he would be gone. And if you need proof that BLP1E is regarded as a joke by certain editors, just look at the image of Lee Harvey Oswald at his article-- a piker by comparison with the subject of this thread. Look at him smugly mocking BLP1E! This article must be redirected to John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories if editors are to have an ounce of respect for BLP. Have a nice day. Dekkappai (talk) 16:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

BLP is not considered a laughing stock at all. This is not a chat page its a noticeboard for reporting and helping to deal with problems with articles about living people. Many people take BLP seriously indeed, including the foundation, and the arbitration committee and the founder and imo the vast majority of editors. Users that violate BLP can and will be blocked, users that repeatedly violate BLP will be banned from the project. Clearly there are people involved in a single major event that having an article about them is the totally correct thing to do - just like Oswold - As Hullaballoo states, policy and guidelines (and consensus) can easily be interpreted to support such creations. Off2riorob (talk) 16:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Wolfowitz, "an important consideration underlying BLP1E was sensitivity to the privacy interests of surviving victims, not perpetrators". But what of the privacy interests of the _accused_? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob drobbs (talk • contribs) 18:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Bob drobbs, here, and I am surprised to see such a statement from Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, whom I consider to be one of the prime defenders of Wikipedia's BLP policy. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Rob. I was unable to find where consensus determined that Oswald was an acceptable exception to BLP1E. It seems to me to be a glaring violation, and such lax enforcement of this policy is what led to my outburst. Also, is it possible that the subject of this chat thread actually did this in order to get a Wikipedia article? The very thought that Wikipedia should be encouraging such behavior I find reprehensible. All the more reason this article should be deleted. Dekkappai (talk) 21:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

David Deida

I'm trying to clean up this BLP which appears to have been created by well intended fans with little WP experience. It contains a very long list of un-sourced essays with the title Privately distributed manuscripts I cannot find any source that verifies them. Should they be deleted?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I don't see any need to wait just because the tag was recently added. Also, what does "privately distributed" mean anyway and why is it important? There's no relevancy context for this section.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I recommend deleting this section of the article. The information is unverifiable.Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:14, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I deleted it.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks folks! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)