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

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 03:38, 28 August 2011

Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.

This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input.

Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem.

Search this noticeboard & archives Sections older than 7 days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Additional notes:

Edits by the subject of an article may be welcome in some cases.
For general content disputes regarding biographical articles, try Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies instead.
Editors are encouraged to assist editors regarding the reports below. Administrators may impose contentious topic restrictions to enforce policies.

Animal X

Article 'animal x (band) is about a music band from the country of romania. Please consider it is not a living person. It got me confused expression wikipedia:biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons.. should it not tagg articles for living characters in the band?

Gudrun Schyman

I'm Swedish, and thus have a lot more sources availible than the average wikipedian with regards to the subject. Still, this was (is) a mess of such proportions that I don't think I can fix it. Maybe crowdsourcing it here can make it less headache-inducing. Good grief.

Zara Phillips

Resolved

– User:Reaper Eternal Move Protected Zara Phillips (expires 22:48, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As she is not changing her name upon marriage can someone revert this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zara_Tindall and possibly move protect it at least for now given the marriage has just happened so drive by page moves are likely. thanks RafikiSykes (talk) 22:06, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it back to Phillips and requested temporary move protection. Off2riorob (talk) 22:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Autograph as signature in infobox

I noticed this edit which adds a signature to an infobox of a living person, and it appears the signature is a newly uploaded image of an autograph. There was a discussion about this issue at Jimbo's talk which pointed to a proposal at WP:Signatures of living persons. What is current feeling on this practice? It appears the editor (Hindustanilanguage (talk · contribs)) is doing similar edits on other articles, and I will let them know about this question. Johnuniq (talk) 12:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My view is that unless the signature is historically significant (the Founding Fathers, signers of the US Constitution, Elizabeth I, John Hancock etc) signatures of the living or dead serve no encyclopedic purpose whatsoever and should be removed from iboxes. In the case of living people, there are additional concerns with possible identity theft and fraud. – ukexpat (talk) 19:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, when celebrities go on signing/ autographing spree, they know the obvious risks. And I believe that they do take adequate precautions. Arundhati Roy is no single celeb to have her sign/autograph posted on the internet. How do you explain many other celebs including living heads of state whose autographs are posted on the internet? Hindustanilanguage (talk) 06:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with UKexpat's points. Don't see the encyclopedic value and the downside is possible ID theft. We have to be careful with BLP's. A little caution here would be good I think.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 10:35, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW - "autographs" are not the same as "legal signatures." Anyone trying to cash a check with a copy of what the celebrity furnishes as an autograph will be quickly disillusoned! (Even applies to George Herman Ruth, by the way) Collect (talk) 18:21, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, in my experience the most important thing about cheques is that there is some kind if ink in the proper field. A recognisable name is not usually required, let alone a unique signature. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed almost all/all of this User:Hindustanlanguage's additions of claimed uncited autographs and asked them to stop adding such without consensus support/discussion here. Uploading some signature without any verification that it is released and citable as noteworthy is simply not verifiable or encyclopedic. Off2riorob (talk) 19:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is interesting to try image searches for "[famous person] signature" - it often returns results and does in the case of the aforementioned Arundhati Roy. We are not Google though and our image policies are different; I mention this merely to establish that it is not an overwhelming security issue. I don't believe that many of them are worth including though. violet/riga _^[talk] 20:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think ukexpat explained the situation well: there are cases where a signature is significant, but the examples I looked at in the current discussion appeared as non-encyclopedic fluff to me. We don't put someone's favorite color in their infobox, and we don't include their autograph (without good reason). Johnuniq (talk) 02:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for removing/ deleting all my contributions, Off2riorob. But:

1. Is it not rude on your part to ask a person not to edit signature on hand, and on the other unilaterally carry out a massive editing operation.

2. If you really believe in democracy and human rights, you should wait for the other persons reactions (For example, you asked me not to include any autograph in any article, give me some time to react to your order / appeal).

3. The autographs I have posted are from my personal collection. In fact, many have my name/my family member's name in the accompanying letter. I don't want publicity. I only want to share something with fellow Wikipedians. I am sure no one knows my name and probably will never know.

4. Please consider me also as a fellow human being.

5. Although I would not like to edit autographs / signature in the infoboxes till a decision is taken, justice demands that unilateral decisions taken by Off2riorob are undone immediately, i.e. till a decision is taken, let the existing autographs be in their place. Whether further inclusions are needed or unneeded shall be discussed later and I will fully cooperate in this direction. Hindustanilanguage (talk)

WRT the specific instance of the Roy autograph - a person who engages in "autograph signing sessions" and whose autograph is widely bought and sold is precisely the type of autograph which is reasonable on Wikipedia. One who has such sessions is producing autographs in abundance, including on letters, and the implication is that she is not using any signature which could be used to defraud on a legal document. This would not apply to persons who do not hold "autograph signing sessions" by the way. The only BLP issue would be fraud - which is not here present. Collect (talk) 12:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I mostly agree with Collect. Including a well-published signature or autograph is not a BLP issue. If it is useful or desirable is an independent question that may well be decided differently in different situations, and should best discussed elsewhere. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It may or may not be a BLP violation, but what about the wider question of encyclopedic value? What is the encyclopedic value of including a signature/autograph such as Roy's? Answer: none. – ukexpat (talk) 12:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it is useful or desirable is an independent question that may well be decided differently in different situations, and should best discussed elsewhere. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the verifiability - the citation to support what it is? I also see there alleged autographs as completely encyclopedic-ally valueless - this is my position wherever you discuss the issue. First issue which has BLP issues as regards verifiability is where are the reliable citations to assert they are what they are claimed to be? - None of them should be replaced without a WP:RS - the days of - trust me, its an autograph I got in 1987 at a book promotion are long gone (imo other users might support the inclusion of such uncited user created and disagree with me). User:Hindustanlanguage says, "The autographs I have posted are from my personal collection. In fact, many have my name/my family member's name in the accompanying letter." - although I assume good faith - that is different to verifiability. - you will notice I removed them with an edit summary of "uncited" - that as I said is my primary issue with these additions after that its "notability" and educational value? and also the low quality of some/all of them. As Stephen Shultz says , which unless there are complicating factors I agree with, "Including a well-published signature or autograph is not a BLP issue." Off2riorob (talk) 16:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly an article could say, with perfectly reliable sources and therefore not a BLP issue, that the subject "has a cat named Spot", but unless that is somehow relevant to the notability of the subject, it is of zero encyclopedic value. – ukexpat (talk) 19:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ukexpat. I got into this issue a while ago, possibly on the Robert Pattison article, but I'm not sure. There are lots of parameters in infoboxes that serve very limited purposes for a small subset of articles. Unfortunately, many at Wikipedia think that if it's a fact and it's sourced, that's the end of the issue. It's just the beginning.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The big issue which is probably missing in all the discussions is that what are the "accepted" opinions of Wikipedia itself?

1. What is the difference between a ‘signature’ and an ‘autograph’? Consider the cases:

a. Arundhati Roy signed her autograph for me?

b. Arundhati Roy gave her signature to me.

c. ‘to sign’ means ‘Mark with one's signature; write one's name (on) something’.

d. ‘signature’ is the noun form of the verb ‘sign’.

e. Autograph is ‘something written by one's own hand, usually by a celebrity’.

Hence policy-wise there is absolutely nothing wrong in uploading autograph as signature. It is completely wrong to undo the good work done by me.

2. When this person Off2riorob requests not want me to carry out editing of autographs as signatures, decency demands that he quote the accepted rule / norm about the autographs. Further, he should at least give me sometime to react – positively or otherwise.

3. Consider the Wikipedia article on Manmohan Singh:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manmohan_Singh --check signature part. The signature is in English and Hindi and is uploaded not by me but my the user: Connormah. Now compare a autographed letter uploaded by me: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ManmohanSingh_AutographedLetter.jpg

What’s the difference do you find? Which is an autograph and which is a just a signature? Admins first make a distinction been autographs of living and dead persons, then notability, then encyclopedic value, etc. What I say is where exactly is a written rule / norm in all such matters. If there is no written rule or norm, then how can Off2riorob carry out a ‘dissection’ of my articles?

4. The question of notability is very vague when you consider some of the Wikipedia pages such as:

Is being the spouse of a president / head of state so special that you find a special mention on Wikipedia?

- WP:Other stuff exists - Off2riorob (talk) 21:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

5. I have uploaded about 300 autographs. Initially I wanted to uploaded autographed photos. But there was an objection on account of copyright issues. So I was forced to restrict myself just autographs (without photos). The autographs which I uploaded include:

David Ben Gurion.
Niels Bohr
Ernest Hemingway
Dr John C Mather
Faiz Ahmed Faiz
Ho Chi Minh
Mark Tully
Milton Friedman
P G Wodehouse
Sania Mirza
C V Raman
Sirimavo Bandaranaike
Host of celebrities from India / Asia and the world

In fact, Category: Autographs of the Wiki Commons mostly contains autographs uploaded by me. Does that mean no interest or encyclopedic value addition. How is it that Wikipedia fully encourages its volunteers to demotivate people like me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hindustanilanguage (talk • contribs) 07:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your attempts to improve the project content is appreciated but imo in regard to policy and guidelines a bit mistaken. Category: Autographs of the Wiki Commons mostly uploaded by you are at least commons compatable and wikipedia readers and users can do what they want with them, which is great if users want to use them - but according to wikipedia policy and guidelines they can not add them to en wikipedia articles. Off2riorob (talk) 21:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hindustanlanguage commons uploads - the user says he has uploaded three hundred of these unverified autographs.... have a look at the users uploads ... such as this http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ShazTamkanatAutographedPostCard.jpg . Please do not add these to any wikipedia en articles thanks. - Off2riorob (talk) 21:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC) Off2riorob (talk) 21:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by this user has uploaded 300 unverified autographs? Compare, for example, the signature of Dr Manmohan Singh at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manmohan_Singh and the letter signed by him uploaded by me - you can verify things before your eyes. Similarly, the verification of a number of autographs can be found on the Wikis themselves. I fail to understand your efforts to ridicule a dedicated contributor. When want to downplay my contributions, you choose the example of an upload autograph in a language not known to you. What about the uploads, especially the ones I have mentioned in the example ? There is nothing wonderful in hurling abuses and downgrading others if you are part of a larger and more conducive forum. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 05:27, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, "Your attempts to improve the project content is appreciated " - I am not attempting to ridicule you in any way. If you can verify something in a WP:RS and you think it has value to the information in the article then great - please remember, wikipedia is not a reliable source in itself. - also imo neither is just look at the claimed signature and how much it is similar to my uploaded claimed autograph. As for the Singh signature , you would have to ask to uploader where he got it from as its basically uncited and unverified also. Off2riorob (talk) 06:19, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My dear Off2riorob, when there is a rule in the English Wikipedia for one user, it should be equally applicable for all. You have taken the trouble to undo my editing work as well stopping me from further editing about autographs/signatures. You should follow the same rule for others such as the uploader you have cited. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 07:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to amend all such issues but its a great big wiki and I just do what I can - I suggest it may be beneficial to you to introduce yourself to the User:Connormah - he seems quite an experianced contributor and interested in and has uploaded similar files as you, have a chat with him as to how best to resolve this, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 19:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with Connormah. In fact, even before you tried to enforce a moratorium on my editing of signatures/ autographs, I saw Dr Manmohan Sigh's autograph in two languages posted by him. I must admit that even though could cut the english autograph and upload it in place of Connormah's uploaded link, I didn't because his upload is superior (in two languages).

But the whole issue has blown out of proportion when you tried to delve into my editing history and undid my work without at least discussing things with me. So the onus falls on you to adopt similar stance for other editors as well. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 07:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - I can only do what I have energy and inclination for I am a volunteer - I reverted your contributions because they were uncited - So ? Off2riorob (talk) 18:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it that you are unleashing your energy only at me and not others? Hindustanilanguage (talk) 04:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, why is it that Off2riorob thinks a citation is required? The current version of today's featured article has five images with captions, including on in the infobox, and none of them have citations. The few citations I've seen in captions are for facts not derivable from the caption (e.g. a photograph of a plant with a caption discussing similar plants), and I've never seen one for the inclusion of an image without a caption. Richard Dannatt, Baron Dannatt was just promoted to FA this week, and it contains a photograph without a citation proving that it's the subject of the article. Signatures need no more verification than photographs: it's just as easy to create a fake signature as it is to take a photograph of a random person and claim that it's someone else. Nyttend (talk) 23:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at some of the signatures? How do they help the article? Johnuniq (talk) 23:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope "the signatures" means signature uploads of Hindustanilanguage as well as all other users such as Connormah. In targeting me, you people forgot to adopt a similar stance for others. Further, the debates of living v/s dead persons and celebs with signing sessions v/s relatively reserved celebs also subsided. Only I am being stopped from contributing to Wikipedia and my work is wholly undone by Off2riorob without bearing any of these considerations in his(?/her) mind. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 06:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I want a reply to my query, Off2riorob, you cannot possibly adopt different stance for me and someone else. Also, you cannot undo my work in its entirety without bearing the two debates cited above. For example, how could you remove the autograph/ signature of Tudor Arghezi from his biographical article when he died in 1967? Also, what about the valued contributions of people like Connormah? You did not scissor his work on similar grounds.Hindustanilanguage (talk) 05:47, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion may be helpful. Connormah (talk) 16:37, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To paraphrase Clinton, it depends on how you define "helpful". For me, it shows more about certain kinds of Wikipedia discussions than anything else. I suppose it also shows that this isn't a new issue. I will now sign my comment.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:56, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To sum up: There is absolutely no unanimity on the issue and if Off2riorob and Johnuniq are finding my work unacceptable, it is their problem, not mine. I can carry out my constructive work unhindered henceforth. Thank you, Connormah, I never had any problem with you. I just took your name only to bolster my stance. Regards, Hindustanilanguage (talk)

—Preceding undated comment added 08:24, 22 August 2011 (UTC).

There is clearly no consensus support for their replacement in this discussion - as others commented - if your interested, join in the discussions at the signature discussion. Perhaps you should take them one at a time and discuss on the talkpage of the individual articles to see if there is support to include them - Is this sort of thing in the infobox beneficial to a biography? - Harold Wilson for example - Off2riorob (talk) 08:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat my earlier unanswered post: In targeting me, you people forgot to adopt a similar stance for others. Further, the debates of living v/s dead persons and celebs with signing sessions v/s relatively reserved celebs also subsided. Only I am being stopped from contributing to Wikipedia and my work is wholly undone by Off2riorob without bearing any of these considerations in his(?/her) mind.

I want a reply to my query, Off2riorob, you cannot possibly adopt different stance for me and someone else. Also, you cannot undo my work in its entirety without bearing the two debates cited above. For example, how could you remove the autograph/ signature of Tudor Arghezi (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:TudorArghezi_Autograph.jpg) from his biographical article when he died in 1967? Also, what about the valued contributions of people like Connormah? You did not scissor his valuable and commendable work on similar grounds. You only want me personally approach you for every editing work - something unique to en:Wikipedia. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 09:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just because your recent edits were removed doesn't to suggest I have a duty to go remove all similar historic similar additions. This is not personal about you at all. As I said, why don't you go join in the discussions and help form a policy. Also , you are foccusing on me and that is never going to find tyou a resolution - and what part of my comment - "Perhaps you should take them one at a time and discuss on the talkpage of the individual articles to see if there is support to include them " - asserts you have ot ask me for permission for anything? You link to Tudor Agahzi also - perhaps users could comment as to the biographical value of this one as well - he is expired but its another example Tudor Agahazi autograph - ~~it is~~ Is it acceptable within policy to add such as this and is this something beneficial to allow project wide? - note - the autographs are personal collection and unverified. Off2riorob (talk) 09:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. It was you who first unilaterally undid my work.

2. Further,it was you who made fun of me by your post : User:Hindustanlanguage commons uploads - the user says he has uploaded three hundred of these unverified autographs.... have a look at the users uploads ... such as this http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ShazTamkanatAutographedPostCard.jpg . Please do not add these to any wikipedia en articles thanks. - Off2riorob (talk) 21:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC) Off2riorob (talk) 21:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC) This assertion is made without understanding the text or context, person, language, etc.

3. Similarly, it is your personal love, affection, care and concern to promise instant deletion of my edits.

4. You are unwilling to share this love affection with any other person such as Connormah.

5. Still the enthusiastic assertion continues : "the autographs are personal collection and unverified." - This again is only for me as usual. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 10:13, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two signatures are already updated :

Regards, Hindustanilanguage (talk) 10:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In some fields, persistence can be good, but it is not helpful to persist when other editors are trying to tell you that adding signatures to infoboxes is not a useful activity. Collecting autographs and inserting them into articles is a form of original research (how can other editors verify the information?). There are plenty of people who are photographed signing documents (e.g. the leaders of various countries), so an argument can be made that their signatures have encyclopedic value because other sources have commented on the signature (or at least, they consider the act of signing a document to be significant). That reasoning does not apply to every living person: the infobox does not record their favorite color, or the name of their pet, or quite a lot of other things. Johnuniq (talk) 11:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship Abuse of Power: Off2riorob himself suggested "it is acceptable within policy to add such as this and is this something beneficial to allow project wide" in connection to the inclusion of Signature of Tudor Arghezi above. He also suggested talk-page discussions and inclusion of signatures in the articles in phases rather than in one go. I included the signatures of Tudor Arghezi and Arundhati Roy in their biographical articles and immediately posted a message on this noticeboard so that people could discuss my editing work. But overlooking his own statements, (s)he removed the signatures of Tudor Arghezi and Arundhati Roy which I had included in the biographical articles almost immediately and unilaterally. Is this not an instance of glaring Adminship Abuse of Power ? Hindustanilanguage (talk) 08:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although Off2riorob's approach continues without letup (as known from his silence to my above post), let me highlight a very valuable contribution made by me ( http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:KingHussain.JPG ).

This autographed photo uploaded by me is used on the following pages of the English Wikipedia:

Non-English Wikipedia as follows:

Let me assure everyone that I am nowhere involved in the editing of the above files. So if I am given a freehand, I would like to continue with my constructive editing work. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 06:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your king hussain of Jordon appears ot be a likely copyright violation - and has been tagged as missing evidence of permission at commons since August 4 - are you the person that took the photograph? are you the owner of the copyrights of that picture? Off2riorob (talk) 13:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

arbitrary break

I for one do agree that the autographs, which were never published elsewhere, probably shouldn't be used on wikipedia. It is not an issue I take with Hindustanilanguage, but it is impossible to verify all such real or potential uploads as to whether they really do belong to the people in question. We do not have a reliable publisher implicitly staking their reputation that these are not forgeries or blunders, we have a wikipedia editor with a collection of letters. In my opinion, WP:AGF cannot work on that level of authority.
But if I'm wrong and we do keep the autographs, can we at least crop out the unsightly and irrelevant portions that have been blackened out, the dedications too? If there's anything we need, it is the signatures themselves, not the polite waves to a "Mr. [inkblot]". Dahn (talk) 14:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship Abuse of Power: Off2riorob himself suggested "it is acceptable within policy to add such as this and is this something beneficial to allow project wide" in connection to the inclusion of Signature of Tudor Arghezi above. He also suggested talk-page discussions and inclusion of signatures in the articles in phases rather than in one go. I included the signatures of Tudor Arghezi and Arundhati Roy in their biographical articles and immediately posted a message on this noticeboard so that people could discuss my editing work. But overlooking his/her own statements, (s)he removed the signatures of Tudor Arghezi and Arundhati Roy which I had included in the biographical articles almost immediately and unilaterally. Is this not an instance of glaring Adminship Abuse of Power ? Now he is issuing editing warning on my talk page. How far is his stand justifiable. By the way King Hussein is not my king - I am not Jordanian. Please restrain yourself. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 04:08, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it acceptable within policy to add such as this and is this something beneficial to allow project wide? - note - the autographs are personal collection and unverified. - is the correct question I was asking, please excuse the small error that has led to the confusion - Off2riorob (talk) 04:31, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still looking for an answer from you - Your king hussain of Jordon picture upload appears ot be a likely copyright violation - and has been tagged as missing evidence of permission at commons since August 4 - are you the person that took the photograph? are you the owner of the copyrights of that picture? - Off2riorob (talk) 04:22, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nazeer Akbarabadi

Please check the signature of Nazeer Akbarabadi in his biographical article - it is just a print of the name in Urdu and not a signature. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 08:40, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Revisiting the labelling of David Ogden Stiers as gay

This discussion has been closed. You must start a new topic to address any related issues.

The following is a closed discussion. Please do not modify it.

In March of 2009, a little-known blog published what it claimed was an interview with actor David Ogden Stiers in which Stiers said he was gay. This interview was picked up and referenced by a number of reliable sources. Those sources were used to add the material to Stiers' BLP and to add the categories "Gay actors" and "LGBT people from the United States". I believed, based on an examination of their other content, that the blog was a clearly unreliable source and the mere mention by reliable sources did not (or should not) confer any measure of trustworthiness to that source. Other editors disagreed.

Two things have changed since that time. The gossipboy blog now redirects to a site called hatetrackers.com which appears to list suspected "child sex predators" (although it still makes reference to the gossipboy name on the main page). Also, Recent cases have shown that WP:BLPCAT is now taken more seriously on Wikipedia than in the past.

The basic argument is this: reliable sources are such because they are presumed to exercise editorial judgment and fact-checking (and presumably have an observable history of doing so). If reliable source Newspaper A says simply that unreliable Blog B said something about Actor C, that does not make the statement of Blog B reliable. Reliable source A has not reported the fact or confirmed that it is true, merely reported that Blog B has said it. While this seems obvious to me, it seemed difficult for people to grasp in previous discussions.

Is the single interview in an unreliable source sufficient and appropriate to use as self-identification as gay by Stiers? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that reliable sources quoting unreliable ones doesn't automatically give them validity. It would depend on what sort of fact-checking they did when they picked up the story, is there information on this? I'll go and read the links you posted now but if the info has truly been shown to be unreliable it should obviously be removed. AlbionBT (talk) 19:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A single interview, unless by a very reliable source, would generally be insufficient for this. A person's sexuality is very personal, and if Stiers wanted this to be public knowledge there would surely be multiple instances of him discussing it. There are not; we must omit the info and the categories. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 22:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree. The source is ABC News, and they don't just write "some blog claims Stiers is gay, but we're not sure", they put it in the headline of their story, as a fact, "'M*A*S*H' Star David Ogden Stiers Reveals He's Gay". So they think it's reliable. Did they do additional fact checking? We don't know, but it's original research for us to decide they must not have done enough fact checking. I see your point that there aren't many sources, but note the phrasing - Stiers reveals this "in the twilight of his career". In other words, he mentions it once he no longer cares, and there aren't many instances because ABC at least thinks that he's no longer that important. --GRuban (talk) 11:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - You seem to think that there is more than one source of this information. There is not. ABC explicitly credits the information to gossipboy in the second sentence of the article and then simply quotes chunks of it. I find your misguided reminder about "original research" particularly odd, considering you go on to invent a justification for why Stiers has not repeated this admission. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Heh. You are certainly correct on the last part - we don't know why Stiers didn't have more interviews, that's merely my speculation. But in general we trust sources like ABC News and MSNBC to fact check, and in this case we don't have any evidence that they didn't. Yes, they cite the interview, instead of conducting their own interview, but the way they wrote their story it is clear they are certain enough that the interview did, in fact, happen as stated, and Stiers did outright state he was gay. --GRuban (talk) 18:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A reliable source does not make an intrinsically unrelible base source reliable by repeating gossip which amounts to a contentious claim about a person. Recall the hoax about Bush's IQ which got repeated in reliable sources - the repetition does not add any veracity to the claim. In the case at hand, we only have one real base source - the blog which clearly fails WP:RS. Stiers as a public person can not succeed in the US in any ciurt action, so the fact he did not sue the blog is irrelevant - the source at the heart is not reliable, so the claim, under current stringent BLP rules, must go. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, it's not gossip, it's an interview, the man's own words. Second, some pretty impressive news channels, 2 networks and a respected newspaper, did not consider the base source unreliable, they clearly considered it reliable to publish this clearly contentious information. It is not for us to decide they were wrong. Third - yes, actually, that is exactly how a source becomes considered reliable, by other reliable sources relying on it.--GRuban (talk) 18:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, we should remember that WP:BLPCAT refers to the use of categories and does not concern what is written in the text of an article. Will Beback talk 23:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GRuban, I suggest you take a look at the site as it exists today or read over the example content that I posted during the first discussion. I very much doubt that any responsible news organisation would consider this source to be reliable. That is why they took care to note the original source and absolve themselves of liability. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at the blog source which is at the heart of this.[1] The interviewer specifically asks the subject why he is giving to interview to the blog rather than a more prominent publication. The subject responds that it's because of a longterm association with a friend of the blogger. Since it was reported without question by MSNBC and ABC, it appears that those news organizations did find the material to be credible. Will Beback talk 01:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And the 93 IQ hoax about Bush was thus also credible? A poor source does not become reliable just because an entertainment article cites it. And the requirement as to quality of sources is higher in BLPs than for other articles. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see that it was also reported in several newspapers.[2][3][4][5] Taken together, this assertion seems to be "widely reported".

Also, we're not talking about George Bush's IQ here. This thread concerns David Ogden Stiers' announcement that he is gay. Different things entirely. Will Beback talk 01:50, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope - the issue is how many times a poor source gets repeated before making it a good source for a contentious claim. And I suggest that the answer is a lazy eight. [6] CBS News. By your apparent standards, the hoax is now "reliable" I fear. The whole idea of WP:BLP is that biographies must be conservatively written with exceedingly strong sources for any contentious claims. I suggest that the consensus on Wikipedia is now that WP:BLP must be upheld. Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No one is calling this a hoax. There is no consensus here that these numerous sources are all too poor quality to use for a self-admission. I'll restore the material, but not he categories. Will Beback talk 02:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hoaxes reported by RSs must be reported by us as true until they are later proved to be a hoax. Otherwise, one could come up with reasons to challenge most of our sources, saying they may be a hoax. Reliable sources decide, and if they decide wrong, we'll be wrong until something changes. Verifiability, not truth, etc. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:21, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will Beback, why would you restore something labelling someone's sexuality based on a single interview in an unreliable source? WP:BLP has specific cautions pertaining to both sexuality and the use of poor quality sources. If Stiers sexuality was an important element of his career, I could see an argument for including this material, but it is not. Given the circumstances, I am baffled that anyone could defend this. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would restore material based on what someone says about himself which has been widely reported in newspapers and online sources. Please quote the exact text in WP:BLP which requires us to delete this text: "In March 2009, Stiers came out as gay in an interview published by the blog Gossip Boy. Stiers also has a son from a relationship in the 1960s." The only material I see in BLP is WP:BLPCAT which only refers to categories, templates, and links. Will Beback talk 03:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So unless there is a specific requirement to delete the material, you will re-add it? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there was no good reason for it to be deleted, then it should be restored. WP:BLP does not prevent reporting what people say about their own sexuality, religion, or other personal details. Will Beback talk 03:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's a blog, there's no real evidence that it actually is Stiers own words. The blog's author could have fabricated it. That's one reason blogs are generally not allowed as sources. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's been reported in many mainstream media sources. The idea that is fabricated is a bit of a fantasy. Will Beback talk 03:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So are blogs now considered reliable sources? Or have the mainstream media done some independent verification? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ABC News, MSNBC, and the Courier Mail are reliable sources. Also, when someone conducts an interview, and the blog reports their responses directly, then it's an enormous presumption of mendacity to assume without any proof, that they simply made up the most important revelation in the interview, and that the subject did nothing to stop it from being published far and wide. Maybe, as Collect seems to believe, the whole thing is an elaborate hoax, but he's going to have to prove that. Will Beback talk 05:21, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be technical for a moment, ABC News, MSNBC, and the Courier Mail are news organizations, not sources per se. The stories they write are the sources, and sadly far too often people just stop at the brand name of a news outlet without stopping to identify whether the particular story is well-researched or reliable itself. WP:RS doesn't say "If its from ABC, go ahead and add it without question", but specifically 'Mainstream news reporting is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact'. Is this the reporting of news or simply reporting that a blog said such-and-such? I generally believe any source can be reliable, but if we ignore WP:RS just because we see a brand-name news source, we're doing a disservice to our content. -- Avanu (talk) 06:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's say we're writing about a bank robbery. A reporter interviews an eyewitness, whom she reports said, "the robbers fled in a blue car". The suggestion of some here seems to be, "how can we trust this eyewitness, the real source for this information?" That's entirely the wrong approach. The reliability of a source is the combination of three factors: the publisher, the author, and the nature of the claim. ABC is a broadcaster whose news department is known to be reliable. The author we know nothing about, but there's no reason to doubt his or her ability. The claim is not remarkable. That's sufficient for this matter. We're not flatly saying he is gay, we're saying that "he told a blog that he is gay", a fact which was widely reported. That's analogous to the reporter saying, "An eyewitness said the car was blue". Will Beback talk 06:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually in this present case, we have no idea what the motivations or reliability of the 'witness' are. And we often see mainstream news outlets publish things with little to no fact checking. The original website for this is no longer up and there are no other sources that independently confirm what was mentioned in this story. Despite being published in mainstream news outlets, we have zero confirmation that it is accurate and true. The mainstream outlet stories entirely rely on the blog story for their facts and don't mention independently contacting David Ogden Stiers. So this fails the WP:V test. -- Avanu (talk) 06:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "eyewitness" in this case is the subject, who apparently sought out this blog belonging to a friend of a friend in order to give it a minor scoop, probably to give it some extra hits and income. The blog is not reporting that it thinks the subject is gay, or that it heard rumors that he is gay. It's simply reporting that he told them he is gay, and in his own words.

The gossip.boy blog looks like a small commercial local portal, blog, etc. site that likely had more than one employee. In any case it's setting a pretty low threshold to simply transcribe what someone tells you. Further, it's unlikely that ABC would be scouring Oklahoma gay blogs for juicy gossip on celebrities. More likely, the subject or the bloggers tipped the reporters to the story. That ABC and other news organizations decided to report it meant they believed it was true, they're just giving correct attribution to their source. Reprinting a libel creates a fresh libel. Will Beback talk 07:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(innumerable edit conflicts) No end of red herrings and irrelevancies here. That Stiers came out in a blog is very much beside the point. Blogs are a fact of life, and celebrities and other notable people sometimes use them to communicate with the world instead of calling news conferences, writing press releases, going on TV, uploading videos to YouTube, granting interviews to magazines, posting announcements on their Facebooks or official websites, tweeting, or whatever; a blog is just one of many forms of communication. While it is understandable that blogs aren't acceptable as secondary sources, it is an utter absurdity to exclude information from an article simply because it originates on a blog. Every piece of news, unless it's based exclusively on a reporter's own observations, originates with a source, and it is not our job as editors to second-guess the reporters as to a given source's reliability. In this case, a variety of news outlets widely considered at Wikipedia to be reliable have reported the information. Years ago. Each of them has had ample time to retract it and run a correction; none has done so. Per Will Beback, Peregrine Fisher, and both letter and spirit of WP:RS, the information is verifiable and belongs in the article. Rivertorch (talk) 07:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also add that it is relevant to his notability. In the interview he said he had waited this long to come out because of fear for his career. Will Beback talk 07:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You now assert that his "gayness" is relevant to his notability? The NYT has mentioned him 467 tomes - and in not a single one of the mentions found on that site is he called "gay." WaPo over seventy articles since 1987 - not a single "gay." So "relevant" is it? Not very. How do actually reliable sources feel? [7] Why are we supposed to care that David Ogden Stiers is gay? I suggest no one cares, and that it is thus irrelevant to his biography per WP:RS sourcing. Pardon our yawn.' Claims about sexual orientation are contentious - all but you seem agreed. But it is "relevant" is the response? Not much. Cheers. Collect (talk) 08:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is relevant to his career. Just as if he said that he had had hair implants, or learned to speak German for a role. I dn't really se why you're protesting this so much. It's not a contentious assertion, it's based on an interview with the man himself, and it's widely reported. What's the problem? Will Beback talk 09:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rivertorch (and others), the concern is not that the source is a "blog" but that it is an unreliable blog reporting something that has not been reported anywhere else before and not repeated since. Please go to the existing site or an archive of the original site and consider whether or not this is a reliable source. Is this a trustworthy source, one that should be used not for uncontroversial facts but to label someone's sexuality? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All good questions that have been answered in the affirmative for this particular information by the many reliable sources that reported on the interview. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 15:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Snippet from the archive you link to:

The one who better stay out of Salem, Massachusetts, is also an instructor at Transformation Fitness Center. Now as this is located in Edmond, OK, you know city ordinances require it to revolve around church life. TFC is owned by Ministries of Jesus – Healing Spirit, Body & Soul. Anyone else think that Edmond is one of those types of towns that Fox Muldar and Dana Scully would stumble across? Could Lord don’t peek in a window as you might see some pig woman breeding with her sons! Take a clue Mr. and Mrs. Blair --- that episode was banned on television for a reason.

Yeppers -- sounds like a really reliable source indeed. Not. <g> Collect (talk) 15:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec and agree with Collect) Really, people, until he's out and about in public with his publicly acknowledged partner, or makes a statement in recognized mainsteam media (such as an interview on "60 Minutes") this is all blog-based speculation. The phenomenon of repeating something until it takes on the mantle of veracity is nothing new, let's not indulge that phenomenon here. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 15:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will, if you can't be certain of the source (aka verifiability), then nothing else matters. While Rivertorch makes a reasonable point that it was repeated in several mainstream news outlets, we don't have much evidence that it was news gathering/reporting (independent of the blog), as much as just repetition of something reported by a blog. Also, you make a case above that it is "relevant to his notability". He is not noteworthy for this, but for his work as an actor. You keep asserting that he is the 'witness' here, and he was interviewed, but if this is the case, then why didn't ABC or the others report that they independently confirmed this? If it is an unreliable source, then it might entirely be a fabrication. So in line with the BLP policy, we don't report it. Simple. -- Avanu (talk) 15:18, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sources I'm suggesting using are ABC, MSNBC, and a couple of newspapers. I trust that these sources would have made a responsible effort to confirm the story before repeating it. They deemed the blog to be sufficiently reliable to use it. No one has retracted their versions of it. the idea that we have to scrutinize the sources of a source is not part of WP:V or WP:BLP. ABC is a reliable source, and that's sufficient. Will Beback talk 00:10, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability not truth

Someone has already rolled out the "Verifiability not truth" maxim in this discussion. I do not claim to know the "truth" about Stiers' sexual preferences. I do not care what Stiers' sexual preferences are, and I have no political or other interest in seeing him labelled one way or another. I continue to be amazed at the arguments offered here, when the source is so clearly unreliable and the claims made so personal. WP:VERIFY states "all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source appropriate for the content in question". Although this is an interview, and therefore Stiers himself is assumed to be the actual source, WP:VERIFY states:

Exceptional claims require high-quality sources.[5] Red flags that should prompt extra caution include:
   *surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources;
   *reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, or against an interest they had previously defended;

Both of these are true - Stiers has not said that he was gay either before or after this interview, and Stiers has previously said he is not gay (see this interview where because he plays a gay character in a play he is asked "Are you gay?" and he answers "No, I'm not.").

I was hopeful that this could be resolved through discussion of the source itself, but that didn't work last time either and I feel like I am banging my head against a wall here. So, I offer these diffs from an editor who took it upon themselves to call Stiers' publicist when the story first broke: [8] & [9]. I offer no comment, since I think there are all kinds of problems with this approach, but perhaps some editors who are not swayed by reason will read these diffs and reconsider their opinion. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Based on the diffs you provided, perhaps it would be helpful to contact his agent again. The point is privacy, and how much privacy DOS wants. There's no credible public interest in this, which is not the same as the interest of the public. If someone wants to improve the article, I note there is nothing about his directing (at least two episodes of MASH), and nothing about his long-term orchestra conducting. I find these two points much more in the public interest, and personally interesting as well. This unremitting focus on someone's private life is too tabloidish for an encyclopedia, imo. I do think it reflects the bullying culture within Wikipedia. Something to think about? 99.50.188.77 (talk) 15:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Contacting Stiers agent is really not the way to resolve this. For one thing, if I say I've spoken to them, you have to trust that I am telling the truth about that and that I am not misrepresenting what they said. For another, there are obvious verification issues. I do agree with you both about the other areas of the article that could be improved instead, and, to a certain extent, about the the "bullying culture" although I don't think those are the words I would use. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I read the two links, and they were years ago, and shortly after the story broke. My point about talking to them again was that their view on this may well have changed, and BLP requires that we show sensitivity to the subject's current privacy wishes. 99.50.188.77 (talk) 16:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ABC is a perfectly reliable source. This whole discussion is absurd. Will Beback talk 20:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although I understand why you say it, ABC is not a source. It is a media organization. Each story/source should be independently critiqued (although it is far too infrequently done). -- Avanu (talk) 20:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, ABC is a source. A media organization may be a reliable source. ABC is generally considered a reliable source. Beyond that, I'm not sure what your point is.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:42, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources" Are you saying ABC itself is a published thing? Or is it an organization that publishes things?

"The word 'source' as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings: the piece of work itself (the article, book), the creator of the work (the writer, journalist), and the publisher of the work (for example The New York Times, Cambridge University Press, etc.). All three can affect reliability."

So again, while I get what Will was saying, ABC by itself is not a source, but must be taken together with the other pieces of what Wikipedia means by "source". -- Avanu (talk) 20:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's all delightfully academic, but why don't you apply it and say whatever it is you think about this source and this article?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "creator", as far as we can tell, is that blog. None of the sources we have seen so far show that they independently confirmed the information. I keep trying different Google searches to try and verify something, but I can't find anything yet. Although my 'gut' tells me this is probably accurate, we don't run Wikipedia on 'truthiness'; we go by what we can actually verify. -- Avanu (talk) 21:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, all three elements are the blog, but I thought the issue was whether ABC was a reliable source, not the blog. We're really going in circles, though. Will's point is that because ABC reported the interview, it means they believed it and put their imprimatur of reliability on what otherwise would have been a unreliable source on WP. I should point out that many other reliable sources did the same. Other editors disagree and claim that all the reliable sources that reported on the interview are derivative of the unreliable source. I don't think we're getting anywhere on this issue. My view is it's a close call. Normally, when I see a derivative source like this one, I'm against citing it. However, here we have many reliable sources reporting on it, and not just in passing but extensively as fact. So, I suppose I side with Will.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will Beback, why do you keep trying to make this discussion about the reliablity of ABC? All ABC did was report that a blog published an interview with Stiers. They took care to identify the source. They did not publish any comments from Stiers or his representatives. If the interview has been held with ABC instead of an little-known, now defunct blog, I would have no problem with the reliablity. But ABC is not the source - the sole source is Gossipboy.com. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right, so what's the problem with relying on ABC, and the other news companies, as sources? Are they unreliable? The "original source" is not a blog, it's the subject who gave an interview. Will Beback talk 21:19, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I strongly disagree that an unmarried actor saying he is gay is an "exceptional claim". Will Beback talk 21:21, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will, how do you know the blog gave the interview? Were you there? You keep mentioning this original source and witness and so on, but you are simply relying on something for which we have no proof. Exceptional claim or not, it was only 'reported' by the blog, unless a mainstream news agency says they also fact checked it, we only have a third-hand report here, and no way to verify it. (By the way, I think this is probably a true story, but WP:V hasn't been met here.) -- Avanu (talk) 21:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because I trust ABC. Will Beback talk 21:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be suggesting that unmarried actors are likely to be gay, but I don't want to misinterpret your words. Is that what you are saying? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that this is not an exceptional claim. Will Beback talk 22:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stiers had previously said that he was not gay, and has not repeated the statement since. I would say it is the very definition of "exceptional". You earlier stated that you were going to restore the disputed information to the article, but you have yet to do so. Do you still intend to restore it? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I missed that previous statement. Could you please link to it? Will Beback talk 01:47, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, now I see it. The subject explains in the later interview that he used to be in the closet. The answer is simply to report both statements. Will Beback talk 01:49, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And do you still intend to restore the removed material? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As things stand now, yes. However I am waiting to see if user:Red Act has any comment. Will Beback talk 22:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The editor who called Stiers' management? Their suppositions they expressed in the talk page discussion from that time do not give me any confidence in their understanding of policy. They previously said they supported including the material but not the gossipboy reference, so I expect they will say the same now. How is their input germaine to your actions? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That editor seems to know more about this controversy than anyone else. Will Beback talk 00:27, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You posted a message to Red Act over 48 hours ago. They have made edits since, so I presume they saw your message. Are you still waiting? I would like to let this discussion close, if you are just arguing for the sake of arguing, but if you intend to reinsert the material, I do not wish to have the discussion prematurely archived. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there's no more information available then I would restore the material in some form, as it is widely reported and undisputed. Will Beback talk 21:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Utterly amazing how Will Beback trusts a blog when it suits his needs but doesn't trust a recognized expert in a field when it suits his needs. 95.211.27.70 (talk) 23:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know which expert you're talking about. Does it concern this article? Will Beback talk 00:06, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is an impasse if ever I saw one.

@ Collect: The 467 NYT mentions aren't terribly relevant. Most of them are reviews and the like; they are passing mentions or deal exclusively with Stiers's professional work. As far as I can tell, no publication has run a lengthy interview or profile of Stiers since he came out.

@ Delicious carbuncle: Inclusion of the information isn't dependent on our perception of the blog's reliability; it's wholly dependent on the accepted reliability of the multiple secondary sources that ran the story. In the absence of any reputable reports that the information is inaccurate, there is no policy-based reason not to include it. The argument you're making to the contrary flies in the face of WP:V. The information has been out there for a long time now. Stiers and those in his employ have had ample time to refute it, and there is no evidence that they have done so.

The diffs you provide vis-à-vis Stiers's publicist are quite interesting but ultimately inconclusive. They also constitute a textbook case of original research. (Since they apparently had little if any direct influence on content, I don't see much of a policy violation, but it wasn't a great idea. By all means, one might contact the publicist, the agent, or the man himself—but only to make the suggestion that they provide clarification directly to a reputable media outlet.)

There is nothing "extraordinary" about the claim. In fact, it is an incredibly ordinary claim. A certain percentage of actors are gay. Not long ago, it would have derailed their careers to come out, so nearly all of them categorically denied being gay when asked. Times change, prejudices slowly fade, and courageous public figures decide to stop hiding and instead be open about themselves. One of three things happened in Stiers's case: (1) he made the decision—unfortunate in hindsight—to come out to a blogger or (2) he spoke openly to someone without realizing his words would be published or (3) he was the victim of a very successful hoax that took in several reputable news sources and went viral on the Web. It is not up to us to attempt to determine which of the three it was; the reliable sources have been reporting it for years now, there's no evidence that Stiers has complained, and that ought to be enough.

@ Avanu: Your argument appears to rely on a novel interpretation of Wikipedia guidelines. The source—in the WP sense of the word—is the secondary source. There are a bunch of those available, including ABC News, The Advocate, the Courier Mail, MSNBC, multiple NBC mirror sites, queerty.com, Yahoo Movies, answers.com, Access Hollywood, and so on. Several clearly meet WP:RS guidelines. There is no basis in policy for second-guessing our accepted reliable sources based on shortcomings we perceive in their original sources; if we did that, not only would we find that precious little WP content was verifiable but we'd also be violating WP:NOR.

It's not just ABC; it's ABC News. They are indeed one of multiple publishers of the story, as well as a secondary creator. As far as I'm aware, the veracity of the original creator (i.e., the blogger) hasn't been called into question—either regarding this story or in general—by any reliable source. If it had been, that might be a different matter.

@ everyone:This is the BLP Noticeboard, and I have yet to read any credible suggestion of a BLP violation. Not even close. But leave aside the cherry-picked snippets of wording and consider the basic aim of the policy: to avoid causing harm to living persons through the inclusion of damaging, unverifiable content. I support that aim strongly. If anyone can provide a sound basis for claiming that including this content is even remotely likely to cause harm to Stiers, I'd be very interested to read it.

Googling "David Ogden Stiers" gay returns more than 85,000 results, led by the ABC News page. Simplifying the search by omitting the word "gay" finds that same ABC News page in third place, behind only Wikipedia and imdb. Apparently, the Web-surfing public considers his coming out to be noteworthy and relevant. My hope is that Wikipedia won't find itself in the position of failing to include significant verifiable content that's available from innumerable other sources.

Sorry if tl;dr. I'm not really here. Rivertorch (talk) 08:38, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rivertorch, did you take a look at the blog in question (then and now) as I suggested above? If so, what was your evaluation? If not, why not? This isn't an indictment of Wikipedia's sourcing in general, simply of the use of the secondary reporting of a specific interview in a specific blog. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how looking at the blog would inform this discussion. In fact, it has been my chief point all along that the reliability of the primary source is irrelevant. Maybe ABC News, MSNBC, and all the other secondary sources got it terribly wrong. Maybe they failed to check their facts. Maybe they took shortcuts and never sought corroboration. Maybe the information is wrong and, despite its being reported as fact all over the place and entering the public consciousness, neither Stiers nor anyone associated with him has bothered to contact a single one of its principal disseminators, any of whom would have run immediate corrections (they do so every day for far lesser errors). Maybe maybe maybe; we can speculate ad infinitum, but it doesn't matter. None of it matters unless we learn of another secondary source that says it matters. As I see it, this is a really basic tenet of WP:V and its accompanying guideline, WP:RS: we rely on reliable secondary sources first, and what they publish trumps anything we may glean from primary sources. Rivertorch (talk) 04:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What you are saying, in so many words, is that you don't care how obviously unreliable an original source is, so long as a reliable source republishes the information. As an aside, and please don't mistake this for anything other than a personal observation, I can assure you that none of the reliable sources that republished the interview checked any facts or sought any corroboration, because they did not have to. They were not responsible for the content -- Gossipboy was -- and any liability was Gossipboy's. This is entertainment gossip, not politics or business, and is not generally subject to the same level of fact-checking, in part because much of the content comes from PR people and is likely to be fabricated anyway. That said, I find your position to be somewhat ridiculous, but also a valid interpretation of Wikipedia policy. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'm relieved to know you find it a valid interpretation of policy. I suspect that if I were to devote considerably more time and effort to explaining my reasoning, and you were to devote sufficient time to reading my explanation, you might find my position somewhat less ridiculous. Since all that is unlikely to happen, it behooves us to stick to policy as closely as possible. That is what I have tried to do here. A couple of further points in response to what you've written. First, your paraphrase "in so many words" doesn't accurately reflect my view. It's not that "a reliable source" is republishing the information; it's that multiple reliable sources are doing so. To me, that is a meaningful distinction, particularly in BLP articles. Also, it is worth noting that even sources we deem to be unreliable may be reliable on some topics, some of the time. As an (imperfect) analogy, consider those anonymous tip lines that law enforcement agencies set up. Most of the calls they get are irrelevant or even misleading, but once in a while they're on the mark. At reputable news organizations, some editorial control and discretion are exercised; reporters don't just decide to reprint rumors and put them online. At ABC News and those other sources, someone found the content credible enough to make the decision to post it. Whether they actually verified it, we cannot know—but then we don't need to. All we need to know is that our reliable sources trusted it enough to run with it, and ideally that's what we should say about it in the article. Rivertorch (talk) 04:30, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rivertorch, The BLP concern is in calling someone 'homosexual' who doesn't want to be. I'm not saying David Ogden Stiers cares either way; I'm just saying that would be the central BLP concern. Googling and getting 85,000 hits is easy for almost anything. The problem we all keep seeing is that if we try to confirm that Stiers is gay, we can't find one peep on it besides the stories that rely on the blog. The statement "there's no evidence that Stiers has complained" is not the best argument for keeping material in WP. This entire thing circles around Verifiability, and I think Wikipedia 99% of the time just parrots whatever it is given from 'secondary sources', the problem is that many of these sources also just parrot what they are given, so we end up with content that is actually pretty dubious and poorly researched. -- Avanu (talk) 14:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is certainly something to consider, but it involves rethinking the foundations of core policy. That isn't germane to this or any specific case. It's way beyond the scope. Rivertorch (talk) 04:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Avanu, which is why I suggested we get an update from Stiers's agent to determine his current privacy views. Relying on a years-old gossip blog and a years-old statement by his agent is absurd. Wikipedia does not exist to repeat every bit of tittle-tattle about someone's private life that they wish to remain private, whether or not it's true. Stiers is NOT required to refute every claim which appears in a gossip blog, and demanding that he do so is equally absurd. It's called 'trawling' or 'fishing'. You sound like a reporter from the late News of the World. They recently learned the difference between public interest and interest of the public. It doesn't matter how many in the news media repeat the original story, we don't have to join them. They all reported on the Obama madrassa story, and the Obama born-elsewhere story, but that doesn't make them true. It was acceptable for ABC to report someone said something, but that doesn't mean we assume it's an incontrovertible fact as reported by a reliable source. If you don't understand the difference, talk to a serious journalist. 99.50.188.77 (talk) 16:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The only source that Stiers is gay is the gossip rag; the ABC, etc articles merely reprot that interview and do not confirm the veracity of the claim: hence, we have one non-RS source for gay, vs. Stiers in a RS for not-gay. This is clear-cut. We do not have him in any category, nor do we have any content, which claims he is homosexual. To do otherwise is a clear BLP violation. Sexual preference is a very private matter; if Stiers wanted to be known as gay he would surely be saying so in more than one highly questionable interview which is not acceptable per WP:RS. Case closed; I am horrified that anyone is arguing otherwise. Remember that BLP means to respect the subject's desire for privacy as much as anything else. Stiers has not made it public; if and when he "comes out" in a RS we can revisit this, but not before. To claim that ABC reporting the interview implies some kind of "fact checking" by ABC is not acceptable. We do not know, nor should we guess, whether ABC even bothered to consider it, since they were reporting on the crappy interview. Puppy has spoken. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't know what fact checking ABC News or MSNBC or The Advocate, or the Courier Mail or all the others did. But just as we can't assume they did some, neither can we assume they didn't. Our policy is to trust their reputation, which is, in sum, quite good. In the end, after all, the fact checking we are hoping for would have come down to them asking other sources that also individually wouldn't meet our policy. (For one thing, they would be unpublished and therefore unverifiable.) We are a tertiary source; we exist specifically to reprint secondary sources. Those secondary sources often rely on primary sources that would not, in themselves, meet our various policies. We do not do the research ourselves, we are forbidden to. We rely on reliable sources. These are them. And no offense to the speaking puppy, but I believe our policies also require us to consider these sources as more reliable than she is. --GRuban (talk) 20:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Our policy does not say that we unequivocally trust the reputation of these news organizations without question. If you believe that is what it says, you need to go back and read it again. I'll quote part of it for you again:

The word "source" in Wikipedia has three meanings: the work itself (a document, article, paper, or book), the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work (for example, The New York Times). All three can affect reliability.

Go back and read the entire Verifiability policy, and you will see that it is much more than blind trust of a news outlet with a big name. Only a completely oblivious person thinks the media is perfect or unbiased. People work on deadlines and often many stories get published with barely any factchecking or oversight. Since we can't confirm anything beyond the story that is sourced by the blog, we don't have any verifiability unless we ask the man directly and get an answer in a form that will be accepted here. Continuing to argue for something because you want it to be in the article, without having any way to really prove or verify it is just silly. -- Avanu (talk) 05:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great, now we're arguing about what Wikipedia:Verifiability is. To quote the policy itself, it is defined as: "whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." This material meets that. "ask the man directly" has nothing to do with it. --GRuban (talk) 18:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - We're going in circles, but again RSs determine what's reliable information, and lots have published this info. WP:RS needs to be modified if we don't like the result, since BLP says follow the sources. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 21:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Woof. WIth all respect, Puppy's bark doesn't determine consensus; we have a whole pack for that. Sexual orientation (not preference) can be a "very private", as you said, or very public. Multiple sources generally considered to be reliable for WP purposes reported that Stiers self-reported his sexual orientation, which means it's no longer private at all. Those reports happened years after the contradictory reports, and they contained an explanation of why there were contradictory reports in the first place. Rivertorch (talk) 04:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You say there are multiple sources, yet when we subject these sources to scrutiny, we see that they clearly are basing the entirety of their story on the blog material, not on independent reporting. So we really have 1 source - the blog. The story sounds very plausible, and it could very well be true, but it isn't verifiable, and that is the standard here. -- Avanu (talk) 05:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By that logic, if WP had existed several decades ago, we'd have had to exclude quite a lot of content from the Richard Nixon article because, although it appeared in multiple reputable newspapers, it originated with anonymous informants. Washington Post and New York Times as reliable sources? Nope, the real source is Deep Throat, and we can't verify that. Rivertorch (talk) 10:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what is wrong with your analogy - the defunct blog Gossipboy is not the Washington Post or the New York Times. If the interview with Stiers had appeared in either of those, we would not be having this conversation. On the other hand, we have guidelines for dealing with anonymous sources quoted in reliable sources both in WP:VERIFY and WP:BLP. I think you may have a rather incomplete understanding of the role that Deepthroat played in that particular episode, but I'll leave that for you to deal with on your own. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:26, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Instead it appears in ABC News and MSNBC. You're drawing a mighty fine line, that if an unidentified person is relied on by a national newspaper, that is reliable, but if an identified person is relied on by a national television network, that is not? --GRuban (talk) 18:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I say that an unidentified person should be relied upon by a national newspaper? Please try to read more carefully and I will try to be more careful with my wording. The interview did not appear in ABC News or MSNBC. The interview appeared in Gossipboy and that blog posting was reported by the ABC News and MSNBC. If ABC News had originated the interview we would not be discussing it here (which would be nice, because explaining the same point over and over is getting pretty tedious). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I never claimed my analogy was perfect, but what you identify as wrong with it actually isn't one of its deficiencies. In both cases, reputable news sources (ABC News et al ≈ Wash Post et al) reported infomation that could not be verified by looking at the primary source (Gossipboy ≈ Deep Throat). Very likely neither of us has a complete understanding of that episode, but that's neither here nor there. It was a rough analogy intended to illustrate a point, and apparently it only confused you. Sorry. Rivertorch (talk) 21:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What part of this do you not understand? The Stiers interview was not with ABC. ABC simply reported that Gossipboy had interviewed Stiers. The "primary source" would be Stiers, not Gossipboy. There is no equivalence in what you are suggesting. Clearly I am wasting my time discussing this with someone who cannot even grasp what the primary source is. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We rely on secondary sources. ABC is a reliable secondary source. It reported this. Will Beback talk 22:20, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Absolute rubbish. ABC reported that Gossipboy had reported X. The ABC did not report X. This is not a complex journalism construct. If you do not understand the simple, but profound difference, I have real doubts about your ability to edit any reference work.101.118.53.225 (talk) 00:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To repeat the analogy: If a newspaper prints an story on a bank robbery and it quotes an eyewitness saying the robbers fled in a red car, who is doing the reporting? Would we refuse to include this information since we don't know how reliable this witness might be? No, because the source is the newspaper, which is responsible for everything they print. Will Beback talk 00:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your analogy is flawed. The scenario you present would still require original reporting and editing since it is a news event. The threshold for entertainment related news is much lower with respect to fact checking. RS organizations like ABC News often cite 3rd parties as their source for hard news and use that cite as a CYA. Especially on election night. Since all of the media outlets point to gossipboy as the primary source, and none of those sources mention any originial reporting or even a whiff of fact checking (eg they dont even mention trying to contact DOS representatives), then this has to be considered "pass through" reporting and the source is still gossipboy. That and this being a BLP warrants the information does not belong until better or corraborting reporting is presented. --Fasttimes68 (talk) 03:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You won't be the first to have thought that. John lilburne (talk) 00:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly limit your snide remarks to Wikipedia Review. Here on Wikipedia, we have rules requiring civility. Will Beback talk 02:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a really long thread and, as far as I can tell, editors are simply repeating the same positions they adopted early in the discussion. Unless someone objects for a good reason, I'm going to close the thread.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will Beback has stated, more than once now, that he will be restoring the deleted material back into the BLP in some form. The is little point in closing this now, as the discussion is likely to be re-opened as soon as that happens. I have urged Will Beback to either make his edits or change his mind and allow the discussion to be closed, but he has done neither. While this is frustrating, and has allowed for even more illogical nonsense to be posted here, there seems little we can do if someone chooses to delay doing what they have said they will do. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I don't consider your objection to be based on a "good reason", but, at the same time, I am uncomfortable overriding it and archiving the discussion. The original problem here was whether to categorize Stiers. You're against doing so. Will is in favor. Currently, Stiers is NOT categorized. If Will chooses to add the categories, you could open another discussion (as you say above). Why continue to argue about it here if it hasn't happened? Anyway, having said that, I'm bowing out because all I'm apparently accomplishing is making this topic even longer.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:23, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've been proposing restoring the text, not the category. As for this thread, I don't see any consensus that this is problematic material. Will Beback talk 23:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but what is left to discuss here?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think everyone has stated their views. I don't see anything left to do here. Will Beback talk 00:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except close the discussion, but DC won't let me. If it weren't for the language in {{cot}}, I'd do it anyway.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I also propose restoring the text and not the category. As far as I'm concerned, this thread has run its course—and then some. Anything else I say is liable to be misunderstood, just like the last thing I said. Rivertorch (talk) 18:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will Beback, you have found the time to make other edits to the article and time to make numerous comments here, but despite my urgings to actually make the changes you propose so we can get the issue settled, you have yet to do so. Any idea when you might get around to actually restoring the material you "propose" to restore? If I haven't made myself clear, I would appreciate it if you would make the edits as soon as you are able, if that is still what you intend to do. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the urgency. If you think it's important to make the edit sooner rather than later go ahead and do it yourself. Will Beback talk 22:39, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the talk page, it seems that the Wiki article had the DOS information added soon after gossipboy posted the interview. Some editors implied that ABC et al might have used Wikipedia as a fact checker (my words) and used that as justification for running the story. Kind of scary if true, but if that were true it would show what sort how fast information can travel. If the proposed changes were not accurate it would be like letting the genie out of the bottle. -- Fasttimes68 (talk) 11:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alas -- there have now been a number of cases where lazy journalists for "relaible sources" used Wikipedia as sources. Where the claim regards a "living person" it is more important than ever that we be absolutely scrupulous in such claims. Collect (talk) 11:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As there seems to be a bit of doubt about the truthfulness of the claims, perhaps Will doesn't want to be the person to actually add it to the Biography. I havent comment here recently/yet but considering the doubt about this claim, let me add my voice to erring on the side of caution and keeping it out until there is some clear statement of verification. Off2riorob (talk) 11:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Based on discussions elsewhere, it appears you have a reputation for bias on this general topic. Have you ever argued in favor of adding text about sexual orientation to an article? Will Beback talk 22:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have usually argued for both sides of the coin in all situations - thats what I do - look at situations from a neutral point of view position with strong consideration to BLP and subject privacy and relevance to their notability. If you have accusations make a report. Off2riorob (talk) 01:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are asserting that you are even-handed but that does not appear to be the case in regard to sexuality. Can you show an occasion where you've argued in favor of including information about someone's sexuality? Will Beback talk 01:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am the second highest contributor to the George Michael BLP, if that helps my status. Off2riorob (talk) 02:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not the same thing.[10] Will Beback talk 02:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said - go make your report if you think there's an issue. I edit on a case by case basis. I don't support the inclusion of disputable sexual assertions or labeling into BLP articles. I don't support adding sexual preference to BLP articles unless that persons sexual preference is a part of their notability and is clear and relevant and recent. To get back to this case, there seems to be some disputable claim thats all I know from the discussion - I have only read the comments and as usual in such situations about all things to do with living people I support as per policy - erring on the side of caution and considering privacy concerns regarding such personal claims when they are not part of the subjects notability. If there is a discussion where there is doubt discussed by experienced contributors I would suggest as per BLP in such cases sexual labeling should not occur until the doubt is resolved. What (regarding policy)are you accusing me of? Off2riorob (talk) 03:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just pointing out that, when you comment on issues related to sexual orientation, you always seem to have the same point of view. Will Beback talk 03:30, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thats my well known and repeatedly stated view as posted above - clearly there have been a couple of recent cases that there was dispute about, - because it was disputable - and I erred on the side of caution as required by policy. If that is an issue to you I can't do anything to assist you - I stand completely by my previous positions. If there are clear cases policy and guidelines for support I will be supporting inclusion. I also support removing the dated historic lesbian labeling from Stephanie Adams (on the noticeboard also)- she has married a man and has a child and is clearly no longer a lesbian. Off2riorob (talk) 03:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you don't really judge these matters on a case-by-case basis. Instead you repeat your "well known and repeatedly stated view", which seems to be that articles should never mention the subject's sexual orientation. Will Beback talk 03:45, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, on a case by case basis - using my interpretation of policy and guidelines. As you posted [11] this diff], Long term uncited and searched for and unverified and removed, do you see a problem with my edit that you posted ? - To get back to my only comment in this thread , you have been commenting you were going to replace this content regarding the sexual orientation of the subject for a couple of days and not replaced it, is that because there is a degree of doubt to the verifiability? .. or why is it that you have not replaced it? - Off2riorob (talk) 03:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just saying that I cannot find an example where you have ever added or endorsed adding anything about anyone's sexual orientation, no matter how well sourced.

As for the Stiers article, is there a deadline? Will Beback talk 04:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In clear cut cases for inclusion of sexuality I have no reason to comment. In disputable situations you will always find me erring on the side of caution and requesting waiting for clearer verification. No there is no time limit, at least you have clarified that you intend to add the content to the article but there is no time limit. Will, I can't follow that and clearly you are just not answering any of my questions.... I will discuss more tomorrow if required - there is no time limit is there, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 04:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will Beback, this thread is long enough without you trying to wind-up Off2riorob. Over a week ago now, you stated your intention to restore the material. Five days ago, you reaffirmed that intention when I asked that this thread remain open because your change was immanent. Although I cannot know why you have not yet made the edit despite my requested requests, this thread has now deteriorated to the point where I am happy to see it closed. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:46, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, close the thread. --Fasttimes68 (talk) 16:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Evans (actor)‎ - disputed BLP sexual categorization

Users are desirous of categorizing this living person as LGBT actor and LGBT from Wales - when it is clearly disputable - a decade ago while promoting his parts in homosexual focused films he declared as homosexual and recently there are reports that he is suggesting his private life is private and has recently been reported to be dating a woman - clearly although he did self declare a decade ago - there has been no follow up to that declaration at all - no boyfriends no relationships with same sex subjects and not the subject tis dating a woman - clearly as per BLPCat there is a disputable position here - content is king and insisting on labeling his sexuality in the situation imo is clearly controversial. Off2riorob (talk) 21:49, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Off2riorob is apparently trying to take this through as many venues as possible, since the talk page consensus is against him. Alright, let's run through this, back in 2002 and 2004, the subject, Luke Evans, had fairly lengthy discussions in a number of interviews in reliable sources about his homosexuality and how open he was about discussing it and not being in the closet and all of that. Fast-forward to now, a reliable publication caught wind that Evans is reportedly dating an actress, Holly Goodchild. There is a quote from Holly in that publication, but there is no quote or any seeming discussion from Evans, so his dating her is still just a rumor in that regard. Another reliable gay-oriented publication sought out Evans' manager to ask him to clarify on what Evans' sexuality actually is, since he stated he was gay in the past, but is dating a woman now. The manager just responded that Evans had been far too frank about his life in the past and that there will be no more discussion about his personal life.

And that's all we have. Evans has made absolutely no statements in regards to dating Holly, so we don't even know if that's true or a publicity stunt, and he has made no new statement about his sexuality, whether he identifies as heterosexual or bisexual at this point in time. Because WP:BLPCAT relies on self-identification for adding categories about people, the only self-identification we have is his statements in the past that he was gay. Everything else currently is just hearsay, as Evans himself has said nothing on the subject. Therefore, until he makes a public statement saying otherwise, we should be currently considering him gay in regards to his past public statements in that nature. The moment he states otherwise, we will change our views, but in terms of BLPs and categories, we can mostly only go off of info that is directly stated by the subject. So, the cats should be included for now, until Evans says otherwise to his sexuality, if he ever does. Silverseren^C 22:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correction - She's a PR agent. AlbionBT (talk) 22:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, not even his manager? That makes it seem more...PR-ey. Silverseren^C 22:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should have clearer. Holly Goodchild is a PR agent. AlbionBT (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Agreed. AlbionBT (talk) 22:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Off2riorob, having watched this one from the sidelines, both sides of this dispute seem to be making assumptions that they should not make. We have no idea how many men and/or women Evans has been involved with since the interviews in which he declared he was gay - all we know is that no one has produced sources which identify any girlfriends or boyfriends. What we do know is this - he said he was gay in earlier interviews and now he is reported to be dating a woman (the fact that she works in public relations is probably not relevant for our purposes). Although you seem to be suggesting that Evans is now straight and other are suggesting he is now bisexual, both due to the "girlfriend", what we need to know is how Evans himself categorizes his sexuality. We do not know that. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. A small quibble. Off2riorob refers to a decade--the latest source in the article with an interview in which he self identifies as gay is from july of 2004, which would be roughly seven years ago, not a decade. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We're not suggesting that he is bisexual just that in absence of a statement changing the record, we have to go on his only previous statements regarding his sexuality which classed him as gay. Bisexuality was only brought up to refute Off2riorob's idea that being linked to a woman suddenly made him straight. AlbionBT (talk) 22:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, I wouldn't put him being bisexual into the article without a source quoting him saying so. Silverseren^C 22:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't the impression I get from reading the talk page. I suggest all parties in this dispute need to step back and let others try to work things out here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:31, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference between bringing up a point in discussion and proposing it to be included in the article. That said, I do agree that it has gotten a little heated and that we should all step back for the time being. Though, I would like to say that, as with the previous discussion, this isn't a BLP violation issue and the talk should probably move back to the talk page. AlbionBT (talk) 22:52, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I see nothing wrong with categorizing Evans as gay based on his self-declaration. I think it's a bit much, though, to say that the report of his dating Goodchild is just a "rumor" unless Evans himself confirms it. We report dating on a lot less than that without classifying it as a rumor. As an aside, I think the sentence currently in the article ("In September 2010, Evans was romantically linked with a woman.") is just plain silly. It makes "woman" sound like an epithet. We should report on the relationship in the usual way, naming Goodchild. As to what it means to say that he said he was gay and is dating Goodchild, that's up to the reader, not us.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It did originally name her but Off2riorob argued that it should be remove since she's 'not a public person'. AlbionBT (talk) 22:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that makes good sense. And we need to work through this carefully and calmly, since WP is now part of the story in places like Gawker. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:34, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was fine with putting her name as well. As Albion said, it was Rob who thought we shouldn't put the name. Silverseren^C 23:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

She is a private person named in a single article was the reason to keep her name out of the article - wikipedia would immediately become the primary source of her name, something that is not encouraged. As a not notable person that is not widely reported about the naming of her in our article is of no specific benefit to a reader and yet not naming her is beneficial to the privacy of the woman.Off2riorob (talk) 23:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I don't get that. First, she's obviously mentioned in a public source. Second, she's described as a fashion industry expert (whatever that means). Third, what if Evans married someone who was a "private person"? We'd still the include the spouse's name. Finally, what policy or guideline supports that view?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its editorial judgment and BLP privacy. I also remove such spouses names and children's names also they are worthless to the readers educational understanding of the notable issues and the privacy is respected - we are requested not to allow wikipedia to become the primary source of information about basically private not notable people. Off2riorob (talk) 23:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at least you're consistent, but I see no support for it, other than a very expansive interpretation of BLP guidelines. You're speculating as to what people want. What makes you think she wants to be private? She's quoted in the article. And even if she did, how does it harm her? I can see, for example, removing personal identifying information about non-public figures (like dates of birth), but she's just dating the guy, and we're just reporting her name. With some actors, they date serially lots of different people. If they are not public figures (in your view), what are we going to say? So-and-so dated Person #1 and then Person #2 and then...--Bbb23 (talk) 23:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

* Enough already - this is yet another campaign being waged by an editor in his war to remove any suggestion of homosexuality or bisexuality from this article. First he doesn't want it mentioned at all. Then he supposedly agrees to a compromise and immediately begins editing to undermine the compromise. Then he starts questioning the reliability of the sources. Then he jumps on this weird "he hasn't said it lately" bandwagon that I absolutely don't get. And laced through it all are misrepresentations of both Wikipedia policy and false accusations regarding the conduct of other editors.

This is ultimately a very simple situation. We have someone who, in the last instance he made any statement of his sexuality, declared himself openly and unambiguously as gay. That declaration in and of itself is sufficient to categorize him as gay. We cannot assume on the basis of his supposedly dating a woman and in the absence of a statement from Evans that his sexuality or his self-identification has changed. If it is somehow seen as too controversial to categorize a man who says he's gay as a gay man, then put him in the LGBT categories. William Bradshaw (talk) 23:18, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are losing the point - his homosexual comments a decade ago are not what he is notable for - hes a movie actor and not a very notable one of those. This is not the gay times - get over yourself. This is an educational encyclopedic publication, this persons minor homosexual statement from a decade ago is worthless in the scheme of things - he hasn't even had a named same sex relationship. He is not a notable gay person - hes barely even a notable movie actor. Off2riorob (talk) 23:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Never heard of the fellow myself, then again I don't usually remember actors. What his sexuality has to do with anything is quite odd, and rather intrusive. John lilburne (talk) 23:28, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) William Bradshaw, the LGBT cats are being objected to. User:Off2riorob, he's clearly notable in our terms, and it is arguable that those who are trying to remove the references to the reliably sourced information about his orientation are causing public controversy. And "get over yourself" is not exactly assuming good faith. Best to loose "decade" 'cause it ain't been that long... --Nuujinn (talk) 23:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to the "get over yourself" comment, in all fairness to Rob, William's comment about a campaign wasn't helpful, either.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~::::: I don't know what else to call it but a campaign. Multiple challenges to the same piece of information across multiple forums. William Bradshaw (talk) 01:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC)~~[reply]

Ah, but you miss the point, you don't need to call it anything. Your opinion about Rob doesn't need to be expressed at all. It just distracts from the substance issues.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I disagree, Rob. First, it doesn't matter whether he's "barely notable" as an actor. If he's insufficiently notable, then you should nominate the article for deletion. Second, his coming out was related to his acting career, so it meets that prong of WP:BLPCAT. Third, he doesn't have to have a "named same sex relationship" to be gay. In the interview, he said he had a boyfriend, but it wouldn't matter if he never had a boyfriend. Is someone not heterosexual because they never have a non-same-sex relationship?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:31, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John lilburne, you may wish to read the relevant references, that should, I think, clarify what his sexuality has to do with his career. The short version is he did not start out as a blushing violet in G rated movies. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:34, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever- he has never had a same sex report apart from his own, and now he is advertising some other sexuality - some would laugh and say it was all promotional, kissing the (whatever) of the people that were paying his salary at the time - now its the hetrosexuals. Anyway - a clear positive that has come out of this trivial crap is that its not notable on wikipedia to simply be homosexual , you need a notability related excuse to add it. The claim here is that his career didn't suffer...suffer, f, this whole crap has been a worthless suffering - Off2riorob (talk) 23:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Sorry, Rob, but that's all speculation on your part and arguably a BLP violation to say so without support. And I thought the whole idea of WP:BLPCAT was self-identification, so why do we suddenly need another report "apart from his own"?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hes more notable as a homosexual than a movie actor. Its not speculation at all its all cited. Hes a notable homosexual who has done some acting. Off2riorob (talk) 23:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's speculation is your statement about him doing all this for promotional reasons. As for notability, the problem is there's almost never any way to truly satisfy the notability prong of WP:BLPCAT. How is being Catholic related to an actor's notability? Or being gay? Or being straight? My view is - and always has been - we should do away with these categories, but I'm stuck with them and the policy. So, the only way the policy can possibly work is if there is some way to satisfy the notability prong, and here I think it's been sufficiently met.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:51, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its just an off wiki homosexual promotional tagging group, in a bit they will all go and I will tidy up after them. as I usually do - we should be less obliging and enabling of such desirous activism. Off2riorob (talk) 23:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

^ Yeah, Rob has been repeating that personal attack a lot lately. Silverseren^C 00:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23, I agree wholeheartedly regarding the value of these cats, and about Williams's comments. Off2riorob, please assume good faith, we're not all part of some cabel. I can't help but note that if you really do believe "Hes more notable as a homosexual than a movie actor" then you should not be objecting to the cat at all, but rather the movie references. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suit yourself how you take it, theres no personal attack though. If I have violated WP:npa PLEASE POINT IT OUT - THIS IS CITEABLE OFf WIKI - just an off wiki homosexual promotional tagging group, in a bit they will all go and I will tidy up after them. The fact that a fair few homosexual single purpose users have been around and came from the homoseual chat thread is pretty imdesputable - so whats the personal attack - I would despise such enabling by experianced users if it was related to off wiki five a side football Off2riorob (talk) 00:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not following this at all. Maybe I'm not suspicious or cynical enough, although most of my friends say I was born a cynic, but which editors are you talking about and what homosexual chat thread? Even assuming some editors have an agenda, their motives are immaterial to the issue of whether Evans should be categorized. Personally, I have no agenda, I'm just discussing substance, policy, and guidelines, and I'd rather stay clear of the other stuff, frankly.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:28, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He's talking about William Bradshaw and AlbionBT, specifically, though there are quite a few other new users and IP addresses that joined the talk page discussion and the other discussion halfway up this noticeboard. Quite a few of them, i'm sure, are from someplace off-wiki where this was announced, but most of them have been using policy based arguments, so it's not a very big deal. Furthermore, as I explained to Rob, William Bradshaw joined back in July, before this whole debate, and has been editing a number of LGBT topics (which is fine, we have a number of experienced users that stay within a single topic area as well). Silverseren^C 00:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for filling me in. How do we know it was "announced" somewhere else? "Tagging group" sounds like a homosexual gang (laughing).--Bbb23 (talk) 01:28, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno. I thought a link had been given somewhere in the previous discussions, but I just looked through all of them and didn't find one, though I did notice that Rob has been repeating the existence of this off-wiki group multiple times throughout the previous discussions, but never given a link to it. I suppose we should just ask him for a link, since he's the one that keeps mentioning it. Silverseren^C 01:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

:* I don't know what "desirous activism" is but calling people who appear to be trying to participate in these discussions in a good faith and productive manner as an "off wiki homosexual tagging group" strikes me as nothing more than an attack on those editors. Saying "in a bit they will all go and I will tidy up after them" is as clear a statement as can be that the editor is unwilling to participate in the consensus-building process in a meaningful good-faith way. Whatever resolution is reached, Rob will "tidy it up" by changing it to whatever he thinks it should be. William Bradshaw (talk) 01:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

William Bradshaw, please assume good faith (think of it as a mantra). I'm not happy with the comment, either, but I think it reflects frustration more than anything else. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:38, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

:::: I'm sorry, but an assumption of good faith in the face of what I consider pretty compelling evidence of bad faith is not warranted. I started my involvement with this article assuming the good faith of everyone involved but one of the people involved has engaged in repeated conduct that makes it impossible for me to continue to do so. Whether he's frustrated or not, saying that he's not going to allow the edits that he doesn't personally agree with to stand regardless of the consensus that's reached smacks of rank ownership issues and a failure to maintain objectivity. Ideally, yes, this should all be about the article and the policies and not about the individual, but at some point when it's the same individual starting fire after fire after fire over the same exact thing all over Wikipedia there needs to be a community statement that enough is enough. William Bradshaw (talk) 01:46, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the same argument you're making at ANI, and it's not going over well there, either. Nuujinn and others are telling you to let go. You're not helping yourself by failing to heed their sound advice.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He's an actor, his sexuality was mentioned in tangential relationship to his career - but in all the noise no substantial source dealing with the impact/links to his career has surfaced. I am always discomforted by the drives to get people tagged as homosexual (or otherwise) because its usually driven by some personal desire (either to disparage or laud) based on minimal sourcing. --Errant ^(chat!) 02:12, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Evans took roles that pertained to his sexuality. He specifically came out before acting in Taboo because he was going to be playing the sexually confused character. And then, in Hardcore, he played a gay porn star. We've already given the sources that discuss it, but here they are again. The Advocate. QX Magazine. Silverseren^C 02:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is your point? River Phoenix played a gay street hustler, Nigel Hawthorne played King George III, Ian McKellen played Gandalf the Grey. John lilburne (talk) 11:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except the actors you quote did not have reliable sources discussing their roles and the relationship to their own sexuality, including interviews where the subject also discusses as such. Evans' sexuality had an impact on his early play work, as he sought out roles that he was able to attune to due to their relationship to his own sexuality. Silverseren^C 12:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And? In the first place only two of the three were gay, and in the second place whether they prefer oysters or snails none of it makes one bit of difference as to their notability as actors. John lilburne (talk) 15:38, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The interview with the Advocate clearly that he himself saw a link between his career and his sexuality, "How did you decide you're going to be open about your sexuality? Well it was something that I'd spoken to a lot of people about, including my boyfriend--we've broken up now--but at the time when I just got Taboo, I knew that even though my part was a straight character everybody knew me as a gay man, and in my life in London I never tried to hide it….I knew I was going to have to do interviews with gay magazines, I knew this was going to happen. So I thought, Well, I'm going to have to be open. It's who I am. And if people don't like it, then I don't want their jobs" That does not strike me as a tangential relationship between his sexuality and career--the interview is about his coming out. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) As Bbb23 notes somewhere above, these categories (sexual orientation/religious beliefs) are inherently problematic and I would be of the opinion that they need doing away with too. That aside, and relating to this particular case, Evans self-avowed homosexuality was highly notable at the beginning of his career due to the roles/plays he appeared in, the interviews he gave and even the fact that he was quite happy to "out" himself, going so far as to draw parallels with George Michael and the unsavoury way in which GM got found out. He says (regarding his decision to be open about his sexuality) "if that means I'm going to be a poor man at 60, then at least I've lived a happy, open, gay life and not had to hide it from anybody".

As far as I can tell, he never spoke about his supposed heterosexual relationship and the woman only appears to be one of his friends now - recent gq article - I would have thought that if there were a relationship she would have been noted as his girlfriend.

So, the current version of the article with the LGBT cats is suitable in this instance, IMHO. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 13:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I read the two sources that appear to be our sole source of material here - they aren't very compelling. Given they are gay advocacy magazines we have to be a little careful taking their material out. There seems no critical discussion of the impact of his sexuality on his career, which is what leaves me uncomfortable using the categories - he is not notable for being a gay actor. He is notable for being an actor, and at some point in the past has spoken about being gay. He has taken gay roles, yes, but many actors do that (indeed, the sources vaguely mention lots of straight people he has worked with in gay roles!). It happens that in real life he is also gay.. well, whatever. As I said; there is nothing very compelling there. --Errant ^(chat!) 13:52, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am more than a little tired of gay-interest publications being called into question as reliable sources for gay-related articles. As I have noted in several of the many tedious discussions about this subject already, Sports Illustrated is not questioned as a source for sports-related articles. The Wall Street Journal is not questioned as a source for economics articles. The New York Times is not questioned as a source for New York-related articles. And no non-gay-interest source ever seems to be called into question for any story on the basis of its not being gay-themed. Yet The Advocate and other gay-themed sources are viewed with suspicion based on their having a non-heterosexual perspective. It's rank double-standardism smacking of heterosexism.

We're also talking about a category here, so I'm not sure how compelling the sources need to be. Compelling is not a criterion I'm familiar with in discussions of notability, reliability, verifiability, etc. His notability isn't the issue, the question is whether the cat is appropriate. In the two interviews Evans discusses the relationship between his career and coming out, and that seems sufficient to me. And I'm not familiar with cat policy, do we require that a person be notable for the attribute that ties them to the category? --Nuujinn (talk) 21:57, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

::::::: There has been no evidence presented that any gay-themed source has fabricated, misrepresented, misquoted, distorted or otherwise taken any action by which the reliability of its material related to Evans should be of concern. The sources include information from Evans himself regarding the link he at the time saw between his sexual orientation and his acting career, including both his choice of roles and the potential adverse effect that being gay could have on his career. The sources more than adequately satisfy any policy or guideline for categorizing gay people as gay, or at the very least LGBT. William Bradshaw (talk) 21:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC) FWIW and without taking any sides on the matter: [12] shows a person soliciting others off-wiki:[reply]

Please, there is a campaign to pay him back, by vandalizing any page he edits. This is the only way to get him back, because no one will prevent him from editing according to his religon or his politics.

[13] shows another example:

This vile woman really does HATE the gay community. She has spent the entire weekend zipping back and forth to Wikipedia, dropping poisonous homophobic comments, attacking anyone who may be different than she is--pretty much the rest of the world.

Anyone, absolutely ANYONE who says that Rudy was not 100% straight gets it in the neck from this spiteful, homophobic, racist, anti-Semitic, friendless, opinionated piece of trash.

Let us hope, then, that justice will be served today.

Might appear to be off-wiki lobbying on the topic. [14] appears to solicit editors:

Other registered users, such as Vipinhari, have undone the homophobic vandal’s posts, and blocked his/her IP address. Unfortunately, someone committed to such hate speech can continue their activities by switching to another computer at a different location, so continued monitoring of these pages is crucial to Wikipedia continuing to offer helpful and accurate entries.

So it is clear that solicitation of outside editors to edit on Wikipedia on the basis of sexual orientation exists, and has existed for a long time. In fact, editing of Wikipedia articles seems to be a major topic on "anti-homophobia" sites. [15]:

Wikipedia editors are oft-accused of personal agendas, and some users in the ensuing deletion discussion question whether this was another case of "gaywashing"; others say that Wikipedia is just sticking to its policies

[16] even has a comment asking for votestacking overtly.

Crockspot, a homophobic conservative nazi is being voted in as admin as I post this message. This provides the link to the page in question. Having this cockroach transform from an impotent bottom feeder into a person with power would seriously damage Wikipedia’s reputation. Cockroachspot would go on a facist rampage and ethnic cleansing of anyone who doesn’t distort information into his twisted Bush agenda POV. Go by and vote as soon as possible if you’re a member. If not, registration takes about thirty seconds. If you care about not being misinformed every time you google anything having to do with politics-then don’t just vote but email anyandeveryone you can. Trust me, your friends will show up by the dozens–and we only need a few dozen more to put the nail in his coffin.

Seems moderately clear. For fun see [17] [18] has a comment:

A while back I pointed out the clearly anti-gay bias of several editors demanding the deletion of a article about a gay hockey player. They were furious that I dared to speak my mind

So it is reasonably clear that Wikipedia is frequently the topic of anti-homophobia sites, and that such sites frequently encourage members to become Wikipedia editors with the object of defeating the homophobia. Quod erat demonstrandum. Collect (talk) 14:02, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll accept what you say on faith, Collect, as I had trouble with almost every link above. And I guess I'll have to assume that this is what Rob was referring to, although he's never said. Has any editor involved in this discussion been actually tied to any of these off-wiki websites? In any event, although it satisfies my curiosity, it doesn't change my view. The issues for us are still the same, the application of policy to the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since none of those articles have anything to do with Luke Evans, I fail to see the relevance of you posting them. As for the idea that they are anti-homophobia sites, most of them are personal blogs, one is a left-wing forum and another is a Toronto local interest site. You can't say Q.E.D. when you haven't proven anything, all you've said is that at some point in time a call was made for people to register to get rid of an editor who apparently had gone on an anti-Semitic homophobic rant at a completely different article. You don't know whether anyone actually took up the offer and you've put forward no evidence to say that this is even what happened here.

Bbb23, the fabled 'off-wiki gay chat thread' that Off2riorob claimed anyone who disagreed with him came from still hasn't been linked to.AlbionBT (talk) 15:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that a link to these on-wiki discussions was posted on AfterElton.com. People coming from this site may not be aware that per WP:BLPCAT, Wikipedia requires public self-identification for LGBT categories, and that should be current. It is a fact of life that people may change attributes like their religion or sexual self-identification. For example, if someone publicly self-identified as a Scientologist in 2002, but has since withdrawn that public self-identification, then it is no longer appropriate for Wikipedia to categorise them as a Scientologist today. This is a similar case. His publicist's statement and the reports of his relationship have changed the status of his public self-identification. Wikipedia's BLP policy tells editors to be conservative, err on the side of the individual's right to define their religion and sexual identity, and edit from a clear presumption in favour of the subject's privacy.

The current presence of the LGBT categories in the protected article is a BLP violation in my view, and I have raised an editprotected request on the article's talk page. The Wikipedia default is to exclude BLP-sensitive material, until there is consensus to include it. Cheers. --JN466 14:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, there is nothing in WP:BLPCAT that states that the self-identification has to be "current" - talk about a can of worms, are we going to set some arbitrary line in years like words in WP:FILMPLOT? Second, changing one's religion is just a smidgen easier than changing one's sexual orientation. In any event, he self-identified, and he hasn't changed that since.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:37, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

People can and do change their sexual preferences. Although there seems to be an obvious PR involvement in this case, there is cause to question if Evans earlier statements still apply. Unless we have a statement from Evans himself, we simply do not know how he classifies his sexuality at present, which is what we need in order to add the categories. If nothing else, I think the expectation of users is that when the look at the category of "X people" they expect those people to be "X" (which is why we have those "Former X people" type categories). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:47, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BLPCAT, we need public self-identification, and it is clear that Evans is, for whatever reason – either because his sexual outlook has changed, or because he is just no longer willing to talk about it publicly – unwilling to publicly self-identify as gay. In either case, we no longer have the solid basis for the categorisation that we need. Incidentally, I doubt we would be having this argument if someone who used to be a proud ladies' man announced that he was now in a gay relationship. --JN466 14:57, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're both adding non-existent hurdles to the policy. And, Delicious, although you may think of it as pure political correctness, the phrase "sexual preferences" is offensive to many, and your assertion that people change their sexual orientation is (a) disputed and (b) a little like saying sometimes it doesn't rain in Seattle in December - it's pretty damned rare, to the extent it's even true. But we're all injecting our own views into this, and it isn't necessary. Nothing in WP:BLPCAT requires currentness.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23, I made no suggestion that it is common for one to change one's "sexual orientation", but we both agree that it does happen. Perhaps part of the issue here is that trying to sort people's sexual orientation into little boxes is ridiculous. Although you are taking offense that I have suggested that people may change their sexual orientation (even though you agree that it happens), I am really just acknowledging that people sometimes find that they have been placed in the wrong box or that the box isn't large enough to accurately reflect how they view themselves. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:35, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I never said I believe people change their sexual orientation. And although it's true that you did not say it was "common", a reasonable inference of your comment is it happens often enough to be relevant to this discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:57, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I took your comment about it being "pretty damn rare" as acknowledgement that it happens. Rare or common, if it happens we end up at the same result so it is relevant to the discussion. Incidentally, what we are talking about here is people changing the labels that are applied to their sexuality, which isn't quite the same thing as changing their sexuality itself although that subtle difference seems to be hard for many people to grasp. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand why you interpreted my comments the way you did, although you left out the rather important phrase "to the extent it's even true." That aside, I do agree with your orientation/label distinction. However, whatever Evans has done in his life, he hasn't publicly changed his labeling of himself.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23, FWIW, the very AfterElton page where the link to this discussion was posted states, Many people have a sexuality that is fluid or realize their sexuality might not be just what it was when they were younger. There is nothing in BLPCAT requiring currentness because it is WP:COMMONSENSE. If someone publicly self-identified as a Buddhist in a reliable source in 2002, and now publicly self-identifies as a Baptist, we categorise them as a Baptist, not a Buddhist. --JN466 15:51, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, it ain't worth much, Jay. It's one sentence, one view of one person, on a very complex topic. For example, there's a difference between changing one's orientation and understanding one's orientation. There's also a difference between changing from being gay to being straight and changing from being straight to being gay. There's also a difference between changing from being gay to straight, as opposed to from being gay to bisexual, or from straight to bisexual. I'd really rather stick to the facts, the sources, and the policy, and your commonsense view that BLPCAT requires something is not the commonsense view of others, including me.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've raised the matter at WT:BLP, and proposed a corresponding amendment to WP:BLPCAT, stating that any public self-identification that forms the basis of religious or sexual categorisation in Wikipedia should be current, with no reasonable grounds to assume that this public self-identification has changed. --JN466 17:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up, Jay. I've commented there.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We should never assume anything regardless of whether you feel there are reasonable grounds, doing so is essentially OR. The only statement we have regarding his 'public self-identification' is when he calls himself gay. The later report of his involvement with Holly Goodchild doesn't change that (incidentally, a man can have a relationship with a woman and still identify himself as gay). AlbionBT (talk) 17:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A man can have a relationship with a woman and still identify himself as an armchair, but that wouldn't make sense to a reasonable person. Just saying. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It might make sense to a reasonable gay person. :-) Have you thought of exploring your choice of armchair in therapy? Does it recline?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:51, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that oversteps what Evans himself has done. His management issues a no comment statement when they were contacted, and as far as I know, Evans has said nothing on the matter, although I expect that might change. Yes, people do sometimes change sexual orientation, but is there any sourcing supporting that is the case here? And just a hypothetical question--how well would a "former LGBT" cat go down in this case? --Nuujinn (talk) 15:10, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Nuujinn, please don't suggest even more of these categories - god help us. The distinction between current and former is often missing from categories. Unfortunately, most categories don't even have definitions as to what they are. I guess they think they're self-evident, and as we all know, very little is self-evident on wikipedia. If you want to look at an example of "former", take a gander at an article I nominated for deletion today, List of ex-gay people.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We do not know if Evans woke up one morning and was no longer gay; has been bisexual all along (but decided it was easier/better to simply say he was gay); is simply playing along with a PR campaign; or some variation on those themes. Without Evan stating that he is no longer gay or bisexual, the "former LGBT" category is equally inappropriate. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Equally" nothing. It is completely out of the question. There is a valid argument as to whether LGBT categorization is appropriate or not. There is nothing valid about a former-LGBT cat given the evidence to date. It goes beyond the bound of even OR to being just totally made up. LadyofShalott 15:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. All of these cats related to ethnicity, religion, race and sexuality are problematic at best because the represent a particular slot or box into which the subject is put. What we have is two decent sources in which Evans self identifies as homosexual, and nothing as far as I can that that refutes his self-identification. One editor asked on the talk page whether or not it is expected that people have to 'reup' their self-identification every few years for a cat to apply. If we pull this cat because we think he no longer wishes to be considered gay without any sources, we're just as guilty, I think, of OR as if we make a new "former LGBT" cat. I point out that in the Afterelton aricle, Evans is not quoted, nor his is homosexuality denied--his management simply say that "he has learned not to engage the press in his personal life again." There's no refutation, no clarification, no explanation of motive or desire, and it's not even from Evans himself. So he has self-identifed as homosexual, and has not himself done anything, as far as I can see, to justify our changing the cat or removing it. Given the nature of churnalism, I expect that we may have some additional sources on this before too long, but we have to wait on that. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I disagree with that as well. There's a big difference between not categorizing someone at all and putting on a totally made-up category. I personally think it would be fine to use the LGBT cats because of his previously stated identification as gay. I don't think that leaving them off would be a horrible omission though. If he were out continually making a big deal of his sexuality (whatever it may be), then, yeah, it would matter a lot to have the categories. He's not (now) though, so I don't see why it's such a big deal. LadyofShalott 23:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point, and it's a reasonable one on its face, but, practically speaking, it opens the door to these kinds of discussions. If an actor publicly announces he's gay, why should he have to continually put himself out (no pun intended) there to justify the original label? In some ways, it's similar to Jay's view that his self-identification has to be current. Why? I can see someone arguing that it might somehow relate to the original notability prong of BLPCAT, but even if that were true, it leads to incredibly subjective (and endless) discussions like the one we're having here.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not opening that gate; that gate's been there from the beginning - this just happens to be a particularly contentious (for some reason) example of what can happen with that notability clause of BLPCAT. The fact is though that we don't encourage people to put articles into every category in which they could conceivably fit. There has always been editorial judgement involved. This case is no different, except that there are some really strong opinions in opposing directions about it. LadyofShalott 23:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The ironic thing for me personally is that I told myself I wasn't going to get involved in this discussion. I've been in other discussions like this one, and I generally find them to be singularly unhelpful and way too long. I should have stuck with my original resolve as I've clearly gone the other way big time. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 00:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heh! Personally, I don't think we should have cat for sexual preference, religion, race, anything of a personal nature. And if we're going to have them, we shouldn't treat them as either/ors, because that would be an oversimplification. Categories do not apply only to the living, so I find the notion that a cat must be current to be appropriate an absurdity from the getgo. Let's say Author X, 1964-2006, self-identified as red in 1972, and blue in 2001. Which cat is appropriate? If either, then both. But the fact is, people use the cats to push agendas, as unfortunate as that is, and that's why the discussions are so contentious. If we want cat to just be categories, then we have to push the "it's no big deal" aspect, and I have no idea how we'd do that. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For once an easy question (the red and blue cats): the answer is purple. :-) And no facetious comments about lavender.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But now you're advocating a category for miscegenation. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's just hard to herd cats. -- Avanu (talk) 01:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I really wish we weren't having this discussion at 4/5 different places. Silverseren^C 19:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. So I'll be brief, I don't believe that the category is appropiate. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 03:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have been uninvolved in this whole matter up until now, and frankly I no longer have any idea which is the best venue to post this in, but...it just seems very obvious to me. He identified as gay. His self-identification as gay has (as attested by sources) been much more important to his career (ie. to the source of his notability) than most LPs' religions. The absolute most we can concede to this supposed relationship with Ms. Goodchild (he has not confirmed it and they have apparently never been seen together) is to refrain from putting him in "Gay actors" and instead keep him in "LGBT actors." Comments like "we don't know the names of any of his boyfriends, so he's not gay" and "he's dating a woman so he must be straight" are absolute nonsense. Lastly, the displays of bad faith on both sides are really shocking, but these comments about the "homosexual lifestyle" and "Wikipedia is not Gay News so we shouldn't talk about anyone being gay" really must stop. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:38, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of pictures of Evans and this woman that there are claims of relationship have been posted here - if you haven't seen them ask here, and someone will link you to them I am sure. His sexual preference is not a part of his notability - are you asserting he is a notable homosexual? The dispute is that seven or eight years ago he said he was homosexual and since then there has been no reports at all of any homosexual activity - such as dates, relationship and no comments from him at all either - now hes reported to be dating a woman - this is not a anti homosexual drive - its just a disputable label. Do you have reports of recent homosexual activity from this living person? As you can see here from the associated homosexual chat thread and blog posting the title of the article itself expresses the dispute, do you claim there is no dispute about this? - the title "Is Luke Evans Gay? Publicist tries to get his story straight - clearly there is doubt and dispute. - which is all this issue is about here at wikipedia - a fair few single purpose accounts came from the link at that homosexual chat thread imo and a couple are blocked including a homosexual focused sockmaster Otto. - Off2riorob (talk) 21:16, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being gay isn't like being a AAA member, you don't need to renew your credentials every few years by going out and finding someone of the same sex to screw. Nor is this particularly relevant since you're also, seemingly deliberately, ignoring the possibility that he is bi. Spare us your prejudices and bizarro-world claims about what being LGBT really means - your obsessive focus on the off-wiki Gay Mafia to the exclusion of all policy-based arguments is a pretty good indication that you don't have any to offer, but you could try. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:20, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spare us your prejudices yourself - if you can assert any recent homosexual activity in regards to this living person then please present it. You can't, I know that. - me, I am like the BBC and reuters I am not interested in reporting titillating claims about subjects sexual preferences. When the LGBT sector matures and accepts itself as normal they will have progressed into my world. I am waiting for an update from him or his management team - but clearly this living person is a long long way indeed from being out and loud and proud and our article should not claim or assert that he is. Off2riorob (talk) 01:36, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"When the LGBT sector matures and accepts itself as normal they will have progressed into my world" - You are incredibly over the line here. Please retract this. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:25, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think that observation is an attack? As I read it, the assertion is that the LGBT sector at Wikipedia should adopt the attitude that LGBT is part of normal society and human activity, and there should be no need to label everyone who may have had an LGBT experience. Johnuniq (talk) 02:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Johnuniq, perhaps, but it's a very condescending way to put it. Attack or no, I think it's not civil. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen a statement made by a woman claiming to be in a relationship with Evans, but nothing else. The question is how he self identifies, and his management simply said that they do not comment on such issues, and that Evans now prefers to keep silent. His earlier assertions were that he is gay, and until someone can produce a source that says that he now identifies as heterosexual, I think the cat should stand--that is, unless we come to our senses and get rid of these troublesome cats entirely. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point was simply the same one being made by The Daily Show here --> http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-may-9-2011/minneapolis-is-the-new-gay

-- Avanu (talk) 22:35, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, humor, in the midst of Wikipedia turmoil. Thanks!--Bbb23 (talk) 22:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been minorly following this discussion but as with others haven't really want to get involved. But since it's still ongoing I have to say I disagree. If he now says he doesn't comment on such issues, this to me implies he no longer wishes to publicly self identify as either gay, bisexual or heterosexual. There's no reason why he should have to self-identify as something else to withdraw his public self identification as gay. (Note a key point here is the fact that he doesn't wish to publicly self-identify in that way doesn't mean he doesn't do it privately, simply that he doesn't wish to do it publicly.) His earlier public self-identification as gay can probably remain the article but the categories should be current and based on current self identification (which as I've said appears to be that he doesn't want to publicly self identify by his sexuality). Note that I'm not saying we should remove all cases when the self identification is old, rather only when we have evidence it's no longer correct, as we do IMO in this case. In fact, I would go so far as to say it's a bit silly if we require self identification for sexuality but then don't allow people to redraw said self-idenfication. Nil Einne (talk) 10:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except that Evans has not stated a single thing in regards to this. The "no comment" was stated by, presumably, his manager, who just stated that he wasn't going to discuss Evan's personal life. We do not have a single comment from Evans or even a no comment from him in regards to this, we have absolutely nothing beyond comments he has made in the past in regards to his sexuality. Silverseren^C 11:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My impression is that the statement the manager made was much more then a 'no comment' but something along the lines of 'he's learnt not to engage the media in his personal life'. As I'm currently having major connection problems with wikimedia (something to do with an intermediate server I believe from my quick tests and a comment on IRC) and am using Tor, I don't fancy looking in to it further but am I mistaken? If not, I stand by my comments. I was aware the statements were made by the manager or PR agent, but this doesn't make any difference unless there's some suggestion they weren't representing Luke or Luke later contradicted the manager neither of which I've seen. If that isn't the case, then a statement from someone representing Luke is as good as one from Luke when it comes to the cats (obviously the distinction should be made in the article), it's fairly common after all people rely on someone else to make their statements for them when they would prefer not to directly engage in the media for whatever reason. Heck plenty of statements notable people utter themselves were entirely composed by PR agents. It's not surprising if it's something someone would prefer not to discuss anymore they would often prefer not to discuss it at all i.e. let someone else discuss it on their behalf. It's not up to us to evaluate their reasons but instead accept what has been said. As I said, this isn't something I want to get very engaged in so I probably won't read or respond further although I admit I'm still confused why people feel it that important to put the cats although I admit some of the other arguments for removal are perhaps not that great. (P.S. Just to be clear, the key issue is self identification. I don't think who he's dating, nor when he lasted dated a man is particularly relevant to the cats.) Nil Einne (talk) 11:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Linda McMahon

Resolved

– Better source found for most of the information. --GRuban (talk) 17:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A slew of edits have been made to this article. One claim in the lede specifically read:

As President and later CEO of the company, she negotiated business deals, launched wrestling merchandise, and signed wrestler contracts.

And is referenced by [19] The only problem is that absolutely none of the sentence is found in the cite given.

One editor has repeatedly re-inserted this, and added other rather "iffy" material. Can people kindly examine the cites given and emend the article? Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that the cite doesn't back the claim. It does mention that she signed one contract, but did so "on behalf of Titan Sports" which may have been a precursor of the WWE, but not quite the same thing. That said, though ... why is this a BLP issue? Yes, McMahon is a living person, but what she actually did as CEO doesn't seem particularly derogatory or controversial; surely there can be sources found that say what the job entailed? --GRuban (talk) 18:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here. [20] This is the official WWE bio of McMahon as published on the NYSE, circa 2004.

Mrs. McMahon negotiated and implemented the first licensing deal in the wrestling industry with a toy company called LJN, which produced the WWE line of Superstar action figures. She also managed the development of WWE publications, and, at the start, wrote most of the articles. This foresight was a harbinger of multi‐million dollar business centers for the company. Today, Mrs. McMahon oversees and guides the strategic direction of this integrated media company...

That says nothing about wrestler contracts, but seems to back the first two points all right. Is there something controversial about her having signed wrestler contracts? --GRuban (talk) 18:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me like it's a bit of a variation on a coatrack. The statement itself is fairly benign but serves to link an inflamitory article as a citation.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um -- 880 edits by one single editor out of just over two thousand total by every editor <g> and lots of similar stuff in the article. Thanks for noting this. Collect (talk) 18:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so Collect, you visited this noticeboard and found your answer. I don't know why this is an issue. It certainly wasn't contentious, and there was no reason for you to delete it twice. Now, we have another source, which is already linked to the page. I have no issue with linking that footnote to the statement in question. Does that settle the issue, Collect?--Screwball23 talk 22:29, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And the answer was: the cite did not back the claim. Meanwhile, please stop the personal stuff - it is getting a tad tiresome. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. You see, the main difference between me and you is that you are a problem-focused person and I am a solution based guy. I am willing to put the footnote to the statement in question. Not a problem. I was even willing to discuss it with you on the talk page, and I did until your logic broke down and you started "hoping for another person to spot the issue". Even now, there is no issue and you continue to insist that the cite was no good, when you agreed earlier that it did prove she signed wrestler contracts. I mean, talk about wishy washy. You really need to stop the personal stuff, and stop being so sensitive about losing edit wars.--Screwball23 talk 17:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Edit wars"?? I would like to point out that your edit summaries read like:

come on, man why do you have to be this way? she did the deal; i don't know who drafted company contracts, but it probably wasn't her) and

Undid revision 438742994 by Collect (talk) - untrue : there are multiple sources that state magnate ; Collect, I thought you changed your games and the like

and your "posts" on my user talk page after you were disinvited read like:

but I had watched the page because it was related to Gaddafi, and when I saw your damage, I'm lucky I was able to stop you in your tracks and

It's sad, but I recommend you read the articles before you make a decision as to whether someone is relevant enough to delete off a page. and

And for a person who is making up nonsense about how I do not have reliable sources to support what I've said, you seem to have an eager zeal to delete all my content from any type of discussion. I have yet to see a rationale for why you think the material you deleted needed to go. But then again, it seems that asking for rationale or even some level of conviction in your edits is too much to ask. and

Collect, your lack of integrity is making your editing some of the most destructive I've ever seen. and

you did not have the guts to simply admit your mistake - you wanted to save face, and could not. and

Grow a pair of balls and admit you have no rationale for your edits. I know it and you know it. Give up the game, because you are wasting your life right now. There are a lot of other things you can do besides vandalize wikipedia and fight edit wars

I suggest that the claim of "personal attack" coming from you is like the claim of "edit war" coming from you on an article where your edits outnumber mine by a ratio of 25:1. And of course your CANVASSing of another editor at [21] saying:

User:Collect is going nuts again. I want someone to moderate this, because he's on Linda McMahon deleting things again.]]

Which some might even feel is a violation of WQA, I would think. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:57, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Everything I said was true. Your edit wars have been founded on a refusal to read the references. And don't even get started with your canvassing stories. You and I both know that you came to this board because you were wishy washy and knew you had no idea what you were talking about, so you decided to come here and have other people make sense of your issues.--Screwball23 talk 04:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem. I hate to interrupt this wonderful catfight, but is the question that started this resolved? Any objections if I replace the source in question with the one I found, and remove the "wrestler contracts" bit? Will that solve this particular problem? --GRuban (talk) 20:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No objections, assuming good. Done. --GRuban (talk) 17:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Caylee Anthony: Alleged defamation by WP:RS

In Death of Caylee Anthony, one editor keeps alleging that you can’t link “to an article which contains otherwise personal information about a WP:Non Notable Person.” I.e., one cannot use WP:RS news sources (no matter how many notable references there might be from high quality sources) that state even the tiniest negative thing about a "non-notable" person - even if that info is not used in the article itself. I’m quite sure s/he is wrong, but feel free to help correct the miss-impression so I can stop getting reverts on the article and lectures on the talk page!

Hide my examples which caused much of the discussion to go off topic

A couple examples:

This Orlando Sentinel article referencing an important widely reported factoid because it talks about the officer possibly being up for firing. (Even though that information is NOT used in the article, so this is not a WP:Undue issue.)
An article referencing an important widely reported factoid (which he does not identify but would be a major FL news outlet) which has “personal information” about “Mr. Kronk's sealed police record, or his being behind in his child suppot.” (Even though that information is NOT used in the article, so this is not a WP:Undue issue.)
Any of the hundreds of WP:RS that describe Krystal Holloway’s July 1st trial testimony that she had a relationship with George Anthony, he took money from her and he told her that the whole Caylee incident was an accident that snow-balled out of control, or that After Holloway left the courtroom, Perry instructed the jury that it should only use the witness' testimony regarding George's statements to her to discern whether or not they believe George's previous testimony, and not as a basis for their verdict for Casey. (Per this mainstream news source. And two sentences about that definitely do belong IMHO and this is not at WP:Undue issue. So is it defamation to even link to those articles or mention Holloway's trial testimony?

[Added later: Under this criteria, most articles that mention a living person would be deprived of a good portion of their content because many sources - including especially books - contain some negative info about some non-notable person, even if unrelated to the article.] Comments? CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We are not talking about "some negative information". We are talking about a lie which accuses George Anthony, a living person, of covering up the death of his grandaughter Caylee, an alleged criminal act.

As to the Krystal Holloway's testimony, CarolMooredc, has once more mistated it. What CarolMooredc initially put in the article Death of Caylee Anthony was that George Anthony confided to Ms. Holloway about Caylee's death "it was an accident that snowballed out of control" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Death_of_Caylee_Anthony&diff=440142272&oldid=440140363 which as stated, means that George Anthony knew about Caylee's death and covered it up. A crime. What actually happened is that Ms Holloway recanted that version at the trial. The paragraph CarolMooredc put into the article was factually inaccurate and accused him of a crime, i.e., covering up the death of Caylee Anthony. What Holloway said to the Enquirer for $thousands of dollars is not what she finally admitted to in court. When Prosecution showed Ms. Holloway in court her sworn signed statement that she made to the police, she finally admitted that what George Anthony actually said was that "I really believe that it was probably an accident that snowballed out of control". A completely different meaning. Krystal Holloway tried to say the statement the first way but when shown the truth of what she had said under oath to the police, she recanted. CarolMooredc was explained this on several occasions. What happened then was that the Judge struck Holloway's back and forth statements as "prior inconsistent statements" and told the jury to ignore ALL of her statements as is done in trial under such circumstances. I even showed CarolMooredc the video of the trial but she maintains that she can use the version which was proven untrue. CarolMooredc argued and refused to correct what she put in the article, so I took it out per WP:BLP because, it was factually inaccurate. The video of Holloway's complete statement at court is here: http://caseyanthonyisinnocent.com/trial-videos-3-casey-anthony-trial-witness-video-and-witness-testimonies/krystal-holloway-june-30th-2011/ There are SEVEN videos I believe the pertinent testimony and attorney and judge conversation is in 2, 3, and 4 but they are all there for a complete version of her testimony Mugginsx (talk) 17:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As to the defamation issues and the WP:BLP issues: Yes, I believe that it can be considered defamation to even link to a site that contains personal defamatory information about a non-notable person which may adversely affect his livlihood and reputation. These are the references used by CarolMooredc in the Death of Caylee article that are in dispute:

Ref# 28 http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2009-01-14/news/casey14_1_kronk-sheriff-office-angelo-nieves is supposed to reference Roy Kronk but mainly contains information about a Florida police officer as "failing to properly investigate a threatening telephone call in March 2007, and was being investigated... and it goes on about the police officer, a non notable person, leaving only a very few lines about Roy Kronk, the man CarolMooredc is supposed to be referencing. A BLP issues, since the officer is not a notable person and is not part of the Death of Caylee Anthony article except previously mentioned only as an "officer". http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2009-04-11/news/cain11_1_cain-kronk-caylee-remains

Ref #29 - http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2009-04-11/news/cain11_1_cain-kronk-caylee-remains mentioned the police officer again by name and states that he is "is facing being fired" (which he was) it goes on and in the entire article which is almost entirely about the police officer, there are only six lines about Kronk, stating the office was "rude" to him. This too is supposed to be referencing ONLY Kronk.

Ref #30 - http://www.wftv.com/news/18530178/detail.html contains information about the "heart shaped sticker" which Kronk does not describe but was attributed to him. It seems that CarolMooredc had revised the paragraph about Kronk which contains NO mention of the heart-shaped sticker contained in the article she uses as a reference to Roy Kronk. It was actually the police who mentioned it.

Ref #31 - http://www.cfnews13.com/article/news/2011/june/259603/ is about Casey Anthony crying in court when seeing the pictures of the skull and the fact that court had to be adjourned early. It has two lines and three words about Kronk making a 911 call.

As a paralegal I have always believed and was made to believe that "repeating a defamatory or libelous statements is making the statement again", meaning that the new statement is libelous to the person who speaks it, or reprints it. http://www.dba-oracle.com/internet_linking_libel_lawsuit.htm Linking to a defamatory web page is republishing the web page is one site. There are others: http://www.bitlaw.com/internet/webpage.html#defamation and this one that is Canadian but refers to the suing of Wikipedia, and this one whch is admittedly more about general liability: http://carnahanlaw.com/nl/webliability.html

Defamation These statements are clearly defamatory toward the policeman involved and Roy Kronk as to their personal lives which have absolutely nothing to do with the article or the trial. Ironically, they are the kind of negative statements which CarolMooredc has in the past, used as an excuse to remove other editors references and now she has linked to even more negative statements about non notable living individual

As to Wikipedia BLP concerns they are listed and I think everyone know them but I will be happy to cite some of them here: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons

Resolution:Biographies of living people Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources par. 2 Mugginsx (talk) 10:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hide detailed back and forth on a non-relevant source citing issue

As usual Mugginsx (I assume until he signs) does not provide us with the time on the video the judge allegedly made a ruling, so what Mugginsx says he says is not easily verifiable. Meanwhile two more sources say:

This WP:RS KVIA (ABC/CNN report) writes: After Holloway's testimony, Perry told jurors her testimony may be used to impeach George Anthony's credibility, but told them that her testimony is not proof of how Caylee died and is not evidence of Casey Anthony's guilt or innocence.
And Toronto Sun/Reuters] writes: Over Baez's objection, Perry instructed jurors to consider Holloway's testimony only in terms of how they feel it reflects on George's credibility, and not consider it as evidence of how Caylee died.

So all three WP:RS got it wrong? I have a feeling they did not. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carol - to answer comment about where exactly the testimony is recanted by Krystal Holloway:

The actual “recanting by Ms. Holloway” can specifically be found at http://caseyanthonyisinnocent.com/trial-videos-3-casey-anthony-trial-witness-video-and-witness-testimonies/krystal-holloway-june-30th-2011/ Tape Number 4 as to George's statement about the death of Caylee, it begins at 7:30 and continues to the last tape (#7). You must watch to the end of the tape (#7). Holloway is also impeached on her prior statements at trial to Baez that she was his mistress and whether George thought she was married, but what is important are her criminal accusation that George Anthony "knew about the crime of Caylee's death". They were all recanted and all considered prior inconsistent statements. All total, she had lied three times before finally admitting the truth when forced to read her sworn statement, so the Judge threw out all of her testimony.Mugginsx (talk) 18:37, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Insert) The details of what testimony changed can be worked out later, what is important is that per 3 High Quality Reliable Sources the judge said that her testimony could be used by the jury as a test of Anthony's credibility. And, for the umpteenth time, please try to find text sources as references since there doubtless are dozens and use videos for backup references.

[Insert two, in reply to the below: If you are trying to disprove something that multiple high quality reliable sources say with something you say is in a video, you really are going to have to provide a transcript and not expect a lot of editors to find, listen to and try to figure out what your point is. Please do this on the article talk page and stick to the narrower topic here. Thanks.]

CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter what your sources say. They are incorrect. They video tells it all. That is what you refuse to understand even today.

Carol, as to your remarks on my talk page about a possible conflict of interest there are many lawyers and historians, etc on Wikipedia. Do they have a conflict of interest when editing a historical or legal article? I am retired so there is no conflict of interest. I have told you that many times. Also, YOU have mention that you worked on many legal cases yourself, including a Supreme Court Case. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Death_of_Caylee_Anthony/Archive_6 Section entitled: PLEASE LEAVE THE REFERENCES ALONE. I will reprint you complete statement to me here since you made a bad faith suggestion:

You didn't disprove one thing I said and just made a lot of unspecified allegations. Having been a legal secretary at some big DC law firms for 20 years and personally on my own time and found representation for and aided a winning case at the Supreme Court, I have some idea of legal matters. So stop chastising me in a WP:Uncivil manner, which as others have commented repeatedly smacks of WP:OWN. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Does your statement above mean that you have a conflict of interest? Mugginsx (talk) 18:51, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have now gone to my Talk page and accused me of misrepresentation. There is no misrepresentation. Please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. I am now retired. Though I am STILL a paralegal. I could go to work TOMORROW as a paralegal. Just as a retired nurse is STILL a nurse, doctor, historian, teacher, etc. etc. Please address your comments here and not on my talk page as it is inappropriate and not an honest representation as to what is being discussed here. As to your charge that I intimidated anyone, it is a joke. I have been out-voted many times on different issues. The editors that have engaged with me know that I always obey Consensus that is why I am in good standing with Wikipedia and editors. Mugginsx (talk) 19:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to point out policy: Wikipedia:COI#How_to_handle_conflicts_of_interest says: The first approach should be direct discussion of the issue with the editor, referring to this guideline. Which is why I finally got around to going Mugginsx talk page and responding, [here. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would be incredibly far reaching to accuse either of the participants to this discussion as lacking good faith or even to have demonstrated a conflict of interest. All collaboration I have observed seems to convey differing interpretations with mutual respect and foremost with the quality of the article in mind. The only thing which seems relevant for discussion here is the broader issue of potentially defaming a non-notable person through source linking. I personally find intrigue within these parameters and am keenly interested in seeing where consensus emerges regarding the issue. Respectfully - My76Strat (talk) 20:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this back on topic. An avalanche of links, explanations, accusations and even personal talk page discussions may confuse and discourage non-involved editors so they don't opine. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carol it was YOU that chose the course of this discussion and accused me on my talk page just now. Remember? I chose to answer you here. It was YOU that initiated this noticeboard discussion. It was YOU that accused me of a conflict of interest and insulted me. All that being true and provable, it is YOU making unfounded accusations which anyone can see by simply looking here and at my talk page. Wow! Let's get back on topic. Mugginsx (talk) 20:49, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you also My76Strat. I agree that it is a worthy topic and I hope many editors will voice their opinion here.Mugginsx (talk) 03:11, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have a rule against linking to RS articles that contain info that we wouldn't allow. We don't allow linking to copyright infringement, and sometimes frown on linking to non RSs. Maybe a consensus at WP:RS could then be used here, if people wanted a new rule. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 15:09, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I must respectfully disagree. We link to newspaper articles all the time and they are copyrighted. http://public.findlaw.com/abaflg/flg-10-4a-2.html . The way we get around that is that we paraphrase the content. I do agree that a consensus at WP:RS would be a good idea. Thank you. Mugginsx (talk) 15:26, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Defamation has got nothing to do with copyright and paraphrasing. To repeat "defamation by WP:RS" in Mugginsx eyes does not mean just things like reprinting unsubstantiated wild rumors or exaggerated screaming headlines (though there are enough "WP:RS" articles about Casey Anthony linked from the article that do just that). He means if a newspaper article mentions legal suits, public records, court documents or court testimony under oath and permitted by a judge that say anything negative about a person (they owe child support, they may be fired for bad judgement, I gave him $4000 and he didn't pay it back, etc.) - even if that info is NOT used in the Wikipedia article - the source itself cannot be used because that information is defamatory. Of course, now that Anthony is acquitted, under Mugginsx formula, most of the info about her would have to be deleted from the article since no reliable source for factoids could be found. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:28, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That mistates my position in so many ways I don't know where to begin. Please re-read my position at the top. Mugginsx (talk) 17:37, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorting out 3 issues for noninvolved editors (as I see it)

From Carolmooreindc (with clarifications that it's as I see it): OK, I can see there are three separate but related issues here and maybe if I clearly state them Muggins and non-involved editors can better reply.

1. Can we use WP:RS that have negative information about people who are non-notable, but important to the topic of the article, assuming the information is not used in a WP:Undue way.

As I see it, and correct me if I'm wrong, Muggins says doing so is defamatory and the material must be removed, even if its court testimony under oath a Judge allowed, police records or lawsuit documents or other sources that a high quality WP:RS is willing to use. [Added later: (As he wrote on the article talk page you can't link “to an article which contains otherwise personal information about a WP:Non Notable Person.”)] This is the absurd position I’m particularly protesting as a re-write of Wikipedia BLP policy.

2. Replacing one WP:RS with another than does not have the negative information.

Now, if someone wants to replace one reliable source with another that does not have the objectionable material, but still provides proper referencing, one might find it annoying, but I don’t think we can object. (Someone probably could do that with every ref that makes Casey Anthony look bad, since some sources or articles portray her in a very negative light.) But it is NOT an excuse to remove important material for which no other source is available.

Hide my off topic discussion in point 3

3. Sourcing of Krystal Holloway testimony.

As I see it - and correct me if I'm wrong - Mugginsx is not claiming here that Krystal Holloway's statement is defamatory and should not be used, though it seems he's said that in the past. Instead he says she "recanted" her testimony. I could not find a WP:RS news source that says she recanted and I believe this is WP:Original research on his part. (Unless he comes up with a specific time on a video where an attorney asks her if she "recants" and she says she does, but he's not too good at Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Film.2C_TV.2C_or_video_recordings.) Note that WP:RS say her testimony changed or was confusing, but there are innocent reasons for that, like a bad memory or trying to please whoever is asking you the question, i.e., police, vs. defense, vs. prosecution.

I assume Mugginsx still claims the judge did NOT allow the jury to take her testimony into consideration, despite the fact that 3 reliable sources I mention above say so. Still waiting for the time on a video that that Perry allegedly said that and a transcript of the relevant material to prove Mugginsx point. [Added later: Per WP:V note 4: ''When there is dispute about whether a piece of text is fully supported by a given source, direct quotes and other relevant details from the source should be provided to other editors as a courtesy. Do not violate the source's copyright when doing so. (And obviously trial testimony is not copyrighted.)

Hope this helps. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:36, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have again misstated what my initial statements were. Editors, please read my statements at the very beginning of this discussion. Carol, editors are able to interprete the discussion for themselves and do not need anyone's help. You are (unintentionally I am sure) only confusing the issue with your incorrect interpretation and paraphrases. Also, Carol, it is improper for you to subhead and reframe what you think my argument is. This is a noticeboard and not a Talk Page. Thank you. Mugginsx (talk) 20:02, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hide detailed back and forth on a non-relevant source citing issue

Please don't delete my sectioning again; I have made it clear now it is my view of your views, some of which I also quoted in my original complaint at the top. You have not replied to points number one and two which are mostly the topic of the thread. Holloway was merely an example of those points.

Cbviously Holloway is your only concern. Again, I am not under compunction to watch your video if I believe a) the WP:RS are reliable and b) you don't bother to give us a transcript of what people say that proves the WP:RS are wrong as well as the times on the video those things were said. Why must everyone take your word for it that text WP:RS are wrong and you are right, or else be subjugated to watching a whole video? WP:V Note #4 - you have to prove it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:16, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is an element of good faith associated with verification. While you may not want to review a source, or go to the library to check out a book, you must assume the editor who sourced the information, did so in good faith unless in fact you can show the contrary. My76Strat (talk) 21:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To re-quote (as added above) WP:V note 4: When there is dispute about whether a piece of text is fully supported by a given source, direct quotes and other relevant details from the source should be provided to other editors as a courtesy. Do not violate the source's copyright when doing so. (And obviously trial testimony is not copyrighted.) Since this courtesy has been refused so many times, obviously I'm going to have to listen to the video (note my sound is out right now and have to get to roommates computer if he ever gets off it). Then that minor issue will be solved. The major one of which this BLP section is subject remains unaddressed. If I've misconstrued Mugginsx, he should say so and resolve that issue. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:40, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I gave you the website where the testimony is, the number of tapes, the tape where the recanting begins, and the exact minutes and seconds where it starts. I cannot listen to them for you. Look above. Mugginsx (talk) 22:22, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

<- Several times I have made a distinction between providing the tape and time of an unchallenged source in a reference and providing a transcript of challenged material when people challenge it at talk or elsewhere, per WP:V note #4. Since obviously I'm not getting the latter, I'll have to listen, sound cards willing. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:29, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good to hear, because I was not going to go to the Orlando courthouse and purchase a trial transcript. They are very expensive. Mugginsx (talk) 11:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One can listen to the tape and type in the words of those sentences that are of importance, i.e., just what the judge said about the use of her testimony. Obviously there was a slight difference in wording and that kept the judge from saying jurors could use it as evidence of an accident. The bone of contention is merely the judge's ruling.

I'll wait and see if others address the Alleged defamation by WP:RS issue and if it gets lost in the back and forth on the transcription of a paragraph issue, I'll have to find out if the WP:BLP should be changed to BAN use of WP:RS that happen to mention negative material about non-notable persons. Unless you drop that issue, in which case this BLPN case can be marked resolved. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was no "slight change in wording" . Krystal Holloway totally "recanted" http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/recant her previous statement when shown what she actually said (a completely different version) under oath, making it factually inaccurate as you edited it, a WP:BLP issue. I have explained this all numerous times in numerous places on the Talk Page.

CarolMooredc, you initiated this noticeboard discussion inviting Editors to comment on "defamation": issues. Perhaps editors would like to comment on that. Mugginsx (talk) 14:45, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

<--- On Hidden Text I have hidden my initial examples and three sections of editors back and forth on the narrow issue of properly sourcing one of the examples in order to allow those who come in fresh on the Weekdays when most of the action happens to actually deal with this important issue. If there is no clear consensus here on this broad policy matter obviously the very general issue (with no reference to any specific article) must be further discussed at WP:BLP policy page and -- if Mugginsx is correct -- the policy explicitly changed. If you don't like the fact that I have done this, please revert. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated talk of "defamation" and WP:No legal threats

Someone advised me that another relevant issue here is that constant references to Defamation actually may be bordering on being problematic in terms of [WP:No legal threats]]. Repeated statements like "this is defamation" might also be interpreted to mean "I'm going to see that Wikipedia is sued". Even if the person saying it doesn't mean that, and even if others don't consciously understand that, it hangs over the talk page, poisoning the conversation. There is a big difference between saying something goes against WP:BLP policy, which is what I always say, and repeating over and over again "defamation" and "we " or "you might get sued" in response to edits one does not like. So perhaps that's the way this kind of repeated ad nauseum accusation has to be handled. Thoughts? CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Attempt to answer question #1 from above

I'm sure I'm going to regret getting myself involved here, but it looks like nobody else is stepping in to offer an opinion, LOL. I would say that editors may use a WP:RS that has negative information about people who are otherwise non-notable, but are important to the topic of an article, assuming that the information is not used in a WP:Undue Way or violates any other Wikipedia policies. Editors should take care to discern if the negative information is potentially defamatory or violates privacy laws. Obviously, defamation and privacy law violations are prohibited by Wikipedia policies for good reasons, including exposure to risk just by linking to them. There is a great deal of WP:RS "negative" information, however, that does not constitute defamation or violate privacy laws. Sorting it out may require careful consideration. If an editor feels that something is defamatory, it is probably best to temporarily pull the material down and sort it out on talk pages where consensus can be reached before it is re-inserted. Would someone like to highlight a particular link that they feel constitutes defamatory material? Please post the link (assuming it's a WP:RS) and indicate which material therein is problematic, along with the specific rationale as to why you perceive it to be legally actionable defamation or a privacy law violation. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 21:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AzureCitizen: I list the specific examples and their links at the top of this section with a short description of each. I have also expressed concerns about not only the article content, but the links that contain mostly information about negative things about the persons described and negative information either peripheral or not at all related to the murder case. I will reprint that section here for you: I am only listing the examples here I inititally presented. For all other comments please see the beginning of this section'.

The Krystal Holloway controversy seems to have been settled on the Talk Page under the section: Krystal Holloway and subsection Draft of Krystal Hollowaybut. It was about the July paragraph entered into the article being factually inaccurate as to the statements that Ms. Holloway actually said about what George Anthony did or did not know about what happened to Caylee. The tape and her Carols new link: http://www.kvia.com/news/28403325/detail.html eventually ells the correct statement. It is way down the page. http://caseyanthonyisinnocent.com/trial-videos-3-casey-anthony-trial-witness-video-and-witness-testimonies/krystal-holloway-june-30th-2011/ According to Carol's latest outline that paragraph should be factually accurate though there is a question as to Baez re-direct which I have not had time to listen to. It is on the article talk page under Krystal Holloway and Carols draft in directly underneath.

As to the defamation issues and the WP:BLP issues: Yes, I believe that it can be considered defamation to even link to a site that contains personal defamatory information about a non-notable person which may adversely affect his livlihood and reputation. These are the references used by CarolMooredc in the Death of Caylee article that are in dispute: Some of these references are still in the article but the references #'s may have changed since User:SlimVirgin and others have done a partial restructure. But here for you to look at for the basic question: Are they defamatory? Is linking to a libelous or defamatory site repeating the defamation or libel? That is the primary question: Ref# 28 http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2009-01-14/news/casey14_1_kronk-sheriff-office-angelo-nieves is supposed to reference Roy Kronk but mainly contains information about a Florida police officer as "failing to properly investigate a threatening telephone call in March 2007, and was being investigated... and it goes on about the police officer, a non notable person, leaving only a very few lines about Roy Kronk, the man CarolMooredc is supposed to be referencing. A BLP issues, since the officer is not a notable person and is not part of the Death of Caylee Anthony article except previously mentioned only as an "officer". http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2009-04-11/news/cain11_1_cain-kronk-caylee-remains

Ref #29 - http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2009-04-11/news/cain11_1_cain-kronk-caylee-remains mentioned the police officer again by name and states that he is "is facing being fired" (which he was) it goes on and in the entire article which is almost entirely about the police officer, there are only six lines about Kronk, stating the office was "rude" to him. This too is supposed to be referencing ONLY Kronk.

Ref #30 - http://www.wftv.com/news/18530178/detail.html contains information about the "heart shaped sticker" which Kronk does not describe but was attributed to him. It seems that CarolMooredc had revised the paragraph about Kronk which contains NO mention of the heart-shaped sticker contained in the article she uses as a reference to Roy Kronk. It was actually the police who mentioned it.

Ref #31 - http://www.cfnews13.com/article/news/2011/june/259603/ is about Casey Anthony crying in court when seeing the pictures of the skull and the fact that court had to be adjourned early. It has two lines and three words about Kronk making a 911 call. As a paralegal I have always believed and was made to believe that "repeating a defamatory or libelous statements is making the statement again", meaning that the new statement is libelous to the person who speaks it, or reprints it. http://www.dba-oracle.com/internet_linking_libel_lawsuit.htm Linking to a defamatory web page is republishing the web page is one site. There are others: http://www.bitlaw.com/internet/webpage.html#defamation and this one that is Canadian but refers to the suing of Wikipedia, and this one whch is admittedly more about general liability: http://carnahanlaw.com/nl/webliability.html Mugginsx (talk) 22:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not something is peripheral, or simply unrelated to the case, can certainly make a particular item subject to editor judgment (and hopefully consensus) for inclusion/exclusion from a given article. I'm assuming the real problem here on this board, however, is whether or not something is defamatory? Is there a particular link you would like to examine and shine a spotlight on whether or not there is concern that it is defamation? Let's take them one at a time, if anyone is interested. AzureCitizen (talk) 22:18, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only examples were about a paragraph stating that George Anthony had foreknowledge of a crime and then the above examples I repeated here for you. i.e., Ref 29, 30 and 31. That was it. Mugginsx (talk) 22:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a specific one you would like to look at first, to parse out whether or not there should be a defamation concern? Please post the link below, then below that add your specific concern as to why you assess that it's defamation. AzureCitizen (talk) 22:55, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2009-04-11/news/cain11_1_cain-kronk-caylee-remains This references is supposed to be about Roy Kronk finding the remains of Caylee. It's actually entitled: " Police officer faces firing" and talks about this police officers poor record as a policeman, etc., and has only about three lines about Kronk. Mugginsx (talk) 23:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. :) I've now read the Orlando Sentinel article at that link and noted that it contains some brief information about Kronk finding Caylee's remains, while mostly containing unflattering information about the Orange County deputy sheriff who Kronk said was "rude." Is there something in particular in that article that you're concerned might be legally actionable defamation? I'm heading out for dinner shortly but promise I'll check back later to respond... AzureCitizen (talk) 23:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that it mentions too much about the policeman's trouble and can he not sue to damages that the wide circulation of this article (which is bigger than newspaper circulations and without their protection) inhibited his ability to get employment and support himself and possibly his family. After all, we don't have his police personnel record before us. andisn't a regulation about non notable people and negative information on Wikipedia as well? You caught me at a time when my mind is just about exhausted, I am not the brightest person at this hour but I think you get my gist. This is the second article in a row of references which is supposed to be about Roy Kronk and is mostly about the police officer who is mention by name in the reference but never mentioned by name in the article. Mugginsx (talk) 23: 45, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The reasonable thing to do is determine if another reference can support the related fact which is included in the article without the addition of undue defamation. From discussions I have observed, The reference title can in and of itself preclude its use, even if the information is otherwise related. Especially when another reference is likely available. My76Strat (talk) 23:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree. But this is one of the reasons that User:CarolMooredc brought me to this board, and you can seeby her comments she disagrees with the principle and the examples being defamatory, BLP issues or even inappropriate. Mugginsx (talk) 00:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Insert to correct of what probably are many mis-statements about my concerns, but it's far too much for me to read: Let me note that because of all the hyperbole about defamation, my initial impression was that there was to be no mention of certain topics at all, not that the desire was merely to replace references. And if nasty titles can disqualify a reference, someone could have fun replacing half the references in the article that say nasty things about a woman acquitted of murder. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One last example: the first ref http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2009-01-14/news/casey14_1_kronk-sheriff-office-angelo-nieves is again supposed to be about Kronk finding the body, but then they mention he owes $10,000 in back child support and was accused of kidnapping a former girlfriend and a "sealed" record about something else. To me, that takes the cake.

Finally, these are the sites that I presented that state the possible legal issues that are the heart of the defamation-libel claim: that "repeating a defamatory or libelous statements is making the statement again", meaning that the new statement is libelous to the person who speaks it, or reprints it: http://www.dba-oracle.com/internet_linking_libel_lawsuit.htm Linking to a defamatory web page is republishing the web page is one site. There are others: http://www.bitlaw.com/internet/webpage.html#defamation and this one that is Canadian but refers to the suing of Wikipedia, and this one whch is admittedly more about general liability: http://carnahanlaw.com/nl/webliability.html That is the crux of my argument, Mugginsx (talk) 00:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Am now back from dinner, and I see that there are several intervening posts; I will start by responding to the concern regarding the deputy sheriff filing suit) Obviously, if the Orlando Sentinel article was defaming him and we republish that by linking to it, that's a problem. But we haven't yet tackled precisely why we believe the negative information in the Orlando Sentinel article is legally actionable defamation. Sure, it's very unflattering, but an official investigation by the Orange County Sheriff's Department found him negligent and the relevant authorities suspended him (confiscated his badge and gun, told him he can no longer represent himself to the public as a deputy, etc). Isn't that a matter of public record? Wasn't he a minor public official in that capacity? Do we have any credible reasons for doubting the truthfulness of this report? The deputy may well indeed have trouble finding future employment in the law enforcement field, but I'm having trouble seeing a viable cause of action for defamation here, regardless of whether or not this story reaches wider circulations or who publishes it. Perhaps after you've had time to think it over further, you could clarify again precisely what the defamation concern might be. No rush! :) Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 01:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I say above in #2, replacing refs because they allegedly contain defamatory material not used in the article with equally good refs for material referenced might get annoying (especially when the person repeatedly replaces properly formatted references with Raw URLs.) But the replacement of the reference is not against policy.

However, the initial problem in #1 "Can we use WP:RS that have negative information about people who are non-notable, but important to the topic of the article, assuming the information is not used in a WP:Undue way." seems to have been resolved. I can see that rather than try to get a general ruling here, as I did initially, the best thing is to bring specific problems as they arise. (Including questionable claims that that some information, even if it comes out in legal documents or testimony,is so defamatory an individual just might sue all the wikipedia editors on the article. Per my comment above.) So I'm finished here myself. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem is that the reference, as titled is not about the death of Caylee Anthony, it is about the police officer. While it would be perfectly fine in an article about the officer, if he was otherwise notable enough to have an article, it is UNDUE to promote his personal shame, in the name of WP:V, especially when another source can substantiate the fact which is related to the article. The article also states that an appeal is underway, and while a news organization has certain first amendment rights, and can retract a wrong statement, it isn't entirely clear that an encyclopedia enjoys the same protection. And it is Wikipedia policy which primarily exceeds the minimum requirements of the law. To the extent, Casey has some unfaltering headlines, that is like an apple to an orange, in that she is notable, and directly related to the article. IMO My76Strat (talk) 03:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see that now. In the context of all the other yelling about defamation, it just seemed to be one more questionable example, especially since it had taken a while to find that source. But someone else found another source for the info, so that was fine. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AzureCitizen: Am I understanding this correctly? To conclude about the police officer, two answers in one statement 1)As to defamation: "that because it is true, it is not defamatory, or probably not defamatory unless the newspaper got it wrong and we used it." 2) You are upholding my assertions that linking to a defamatory (or) libelous source is defamatory and/or libelous in and of itself? That is a key point to me because I keep telling editors that and that newspaper have special rights that we do not have. Mugginsx (talk) 10:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As to My76Strat: As to Wiki guidlines: WP:UNDUE - the reference should not be used in the article because it is not about the article title but the police officer. Did I sum up you answer correctly?

That is a fair summation of my opinion. My76Strat (talk) 12:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you My76Strat. I agree. Mugginsx (talk) 13:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AzureCitizen: Do you agree with my summation of your opinions? If so, I just have one more example and I am very grateful for your expertise and time. Here it is: The first ref http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2009-01-14/news/casey14_1_kronk-sheriff-office-angelo-nieves is again supposed to be about Kronk finding the body, but then the interviewer mentions he owes $10,000 in back child support and was accused of kidnapping a former girlfriend and a "sealed" record about something else. To me, that sounds like any inappropriate source for defamation and WP:UNDUE. My 76Strat, would you also care to comment on this last source as well and then I would be so grateful as to giving this matter a rest because it has been a bone of contention with myself and other editors on other sources and content. (See Archive 9 of article talk page section: Some possible BLP issues for futher reading if you want). Mugginsx (talk) 10:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have less problem with this second source. It is appropriately about the subject of the article, references valid facts for inclusion, and should not be precluded for a cursory mention that one could classify as negative. If the reference was titled in such a way as to itself be about Mr. Kronk and his personal finances, then I would consider it off track and UNDUE. This is my opinion, and as I stated earlier, I am interested to see where consensus aligns, because it is a compelling consideration. My76Strat (talk) 13:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Azure Citizen and My76Strat - I agree it is compelling and I thank you once again for your response My76 strat. I worry about it in the legal sense. Remember, it not only refers to his finances, but a kidnapping complaint which went nowhere so we do not have any proof if is true or false claim from his old girlfriend AND a mention of a legally protect "sealed" complaint (which could be the same complaint but we do not know). At any rate it has nothing to do with the death of Caylee Anthony I will look forward to AzureCitizen's opinion on this too for a consensus opinion. Mugginsx (talk) 13:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Replying collectively to both editors and several postings above) Mugginsx, yes, you've got it right - 1) these articles are not defamation in my opinion and 2) if they were defamation and Wikipedia linked to them, we'd be republishing libel which is actionable. The article about the deputy sheriff is entirely factual based on matters of public record, and even if he appealed it, it wouldn't change the facts reported (and he actually dismissed his appeal and requested that he be allowed to resign a few weeks later anyway). The information about the meter reader isn't a problem either... the fact that he owes $10k in child support is a matter of public record (anyone can get that information from the clerk's office), and he voluntarily went on television and publicly talked about being accused of kidnapping and getting his record expunged, etc.

As a side note, in the United States, testimony given in court is privileged against suit for defamation. If witnesses had to worry about whether or not what they said could be held up to civil suit standards for what is "true" and "false" regarding other people and defamation, they wouldn't be able to freely testify. Of course, that doesn't mean they are free to lie either, as we criminally prosecute people for perjury. Ordinarily, imputing someone else committed a criminal offense and communicating that to third parties in speech or print is defamation per se if it's false. However, if person A testifies in court that person B told them (assuming a hearsay exception) that they murdered person C, it's privileged and cannot be used in a civil defamation suit regardless of the truth or falsity. Now... if we as Wikipedia editors state this as a fact in an article: "person B murdered person C," we'd better be very careful about the truth or falsity of that fact! Were they convicted for it? If so, better to rephrase as follows: "Person B was convicted at his trial for the murder of person C." But even if there wasn't a conviction, we would also be safe to make a statement such as this, complete with an iron clad reference citation: "At person B's trial, person A testified that person B told them they murdered person C," along with whatever other relevant facts and outcomes came out of the trial, including the fact that they were found not guilty if that was the outcome. Imagine the problems our free and open society would have if the media and even just individual citizens would have communicating about these sorts of things if they couldn't even do that without fear of being sued! :) Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AzureCitizen makes excellent points. As does User:My76Strat when he writes: I have less problem with this second source. It is appropriately about the subject of the article, references valid facts for inclusion, and should not be precluded for a cursory mention that one could classify as negative. Obviously we can theorize about all sorts of things that would make it problematic. Obviously disagreements on these things should be brought here on a case by case basis.

I note that WP:BLP and WP:Libel link to Defamation which has a tag saying it needs attention from an expert (but no talk page explanation of why). (Have asked elsewhere for people to review whole article.) Bottom line, however, is that information must be FALSE. If it's just negative, it's not necessarily defamatory or against BLP policy.

Now re: the Kronk info in article Mugginsx brings up. Is the problem there is no equally good source with the same info? If there is what's the issue?? Again, since I finally figured out much of what Mugginsx kept repeating "defamation" about was merely his/her to desire to substitute sources, not remove material entirely, I don't care about replacing WP:RS if the new one properly source info that's in the article.

However, just an interesting aside I'd like to point out regarding Kronk "was accused of kidnapping a former girlfriend" - this actually would have been relevant to the article had the judge allowed it in the trial, esp. because I read at the Central FL News 13 timeline info that makes one think he tied her up with duct tape. The defense actually was promoting a theory that Kronk did it. I assume there are other refs on that topic. So IF that was the only ref for some important info, I would say, keep it in. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AzureCitizen, Thank you, Thank you, Thank you for delineating the legal points. You are good! and also good, I might add, at explaining intricate legal issues. I know you did not want to do this but I think it has been a big help to me personally, and to Wikipedia editors everywhere. I see the noticeboard it busy with issues peripheral to this and I think you words are extremely important for any Wikipedia editor to read. We are fortunate to have you here. My issues are satisfied. I will memoralize on a word document, along with other discussions of this kind for my "continuing edification". Thank you.

If Carol has no other questions, perhaps we are through? Mugginsx (talk) 19:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Enough for me. Hopefully the last few comments summarized everything since reading through everything should the issues arise again could be a bit much :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources, not the "truth"

Mugginsx keeps making references to the "truth" and lies, going so far as to suggest that we should blacklist reputable, reliable sources to push his paralegal agenda. This is quite alarming. I would like to remind the community, that reliable sourcing, not some subjective conception of the WP:TRUTH should prevail. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 17:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sayuki

There are many different people editing this article but just two or three disruptive editors who revert everything without consideration. Sayuki is the first westerner to work as a geisha and this is easily proven by a simple google search which shows hundreds of articles all saying the same. One or two articles only claim that a former woman was a geisha. According to the Wikipedia page or any other source on geisha it is clear that to debut as a geisha you need to have a year or so of training before hand and the whole community watches the new geisha during this time to see if they are suitable. Liza Dalby did not do this and did not work as a geisha. There is one article that says she "debuted" as a geisha but this is incorrect. Using one article to overturn the hundreds of articles all saying that Sayuki is the first foreign geisha is not right. The editors on Wikipedia who keep doing this should be banned from editing this page. Sayuki is working as a geisha which means that what is written on Wikipedia about her affects her position and her income and her relations with other people in her community. The geisha world is very tough and Sayuki has to do what her older sisters tell her. No of the geisha talk about how old they are and Sayuki has to obey these rules. I am a student of Japanese Studies and have studied geisha. I know that a geisha has to deal with tough conditions and obey the rules. Wikipedia is causing harm to Sayuki and it is always the same editors doing it over and over. Please someone ban DAJF and My Lord and Master (used to be Simon of Sagamihara) and changed his name. There are many students studying geisha and these editors do not know what they are talking about and especially they don't care what happens to a living person like Sayuki who has to obey rules in a community. On Liza Dalby's discussion page there is already comments from many people saying she was not a geisha. Why is Wikipedia ignoring this and now all the pages are contradictory about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.45.182.172 (talk) 02:37, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See the talkpage for Fiona Graham. I'm not seeing much here that hasn't been discussed at the talkpage, but I'll take a crack at it here. We'll take this in two parts. First, Liza Dalby or Fiona Graham being the first gaijin geisha; the closest parallel I can think of is Masuda Sayo and Iwasaki Mineko. It may be that Mineko was the first ex-geisha to have a widely-published book in English about being a geisha (granted, it's fiction, but it's based in reality), but Masuda wrote Autobiography of a Geisha 30 years before Mineko wrote her book (also granted Masuda was an onsen geisha, which is slightly different, but the point stands). Masuda doesn't get as much publicity because her book wasn't translated into English until 2001, and was never as widely read as Mineko's book, so there are many normally reliable sources which mistakenly tout Mineko as the first geisha to talk about her experiences. We've got a similar situation here; Dalby was never as involved in the karyūkai and never became a full-fledged geisha (as Masuda never really was; as mentioned above, she was an onsen geisha), and hasn't gotten as much coverage as Fiona Graham/Sayuki, so there are some sources mistakenly claiming that Sayuki is the first true foreign geisha.

On to your second point (this is my take only); her name was already out there before she became a geisha. It's not like her age is a big secret, and having it posted somewhere isn't the same as her talking about it. I'm not seeing a good reason to keep such basic biographical material out. Yes, I know that being a geisha is rough (I've read Autobiography of a Geisha, among other texts; the dark side of Japanese history is my specialty in history, so I do get it more than you'd think), but it's not really possible to stuff the genie back in the bottle once it's out there. And finally, don't throw around ban requests like that; people will perceive you as attempting to bully/harass your way to the result you want. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:47, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Masuda Sayo was a geisha because she trained as a geisha in the normal way, debuted in the normal way, and worked i.e. earned money as a professional geisha. Mineko Iwasaki was the same. Sayuki was the same. Liza Dalby did not train as a geisha in the normal way (she did not participate in dance and other training that new geisha participate in at the geisha office). She did not debut in the normal way (after a year or so of training as a geisha and with a debut ceremony with the permission of the geisha office and the geisha community). She did not work as a geisha or earn money so she cannot be called a geisha which is a profession of women who earn money from working as geisha. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.178.149.249 (talk) 03:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Graham article has been discussed so many times on this board and on other boards, and it's always the same stuff. Various IPs, who are probably the same person, stubbornly and disruptively change the article to suit their views. They get reverted. They get discussed. They accuse everyone else of being culturally insensitive and god knows what else. Although it's kind of Blade to respond, we don't have to keep going in circles with unconstructive IP single purpose accounts who keep raising the same points. As for as "perceiving" that this editor is trying to bully and/or harass, it's not a perception, it's a fact.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I always try to at least keep the air of politeness the first time around; I saw exactly what you're describing. If you need another set of eyes over there I'll gladly watch over it. I've dealt with worse, and this is actually a subject I know something about. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We already have an open thread about this half-way up the page. The answer was "no" then, it's "no" now and it will be "no" tomorrow. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "several people" that the IP editor refers to are all the same person -- the same person as the IP editor herself, who is most likely Graham herself. Ironically, she is the one reverting without discussion. Seconding what Blade of the Northern Lights said. 124.100.76.179 (talk) 22:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The genie is only out of the bag on Wikipedia. The Japanese media respects the fact that Sayuki needs to maintain tradition and behave in the same way as other geisha, not break tradition in the English media. It is causing harm to a living person in this case. Why can Wikipedia not follow what the Japanese media has followed for the last 4 1/2 years and respect the fact that revealing age will cause Sayuki harm? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.178.149.249 (talk) 03:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Adams

- Stephanie Adams page is constantly being harassed by an IP user with an obvious "conflict of interest".

This person with an IP address starting with 69 includes both false, questionable, personal information as well as controversial edits that are poorly sourced. According to the biography of living persons mentionings on Wikipedia, "material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should not be inserted and if present, must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous." 71.183.68.120 (talk) 22:49, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're both edit-warring. I haven't looked deeply into it, but it doesn't look like a solid enough BLP violation for you to justify being exempted from policy about edit wars.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:56, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All of the links are from reliable sources from professional writers who worked for professional organizations with editors. The links are from web archive, which AFAIK are allowed on Wikipedia. Simply saying the links don't exist is no cause to delete referenced material.-69.143.17.59 (talk) 23:00, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the other user is suggesting there was retracted material in the report so its not so cut and dried as that - did you see the other users claims? Please present the external archived links you are wanting to add so as we can evaluate them, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 23:04, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this user has proof of a retraction, then they should reference it so we can come to consensus. However they never said the New York Observer article was retracted. Nor the Learning Annex course description. -69.143.17.59 (talk) 23:11, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not true IP user 69.143.17.59. That NY Press article was removed online because the article was false. This IP user above has constantly vandalised this page and, according to the edits, the subject in the article contacted Wikipedia and had the libellous info both removed as well as crossed out from the edit history. Talk to ErrantX and Rambling Man. Or just take a look at the edit history. There is clearly a bigger issue going on here and a direct conflict of interest by IP user 69.143.17.59. 71.183.68.120 (talk) 23:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

if the article was removed because it was false, as you claim, the provide the evidence. Surely there must be a retraction. This sounds almost like original research. -69.143.17.59 (talk) 23:13, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree. If 71 claims there's a retraction, he must show some proof of it. However, I must point out that I find the material 69 wants to add not particularly noteworthy:

In 2004, Adams taught a course at the Learning Annex titled "How to Marry Rich: The Rich Are Going to Marry... Why Not to You?" New York Press reporter A.J. Daulerio gave the class a negative review. Noelle Hancock who also reviewed the course said "Somewhere, Gloria Steinem just took two steps back". Adams was eventually replaced by another lecturer, Shoshanna Rikon.

We can avoid the whole source issue if the material doesn't belong in the article, even if reliably sourced.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:19, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is the criteria to be considered noteworthy? What is noteworthy to create an article is different than the content of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.17.59 (talk) 23:24, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per guidelines, notability is not required for article content, only for article creation. However, all information that goes into an article has to be sufficiently relevant to the article subject and her notability to justify inclusion. In this instance, the fact that in 2004 she taught a course that was criticized seems but a blip in her life as a Playboy model and not worthy of mention. Seems like it's just thrown in to be negative. This is, of course, a judgment call, and I don't know what other editors think.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

then using that same logic, anything not relevant to her "life as a Playboy model" is also not noteworthy? Eg, the lawsuits, hobbies, etc. -69.143.17.59 (talk) 23:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Adams never acknowledged in any interviews or even on her web site that she taught a course at the Learning Annex. The article from the NY Press was removed from their site and her name on the Learning Annex does not exist. This questionable mentioning is also so negative to begin with, it was removed immediately in the past by Wiki editors and seemed to have been removed for a good reason. This particular IP user has a direct conflict of interest and has attempted to vandalise this article too many times. 71.183.68.120 (talk) 23:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what difference it makes whether she has acknowledged teaching a course. Also, lots of articles are removed from websites for reasons that have nothing to do with retraction. I'd avoid the accusations of conflict and vandalism and just focus on the issue here. I do agree, as I stated above, that the material is mildly negative.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:37, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This particular IP user has a direct conflict of interest and has attempted to vandalise this article too many times. This particular IP user (69.143.17.59) does indeed seem extraordinarily preoccupied with Adams, but then so do a succession of SPAs (most recently User:OnlyGodTheFatherKnows) and IP numbers (most recently the complainant 71.183.68.120). -- Hoary (talk) 23:56, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23, to sum it up, I am basically in total agreement with you. 71.183.68.120 (talk) 23:43, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question, can this article be expanded with noteworthy information that pertains more to the subject, such as her modeling career prior to Playboy, her career with Playboy, her authored books and other publications, her interest in astrology, tarot cards, metaphysics, etc? There really are no more updates published about her life and she does state in interviews that she wants to be a more private person now, so my guess is that it might be best to just leave it alone. 71.183.68.120 (talk) 00:04, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Biographies of living people should indeed be handled with dignity and respect. I also made a note on the discussion page a small but important comment about the chronological order of facts. 74.101.6.174 (talk) 11:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't cite any interview for the claim that she wants to be a private person. Instead, it cites a press release on her own website. But Googling for her name doesn't bring the impression that reporters or paparazzi are besieging her. -- Hoary (talk) 08:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now there is a STRONG statement in the article, falsely claiming that she originally identified herself as a lesbian. Wikipedia needs to remove it. 173.56.121.228 (talk) 08:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See the article's talk page. -- Hoary (talk) 08:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rigoberta Menchú

I am very concerned that this article on a prominent activist—a Nobel Peace Prize laureate and political candidate—dwells excessively on a debate about her credibility. See the section Rigoberta Menchú#Controversies about her testimony, which is actually the majority of the prose content of the article. Even if the details here merit mention, they are seriously outweighing actual biographical information, and the weight placed on it seems undue. And, as the tags indicate, there is a lack of sourcing throughout the negative section. This article is in serious need of a rewrite, if anyone is willing to take up the challenge. Dominic·t 03:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Much of the section is badly-sourced, and seems to be intended to reach a conclusion that what sources it does provide don't. I think that it accepted that not everything Menchú wrote was entirely factual - but then, what single source ever is? She conflated events reported to her with events she claimed to have witnessed - but this isn't unusual, and given the political situation, the idea that anyone could report events as a neutral observer is frankly ridiculous. The harsh realities of life in Guatamala during the time she wrote about made any minor elaborations and miss-reportings rather irrelevant - the Guatemalan military was engaged in a near-genocidal conflict against much of the population, and nit-picking over whether it was her brother, or a more distant relative, who died of starvation, is beside the point. Her account is probably as close to the truth as we are ever likely to get. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:25, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Without making the same deep evaluation AndyTheGrump makes, the appropriate policy here would be WP:UNDUE - the only sources that make any big deal about Menchu's literary liberties are her political opponents, most relatively neutral sources at worse say the same as Andy, at best dismiss the criticism as irrelevant. While eliminating such criticism is not beyond the scope of a BLP, one should be extremely careful with any claims made - extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and with due weight, as she is not notable for any controversy, and as such this is very small part of the information a reader should get in an NPOV encyclopedia.--Cerejota (talk) 06:19, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I fixed some of that. Frankly, Stoll's book has been the subject of so much commentary that it probably deserves an article of its own. FuFoFuEd (talk) 17:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It looks much better balanced now. I'm not sure about an article on Stoll's book though - I'll see if I can find sufficient sources discussing it to merit this. AndyTheGrump (talk)

James O'Keefe

This BLP needs substantial reworking for NPOV. The article subject is clearly a controversial figure who inspires a great deal of ire among political adversaries, and this article very much shows that. Several recent contributors to the article have insisted on reinserting potentially libelous material, making broad conclusions about ongoing controversies in the encyclopedic voice, and reverting edits (diff) made to address some of these problems. Rather than provoking more edit-warring, I would like to get some additional eyes on this material and some additional (less acrimonious) voices on the talk page so the article can be improved. Cheers, DickClarkMises (talk) 04:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could be more specific as to what you perceive as an NPOV violation, or as "potentially libelous material". The only diff you have provided shows that you attempted to change content from accurately conveying that "Investigations by legal authorities and journalists" came to conclusions that you would rather inaccurately attribute to mere "critics" — in direct contradiction to the reliably sourced content in the body of the article. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 06:13, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the statement in the lead: "Investigations by legal authorities and journalists have found his videos to have been "selectively" and "deceptively" edited to leave a false impression and present the subjects in the worst possible light." The only cite for that statement is an article by Michael Gerson, which hardly supports the broad sweep of the assertion. If you are contending that the assertion is supported in the body, there are at least three problems with that contention. First, where? Second, although you don't always have to put citations in the lead for assertions that are cited in the body, if you DO put in citations, it's somewhat misleading if the citations are not fully supportive of what you're saying. Third, according to WP:LEADCITE: "Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none." AND "Some material, including direct quotations and contentious material about living persons must be provided with an inline citation every time it is mentioned, regardless of the level of generality or the location of the statement." For me, at least, the lead assertion begs the questions what "legal authorities", what "journalists", and what precisely what conclusions? The words "selectively" and "deceptively" come only from the Gerson article (although they are used as adjectives, not adverbs) in the cited source.

The next sentence in the lead is also problematic: "He uses quotes out of context, moves material around chronologically, and together creates what Michael Gerson, a former speechwriter for President George W. Bush, characterized in the NPR sting as an "alluring lie." Again, you cite only to the Gerson article. Yet, although you attribute the phrase "alluring lie" to Gerson, you don't attribute the rest, even though, again, it's only Gerson saying so in the cited source.

You may have sufficient support for your statements, but I'd clean up the lead. Either don't cite anything and be prepared to support the assertions with cites within the body, or cite more things in the lead to make it clear that it's supportable.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23, is your argument that there are cites, but not enough in the lead? Thanks - KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:41, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KC, a lot has happened since I left Wikipedia yesterday and came back today. My argument wasn't really quite the way you frame it, but I'm not sure it matters. I haven't looked at all of the changes to the article since yesterday, but I agree that the cites added by Xenophrenic to the lead and the rewording of the next sentence in the lead resolve my issues with that part of the lead (I'm deliberately being very narrow here because the article is rich in both content and controversy).--Bbb23 (talk) 00:55, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23 and the original poster are making two completely different arguments here. I've addressed Bbb23's concerns by copying several reference citations from the body of the article into the lead of the article, so as to make more clear in the lead "what legal authorities and journalists" and "what conclusions" were drawn. I've also reworded the first paragraph so that it is more clear that the "uses quotes out of context" and "moves material around chronologically" descriptions are conclusions arrived at by said legal authorities and journalists, as well as reiterated by Gerson.

DickClarkMises, on the otherhand, rather than express a concern about the proper citing of statements of fact as Bbb23 has done, incorrectly characterizes the content as "libelous material", "broad conclusions" and "ongoing controversies". His more recent edits further convey his belief that the carefully considered conclusions of legal agencies such as the Brooklyn, NY, District Attorney's Office or the Office of the Attorney General of California, after many months of research and investigation, are not factual conclusions but mere "accusations". I'm really at a loss as to how to address that. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had brought this issue up earlier as well. Part of the problem is the insistance to use weasel words to describe the maginitude of the editing, which I thought was resolved. Now those weasel words are being added with "scare" quotes. While some specific videos have been described "heavily" edited and such, this has not been the word used for all of them, and now the additional weasel words of "selectively" and "deceptively" have been added as a describer of all. I do not understand why a few editors feel it neccessary to force these words into the lead for dramatic effect when a simple statement of "edited" suffices, especially when words later the findings of the DA are reported as to how they were edited specifcially. I don't approve of his actions either, but that does not mean we get a free pass at him. Arzel (talk) 16:15, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that "the simple statement of edited" and "deceptively edited" are significantly different from each other. Just saying "edited" (and most video is indeed innocuously "edited" before publishing) misleads the reader, when the intent is to convey that the video was actually edited to deceive. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:40, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How they were edited is followed up in the following sentence. "Selectively Edited" means absolutely nothing and is terrible grammer. To edit is to selectively put togeter disparate pieces of information. It is clear from reading the very next sentence that what he did is not right, why do you wish to belabor the point? The other word "Heavily" only applies to one specific instance, please stop adding it to imply that it is in reference to all of the videos. Arzel (talk) 16:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"First, you are mistaken: just google "selectively edited" and you'll see it is a common expression with a fairly well-defined meaning. Second, the adjectives are not there to "belabor the point", but to indicate directly quoted (not "scare quotes", as you mistakenly assumed) conclusions by investigating parties. Third, "heavily edited" has been used by reliable sources to describe both NPR and ACORN videos; but "severely edited" is also sourced if you prefer. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:58, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "Heavily" applies to only one video, why do you and your tag team partner insist on using it for dramatic effect? You use the adjective "selectively" and then in the next sentence list out. It is repetitive, extacly what do you not understand about that? It is ironic that you are attempting to present O'Keefe in the worst light possible with your edits when that is exactly what he is accused of doing. Arzel (talk) 00:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "Heavily edited" applies to several O'Keefe videos, and no amount of bold lettering will turn your falsifications into fact. Some reliable sources describe specific videos as Heavily edited, like the Medicaid, NPR, Planned Parenthood and the many ACORN videos. Other reliable sources describe O'Keefe's video projects, as a whole, as heavily edited. Other reliable sources describe just the more well known of the videos as heavily edited. I see that you have asked me several questions, but you have couched them amid your usual personal attacks and commentary about editors — so instead of responding to you further, I think I'll just put a rhetorical question to you: How's that working out for you? I'm reverting your unwarranted deletion. Xenophrenic (talk) 08:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I have pointed out to you numerous times those are almost all opinions. The wording you use in the lead makes it a statement of fact. This is a BLP violation. The only one which was stated as a matter of fact was the one video reviewed by the DA. As I have stated before, I don't approve of his actions, but the lead of the article reads like an attack page. It seems like you wish to highlight every bad thing he has done, much like he did in his videos. Arzel (talk) 23:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you have "numerous times" claimed that assertions of fact are merely "opinions". And you have been incorrect each of those numerous times. Of course, if you simply don't like that a reputable physicist publishes in a reliable source the fact that "water is wet", you can certainly claim, "numerous times" even, that it is just his "opinion", but Wikipedia editors won't take you seriously. Assertions of fact made in sources that meet Wikipedia's standards of reliability do not transform into mere "opinion" just because you don't like those facts. When media analysts and investigative journalists publish in reliable sources their findings about O'Keefe's media projects, as they have done, we don't wave their conclusions off as simple opinion just because they don't mesh with your personal preconceptions. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As you continue to not understand, they are adjectives of opinion. "Heavily" has no defined value, there is no point at which someone could clearly state that something is either "Heavily" or some other adjective. Your definition of heavily does not equal the defintion of anyone else. Edited, however, is a true dicotomy. Either something is or it is not edited. Wet is another clear dicotomy, where as a "little" wet is adjective of opinion. Verstehen? Arzel (talk) 18:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just because I don't address each variation of your morphing concerns in a single response, that doesn't mean that I "continue to not understand". I responded above to your assertion that the "Heavily" adverb was only factual when used by a particular District Attorney, and mere "opinion" when used by other reliable sources. Now I will address your conflicting assertion that, "Heavily" has no defined value, there is no point at which someone could clearly state that something is either "Heavily" or some other adjective." Adverb, and yes it does have a defined value: significantly more (verb) than the norm — and that isn't my definition. I don't have a definition for it. Now, to help you understand, let's use it in a sentence: Investigations by legal authorities and journalists have found O'Keefe has "selectively", "heavily" and "deceptively" edited videos to leave a false impression and present the subjects in the worst possible light. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I commented last time on the problems I saw. The wording is a definite improvement but the sourcing could use some improvement. In particular, we currently use [22] [23] but both seem to solely refer to the Californian ACORN investigation when it comes to the editing. Similarly both [24] [25] seem to solely refer to the Brooklyn investigation of ACORN when it comes to the editing. Finally we have [26] which is a media investigation of the NPR one. Now I acknowledge we don't need sourcing in the lede if it's in the article so there may be some sourcing I missed. But I don't see much point for the duplicate sourcing (one on the California and Brooklyn is enough). And it would be ideal if we had something beyond ACORN and NPR (although unlike the earlier wording, the current wording doesn't really definitely say the videos affected were more then the NPR and ACORN so it isn't so critical). Nil Einne (talk) 14:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The AG office document cited as support for the assertion that O'Keefe entered Landrieu's office with the intent to tamper with the physical phone system says no such thing. It says that the arrest affidavit alleged this, not that this was the ultimate finding of the office. Even if this was the AG's final conclusion, and not merely an allegation in some affidavit, this would still not be justification for taking sides in the dispute. Someone who swore out an affidavit alleged this, O'Keefe disputes it. All of this is in fact mentioned in the cited source from the California AG, but for some reason only the initial allegation is mentioned in the lead. The relevant portion of the California AG document states:

The arresting affidavit alleged that O’Keefe and three other men plotted to wiretap the phones of U.S. Senator Mary Landrieu’s office in New Orleans, Louisiana. O’Keefe issued a statement claiming his intent was to investigate whether Senator Landrieu’s phones were broken. Senator Landrieu, a Democrat, supported the federal healthcare reform bill and opponents of the bill complained that their calls to her office were met with busy signals. In an interview, the Senator had apologized and stated that the volume of calls had overloaded her staff and voice mail. An attorney for one of the other men said the men did not intend to interfere with her phones, but rather intended to make a film embarrassing the Senator because of her support for the healthcare bill. On March 28, 2010, the US Attorney announced reduced charges against the four men.

As I asserted when I initially listed the article here, there are many claims being inserted and reinserted into the article without basis in RS. Furthermore, even if such allegations appear in reliable source, this doesn't mean that Wikipedia should publish them as fact as if there was no live controversy. That is a violation of NPOV. DickClarkMises (talk) 16:24, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The AG office document cited as support for the assertion that O'Keefe entered Landrieu's office with the intent to tamper with the physical phone system says no such thing."

The assertion that the arresting affidavit alleges he did, you mean, and yeah, it does. In fact, it says, "The arresting affidavit alleged that O’Keefe and three other men plotted to wiretap the phones of U.S. Senator Mary Landrieu’s office in New Orleans, Louisiana." The other cited source further states, "Alleging a plot to tamper with phones in Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu's office in the Hale Boggs Federal Building in downtown New Orleans, the FBI arrested four people Monday, including James O'Keefe..."

We shouldn't confuse confirmed fact with allegations, and we certainly shouldn't remove reliably sourced factual content (as was done earlier) under the pretense that we "shouldn't take sides in the dispute" — if you have reliably sourced content about a 'side of the dispute' you feel is lacking, please add it instead. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:58, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The other part of the quote from the CA AG report is interesting: "An attorney for one of the other men [O'Keefe's colleagues] said the men did not intend to interfere with her phones, but rather intended to make a film embarrassing the Senator because of her support for the healthcare bill." So they were not "seeking the truth", as O'Keefe had claimed in his statement, or, in addition, they were seeking to "embarrass her". That is the kind of context that can be and should be cited in such an article from an RS.Parkwells (talk) 00:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added quotes from RS and, as Xenophrenic notes, used quotation marks around "selectively" and "deceptively" edited to show those words came from the RS; they are not scare quotes. I have a larger concern about this article, as a Wikipedia encyclopedia article, which I expressed in different ways on its Talk page, and to which no one has responded. Now that the initial flurry of the ACORN, PLanned Parenthood and NPR videos is over (although O'Keefe certainly continues to make videos and to be written about, as in a recent NY Times magazine article, I think the Wikipedia article should be edited to reflect what RS say about O'Keefe, the media frenzy and controversy, and the differences between the raw and edited videos in some sort of summary fashion, rather than using such extensive quotes from primary sources. Rather than relying on O'Keefe's quotes about what he was doing, and quotes from the videos, several of which have been shown to have been edited in a highly misleading manner, I think the article should be cooled down and made more objective by relying on what commentators published in RS have to say about them and his work - not just using quotes of his published in RS. Isn't that what we are supposed to be doing? This is not supposed to be journalism. If the article is about O'Keefe, it should be using sources about him, the videos, and the media controversy - e.g., RS that describe his and Breitbauer's strategies and reactions of other media, not just repeatedly using their and FOX quotes attacking the mainstream media. To achieve an NPOV, I think the article needs more distance and context, with material from third parties, rather than more direct quotes from the primary players.Parkwells (talk) 23:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another reason for my concern about the article is that the repetition of quotes directly from the videos, rather than from RS describing or characterizing the videos, continues the potential for damage to other named living persons, particularly the executives at NPR - Wikipedia policy says that editorial judgment is to be extended to other living persons mentioned in a BLP: "This policy applies to BLPs, including any living person mentioned in a BLP even if not the subject of the article..."Parkwells (talk) 00:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Cuccinelli

Under the heading 'Gay Rights', there is an incorrect statement regarding Governor McDonnell's Executive Directive One.

The incorrect statement is that the Governor's Directive "protects gays and lesbians from being fired for their sexual orientation".

This is not what the Directive states regarding sexual orientation. It states only that "Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution prohibits discrimination without a rational basis against any class of persons. Discrimination based on factors such as one’s sexual orientation or parental status violates the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution." [ found at http://www.dhrm.virginia.gov/documents/ExecutiveDirectiveOne.pdf ]

To be correct the statement would say that the Governor's Directive "prohibits firing because of sexual orientation without a rational basis against that person'.

The incorrect statement describes a protection that is not provided by any Virginia law or policy. Prohibition of firing without a rational basis is not protection. A state employer might state many different 'rational bases' for workplace decisions, including firing. That this analysis is accurate is supported by action of the Virginia Supreme Court in Moore v. Virginia Museum of Natural History ( found discussion on this point at http://www.bilerico.com/2010/05/virginia_supreme_court_to_gays_-_you_have_no_emplo.php )

Please correct this serious error.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwardnvirginia (talk • contribs) 23:01, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - that bilerico external doesn't look particulary wiki reliable - usage on wiki en - there appears no editorial control? Off2riorob (talk) 23:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think Edward was citing the blog only to make a point, not to include it in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I don't think the current wording of the article is flawed - possibly a bit oversimplified, but not a major problem. The key issue is not rational basis, but how much weight a Virginia court will give the executive directive.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Discrimination based on factors such as one’s sexual orientation or parental status violates the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution." - seems to be the actual point - I am in agreement that this statement is not actually correct - " the Governor's Directive "protects gays and lesbians from being fired for their sexual orientation". - It doesn't actually do that - the constitution appears to be the thing doing that. Off2riorob (talk) 23:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The governor directed all state agencies not to discriminate against gays based on sexual orientation pursuant to the equal protection clause. Maybe I could reword the phrase in the article so it won't be misunderstood.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, User:ErrantX is good with legal-ish issues, - the governor Executive Directive 1 (2010) doesn't mention gays at all though , just talks about "sexual orientation" - Off2riorob (talk) 23:41, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've finished rewording it. The sentence doesn't include "gays" in it, just sexual orientation, although it's clearly meant to protect gays and lesbians.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:45, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dont forget transvestites and pre ops. - Fasttimes68 (talk) 01:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the directive does nothing to protect transvestites and pre-ops, except in the sense that my vague recollection is the directive has some very general, lofty language about protecting everyone.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:45, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reads like a good interpretation to me, well done. Thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 00:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ishantha Siribaddana

Resolved

– Article speedily deleted (again) as spam. – ukexpat (talk) 19:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He is a business person looking for cheap publicity.

1. Poor and unrelated citations at no 5 and 6

2. Ambitious statement with no citation

-"He is generally credited as the inventor of the Java Bachelors Program."

-"He was the inventor of bachelors degree program (BSc.) in Java Technology in 2007"

-"as a first ever Sun Certified Java Programmer (SCJP) in Sri Lanka"

3. Misleading public

Occupation - Java Technology Specialist

His highest Java related qualification is SCJP - according to information provided in "Education" section — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.134.127.30 (talk) 06:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article certainly looks dubious, and it succeeds a shorter alternative that was autobiographical. Yes, it smells off to me. Well, feel free to improve it, to cut junk from it, to sprinkle warnings over it, or to do any combination of these -- or to recommend its deletion. (I've already recommended deletion of the one image that it contains.) -- Hoary (talk) 09:16, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion it is blatantly promotional and I have tagged it for speedy deletion as such. – ukexpat (talk) 15:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shidane Arone

The dispute in question concerns a quote that was added by a newly-created account to the Somalia Affair article (c.f. [27]), a page to which the Shidane Arone bio re-directs. The quote was taken from an opinion piece [28] by one Kevin Myers, an outspoken journalist. Here is the quote and passage in full as it was added to the article:

"The soldiers concerned received sympathy from an unusual source in 2011. In an article condemning the provision of famine aid to starving Somalian children, Irish commentator Kevin Myers attributed the atrocities to "despair" at the ungovernable nature of the victims. "Everyone who has ever soldiered in Somalia has left in disgust.... The Canadian Parachute Regiment was actually disbanded after its despairing troops committed shocking atrocities against locals in the 1990s."^[1]

As can be seen above, the passage is potentially libelous vis-a-vis the people of Somalia, especially the part that alleges "the ungovernable nature of the victims". As such, I have pointed the account to WP:NOTSCANDAL, which states that "articles and content about living people are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libellous or infringe the subjects' right to privacy". WP:QS likewise stipulates that questionable sources are those "which rely heavily on rumor and personal opinion", and that as such, "questionable sources should be used only as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves[...] They are unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties." Since the material that was added was potentially slanderous personal opinions about a third party by an individual (who is also not an expert in any of the areas concerned), those opinions belong on the gentleman's own biographical article. In addition, WP:BLP instructs that "editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page", that "WP:BLP applies to all living persons mentioned in an article", that "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", and that "editors should "remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced". It also states that "criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone." However, the passage in question is sourced directly to an opinion piece that the man that is being quoted personally wrote i.e. a primary source. In fact, no reliable secondary source appears to have quoted or even discussed his remarks (only a few news feed pages [29]). Please advise. Middayexpress (talk) 11:40, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would also appear that the Immigrant Council of Ireland (ICI), among others, have officially accused Kevin Myers of racism and journalistic unprofessionalism vis-a-vis other articles that he has written in the recent past on Africa (c.f. [30]). This seems to further render the opinion piece a questionable source since, per WP:QS, questionable sources "include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional, or which rely heavily on rumor and personal opinion. Questionable sources should be used only as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves[...] They are unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties". Middayexpress (talk) 11:40, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The opinionated comment, from a columnist in his own column, has been removed - which seems reasonable imo. Its not really about libeling a large group of people - its just his opinion is a bit, perhaps on the external fringe side and as such we would need assertion that his opinion was noteworthy in the article which it isn't at all. imo. Off2riorob (talk) 12:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks. Middayexpress (talk) 12:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree w/the way this was handled. Concur that it is a reasonable approach here.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Chesterman

I'm concerned about this comment left on the talk page there by an admin. FuFoFuEd (talk) 14:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also concerned that the biography of Chesterman has been WP:COATRACKed by the same admin [31] to the point where it includes more of the opinions of Nicholas J. Wheeler--a scholar that disagrees with Chesterman--than those of Chesterman himself. FuFoFuEd (talk) 15:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um -- zero reverts, and a total of one group of 32 edits by the one user you criticize ... and no edits by you. One edit on the talk page. Again by the person you accuse of COATRACKing the article. Article was AfD'd -- and the AfD was withdrawn because of the new edits. Sorry - fails to arouse sympathy here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:40, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so is it fine to write half the bio of Barack Obama based on what John McCain said about him? Also, I see no policy saying that I should have to revert something before asking for other editors' opinion on it. I have noticed that statistically you seem to disagree with me on many BLP matters where we both comment (more so when you comment after me), so I'm surely not asking for your sympathy. FuFoFuEd (talk) 16:19, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first place to go is the article talk page. You didn't go there. Nor did you edit the article. What you did was come here first. Frankly, no one would agree that coming to a noticeboard first is a great idea. And you should have posted on the admin's talk page as well. And I rather agree or disagree based on what the topic is, not on whoever has posted. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to our guidelines, we strongly discourage WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY, and we note that "many autobiographical articles have been a source of dismay to their original authors after a period of editing by the community". This is merely one example out of many transformed autobiographies in Wikipedia. Simon Chesterman chose to heap flourishing praise on himself. All my edits were sourced by academic articles and peer-reviewed reputable secondary sources. Simon Chesterman chose to cite his own articles (as he does in academia -- 9 out of 15 citations for one of his books were ... by himself), which are self-published primary sources for the biography at hand and wrote selectively chose favourable reviews. Furthermore, many of the primary sources originally chosen for his version of the biography were books that did not undergo institutionalised peer review before publication. Couldn't you have informed me, FuFoFuEd? I will be glad to work out any disputes you have over the article. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 20:59, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The author added his books and his arguments himself — since we have no idea what a neutral contributor would have started with by themselves, or whether Simon Chesterman cherrypicked his reviews, I had to be vigilant about what others said about him, since he added very little secondary sources. Furthermore, Simon Chesterman appears to obscure much of his actual positions in his original autobiography -- he just says "Simon Chesterman is an expert on X, has received praise from Y", without discussing at all, the criticism and peer review his views have received. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 21:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When there are a multiplicity of comments about someone's views, not just the person himself, but any editor, can select which ones to include. There is a considerable likelihood the person himself will quote selectively in a positive direction (tho some sophisticated controversialists make a point of citing negative criticism also, so nobody can come back at them with it.) But any editor here is likely to be equally selective. If we do not have a position when we start working on an article, we will when we finish. No one person can therefore say, he did it wrong, but I did it right. The easiest and safest way to express bias at Wikipedia is through selective quotation, as so few other editors, let alone readers, will actually follow it to the source. The only way for assuring some degree of objectivity is editing from a number of people. We permit COI editing, though we discourage it. We permit it because it will be corrected by other editors. We also permit it, because without it, we'd have much less content. Most peopler edit articles because they have a COI to one degree or another.

as for the comment about the author, I consider it unfair, and I suggest you withdraw it, and apologize. Everyone normally cites their own work to a certain extent, and it does not illustrate bad faith or ulterior motives in any special way. If a new editor had made such a comment, I'd warn them with a third or 4th level BLP warning; BLP applies to article talk pages. DGG ( talk ) 02:28, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Such self-aggrandising by the article creator out to game our system of sources should have zero tolerance on Wikipedia. I have no stance or POV on Simon Chesterman; my only grievance is that he dared create a self-aggrandising WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY, which is strongly discouraged. My comment about the author using self-citation is a fact, not an opinion, and I might point out, most other academics do not cite themselves that arrogantly. Self-citations should be ~30% of the total citations of a work to be tolerable -- anything else shows clear signs of abusing the system. May I note that self-citation in academia is a noted issue of concern. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 05:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cécile Ousset

I refer to this discussion and leave it to you to decide whether or not the cleanup and refimprove tags I added were justified. Regards. 81.83.138.164 (talk) 19:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In BLPs (or biographies), the normal usage, after the full name has been stated, is to use an unadorned surname. The occurrences of "Cécile" should be replaced by "Ousset". For BLPs of other female pianists, see Hélène Grimaud or Martha Argerich. Mathsci (talk) 12:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Midei

I am seeking guidance concerning this article, which seems overwhelmingly focused on one doctor's legal troubles. My impression is that, although a respected doctor before losing his license to practice, he was not notable aside from his humiliation. Is this a cast of BLP1E? I am not familiar with WP:BLP rules and would welcome help from others who are. Sharktopus ^talk 00:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article has a history. At one point, the doctor was mentioned in an article about the hospital he was working at when he lost his license. I removed the material from the hospital article because the connection between Midei and the hospital was too attenuated. The editor who inserted the material then created the Midei article. Since that time, the editor has also been working on the article. I put the article on my watchlist, but I haven't read the article because I figured I'd give the editor a chance to finish with it - and I keep noticing edits to it almost every day. At the same time, I suspected that the article would have notability problems, so it doesn't suprise me that you raise the issue here. Anyway, none of that helps you much because I still haven't read the article. I plan to but not today.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the article because it was submitted to DYK to be featured via a link from the Main Page. We do not allow hooks that are negative about a living person, but the hook suggested was fairly neutral. We also don't use articles forbidden by other Wikipedia policies, but I don't know enough to say if this is an OK article or not. My concern is that the article is negative, and I was wondering if a BLP expert could either remove or improve it. Sharktopus ^talk 01:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I took the article to Afd because of WP:BLP1E issues. FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 21:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Flo, for taking time to look at this issue. Sharktopus ^talk 22:46, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Valerie Sinason

The sentence about satanic ritual abuse being a moral panic should be deleted. Overall the article needs balance. As it stands it is simply an attack on the reality of satanic rituals being used to torture children. It is possible that the article should be deleted in its entirety.

Sinason is only one of many clinicians who have treated survivors. See, Epstein, Orit Badouk; Schwartz, Joseph; & Schwartz, Rachel Wingfield (2011). Ritual Abuse and Mind Control;The Manipulation of Attachment Needs. London:Karnac.

In addition there is a history of convictions of perpetrators of this form of paedophile torture on children. The latest is the case from Wales: "A man has been found guilty of leading a "satanic" sex cult from his home in a small Welsh town" GUardian 9 March 2011. There have been at least 7 other convictions over the last 25 years with one sentence of 15 years (1989), three sentences of 14 years(1982), one sentence of 12 years (1992) and 6 other sentences ranging from 10 years to 2 years. The lack of inclusion of this material evidence amounts to censorship. Only one view is allowed: satanic ritual abuse is a moral panic. THis is a fundamental violation of Wikipedia's values. Dirac137 (talk) 11:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P. Susheela

Hi,

Just reporting this incident. I've been editing this article and a couple of others. All the three persons belong to the state of Andhra Pradesh state but a couple of wiki users have been undoing my edits. They were reverting the place of birth to a name that was called over 60 years ago. I've questioned them because playback singers and Musicians from Tamil Nadu who were born over 60 years ago do not have the same birth name 'Madras Presidency'. They were changed to Tamil Nadu, which is the present name. This is my Humble request to those users and would like to ask why this partiality. The users are 'Vensatry' and 'Salih'. This kind of mis-representation of information is not acceptable. I've seen Ilayaraja, KV, K Balachandar etc...who all have the birth-place changed to Tamil Nadu. So why not PS, SJ and SPB?

I cannot understand why this user 'SpacemanSpiff' thinks that it’s an act of vandalism. A more sensible approach is needed before acting??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.43.48.136 (talk) 12:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This particular bit of the article has been in a stable state since September 2007, but over the past two weeks the IP-hopper has kept changing it against multiple editors and general convention -- the state he's adding did not exist at that point in time, neither in name nor in territorial extent. If there are such errors elsewhere, then those errors should be fixed, not add more here. e.g. Gandhi's birthplace is listed as Kathiawar Agency not Gujarat, Rabindranath Tagore's birthplace is listed as Bengal Presidency and not West Bengal. I meant to remove the vandalism bit from the pre-filled TW note, but I apparently forgot. —SpacemanSpiff 13:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I've now fixed the two articles that the OP referred to. —SpacemanSpiff 13:36, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blog gossip - BLP Subject ask for removal

Back in July I raised the concern on this forum about the biography of feminist blogger Jessica Valenti mentioning a "controversy" where fellow blogger Ann Althouse criticized her about the way she posed for a photo. The question was, did that controversy around that photo ever merit mention in Wikipedia?

There wasn't much participation but the few that did somehow supported the inclusion of that bit of gossip in the article. User Andrewlp1991 (talk · contribs) even expanded the section mentioning the photo.

Since the controversy was all about the way the subject posed for the photo (Ann Althouse implied that Valenti, one of the most accomplished feminist writers from the XXI century, was using her body to draw attention to her.) I posted the photo so that readers can see (and judge!) what was it all about.

But now, the validity of mentioning the gossip is once again put in check as Jessica Valenti herself (JessicaValenti (talk · contribs)) asked the photo to be removed.

Shouldn't the whole section be removed? Keeping the text about the photo while deeming the photo itself problematic sounds as a double standard to me. Can we get ride of the text as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Damiens.rf (talk • contribs) 14:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I took out the photo, which is really inappropriate. Anyone can find it online if they must. I guess the "controversy" is (barely) notable; but if Jessica feels the discussion of it victimises her further, I would support removing it altogether. --JN466 14:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the enitre article fails to be really utile in regard to the goal of having encyclopedia articles here. Wikipedia is not Entertainment Annual or the like. And this is another splendid example where the use of RS sources for what is clearly opinion at best is a real problem. How on earth can someone's opinion of a photograph of someone else be even remotely relevant to the actual BLP? Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would normally agree with removal of the text, but I'm not so sure here. As the article explains, Althouse's criticism was made within the political context of Feministing being criticized within the feminist movement for its sexualized context. Hence the personal criticism of her pose. I agree that it's absurd, but that's why the criticism was made, and the critic was a prominent one. Having said that, if someone were to remove the text, I would not object; ~~I just wouldn't remove it myself~~.

The image, though, should definitely not be used, and the upload with the enlarged inset is really inappropriate. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 14:45, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I created two new versions; the first with the blog issue, but tightened, and the second without it. I think I prefer the second. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 15:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per BLP: "Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity..." The photograph should remain out of the article especially the tasteless enlarged inset per request of the subject, and sensitivity. I prefer Slim Virgin's second version. Wikipedia is not a tabloid.(olive (talk) 15:55, 23 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks, Slim. I am happy with either of your rewrites. Either is much better than what we had, and the second, shorter version, is probably slightly preferable. --JN466 18:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that the general issue of "sexualized context," or however it can be best stated briefly, needs to remain in the article, but that the extended treatment and illustration of a borderline-trivial example is clearly inappropriate. It would be quite ridiculous to allow such commentary on a single incident to dominate the article while, for example, essentially ignoring all of Valenti's published books.

This situation seems to me to reflect an unfortunate editing pattern, where easily accessible online commentary, particularly promotional efforts, astroturfed "controversy" and celebrity journalism, is given extended treatment while more substantive coverage is given no better than cursory treatment. See Lisa Lavie for an example of an article dominated by coverage of the subject's own promotional activities, and Hayley Westernra and the history of Kerry Katona for articles laced with celebrity journalism, both positive and negative, respectively, at the expense of encyclopedic content. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would an uninvolved admin considering deleting the photograph now, per BLP, rather than waiting until August 30? It's clearly inappropriate with the inset, the subject feels harassed by it (see here), and it's an unused fair-use file that can't be used anywhere. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 17:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quadell has deleted it per F5 as a non-free image of a person for whom a free image exists. Discussion here. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 17:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This would not be a valid reason for deletion of this image, you should know. --damiens.rf 17:59, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out." (WP:WELLKNOWN) Andrewlp1991 (talk) 17:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, so by policy it should be culled. The only real referencing of note was the actual blog posts from the two of them - nothing else really treated the incident specifically. So not very well known. --Errant ^(chat!) 18:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The blog where the criticism was made was not really directly referenced. There was, actually, an article from The Guarding covering the controversy. --damiens.rf 18:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:ViSalus - User:Who R you?

Apparently User:Who R you? does not understand some basic WP policies, and speedy deleted an article on ViSalus because he has a personal opinion that the founders are scammers. Although he hasn't produced an RS, he continually refers to non-RS sources such as scam.com.

The article has been restored, but am a bit disturbed by his remark profane about the founders on the talk page here. I haven't had to deal a lot with BLP since I mainly work on company/business articles, but would like opinions as to whether or not that is OK to have in the talk page. Leef5 ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 17:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, Who R you did not speedily delete the article (he doesn't have the power). He inserted a tag for speedy deletion that was then removed. As for the Talk page, Who R you's comments are way out of line and I'm going to delete them as potentially libelous and and BLP violations pursuant to WP:TPO.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide of Tyler Clementi

Please see Talk:Suicide of Tyler Clementi#BLP violations. Another editor and I are stuck on deciding how BLP should be applied to living persons discussed on the page. Fresh eyes would be welcome. Please comment there, rather than here. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(I am responding here because usually, a noticeboard is an opportunity for those of us who do not want to become involved in an article or topic to weigh in on the topic, which editing a talkpage with a substantial comment most definitely is - an important consideration in the WP:DR process - I hope you understand)

I took a look at whats going on, I think that this is not a BLP issue per se, but more like a WP:BURDEN and WP:UNDUE issue. The is nothing potentially libelous being said about any living person, and the subject of the article is very much dead, to state the obvious. You guys are discussing what to include about information that has emerged on the ongoing case surrounding your case. Take it to WP:NPOV/N, I might respond there.--Cerejota (talk) 00:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I do understand, and that's fine. I appreciate the information you provided here, and would continue to welcome anyone else who, if you should happen to be so inclined, would like to give advice of any sort at the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up question: what do other editors here think about the idea that the issues are not really about BLP, but instead BURDEN and UNDUE? --Tryptofish (talk) 14:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cerejota, the issue isn't whether info about Clementi are BLP issues, but whether discussing the relationship beween Clementi and his parents is a BLP issue for his parents, or whether the information presented in the article makes POV claims and inferences about Ravi which rise to the level of BLP issues.LedRush (talk) 14:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but they are not BLP issues, because nothing inflammatory or libelous is being said about any living person.

Being concrete, the Tyler Clementi's other reasons to kill himself are central to Ravi's defense, and the claims are verifiable with sources as reliable as the NYT, a WP:BURDEN issue. However, as a theory of the defense, identified directly or implied as such by all sources, we should be careful with WP:UNDUE - what are the sources giving weight to? Remember: verifiability, not truth. Since the sources reporting on the defense's theory are also reporting on the original prosecution theory, it also becomes a WP:BURDEN issue - how relevant is this theory to the case as per sources? Is this just an idea being floated around by the defense or are RS picking it up as a valid thing? I looked at the info, and since I wish to remain uninvolved on the actual debate leave those questions open, but an examination of the sources doesn't reveal, to me, any BLP issues: the opinion of the mother might or might not be included as per WP:UNDUE/WP:BURDEN but if they are included, there is no BLP issues unless she disavows them. Ravi is accused of a crime, and the information of the defense and prosecution is a matter of public record that again is subject to WP:UNDUE/WP:BURDEN, but what is acceptable to a court of law shouldn't be unacceptable to us, again not a BLP issue.

I say that you should both refocus the debate to those categories, and forget about BLP a little, and in fact understand that BLP protection is intended for libelous slander, one-sided criticism, personal information and other such irrelevant and inflammatory information. It doesn't cover uncomfortable, embarrassing, even criminal behavior of a subject if this information is widely verified in reliable sources and is doesn't cover information a subject will not like or that a wikipedia editor believes that the subject will not like. We need to be kind to living people, but kindness needs to be tempered with whatever the RS are saying in a non-sensational or yellowish fashion.--Cerejota (talk) 19:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if you've read the sources or not, but the prosecution has not alleged that the suicide is connected to the spying incident (hence at least part of the BLP issue I see with making the connection without including any other information at all). It is unclear whether the defense will use the information regarding Clementi's relationships with his family, but literally hundreds of newspapers have.

My argument is exactly that one-sided criticism of Ravi is the BLP issue, as you've laid out above. The early reporting on this issues was indeed sensational and yellow, as the NYTimes article implies to me.LedRush (talk) 20:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for not being clear. You argument that it is "sensational and yellow" doesn't, in my view, amount to the bright-line issues of the BLP policy, neither does the view that information prejudicial to Ravi's defense constitutes "one sided criticism" - that is, while possibly embarrassing or damaging, they are presented in reliable sources that do thorough fact-checking and who are reporting not with the intent of prejudicial sensationalism, but keeping interested readers inform. BLP is not, as you seem to interpret it, permission to summarily remove any information harmful to a subject, it is actually a bright line on defending WP:NPOV: it is about concentrating on what made a living person notable in the first place, and Ravi has a huge role in this notable suicide, so naturally any information on him as it relates to this case as noted in verifiable reliable sources is important to the topic. Information on Ravi (or any other living person involved in this case not notable for anything else) that is not central to his involment with the case is what BLP protect. For example, information on his personal life, information on his upbringing, etc etc etc.

A hypothetical BLP violation would be saying "Ravi is a cold-hearted homophobic murderer", but saying "Ravi has been charged with being a homophobe and a murderer by the Republic of Albonia's Police" is not a BLP violation. Likewise, a violation would be "Tyler Clementi's mom drove him to suicide" but "Tyler Clementi's mom didn't approve of his homosexuality" is not a violation of BLP if widely sourced, as it is. Another violation would be giving out detail on Tyler Clementi's mom not related to Tyler Clementi himself or his suicide - she is not notable except for the tragedy of her son killing himself, and we should be careful not to needlessly add to her pain by moving away from the topic and into her life. I see none of these happening here.

If you need a bright line, there are no claims that fall under BLP here - and I say so as an uninterested party who wants to remain uninterested. You do mention a key aspect here, which is that what the sources say to you and what they say to others is in dispute - those are precisely WP:UNDUE/WP:BURDEN issues for which I raised some guide questions towards resolution. Again, try WP:NPOVN or WP:RSN, because they breathe this stuff there. Sorry, but I get the distinct feeling that there is a fishing for support or opposition of the information under BLP, but this doesn't meet that threshold. It might meet other thresholds, and I point you out to them. But yes, I have read the wall-o-text and I see no major BLP issues that warrant the exclusion of material under BLP policy. --Cerejota (talk) 22:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know you say you are reading the information, but it is hard for me to believe you as you keep misstating my positions. I never said "that information prejudicial to Ravi's defense constitutes "one sided criticism"". The issue is that including only one side of information from reliable sources commenting on the issues is a BLP issue. Furthermore, skewing such information further by the manner of presentation or by the misrepresentation of the sources themselves compounds the BLP issue. This is a completely non-controversial opinion and I am surprised that you are spending so much time to argue against it. I mean, you could try and argue that the info isn't one sided and the sources not misrepresented and the presentation not skewed, but not that those things don't creat BLP issues.LedRush (talk) 23:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't apply to BLP. It is a WP:UNDUE issue. Please read WP:UNDUE and compare it to what you wrote above, and change BLP to "UNDUE" and you will see what I mean, in particular this line "The issue is that including only one side of information from reliable sources commenting on the issues is a BLP issue" - no it isnt a BLP issue, it is an UNDUE issue. My estimation was based on this you wrote: "my argument is exactly that one-sided criticism of Ravi is the BLP issue". I don't see how that can be interpreted differently than how I did. --Cerejota (talk) 23:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"BLP protection is intended for libelous slander, one-sided criticism, personal information and other such irrelevant and inflammatory information." If only we could find who wrote this and ask him what he meant.LedRush (talk) 23:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"I should have said "unsourced", I brainfarted. :)--Cerejota (talk) 06:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, poorly sourced info is just as bad. Further, read part of the lede BLP: "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. 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] 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. This policy applies to BLPs, including any living person mentioned in a BLP even if not the subject of the article, and to material about living persons on other pages.[3] The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material." This speaks directly to the issues we are discussing.

Also, the label issue is another, crystal clear BLP issue. Labeling Ravi has being the direct cause of the suicide, despite the fact that the claim doesn't appear to be in the article and it doesn't seem to be sourced to high quality sources (and it sure as heck isn't a "conservative" writing of the article is against BLP. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP#Categories.2C_lists_and_navigation_templates LedRush (talk) 14:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me be clear, even if I feel I am repeating myself: in my assessment, if any of the sources in dispute are put in the article, there wouldn't be a BLP violation. Period. However, the issue if these sources should be included or not included is a legitimate debate centered around WP:BURDEN and WP:UNDUE issues. My suggestion is that you desist from pursuing it as a BLP matter, and concentrate in the potential WP:BURDEN/WP:UNDUE issues. You can disregard this suggestion, but I do ask you consider if this is productive or not.

I'll let others reply if they want to, because if I fail in this last attempt, I have been unsuccessful in conveying to you that I am giving you a good-faith assessment that the dispute is one about WP:BURDEN/WP:UNDUE (and hence should be resolved by addressing such issues), not about WP:BLP. You can disregard my assessment, or accept it, but that is my assessment, based on careful reading of policy, previous experience, and examining the dispute and sources involved - not ignorance of the issues at hand, or a lack of conservatism in handling BLPs (you can search other positions of mine in this very page and you will see I am quite conservative when it comes to BLP, because BLP makes sense. --Cerejota (talk) 14:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Unfortunately, declaratory statements on policy are not really helpful, but I do thank you for weighing in. Could you please provide your reasoning as to why the BLP policy on labeling I link to above does not apply to tagging the article as a "suicide due to cyberbullying" when the article doesn't include that argument, no one has provided RSs to back up the claim, and the NYTimes explicitly refutes this position?LedRush (talk) 15:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a BLP noticeboard, so I refrain from making assesments of anything of substance not related to BLP (and referred this discussion to other, more appropriate, noticeboards). Since you are questioning my assessment of this not being a BLP issue, all I have left is policy based arguments. To directly answer your question: I have no opinion for inclusion or inclusion of the information, but while I cannot see this as a BLP issue (the case is widely report together with the topic of cyberbullying, and it is trivial to find RS that do so, ex.[32]) I can see your argument on inclusion as related to WP:BURDEN, which puts the burden on the people who include or revert information, but also calls upon editors to make an effort to look for sourcing, rather than simply removal. Since this is not a BLP issue, there is no reason to immediately remove the information or to keep it, all you have left is the WP:BRD process (being careful not to edit war), and in order to facilitate the reaching that consensus I pointed out that both WP:BURDEN and WP:UNDUE seem to apply, and pointed you out to the appropriate noticeboard. You insist, as is your right, that this is a BLP issue, instead of going to those noticeboards and asking for views on WP:BURDEN and WP:UNDUE.--Cerejota (talk) 15:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will take you at your word that you are making good faith positions, but when you don't articulate why you think an issue which appears to directly fall under BLP policy doesn't, it is difficult to discuss anything. Seeing as no one has put forward a RS which says Clementi's suicide was a result of cyber-bullying (including the one you link to, which has many of the inaccuracies of other early reports) and I have highly reliable sources which explicitly says that the issue is unclear, this doesn't pass even normal WP rules as it appears to be OR. But let's pretend that these sources do exist. It still falls under the BLP policy regarding categories/labels I linked to above. Maybe you don't think it's a violation, but the issue clearly must be analyzed with this in mind.LedRush (talk) 16:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have explained it, at some length I might add. I apologize it is not to your satisfaction, but I cannot see how I can be more clear.--Cerejota (talk) 21:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, not once have you addressed why the tag "suicides due to cyber-bullying" tag wouldn't need to abide by the guidelines set out in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP#Categories.2C_lists_and_navigation_templates . Furthermore, your example above doesn't support the claim, and in my quick search online, none of the first 10 arrticles supports the claim, though a few either directly or indirectly argue against it. But again, even if you disagree with the argument that the tag is a violation of BLP, you haven't offered any reason (nonetheless a clear one) why the tags wouldn't need to follow the referenced guidelines.LedRush (talk) 21:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read and carefully consider that is said here: WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I think it applies in this case, without prejudice to the actual content dispute.--Cerejota (talk) 19:30, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please either make an actual argument which addresses mine (not a conclusory opinion) or just let it go. Tryptofish has been able to do this, even though we disagree. You, on the other hand...LedRush (talk) 20:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cerejota, thank you for your input here. I am, indeed, hopeful that LedRush and I are making progress (and I actually think that this discussion here was helpful in getting us there). I hope that you understand that your comments are appreciated. And anyone else who wants to provide any advice would be very welcome. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Levine

We still have an editor (AndyTheGrump) not following sources. The relevant source material reads:

"Like a lot of Jewish musicians, Levine has rejected formal religious practice for a more generalised, spiritual way of life. It was inevitable, really: in a way, the Bible and its characters were supplanted at a young age in his imagination by the heroes of pop."

Based on the above the editor makes this edit and does it again here.

The insistence is on that Levine has "rejected formal religion" when the source says he "rejected formal religious practice".

What is "formal religion"? Why is the word "formal" even included? More importantly the source literally refers to "religious practice", not to "religion". The source is saying that there is no "religious practice"; the source is not saying that there is "no religion".

The sources that we have (1, 2, 3, 4) convey to us clearly and unambiguously that Adam Levine considers himself Jewish. The sources also convey that others consider him Jewish. No source whatsoever hints that he might not be Jewish.

Has he really "rejected formal religion"? Or is he "not religious" as my edit here phrased it?

Are we not trying to speak common English? The source says that Levine "rejected formal religious practice" and from that we are going to derive that he has "rejected formal religion"? Does anyone have even the remotest idea what the term "formal religion" refers to, especially in terms of Jews? Such language is never encountered. In common parlance a Jew who does not "practice" the religion—meaning engaging in ritual of one sort or another—is said to be "not religious". That is what I edited the sentence to read: "Levine is Jewish though not religious." That is standard, common, everyday English.

AndyTheGrump feels that the sentence should read: "Levine is Jewish but has rejected formal religion."

I am tired of arguing about this. I know this topic has just been archived off of this Noticeboard after spending two weeks here. We have used the article Talk page extensively. It is relatively unimportant that Levine's Jewishness be noted in that article.

But what I am encountering is the choice between accepting phrasing that has some unacceptable drawback or not noting Jewishness in the article at all. These are unreasonable choices, given the plain meaning of sources as well as the unimportance of some points that have been suggested for inclusion. For instance previously the argument was to include that he (Levine) did not have a Bar mitzvah. Including that would be ludicrous. And it is the same thing now. Now I am expected to accept that the subject of the article rejected formal religion when the source says that he rejected formal religious practice.

The above language is odd at best, meaningless at worst. All that I see is that the word "formal" has been retained intact from the source. Whereas the source says that Levine rejected formal religious practice, the article inexplicably now reads that Levine rejected formal religion. Can somebody else please weigh in here? Bus stop (talk) 01:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a solution - we don't seem to clearly know that he is not religious - do we? - just forget about his religion it doesn't seem important to him - just add - Levine is Jewish. - his Jewishness does seem important to him and he refers to himself as Jewish often. Off2riorob (talk) 02:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bus stop, your argument makes no sense. How can the source possibly be used to state that Levine is 'not religious'? Atheists are 'not religious', but I'm sure that isn't what you mean. Levine rejected a Bar Mitzvah, and states (in the interview in the source cited) that "Religion is a very long, complicated conversation that we're not going to have right now..." The source cited says that "Like a lot of Jewish musicians, Levine has rejected formal religious practice for a more generalised, spiritual way of life" - one assumes this follows from what Levine said during the interview, though they aren't Levine's words. The simple fact is that we don't know what Levine's beliefs are, and we cannot use the source cited to state anything beyond that (we certainly can't state that religion isn't important to him, either). If you want to quote the Jewish Chronicle article directly, as saying that Levine has "rejected formal religious practice for a more generalised, spiritual way of life" I suppose that this might be acceptable - though how this differs from saying that he has 'rejected formal religion' is really beyond me, if you are instead using it to argue that Levine has no religion. Frankly though, I've given up trying to figure out what you are trying to argue. And no, the article isn't going to state that Levine is Jewish, without making clear that he isn't formally of the Judaic faith. We have the best possible source for this - Levine himself - and if we consider his ethnicity significant (which is self-asserted), we should likewise allow to assert his own faith. To do otherwise shows a complete disrespect for Levine. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WTH? I would suggest that there is a reasonable equivalence between rejection of "formal religion" amd "formal religious practice." E.g.: a person might be nominally Roman Catholic, but not attend Mass weekly by a mile. Rejecting a Bar Mitsvah because of a feeling that the others had one out of greed is, in fact, a prescient and religious position on his part. IIRC, it is the age of 13, and not the ritual, which makes the boy a man. Cheers. Collect (talk) 07:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason why the article should not simply state:

"Levine is Jewish."

I don't think anything further is called for. I do not think there is any further call for any further depth to that point. Nothing of any further interest exists pertaining to that point in relation to Adam Levine. Why would we be searching for anything further to say when nothing further apparently exists in sources? I would just have the article say "Levine is Jewish" and leave it at that. His identity is, after all, that of a "singer-songwriter and musician". Why should we feel the need to embellish the fact that he is Jewish?

I had written into the article, "Levine is Jewish though not religious" to accommodate other editors. But in the ideal I don't think the added wording is called for and I certainly don't think "…has rejected formal religion" has any place in a well-written and appropriately-sourced article on Adam Levine. Bus stop (talk) 10:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The cite does not back "not religious". In fact, as I noted, "rejection" of a ritual specifically may be quite religious. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bus stop, you don't own the article - there is no requirement that anyone 'accommodates' to anything except the requirement that articles are balanced, relevant, informative, and properly sourced. Now, can you explain why you think that Levine's ethnicity is more significant than his religious beliefs? Neither have anything to do with his notability, but you seem intent on finding any excuse to include one, and exclude the other, despite basing both on an article where Levine himself makes clear that his 'Jewishness' isn't based on adherence to formal beliefs (or at least, to formal practice)? The simple fact is that to describe someone as simply 'Jewish' is ambiguous, and we have sufficient data to clarify (to some extent) that ambiguity, based on the words of the only 'reliable source' that really matters - Levine himself. You have done nothing during this discussion other than pursue a relentless campaign to slap a label on Levine, in pursuit of your usual nit-picking, circular-argument-based, illogical ethno-tagging agenda, in blatant disregard for the interests of Wikipedia, and this latest episode seems to me to demonstrate once again that you are unsuited to working on Wikipedia biographies, given your refusal to work within WP:NPOV, or to accept that 'Jewishness' is a complex issue, not a simple yes-no question that Wikipedia should be making rulings on. This is not a database or a court of law, and shouldn't be treated like it is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AndyTheGrump—you say that, "…to describe someone as simply 'Jewish' is ambiguous…" Actually it means just what it says, but like all information, it is incomplete. Note that this applies to all information—all information is incomplete. The question becomes, why are we bothering in further elaborating on the fact that Adam Levine is Jewish? My contention is that there is no reason for further elaboration. That is because this is an article on a "singer-songwriter and musician"—religion does not come into play in any obvious way. Therefore, in my opinion, a bare sketch of his background is appropriate, and nothing more. The reader has resources available in the form of citations, a "Further reading" section, and an "External links" section. In my opinion there is an appropriate "depth" to information presented in an article, especially a WP:BLP, and especially when the subject is religion. Stating that Levine is Jewish is not strikingly "ambiguous". In my opinion we should not be burdening the article with what, in context, is relatively unimportant. Bus stop (talk) 13:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given that what is important in your opinion is clearly distorted by your obsession with labelling people as 'Jewish' for no other reason than that you have a source for it, why should anyone care what you think? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually this discussion was long underway before I joined it. Here is the previous discussion on this Notice-board. I assume it was previously underway on the article Talk page. Bus stop (talk) 14:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What has that got to do with anything? How about explaining why you think that we should include reliably-sourced information regarding Levine's ethnicity in his bio, but exclude information regarding his beliefs? This is what is at issue here, not who said what, where when, or why. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is unskillful to post this on BLP/N and then rehash your usual debates that you've already had with each other a hundred times on Talk:Adam Levine. The purpose of posting here is to get other people's opinions, not to spread your war across Wikipedia like a battle between Godzilla and... some other big monster. See WP:EGO. I strongly urge you both to stop replying to each other and let others weigh in. causa sui (talk) 15:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree w/Off2. As he suggests above, just say" "Levine is Jewish." For the reasons he and other reasons suggest.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Off2riorob's comment of 02:05, 24 August 2011 - just say "Levine is Jewish" and leave it at that. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer if people would explain why they think we should be including information about ethnicity, but not about beliefs. Given that neither is relevant to Levine's notability, is there actually a reason to include one, and not the other? Or to look at it another way, is there any policy based reason why I can't add a brief sourced statement about Levine's (self-asserted) beliefs to a sentence about his ethnicity? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User:All Hallow's Wraith has now revised the text again, to read "Levine is Jewish (the religion of his father and maternal grandfather). He has rejected formal religion". [33]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

yeah I agree with Off2riorob, Epeefleche, and *gulp* Jayjg, it is evident in the interview that the subject of religion is both sensitive to Levine (hesitant to speak about it) and not really relevant to his public life (unlike his self-identification as Jewish) - and yes, absence of formalized ritual is not absence of religion or even informal ritual - the Roman Catholic comparison is apt. However, I would recommend getting a different source to reduce the temptation of wanting to expand the quote, if that becomes the consensus. And of course, And Andy, I wish ethnic self-identification was irrelevant, but it general it is because that's the world we live in, and this an encyclopedia about that world, so it is relevant to our interests. In this specific case, Levine does wear it on his sleeve, so its a no brainer. --Cerejota (talk) 06:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Rania of Jordan

Could we get some extra eyes on this article, and in particular the section titled "Corruption allegations"? Two of the three sections don't seem to have anything to do with corruption, and the first section seems to be based on three different translations/interpretations of the same statement, from three different wire services, turning one complaint into three separate charges. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how to do with the first or second paragraph, but the third was easy to fix. --Dweller (talk) 10:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandar Kolarov

This article of Manchester City FC player Aleksandar Kolarov has been edited a few times now. The edits are always corrected by me. The article is inappropriately edited, by changing his full name to Muhammad Hassan and his birthplace to Kenya - both incorrect. I have corrected everything that needs to be , however I still dont know how to add a photo. Please add a photo of Aleksandar Kolarov and lock the page so that it may not be modified incorrectly again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoravaiDrina (talk • contribs) 07:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've watchlisted the page, and left a warning for the IP address that made these incorrect changes. Strangely, the same IP tried to do something similar to the Ryan Giggs article back in January - it's possible they really don't understand what's going on, and are trying to use these pages as a basis for a player profile of their own, but are failing to save it somewhere different.

However, as regards Aleksandar Kolarov, this erroneous change only seems to have been made once in the last month, as far as I can see. There was some more problematic vandalism back in May, but in my opinion the situation is not problematic enough to merit semi-protection of the page yet.

I can help you add a photo, however the question is, do you have one that is freely licensed, or could be freely licensed? For example, if it's a photo that you own the copyright to because you took it yourself. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Israel Hanukoglu

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

Could somebody with relevant expertise please take a look at this article. It somehow made its way onto my watchlist & I just reverted the unexplained IP removal of its sole ref. It then occurred to me to wonder why the sole ref in an Israeli intellectual's BLP is in Indonesian -- which is why I'm bringing it here. May be fine (and just another poorly-sourced BLP), but may be fishy -- so I thought I'd play it safe. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 08:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can't explain why it's in Indonesian, but I added a decent hebrew language ref I found on his he: article, in case that Indonesian one is junk. --Dweller (talk) 09:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have some understanding of Malay which is partially intelligble with Indonesian and it looks to me like the only thing the reference says about Israel Hanukoglu is that he started the Israel Science dan Technology website and that he was a science advisor to the Israeli PM from 1996 to 1999. The ref it self appears to be primarily about proving Amdocs is an Israeli not a US company. (It mentions Israel Science dan Technology as it says it lists Amdocs is an Israeli software company.) In other words it isn't a great ref and doesn't establish notability but what it appears to be about Re: Israel Hanukoglu doesn't seem likely to be that contentious, although the Israel Science and Technology Homepage bit could probably go without some evidence it's significant when it comes to Israel Hanukoglu Nil Einne (talk) 14:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ricardo Duchesne

User:BlueonGray is again disruptive on Ricardo Duchesne (1 and 2), after he has been already so in February and March. His edit history shows him to be a clear single-purpose account who apparently holds a grudge against Duchesne. BlueonGray has already been the subject of a incident report in March where he was warned by User:Off2riorob on his talk page about his disruptive bahaviour. BlueonGray's actions also led the article then to be included in the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Watchlist by User:C.Fred. However, BlueonGray has never cared to replied, neither on his talk page nor on that of Duchesne, and now he just picks up his intransingent edit pattern where he left in March. I believe the user should be blocked for an extended period of time for an unwillingness to adhere to fundamental WP policies, namely WP:ALIVE and WP:Discuss. Involved users are notified. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ricardo Duchesne is, at best, a marginal academic with negligible influence within his discipline. It remains an open question why there is a biographical entry for him at all. Biographical entries of living persons should be created for persons of some significance. In the case of a scholar, one obvious and uncontroversial measure of that significance is the number of times he or she has been cited. The fact is, according to Google Scholar, Duchesne has been cited only 15 times. Factual information about scholarly influence should be included on a biographical entry on a scholar. What justification does User:Gun Powder Ma have for censoring the fact of Duchesne's limited influence? This censorship runs entirely against the spirit of Wikipedia's openness and commitment to factual accuracy.--BlueonGray (talk) 16:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE - Actually, according to Google Scholar, Duchesne's best known work has been cited only 12 times. If Duchesne is indeed a significant scholar, then there should be no problem in including this fact in his entry.--BlueonGray (talk) 16:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe that the subject doesn't meet the WP:ACADEMIC guidelines, take it to WP:AFD. – ukexpat (talk) 16:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will proceed there and provide strong evidence that the subject does not meed the WP:ACADEMIC guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueonGray (talk • contribs) 16:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies: forgot to sign.--BlueonGray (talk) 16:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- The BLP has now been nominated for discussion and possible deletion at ...

Paul Martin

As with this biography, and with that of Jack Layton, there is a reference to the 2005 meeting in which Paul Martin sought support from the NDP for his minority government, and the claim is made (but with no supporting reference) that Jack Layton demanded a ban on private health care from the Liberal government in return for propping the government up.

The fact is, there are no news agencies which make any claim to know what was said between these individuals. The failure of these two to reach an agreement resulted in Stephen Harper's election, and so it is a politically contentious question as to who bears responsibility for the failed negotiation. Wikipedia should not be making assertions about the substance of these negotiations without citing authoritative sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brendan.Osberg (talk • contribs) 12:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Lee Grahn birthdate

I think it would be helpful to get a couple additional eyes to review the birthdate information at Nancy Lee Grahn. The birthdate that was originally in the article was April 28, 1958 which was sourced to her Santa Barbara profile. Yesterday an IP continued to change the date to 1956, using Intelius only as a source, specifically this link . I pointed out that Intelius is not an acceptable source for personal info in a BLP (i.e there is no way to even know the Intellius page is referring to the same individual asthe article subject) and a previous query at WP:RSN noted it was not reliable. I explained this both in my edit summary, as well as on my talk where the IP commented "It is what it is and she and fans will have to deal with reality". This does not sound like an impartial comment. I went back to the article, cleaned up a bunch of uncited personal information and added an additional, published source for the birthdate (Gale's Contemporary theatre, film, and television), but the edits have been undone again by the IP, restoring the Intelius based date and all of the unsourced personal info. At this point I would appreciate fresh eyes as the IP obviously will not stop until the Intelius ref is accepted. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 14:34, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Ponyo' is using a fan site of capridge.com and a self-supplied old 'who's who' type book to 'document' a birth date of 1958. I am using a site intelius.com (which uses credit, government, and other data) - and ancestry.com (you need a paid subscription to see the data - and it says 1956) and is extremely reliable, well-known, and used by researchers for genealogy worldwide. Also, this actress is well-documented as having attended Niles North High School in Skolie Il, (many cites say 1976) however, she does NOT appear in the 1976 class book as a graduate or undergraduate, see: http://www.classmates.com/yearbooks/Niles-North-High-School/16558 but a sibling is in there as a freshman. I cannot help it if actors want to appear younger than they are; the documentation does not support it. I could create a hundred web pages saying I'm 10 years younger than I am, but the real paper trail won't support it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.201.148.108 (talk) 14:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1) I did not add the capridge.com reference, it was already included in the article. 2) Intelius is not a reliable source for personal information in a WP:BLP. 2) Ancestry.com is not a reliable source for personal information in a WP:BLP. 3) What you are inferring by looking through online yearbooks is original research and not viable as a reliable source in a BLP. If the Gale reference is not seen as reliable enough to retain the 1958 date, then I propose the date be removed altogether unless and until a solid source is included for verification. This would be wholly inline with BLP policy when such instances arise. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per the BLP I have removed the DoB pending resolution of the sourcing issue. Everyone OK with that? – ukexpat (talk) 16:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's the direction I usually go when dealing with this type of discrepancy. Could you also take a peek at the other unsourced personal info I removed in this edit? It was all restored to the article when the IP undid my edit. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather see it left blank than continue the drivel by Ponyo. according to him/her re: ancestry.com - he claims it's user generated?!?! So - he decides ancestry.com is unreliable and then uses that to discredit others using that? Ancestry.com IS NOT USER GENERATED. It has a searchable database and provides links to images from the US Census, Ellis Island immigration/arrival records, Social Security death index, images from thousands of newspapers, and thousands of other sources etc. So I suppose I put my own great-grandfather's WWI draft card on there? Or my grandmother's Ellis Island record? HAHAHHAA. You can't do that. I think you should edit out his comments on that one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.201.148.108 (talk) 16:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK enough, please keep the discussion civil. We have a resolution for the moment. I will, however, add that the records that ancestry.com provides access to are primary sources. Please read WP:RS for guidance as to what the community here regards as reliable sources. – ukexpat (talk) 17:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gale is an extremely reliable publisher of secondary sources, the kind of sources we should be using instead of doing original research with general databases with no real indication that the person we find is the same person in the article. We are not here to do original historical research, that is the job of biographers. I'm restoring the citation to Gale on this basis. Gamaliel (talk) 17:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A final note, I'm not sure anyone who edit wars to insert this tidbit into a BLP should really be editing the article at all. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 13:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that does put the anon's behavior in a new light, doesn't it? Looks like instead of an edit war that's boiled over, we've got a grudge match. Gamaliel (talk) 14:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Kostoff

Hi,

I am Jeff Kostoff, swimmer, and someone keeps posting false and inappropriate information in my bio. They keep posting a statement about my involvement or a commercial on the Party Poker website. I HAVE NO AFFILIATION WITH THIS WEBSITE AND I NEVER HAVE. They also seem to have this obsession with me allegedly yelling the word "Balls." I suspect this is a former student from when I taught history at Rockville HS in Maryland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.93.217.2 (talk) 15:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you should send an email as described on Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem; this will alert the Wikimedia OTRS team that there is an issue. I'll watchlist the article now, but OTRS inervention will make it more likely that this content will be kept out of the article. Puppy (talk) 15:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lita Ford (Musician)

Resolved

There is a discrepency in this article concerning Lita's birthday. Underneathe her picture, it says September 23, 1958 ... but the opening line of the article is says 19, September 1958. I think the one under her picture is correct but now I'm not entirely sure.

Here's the link to the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lita_Ford

Thanks!

Beth — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.116.187.166 (talk) 16:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll correct the discrepancy and add citations. Thanks! Gamaliel (talk) 17:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Farrah Gray

Farrah Gray's original name is Farrakhan Khalid and he is the son of Khalid Abdul Muhammad (a prominent and wealthy Nation of Islam member). This information keeps being removed from Farrah Gray's wikipedia page and is an essential part of his upbringing.

It should be removed because it's unsourced. I've also removed his birthdate, which is also unsourced. Finally, I note that the article is a mess.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Jennings

The article violates the biography policy in that it is not from a neutral point of view (NPOV). There are several Kevin Jennings controversies that led to his resignation that continue to be modified and erased:

1. In 2000 Kevin Jennings was the keynote speaker at the GLSEN/Boston Conference at Tufts University where “youth only, ages 14-21″ learned in a workshop at the conference about fisting and watersports from the GLSEN activists. GLSEN leaders eventually apologized.

2. In 2001, Jennings' GLSEN activists handed out “fisting kits” to the children and teachers who attended the Jennings' GLSEN conference.

3. In 2005, hundreds of middle school age and up children at Brookline High School in Brookline, Massachusetts attended Kevin Jennnings’ GLSEN 2005 Conference. Activists at the conference passed out the “Little Black Book – Queer in the 21st Century,” a book that exposes children to Rimming, Fisting, Water Sports and Sex Toys.

4. While the "social conservatives" surely did not like the fact that it appeared Jennings condoned the sex acts between a minor and an adult, but they actually campaigned against Jennings because he was irresponsible as an educator in not reporting the statutory rape.

These were included and referenced VERIFIABLE in an edit on August 24, 2011... and the old Kevin Jennings biography appeared shortly thereafter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrtim29 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ernesto Bustamante

On 8/23/11, in Moscow, Idaho, USA, an apparent murder/suicide took place involving another man by the same name as this article. The story is getting U.S. and international coverage. This story may continue to gain coverage, and searches on this name may increase. The person in Moscow (The alleged perpetrator, now dead) probably does not warrant an article of his own, so there is no disambiguation possible in the usual sense. Would it be appropriate to add a brief clarification to the article to say, in effect, "This is not the person involved in that incident"? Josepheh (talk) 23:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea to me. I wonder if maybe we should provide a link to a source on the 'other' Bustamante, though, to make it clear that they aren't the same person? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Let's take conversation to talk page of the article. Josepheh (talk) 23:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably best to see if anyone else has comments on this - similar situations may have arisen before. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very good. I will wait a while and watch for further comments here or at article before proceeding. Josepheh (talk) 23:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the generic hatnote template (Template:Dablink) is probably what is needed if we do this. We can at least think about wording - how about "Note: this article is about a Peruvian scientist, and not about another person of the same name involved in an alleged murder-suicide in Idaho in August 2011." We can give a link to the Huffington Post for example to make clear that they aren't the same person [34]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree w/Andy.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

O.k. I'll add it for now - if it is wrong, it can always be removed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've done this. Strictly speaking, it might be seen as WP:OR to assert that they aren't the same person, but I think we are on safe grounds... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I for one promise not to report you for an OR violation here ...--Epeefleche (talk) 07:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get over to his talkpage with a level 4 warning template right away :) In the meantime, I've tweaked the wording a little (there's potential for more confusion by passers-by, since they were both scientists and quite possibly both Peruvian too) and also changed the inline external link into a footnote reference. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Leigh Jones

This article again needs more eyes. A very aggressive editor is back inserting material that doesn't belong in the article or inserting too much material about a subject that should be limited to a small amount. I've dealt with this editor before, and it's exhausting. I've removed the material (both from the lead and a little from the body). I've commented on the Talk page. But I don't expect the editor to let it go without a major battle (he's verbose and drowns you in sources, quotes, and "reasons" why it belongs, at the same time saying he wants to cooperate). I also can't stand the editor's cites as they almost always have very long quotes that add even more stuff in the References section about the same thing. As I commented on the Talk page, I'm not sure I have the strength to deal with this, so maybe others can assist and offer their own views (obviously, they don't have to agree with me). This article has been talked about before on BLPN here.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article does violate BLP and NPOV, and now FRINGE. A jury found against Jones, but the article is one-sided in Jones's favor, violating the BLP interests of the men she falsely accused. While one aggressive editor is inserting too much material, multiple editors are censoring far too much, deleting critical facts that are sourced by multiple RS, and making bogus BLP claims to justify it. I am withdrawing from this article because I don't have time for Wikidrama, but it's pretty appalling when editors are pushing a POV to the left of Mother Jones. THF (talk) 08:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We're not required to include every claim KBR tried against Jones in the interests of the accused men who aren't even named in the article. It is not, as you claim, a BLP violation to fail to include their attempts to discredit the LP who is the article subject. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we could get into a debate about whether the "P" in "BLP" covers corporations as well as individuals, but I don't think that's necessary. The defendant men are people whether they're named or not, and so BLP policy applies to them no less than if they were named. Skimming over the article, there seems to be some dissonance between the lead and the body. The lead is simple: woman claims rape, prosecutors decline to prosecute, and she loses civil suit. But then the body of the article has a whole section about her claims, without any corresponding section describing the claims of the defendants (i.e. the claims that prevailed in both the civil and criminal contexts). So, I'm maybe getting a whiff here of an attempt to re-litigate the case on Wikipedia. The article says, "A 2006 EEOC investigation found that Jones .... had been sexually assaulted by one or more employees...." If that EEOC finding of guilt is included in the article, it seems like the article should say how the defendants were able to persuade the civil and criminal authorities that the EEOC was wrong. So, just looking briefly at the article, it seems a bit weird, but I could be mistaken.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This has been a controversial article for some time now. I don't see anything untoward about laying out her claims and saying she lost in that case. It's fairly clear from the article that KBR's defenses prevailed. In addition, the article is not about the case, but about Jones. If we want to do an article about the case, that would perhaps be done differently. Finally, the EEOC has nothing to do with "guilt" and, legally, is a completely different animal from a civil lawsuit. These are very legal issues and one issue in one legal context doesn't necessarily equate or rebut another issue in a diffferent legal context.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To a casual Wikipedia reader, it sure looks like the EEOC finding was contradicted or rejected by the court verdict, and the Wikipedia article doesn't seem to say why. Instead, it looks kinda like the Wikipedia article is presenting the EEOC finding as evidence that the court was wrong. Anyway, I recommend a separate article about the case, including a description of the defendants' defenses, and then this article's treatment could be shortened into a summary of the new article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:40, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Casual, as in just a first-time visitor to the article? Like me? I see an article with a lead which has a grand jury investigating her claims but issuing no indictments, a civil jury deciding against her when she sued LBR, but no mention that a EEOC investigation found Jones had been sexually assaulted by one or more employees. The EEOC finding is down in the body text and I can't see how it could remotely be construed as Wikipedia presenting it as evidence that the court was wrong. To the contrary. By not including it in the intro I think we have created an imbalance to the detriment of the BLP subject. Moriori (talk) 01:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually worse than that because the EEOC finding is in the section called Jones's accusations. It's not an accusation. It's a finding by a federal agency, although it's not the same as a jury verdict, but then neither is a grand jury not returning an indictment.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm a first-time visitor to the article. I wouldn't put the EEOC thing into the lead just yet. It's still very unclear what effect it had, whether it was subject to appeal, and what relation it had to the court case. Definitely it doesn't belong in an accusations section, but the whole article is kind of messed up as discussed above, so it would be best to start from square one, IMO.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I definitively wouldn't put it in the lead and it is questionable to have it anywhere in the article. It's current citation is not a BLP allowable source -- but even if one is found (and I've looked and couldn't find one) -- it is misleading and I think that's why the sources don't mention it. Hoping To Help (talk) 23:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My view is Jones isn't notable except for her accusations and the various investigations and cases spawned by those accusations. Therefore, the best thing would be to have an article that discusses them. It wouldn't be about one case but about all of the "cases", even though some of them aren't really cases.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, that sounds good. If it turns out later that her congressional testimony and her founding of a non-profit organization justify a separate article about her, then it could be very brief.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, do we have a volunteer to write Jones v. Haliburton and related proceedings?Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this would help a lot! My suggest would be to call it Jones v. KBR and related proceedings since most all the sources refer to KBR and not Haliburton. Hoping To Help (talk) 21:40, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP considerations for the men accused of gang rape

I think we need to make it very clear that the men being accused of these lurid crimes need just as much WP:BLP protection as Jones.

PROPOSAL: Have a BLP warning box at the top of the article reminding people to be mindful of BLP considerations for all the individuals involved: Jones, the firefighters and the guards.

If people were to make an effort to be fair to both sides of this dispute (and care as much about protecting the men as they do Jones) -- then this would go a long way to cutting down on the edit warring. Hoping To Help (talk) 22:08, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ALSO: Above Rosceles said: "It is not, as you claim, a BLP violation to fail to include their attempts to discredit the LP who is the article subject."

I think this is an issue that needs to be resolved. Whereas, we certainly don't need to include *every* "attempt to discredit the LP." The litany of charges against them shouldn't go unanswered. Basically, giving Jones a plantform to detail her accusations -- without including the men's side as reported in Reliable Sources is WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE therefore a violation of WP:BLP.

And even the phrasing of "their attempts to discredit the LP" -- reveals a troubling bias. We should be documenting both sides of the story as reported in the Reliable Sources. If one views each edit that includes the defense's side of the story (as reported in RS) as an "attempt to discredit" Jones -- then one is going to see BLP violations against Jones where they don't really exist.

Just put yourself in their shoes. Imagine someone accused you of being a child molester. And their charges are included in lurid detail. It doesn't balance it out to just report that you won in court. Because without hearing your side -- people will still assume that you're guilty and that you probably got off on a technicality. Hoping To Help (talk) 22:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All BLP's or BLP related topics already carry such a box by default. If there is consensus in the talkpage, an {{editnotice}} could be placed with the additional warning at the time of editing.

However, you apparently misunderstood the point Rosceles was making, and took a quote out of context: unnamed parties deserve some BLP protection, but that is weaker than the protection a named subject requires. You seem to argue "equal treatment" - and BLP and UNDUE do not argue equal treatment, they argue neutral treatment - often this means that one side of a dispute is given more coverage than another, for a variety of reasons (often unrelated to neutrality, for example notability itself). Since the parties accused of rape are unknown to the wiki they do not deserve equal treatment. The topic of the court cases is indeed well covered in the article, and that is enough protection, as no claim regarding the case is made outside of a court of law or the context of the several court cases is presented. The response of KBR on their belief that justice was served is plenty of response.

Your emotional example is invalid, because this is not remotely similar to a case of someone accused of child molesting, who was cleared of charges in court. There is no analogy here. This was a complex case with great political and economic interests involved, notable not for the emotional aspect of rape, but for the political and economic interests involved and the political consequences it had.

WP:UNDUE does requires that we include answers to charges, which is done in the lede, but not any answer - just widely reported ones in RS as reporting not opinion. In a correct analogy, imagine if you are a woman who was gang-raped, but the rapists get off clear because of a technicality or because other biases, how would you feel if people assume you weren't raped and that you probably made the whole thing up? I am not saying that the subject here was raped or that the rapists got off on a technicality, but this analogy is way more applicable. I think that your respect for privacy of anonymous figures not mentioned in the wiki needs to be tempered by greater respect for a figure named in the wiki - you certainly are capable of understanding the moral basis of BLP protection, but I think you are not applying it with vigor to the subject of the article.

Also, the entire personal life section has nothing to do with why this person is notable, and appears irrelevant, I suggest it be removed.

In addition, this article is a borderline WP:BLP1E, she is notable only for alleging a gang rape, and as such such I am not sure she should be covered by an article. I suggest the possibility of this being renamed and redirected to a neutral title that suggest the topic is her case, not herself (for example 2005 Baghdad KBR employee gang-rape case or some other descriptive name). If this is not done, perhaps an AfD might be in order. It just seems this is borderline WP:NOTNEWSPAPER stuff and is just sitting here asking for the subject to be smeared.--Cerejota (talk) 23:22, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've presented a great example of the conflict I'm talking about. I would argue that unnamed people need just as much BLP protection as named. Especially in this case where almost all the published articles contain the firefighters name and even the Wikipedia article use to have his name and his name is still on the talk page.

In the DSK article there was a great deal of concern around the BLP interest of the maid even when she wasn't named in the article and hadn't been named in any U.S. papers.

And back to the Jones issue -- I would argue that she needs less BLP protection b/c she has made herself a public figure by:

Testifying multiple times before congress

Giving multiple interviews on national TV -- where she chose to show her face and give her name.

Writing a book about her experience.

Selling her life story for a movie.

While the men she has accused of crimes have not given any interviews and have kept as low a profile as possible.

Hoping To Help (talk) 23:59, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All of these things are compelling reasons for not considering the subject as a WP:BLP1E, however, it is not reflected on the article as written. Giving multiple interviews and testifying in congress, selling your life story for a movie, and writing a book, would seem to be enough for notability, but they are not alone such. How much independent coverage these things had? How notable was the coverage of the book? Did it chart? What about the movie? Was her presence in congress widely reported in itself? Dozens of non-notables stories get turned into made-for-tv or direct-to-video movies, thousands of self-published books or books published by non-notable publishers get published, thousands of people get interviewed in national tv news,

I reserve final knowledge for now, but I am having trouble seeing the long-term encyclopedic value of this biography, its real notability, other than as a footnote to the Bush-era Iraq war political environment, and hence it is the cases, not herself, who are notable.

Now, this is important, the people accused and found not guilty have chosen to keep a low profile. We should respect that, no doubt, with the utmost kindness and care, the same we show to anyone under BLP. However there is nothing in BLP policy that prohibits the existence of this information in the edit history or the talk pages unless there has been WP:OFFICE action in this regards, or in the case of personal identifiers such as addresses, social security numbers etc. It does protects these subjects from being mentioned in the current version unless they forfeit this privacy by appearing in reliable sources. But this privacy also means they forfeit the right to respond. We cannot do an artificial valuation of due or undue weight, we must base ourselves on what reliable sources tell us as a whole (not a nitpicked selection). And for better of for worse, their choice of privacy also means they cannot reply - while you make a compelling case of a possible consequence of this choice, we are not under any responsibility to speak for any choice. This principle applies to BLPs too - we are simply much more careful to make sure the information is verifiable than we are in other information. What you suggest seems to be to be a combo of WP:GAME/WP:OR, you seem to be trying to advance a position not supported by widespread verifiable coverage in reliable sources by gaming the intent and letter of BLP protection. BLP protection is not independent of the other policies of wikipedia - it is a more strict enforcement of them to protect living people, as such, using them in ways that violates other policies is gaming. Examine very closely what you are suggesting - WP:BOOMERANG.--Cerejota (talk) 01:20, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, I would politely request that you [Assume Good Faith]. I am not in any way trying to game the system.

My central request, that I wrote in bold above is this: We should be documenting both sides of the story as reported in the Reliable Sources. It's been my experience that a couple of editors are much to quick to delete edits (that are fully cited with highly reliable sources) b/c they feel is shows Jones in a bad light. This, of course, goes against WP:BLP.

Second, WE ACTUALLY AGREE -- but you appear not to have noticed. Above I wrote: My suggest would be to call it Jones v. KBR and related proceedings since most all the sources refer to KBR and not Haliburton.] For a long time I have been in favor renaming & rewriting the article so it is about the cases/proceedings and not Jones.

Hoping To Help (talk) 02:12, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you need to re-read what I wrote, as I said "seems". This is important, because even if that is not your intention, this is how you came across to me. AGF is precisely why I said seems. And we agree on changing the title, but my suggestion was different. I didn't address yours, because it apparently has not been accepted before, and my intention is not to rehash old debates but to help the encyclopedia move forward.--Cerejota (talk) 06:52, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP as it applies to named vs. unnamed individuals

... But I would first like us to focus on the issue of unnamed vs. named people. Specifically, where the person goes unnamed in the Wikipedia article -- but their name is easily found when googling the subject. This seems like a larger policy issue -- does anyone know the right place to get this addressed?

Hoping To Help (talk) 23:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If a person is unnamed in the WP article (but are named in public sources) are they less needing/deserving of BLP protection?
Do/did you feel the same in the DSK case (back when the maid was not named)?
If an alleged rape victim is unnamed (as is often the case) does she warrant less WP:BLP protection than the named person she is accusing of raping her? Inquiring minds want to know. :-)

Hoping To Help (talk) 00:02, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that WP:BLP is inadequate, then you might want to suggest an improvement at that policy's talk page. In the mean time, BLP says: "A harmful statement about a small group or organization comes closer to being a BLP problem than a similar statement about a larger group; and when the group is very small, it may be impossible to draw a distinction between the group and the individuals that make up the group. When in doubt, make sure you are using high-quality sources." So, the small group of unnamed people at issue here should get BLP coverage.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This and all of his edits above are perfect examples of Hoping to Help's style. Perhaps others can deal with it, but after having made valiant efforts in the past to do so, it now simply wears me out. I confess I don't even read all of it - too painful. Normally, I try to stay away from this kind of post (picking on an editor), but, for me, this is exceptional.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:12, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Enthusiasm can be tiring. :)Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but enthusiasm for what, exactly?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:59, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be helpful, I guess, if we AGF.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Like his user ID? Heh. In the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, e.g., a vandal, which Hoping to Help is not, I assume good faith in the beginning. However, I don't blindly extend the assumption when I see good reason not to. My last word on this issue as it was probably inappropriate to begin with.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:07, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If they are named in verifiable reliable sources in a way that meets the thresholds of notability, they should be included in the article, and hence be named. You cannot have it both ways: if you are mentioned in an article, you have a legitimate UNDUE claim to the topic. If potentialy harming information is excluded including your name, then this UNDUE issue is resolved by no discussing them at all. As this article reads, there is no mention of the accused at all other than as unnamed parties to a criminal proceeding that found them not guilty. There is no UNDUE issue there. Thats what their public presence amounts to according to Wikipedia. If we selectively exclude their name, that weakens the case for including other material. To be clear, BLP1E doesn't prohibit naming suspects of crimes or accusers of crimes (all other inclusion criteria being equal), it prohibits creating articles on them and including information not related tot he event that made them BLP1E.
DSK is irrelevant to this discussion, and I haven't looked at how this case is portrayed in Wikipedia. Certainly his accuser is subjected to WP:BLP1E, in fact, it is a classic BLP1E case. She doesn't warrant equal time with DSK in DSK's article, and in fact, from what I have read about the case, this all seems highly prejudicial to DSK, and we should make sure to protect this living person. Likewise, we should protect the accuser as per BLP1E, because unlike DSK, she was not notable before the case, and is unlikely to gain independent notability. So far I have not seen anything here about that article, so I am guessing those issues are being handled by the editors of that article without the need of uninvolved editors in the BLPN commenting.
I generally do not like dealing in hypotheticals. It would depended on a case by case basis. Do you have a specific article in mind to make a judgement on? In this case, it is not the issue of they being named or not named that I am making a judgement on, its the claim that BLP means that they be allowed an UNDUE voice because BLP says so. I say their well kept privacy as a consequence means their weigh in V RS is less, so UNDUE makes no requirement that we speak for them. We cannot speak for those who do not speak, or do so in a manner that doesn't meet V RS. BLP makes no requirement we do not attribute a position and present it, and it is OR to presume KBR is speaking for the accused. So in this case, the unamed do not warrant an equal treatment in the article

I hope I answered these to your satisfaction, if not to your agreement.--Cerejota (talk) 01:20, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, my central request is this: We should be documenting both sides of the story as reported in the Reliable Sources. If I've been unclear about that then I apologize. I don't believe BLP should be used to get in extra info. It's just been my experience that a couple of editors are much to quick to delete edits (that are fully cited with highly reliable sources) b/c they feel is shows Jones in a bad light. This, of course, is NOT what WP:BLP directs us to do -- and the consistent deletion of one side of what the Reliable Sources report has caused the article to become WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV

Hoping To Help (talk) 02:29, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New article title

There seens to be broad consensus to re-name the article so that it's about the case(s) rather than one of the parties. Usual practice is to simply use a title like the court(s) gave, such as "Jones v. Halliburton and KBR". What we can't do is include something like "the gang rape case" in the title. Even if we inserted "alleged" that would still be problematic for rwo reasons: (1) the courts have rejected the allegation, and (2) per WP:Title, "Avoid judgmental and non-neutral words; for example, allegation implies wrongdoing, and so should be avoided in a descriptive title. (Exception: articles where the topic is an actual accusation of illegality under law, discussed as such by reliable sources even if not yet proven in a court of law. These are accurately described as "allegations".)"Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen C. Meyer

Stephen C. Meyer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have noticed numerous problems at the Stephen C. Meyer BLP, but I am running into a mixture of indifference, opposition, and even hostility on the article's Talk page to the idea of addressing these problems from the other editors currently active there. One of the other editors there did agree that there was a problem with some of the sources, but took no action, and another of the editors fixed a small portion of these problems. As I am outnumbered two to one, I don't want to unilaterly make the changes. The primary problem is the frequent use of poor sourcing for a BLP, especially given that according to BLP policy language we are supposed to insist on high-quality sources for these articles.

There is the use of self-published sources that should not be used at all in a BLP, the questionable use of advocacy group sources, the use of opinion sources that should only be used to source opinions and not facts in a BLP, and sources that are ostensibly used to support facts when they don't actually do so. Other individual sourcing problems include the use of simple statements and press releases by scientific organizations, the use of analysis of a state legislative bill by state legislative staffers, a convenience link to an unauthorized and inauthenticated confidential document on a non-reliable source website, and an external link to an advocacy wiki. Two sources are represented as being sourced to one source, while actually sourced to a different source (both with the result of casting a more negative light on the BLP subject). Finally, extended excerpts from sources in footnotes are only used with sources that are critical of the BLP subject.

Please see the full discussion of sourcing problems at Talk:Stephen C. Meyer#Dubious sources. Drrll (talk) 02:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the benefit of people at this noticeboard, could you describe what you believe to be the one or two most egregious sourcing/BLP issues? And then we can go from there. MastCell ^Talk 03:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The most egregious example is the inclusion and linking to 3 separate sources (2 of them highly critical of him) to ostensibly support where Meyers previously taught as a college professor. None of them actually discuss at all where he taught. One of them is published by the advocacy group Center for Inquiry, an affiliate of such groups as the Institute for the Secularisation of Islamic Society (ISIS) and the Council for Secular Humanism (CSH) and which runs the "Naturalism Research Project" to promote philosophical naturalism. Another source is an opinion piece titled "Survival of the Slickest", printed in the opinion magazine The American Prospect, published by the very politically ideological advocacy group Center for American Progress. Besides linking to this source, the footnote hosts a long excerpt from the piece which makes a number of factual assertions for a BLP, even though it is an opinion piece, not a news piece.

Another example is the anauthorized linking to an inauthenticated confidential primary document on the non-reliable source advocacy website antievolution.org. It is included purportedly to state as fact that the BLP subject co-wrote the document. The actual linked document makes makes no such assertion. Also, the reference is construed to make it appear that it is hosted by the organization that originated the document.

The last example is an extenal link to the relatively unknown advocacy wiki Evowiki (I searched for it on WP and found no article on it, but did find that it's also being used in the Kurt Wise BLP in 'External links').

There are plenty of other sourcing problems there with sources that don't belong in a BLP at all, or which use acceptable or questionable BLP sources in a dubious manner to support a factual assertion in the BLP. Again, see Talk:Stephen C. Meyer#Dubious sources. Drrll (talk) 09:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most probably the Whitworth sentence was added after the citations, as happens not infrequently on Wikipedia. So it is just a case of moving the citation and finding a source for Whitworth. I would further point out that the piece that Drrll is howling about was written by a prominent academic, who was accepted by the Federal courts as an expert on the history of intelligent design. So clearly a WP:RS.
The "anauthorized [sic] linking to an inauthenticated confidential primary document" is in fact the 'Wedge document' -- which has been widely circulated and was (eventually) accepted by Meyer's DI as authentic. Though I'm not entirely sure why it is cited, as the text itself does not verify that Meyer is a co-author.
Given the Evowiki link is broken, it should probably be removed -- but hardly seems a BLP issue.

Drrll left an everything-but-the-kitchen-sink complaints list on Talk:Stephen C. Meyer. I'm afraid I WP:TLDNRed it, and sent him here. I would suggest that the 'profundity' of the issues that he has highlighted as "egregious" rather justified my inattention. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 10:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Almost immediately after this notice was placed on BLPN (even though the same problem was mentioned earlier at the BLP's Talk page), Hrafn (one of the primary editors of the BLP) simply shuffled the 3 references that were being improperly used in the lead for sourcing a fact to a different location in the lead. The sentence he shifted it to is "He helped found the Center for Science and Culture (CSC) of the Discovery Institute (DI), which is the driving force behind the intelligent design movement." While the first reference cited (a polemic written by a professor of general philosophy and published by an advocacy group--available here) does largely support the "driving force" claim, the second source does not. And the third source is not useable at all, as it is an opinion piece printed in an opinion magazine to support factual claims in a BLP. None of the 3 sources support the first factual claim--that Meyer helped found the CSC. Neither does the BLP article body support that factual claim.

That the "Wedge" document has been widely circulated hardly mitigates the facts that a BLP links to an unauthorized inauthenticated document on a non-reliable advocacy website, likely resulting in WP:COPYVIO issues. If Hrafn can demonstrate with a reliable source that the Discovery Institute has accepted as authentic the particular file linked to in Meyer's BLP, then he needs to provide that reliable source. Even though he admits that "the text itself does not verify that Meyer is a co- author"--the claim in Meyer's BLP that the reference ostensibly supports--regular Meyer BLP editor Hrafn didn't bother removing the reference from the BLP.

I found some additional BLP concerns:

A primary source (a transcript of a television debate between Meyer & Eugenie Scott) is interpreted to represent Meyer's views.

A sentence represents that an organization (the Council of the Biological Society of Washington) refutes the claims of another BLP subject, Richard Sternberg, when in actuality it is merely WP editors refuting the claims by linking twice to the non-reliable website http://www.iscid.org .

To refute that "Meyer alleges that those who oppose "Darwinism" are persecuted by the scientific community and prevented from publishing their views", the BLP devotes 10 times as much space to refuting the claim as was devoted to stating Meyer's view.

Likewise, the article devotes about 3.5 times as much space for negative critiques of one of his books than it devotes to positive critiques of the book. That, despite the fact that a positive review referenced appeared in The Times of London, while the three negative reviews referenced appeared in letters to the editor in The Times and at a website that officially advocates against intelligent design. Drrll (talk) 03:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There may be some sourcing problems, but the idea that we have to claw back the use of critical sources of Meyer's views strikes me as a serious case of WP:CRYBLP. Take one example: the Nagel review of Signature and the Cell. The article may seem to give undue weight to the responses to Nagel's review. But Nagel's review was met with extraordinary amounts of scorn and not just from 'activist' people - from lots of Nagel's fellow philosophers. Yes, yes, feel free to dismiss them all as evil liberal elitists who are part of the Darwinian-naturalist-babyeating conspiracy theory. But there was considerable reaction and it's not a BLP violation to discuss the critical reaction to Meyer's book: if it weren't a BLP but an article on the book itself, we'd usually be applauding how much coverage is paid to the book because it goes to establish that there's notability! If we start alleging that he's a paedophile or that he shot Bobby Kennedy, then we can start crying "BLP!" but this reaction is rather ovewrought. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As you say, there are sourcing problems, including ones that impinge upon BLP policy ("Be very firm about the use of high quality sources").

"the idea that we have to claw back the use of critical sources of Meyer's views strikes me as a serious case of WP:CRYBLP": The following BLP policy applies to the inclusion and/or particular use of several of the critical sources used in Myer's BLP, as laid out above and at Talk:Stephen C. Meyer#Dubious sources:

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.

Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints

Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person...that is a conjectural interpretation of a source"

Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person...that relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP"

Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person...that relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet Verifiability standards.

If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out.

"...the Nagel review of Signature and the Cell. The article may seem to give undue weight to the responses to Nagel's review. But Nagel's review was met with extraordinary amounts of scorn and not just from 'activist' people - from lots of Nagel's fellow philosophers. ["Yes, yes, feel free to dismiss them all as evil liberal elitists who are part of the Darwinian-naturalist-babyeating conspiracy theory" (not responding to straw man argument)]. But there was considerable reaction and it's not a BLP violation to discuss the critical reaction to Meyer's book.": that "Nagel's review was met with extraordinary amounts of scorn...from lots of Nagel's fellow philosophers" may or may not be true. If you want to state something like that you need a high-quality reliable source that states that. Or there can be several individual negative reviews in reliable sources quoted along with positive reviews. Drrll (talk) 18:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What a load of WP:Complete bollocks, as well as ludicrous WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT, Drrll.

I explained my reasoning for the citation move above.
Your dismissive and unbalanced description of Dr Forrest fails to address the fact that she was accepted by a US Federal court as an expert on the history of ID. That she gives creationists such as yourself howling conniptions does not change this fact.
The Wedge document has been (belated) acknowledged by the DI, and has been in the public arena for over a decade -- so your "inauthenticated" is utterly fallacious and your "unauthorized" utterly irrelevant.

As to your new, and very vague, accusations -- I would suggest that you have presented no evidence that the article misrepresents the WP:WEIGHT of expert opinion on either Meyer's book or his accusations of 'persecution'. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 10:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I got wrong the ratio of the material presented to refute one of Meyer's views to the material presented to represent Myer's view. It's actually 14 times as much material, not just 10 times. I failed to take into account the excerpt quoted in one of the footnotes.

"I explained my reasoning for the citation move above": you said "it is just a case of moving the citation and finding a source for Whitworth." Well you moved 'three citations, one of which did not support the claim of the sentence where you moved the references to, and another of which is unusable to support claims of fact as it is an opinion piece. And you didn't follow through with "finding a source for Whitworth."

"Your dismissive and unbalanced description of Dr Forrest fails to address the fact that she was accepted by a US Federal court as an expert on the history of ID. That she gives creationists such as yourself howling conniptions does not change this fact": unlike an actual historian of science like Ronald L. Numbers, Forrest's academic training is in general philosophy and she does not teach History of Science or even Philosophy of Science, instead teaching undergraduate courses in general philosophy. Since when did testifying in one court case make one "an expert on the history of ID" either in academia or in Wikipedia? That she writes polemics on ID does not make her "an expert on the history of ID" either.

"your "inauthenticated" is utterly fallacious": like I said earlier, show us a reliable source that says that the DI has authenticated the particular document linked to in the BLP.

"I would suggest that you have presented no evidence that the article misrepresents the WP:WEIGHT of expert opinion on either Meyer's book or his accusations of 'persecution': sorry, but in WP, the burden of evidence, especially for a BLP, is on the one supporting the current status quo--you, not me. And you have not presented evidence that representative weight has been followed (just a collection of individual references does not do so).

My very first time running across long-time editor Hrafn was the occasion of him wholesale reverting five of my edits to the Meyer BLP, where he sits as a primary editor, with his edit summary only mentioning the first edit he reverted (see here). It wasn't long after that that he started resorting to personal attacks. Here he calls me "willfully ignorant." Later on, he calls me a "fanatic" here, and in the same edit also makes what appears to a mocking comment about what he perceives to be my religion ("kindly stop nailing yourself to that cross -- you make a very poor martyr"). Those are the personal attacks I happen to remember. Now, he continues his tradition of personal attacks by using the scare-epithet "creationist" (see here for the essay "Creating Creationism" by leading historian on creationism Ronald Numbers, where he refers to "creationist" as an epithet: "Since at least the early 1840s Darwin had occasionally referred to "creationists" in his unpublished writings, but the epithet remained relatively uncommon." Even if he happened to know my personal views on creationism--which he doesn't--and my views were supportive of it, he would find himself in trouble with the very first item in WP:NPA policy that is considered to be a personal attack:

Racial, sexist, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, sexual or other epithets (such as against people with disabilities) directed against another contributor. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual orientation, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse

He neither knows my views on creationsim, nor has any evidence of my views on it (remember, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"). Actually, this is at least the second time he has called me a "creationist," but like previous personal attacks, I didn't care. Now is different as he has made a personal attack in a heavily-read venue which attracts a lot of both admins and non-admin editors. A complaint is on the way to WP:WQA. Drrll (talk) 15:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tanya Beyer

Resolved

– redirected to List of Playboy Playmates of 1992#February

Another problematic Playboy model article. Are the drug charges worthy of inclusion in this article? At best sourced from local news as far as I can tell. FuFoFuEd (talk) 07:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Has she given any interviews addressing the matter? Is she still professionally involved? If she isn't then this is clearly not notable and should be removed. We are not a gossip rag to pursue people the community has chosen as notable (I don't think she is notable but it seems it is impossible to delete Playboy centerfolds, sorry, Playmate of the Month for fanboys). If she is no longer in a notable profession and is retired from the business that gave her notability, there is no reason to examine her life with a microscope. I suggest rev-delete. --Cerejota (talk) 07:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

She was a playmate 20 years ago. The arrest however is from only a couple of years ago. She looks way old in her mugshot to land any X-rated jobs. I'm not aware of any recent interviews with her. Also, her sentencing to time served is only sourced from the court page; no secondary coverage for that, only for the arrest there's some. FuFoFuEd (talk) 07:49, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a matter of mere drug charges. If it were, I'd say leave it out. But according to the article she was a fugitive for six months and the police launched a publicity campaign to apprehend her. I'd say that's fairly notable. Gamaliel (talk) 14:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that aspect is being grossly exaggerated in Wikipedia compared to reliable sources, which emphasize something else, and it's more likely why they found the arrest (but not the sentencing or release) newsworthy: [35].

Beyer is charged with what is commonly known as "doctor-shopping" — seeking prescriptions, especially painkillers and anxiety medications, from multiple doctors. A Palm Beach County Sheriff's deputy investigated her for allegedly seeking the scripts from three local doctors. [...] Beyer had been sought by police since October on the felony charges and surrendered at the Palm Beach County jail late last month [March]. "A Formerly Wanted Woman" trumpeted the website, smokinggun.com. Soon, of course, the blogs picked it up, and people in pajamas weighed in with their comments. [...] Beyer's case actually centers on a very hot-button legal topic these days: the methods police use to gain access to a patient's medical and pharmacy records.

The Palm Beach Post appears slightly less sensationalist than The Smoking Gun. FuFoFuEd (talk) 18:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should remove that bit about Crimestoppers since it is sourced to a broken link and definitely leaves the wrong impression. Gamaliel (talk) 18:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gamaliel: This isn't a matter of mere drug charges. If it were, I'd say leave it out. But according to the article she was a fugitive for six months and the police launched a publicity campaign to apprehend her. I'd say that's fairly notable. After the apprehension the legal system was so outraged that it put her in the slammer for, uh, what turned out to be less than three months. Isn't this remarkably little by US standards? (Though yes, I realize that she was pushing a drug linked with white people, of whom she is one.) ¶ Cerejota: I don't think she is notable but it seems it is impossible to delete Playboy centerfolds, sorry, Playmate of the Month for fanboys. I too had thought until recently that playmates were (bizarrely) regarded as article-worthy ex officio. However, I was wrong. Considering that the criminal behavior (amassing and selling hillbilly heroin) is very humdrum, that the press coverage is minimal, and that she's now a private person, I say WP should treat her in the same way as another playmate recently discussed, rewriting the article as

#REDIRECT List_of_Playboy_Playmates_of_1992#February

-- Hoary (talk) 05:48, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I fully support his. GOing for WP:BOLD!!!...--Cerejota (talk) 06:55, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Also, pill pushing nearly 20 years about her playboy days is most definitely not notable. --Cerejota (talk) 06:59, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to see some sanity, basically BLP2E. FuFoFuEd (talk) 11:48, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for English Translation of the Romanian Text

Resolved

– directed to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Romania and translated by User:Dahn on userpage

Hello. I will be thankful if anyone could leave an English translation of the following Romanian text of Tudor Arghezi's signed note ( http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:TudorArghez.JPG ). Regards, Hindustanilanguage (talk) 09:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a BLP noticeboard issue - You might ask at the - Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Romania - Off2riorob (talk) 13:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Muslim converts involved in terrorism

Resolved

– Editor directed to WP:WikiProject Terrorism for assistance

A few days back, Fadywalker (talk · contribs) created List of Muslim converts involved in terrorism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Since it included some inappropriate content (names of people falsely accused of links to militant Islamic terror plots), SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs) tagged it and I deleted it as an attack page. Fadywalker asked me on my talk page about it, and I made some efforts to explain to him the BLP policy and why the article was inappropriate.

Now, he is asking me to mentor him through the process of re-creating the article. He seems eager to contribute and write it, but I don't think I'm the best person to help him. I directed him here but he is clearly new to Wikipedia and doesn't know how to post on noticeboards. Can someone please help point him in the right direction? Thanks, causa sui (talk) 16:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I very much doubt such an article will ever be suitable for mainspace, so I'm not sure where to direct this user. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WikiProject Terrorism? I am putting on user talk. --Cerejota (talk) 16:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip Hinkle

Serious WP:UNDUE problem here. The only plausible solution is to fill out his biography with more information, as the craigslist incident surely deserves some coverage. He's been in ~~Congress~~ the Indiana House of Represetatives for 10 years, there must be some information about him.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Started with his official state website bio information. -- Avanu (talk) 17:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted that as a copyvio as it is far too close to the original source and generally state government materials (as opposed to materials produced by the US federal government) still enjoy copyright protection. Gamaliel (talk) 18:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tucker Smith

Resolved

– mistaken identity - article reverted and tweaked to prior position

I am Tucker Smith the actor. I am alive, straight, have no sibligs or children. I am living in Costa Mesa, Ca. Please help straighten my biography out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fugettelaine (talk • contribs) 01:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - this seems to assert you have expired - http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-3920772.html - can another user have a look at the recent removals please....Off2riorob (talk) 03:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps not surprisingly, there seem to be multiple actors who go by the name Tucker Smith. Are you saying you are the actor who appears in the 1961 movie version of West Side Story as Ice? If not, bear in mind the article does not refer to you. Unless you met the criteria at WP:Notability, for example, Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Creative professionals, it's unlikely there will be an article on you. BTW, if you are saying you are the actor who appeared in West Side Story, we have a problem since it seems multiple sources, e.g. the above and [36] [37] say that you died in 1988. Given that, I presume this isn't a new problem to you and you've dealt with it before. Are you aware of any sources which have published a correction or clarification? Nil Einne (talk) 08:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking in to this more, I've reverted the changes by Fugettelaine. I note this user changed the birth name, and is also claiming a different date and place of birth. The place at least is also sourced. I also see Talk:Tucker Smith someone says they got in contact with people who knew Tucker Smith and while they suggested some of the claims in the article at the time were incorrect, they didn't seem to question key facts including the death. Therefore I'm having trouble believing the Tucker Smith actor probably born April 24 1936 as Thomas William Smith and in Philadelphia who starred in West Side Story is still alive. Perhaps there is another Tucker Smith actor born Paul Ouellette in December 30, 1936 in Great Falls but I guess they aren't the actor who starred in West Side Story. If Fugettelaine is the person who acted in West Side Story, again I guess you must be aware how there is a lot of confusion out there. Unless you've written to some WP:RS who has published a clarification, I don't think there's much we can do. Nil Einne (talk) 17:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks to User:Nil Einne and User:ukexpat for looking into this. I does appear to be a case of mistaken identification now resolved. Off2riorob (talk) 15:11, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Horowitz

The last paragraph of this article is an unwarranted personal attack launched by people who happen to disagree with Horowitz on an issue of legitimate public policy disagreement. The allegations by the murderer's attorneys have minimal credibility, given that their client's guilt was proved by DNA, as noted in the main Scott Dyleski article. These allegations should simply be deleted.

The statement that Horowitz's position is "directly contrary" to "human rights" organizations such as Human Rights Watch is a biased way of stating it. Anyone can call themselves a "human rights" organization and then proceed to denounce as a "human rights" violation any policy they disagree with, and that is exactly what HRW does. If this sentence is not deleted altogether, it should be rephrased in a more even-handed tone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksscheidegger (talk • contribs) 16:06, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much a poor article at best. The "Wikipedia voice" should not be used to make accusations in the first place, and there is really weird copyediting present throughout the article. Please someone - take this bull ... by the horns. Collect (talk) 16:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the paragraph in question as synthesis, a violation of WP:NPOV etc. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Carrey

More eyes on the article would be appreciated, apparently he released a youtube video professing his love for Emma Stone, and there has been some back an forth on the page about the suitability of the source and whether this type of information is appropriate for his page. Rather than edit war over this, I'd like to get some fresh eyes. Thanks! Yobol (talk) 20:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As Carrey himself said at his Twitter, it's part of a comedy routine. Definitely do not go under "family and relationships". Nymf _hideliho! 21:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Cook

The Tim Cook article currently states that "In 2011, Cook, who is protective of his private life, was named to the top spot on Out magazine's fifth annual "Power 50" list of LGBT people.10 However, he has never publicly declared any details about his sexuality." (The article also included him in a couple LGBT cats for a while, which I removed per WP:BLPCAT.)

Gawker first "outed" him earlier this year, but they are clearly not a WP:RS. Out magazine is (a bit) less sensationalist; with his new role as Apple CEO, this topic is getting much more attention from the likes of The Atlantic, Australia's Herald Sun, and a Reuters blog, as well as thousands of other lesser Google hits.

Note that, as several of these sources point out, the subject has not disclosed his orientation.

The question is whether any of these, or the sum of these, are reliable enough to allow the topic be included in the BLP. (I'm pretty conservative with respect to the BLP policies, so as you can guess, I'm leaning against - and yet Anderson Cooper has likewise not been public about his orientation, but his article has a whole paragraph about it...)

Thanks, AV3000 (talk) 05:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also leaning to keep out - that Out (magazine)'s annual "Power 50" list of LGBT people is not notable in itself - From the 2011 50 list, Tim Cook is the only person that has had it added - to his BLP and to the talkpage to his article and to this noticeboard - apart from that - there are five more external links to the previous four years of "Power 50" lists - so out of a possible 250 positions of five years the coverage of it is minimal indeed - sometimes publications add something like this to create controversy and attract attention - not to valuable facts, but to themselves. Power 50 usage on wiki en - the other five links are dead links. Off2riorob (talk) 15:22, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that both sentences should be removed. Putting aside whether this particular list is notable, I don't think we should be reporting that someone is gay just because they're on a list if we don't have another reliable source to back up the inclusion on the list in the first instancfe. And I don't think adding the sentence about "never publicly declared" does anything to reduce the impact of the first sentence other than sound like so-and-so-was-accused-but-had-no-comment sort of garbage.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:30, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed it as per, unconfirmed speculation about a living persons sexuality. Currently its nothing more than repeated gossip and speculation. Off2riorob (talk) 15:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right, thanks. AV3000 (talk) 16:31, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- It seems the Gay blogs are lighting up about this persons sexuality.... and even thought he has as yet made no comment about his sexuality they are after claiming him as one of their own. Please keep an eye on it, I have removed a couple of comments and directed the users to this discussion - one said he is an openly gay man and the other was in the lede that he is the first gay CEO of Apple and the usual BLPCAT violating additions have also been inserted and removed. One position is that we have to mention he is gay because unless we add the speculation everyone will think he's straight. - Off2riorob (talk) 00:30, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've been watching the additions and your removals. Of course, putting material in the body and catting the article are two separate issues, but for the present, I agree with your removals from the body (obviously, the cats CAN'T be used), even with the introduction of newer sources. Things need to settle down a bit - for the moment, it just looks like gossipy turmoil.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:41, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Out (magazine) qualifies as a reliable source, more than sufficient as a source that the subject has been named on their list. BLPCAT only affects categorization, not the text in the article. We should not add any LGBT categories until the subject makes a self-declaration, but if there are adequate sources which discuss his orientation in a non-sensationalistic way we may use those. Will Beback talk 00:42, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Out magazine could likely be a reliable source but it is opinionated towards such issues and would clearly need attributing, as a WP:RS it is currently used in less that fifty BLP articles, the vast majority of which are openly self declared LGBT subjects - the source is not being used to speculated about their sexuality like it is here. Also to assert notability a report of his inclusion on such a list would need to be reported in a independant WP:RS - what have the BBC said about his sexuality? nothing at all - Off2riorob (talk) 00:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although Cook has never discussed or commented on his sexuality the Homosexual community demanded he "come out" " of what they referred to as his "glass closet" and be a role model for other LGBT people. Off2riorob (talk) 00:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although Rob and I often disagree about this kind of issue, in this particular article we are in agreement. Even putting the material in the body at the moment is problematic as the sources are almost talking to each other and to themselves (introspectively). It's more of a media circus than a reportable event. I would at least wait for it to calm down and see what we have. I don't see any need for haste. It can wait.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the BBC has to do with anything. But The Atlantic magazine has mentioned it, for starters.[38] Will Beback talk 01:04, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Farther afield, it's been covered in the Herald Sun of Asutralia.[39] Will Beback talk 01:07, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Extensive coverage in the world news, according to Google.[40] Will Beback talk 01:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) But, Will, the Atlantic piece doesn't report he's gay. It reports that other sources outed him based on anonymous sources. Do you really want to report that in the article? (Rob likes the BBC.)--Bbb23 (talk) 01:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) - The BBC aspire to the standards of reporting especially in regards to living people that we should/would also be proud of. The title of the Atlantic article says it all, cook needs to come out - what, even if he doesn't want to? - the herald sun - yes, they are all titillating their sales with the sexual speculation. Off2riorob (talk) 01:10, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rob said, "Also to assert notability a report of his inclusion on such a list would need to be reported in a independant WP:RS ". Other newspapers reporting on the list make inclusion on the list notable. The fact that this has been covered so extensively establishes its notability. Will Beback talk 01:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to go in circles on this one as has occurred in other similar threads, so I'll just say that it may be newsworthy, but that doesn't justify its inclusion in the article in this instance at this time.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:18, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am the same. Even though a degree of notability in an independent reliable-ish source that doesn't as yet justify its inclusion in the biograbphy. Off2riorob (talk) 01:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Before we finish this thread can we establish what you two think the threshold should be? Will Beback talk 01:26, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A major issue for current exclusion imo is the fact that the subject has never commented as yet at all about his sexuality - if there was something to bounce of that would likely change the situation. Off2riorob (talk) 01:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why does a subject need to comment on something for it to become noteworthy? If someone is indicted and tells reporters "no comment" does that make it go away? Will Beback talk 01:30, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An indictment is announced by a reliable source based on a report from the grand jury or a prosecutor, so it doesn't require the subject of the indictment to do anything for it to be a reliable event.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:35, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, an indictment is incomparable as regards BLP guidelines compared to unconfirmed speculation in regard to a subjects sexuality. Off2riorob (talk) 01:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) A reasonable and not an easy question. Requirements: (1) a reliable source; (2) reports the subject is gay based on something other than anonymous sources or rumors; and (3) the something that it is based on has to be noted in the source. In many instances, it will probably be self-identification (an interview, for example). However, unlike WP:BLPCAT, the second prong need not be satisfied (related to notability) to be included in the body of the article. However, it could also be based on sources other than the subject as long as it doesn't say rumors or anonymous. I reserve the right to refine these requirements in the future because I'm doing this on the fly. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 01:32, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you disagree with Off2riorob that the subject needs to comment on it, and he disagrees with you that the source needs to explain why they reached their conclusion. I think that shows there really is no standard being followed here - just seat of the pants guessing. There is noting in BLP that says we need to keep out well-sourced, uncontroversial material that's presented in a neutral fashion and attributed it when appropriate. Will Beback talk 01:52, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will you are advocating we should report unconfirmed speculation about the sexuality of living subjects of our articles, clearly that is a contentious suggestion. - Perhaps we need a RFC about this to resolve the issue. Off2riorob (talk) 02:19, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a bit much, Will, for you to say that just because Rob and I don't agree on every point of the analysis (even if we agree on the conclusion), that that necessarily means it's "just seat of the pants guessing."--Bbb23 (talk) 01:55, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- In 2011 after unconfirmed anonymous sources were reported to claim that Cook was gay .. out magazine named him at number one gay person in their gay top 50 list. The subject has never commented in regards to his sexuality at all. After the subject was promoted to the Apple CEO job coverage and speculation of Cook's alleged sexuality ballooned in the tabloid press and the gay blogging community demanded he come out of his glass closet and be a role model for other LGBT people. - Off2riorob (talk) 01:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is this - draft text? Will Beback talk 01:52, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is what is being reported - I removed the issue - you are supporting adding something like this. Or at least you are supporting inclusion of this reporting - what are you suggesting is added to the BLP Will - please be specific what you want to include. This is the original 2010 blog on Gawker by "Rumourmonger" - speculating is he gay? - they followed that up in Jan this year with the we (Gawker) now have "since heard from two well-placed sources that this is indeed the case" all the rest is reporting of this. Off2riorob (talk) 02:09, 28 August 2011 (UTC) Off2riorob (talk) 02:04, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yup - this is ridiculous. the sources being cited offer no evidence whatsoever. Crap like this has no place in a responsible online encyclopaedia. We don't report rumours. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:16, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We report information from high-quality sources, like The Atlantic. We don't require people supply their marriage certificate before reporting that they've been married. Will Beback talk 03:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Shall we start a RFC about this article and if BLP supports inclusion or exclusion to see the standards of reporting the community is supportive of in regards to "unconfirmed" speculative reports or anonymous sources of someones sexuality ? Off2riorob (talk) 02:23, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

-@Will Beback has alerted the LGBT wikiproject of this dicsussion - Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies#BLPs and sexual orientation. A good opportunity for a RFC? Off2riorob (talk)
- And Off2riorob alerted the watchers of Jimbo Wales's talk page. Could you add a notification of the RFC? Will Beback talk 03:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFC question

Please consider joining the feedback request service.

An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list:

Biographies

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

- Based on WP:BLP, when should biographies report unconfirmed sexual orientation? What quality of sources is necessary, and what responses are required from the subjects before we can add material on this topic? Should the BLP be with new language to cover discussions of sexual orientation in the text (as opposed to the categories already covered in WP:BLPCAT)?

comments

I do not think it would ever be appropriate to include such unconfirmed speculation. My76Strat (talk) 03:22, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Never Wikipedia should not contain unconfirmed information on sexual orientation of a BLP. It is dangerous to the reputation of that person. Ryan Vesey Review me! 03:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What is the difference between "confirmed speculation" and "unconfirmed speculation"? The question also revolves around reporting any speculation. For example, should we report speculation on whether Sarah Palin will campaign for President? I think the answer is that we should not include rumors, but when speculation reaches the point of widespread discussion then we need to report that. For example, the sexuality of Clay Aiken was a prominent issue, and he was questioned about it in a number interviews. We reported that speculation and his denial. That seems like the right approach. Will Beback talk 03:29, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Corgan

There's an effort by a small number of editors to turn a Twitter fight between the musician and a guitar technician into a big deal, based on some of the invective Corgan uses. One of the editors involved had dredged up a story on Corgan's blog about an incident 25 years ago and insisted that the two events establish a patterm of "transphobic bias". There's no real RS coverage of the event, just a few bloggers so far, and the claims raise conspicuous NPOV, NOR, BLP, and undue weight problems. It's a standard embarrassing celebrity behavior story that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 11:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I understand your point that the issue hasn't reached mainstream media coverage or anything like that, and that's a valid consideration. But then again (A) a wikipedia article about a celebrity should be more than just a collection of facts from mainstream/celebrity gossip rags, and (B) the media has consistently shown it is unwilling to engage in trans issues. If it was a question of racism the media would be all over it, and probably even if it were homophobia. For example, when Tracy Morgan went on a homophobic rant in a comedy club the media were all over the _question_ within a few days, and of course it turned out the allegation was well-founded and Morgan eventually apologized (and the allegation in that case was only based on what a single club-goer reported about the incident). But the bar is set higher when it comes to trans issues because no one takes it seriously. And in fact relatively speaking it has gotten a lot of people's attention, and in this case it is based on verifiable, recorded tweets and fb messages. The fact that the media doesn't care is not proof that it is not true nor an unimportant issue. Yavanna of Valinor (talk) 19:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, when you put the phrase "transphobic bias" in scare quotes, are you implying that the allegation is unsubstantiated (which I think is difficult to argue) or are you implying that the issue itself is unimportant? Yavanna of Valinor (talk) 19:47, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am sympathetic to your views on transphobia, but at the same time, accusations of bigotry have to be supported by high-quality sources, which doesn't seem to be the case here. It may be unfair, but that can't change the policy equation. I also think your point about "scare quotes" is misguided. No doubt Hullaballo put it in quotes the way we put lots of thing in quotes because that was the assertion, no darker reason than that.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:52, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the mainstream media doesn't care then neither should we, we are not here to balance the world. Or to report of social media/facebook discusions. Off2riorob (talk) 19:54, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, looks like most people are against including this so I will let it go for now. Thanks for the discussion. Yavanna of Valinor (talk) 00:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Glen Campbell party affiliation

This is another one of those if something is a fact it must be included, as opposed to whether it's a fact that's relevant to the article. An IP has put in a sentence about Campbell being a republican. For the purpose of this discussion, I will accept that it's accurate and reliably sourced, but, as I said on the article Talk page, what relevance does it have to Campbell? There's no context for it, e.g., he contributes to republican causes. It's just thrown in. I reverted and opened a topic on the Talk page, but once one other editor appears to have agreed with the IP, the IP put it back. I'm not going to war over this, and it may not grab people here (it's hardly as sensationalistic as some of the stuff in this forum), but I'd like other views on the issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its a bit of a factoid but with such well known subjects and with a fairly detailed bio I thinks its fine to stay - harmless trivia... Off2riorob (talk) 17:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With a number of reliable sources, there is enough for even a moderately contentious claim - but this claim is not even particularly contentious. Collect (talk) 19:02, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I'm going to prevail on this, but whoever said anything about "contentious" (other than you here and on the Talk page)? I certainly didn't.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:17, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Contentious" is the specific term used in WP:BLP for determining a category of claim which must have strong reliable source basis. "John Doe plays the piano left-handed" is unlikely to be considered "contentious." "John Doe escaped a conviction for murdering his wife" is a tad more likely to be considered "contentious." Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:59, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And, if I recall your statements elsewhere correctly, you believe that religious affiliation and sexual orientation are also contentious. So now we add political affiliation as well. There are many contentious topics, apparently. Will Beback talk 22:24, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear me! You appear like a bolt from the blue with a fairly blatant misapprehension of my positions as stated in many places. We have at least eight sources, including the New Yiork Times available. This is not exactly the same as a single interview printed ibn a gay publication, to be sure. Nor is calling a person a "Republican" quite in the same area as asserting that the person belongs to some "extreme group" or another. But I suppose you felt that any discussion O2RR and I were both in required some degree of 'boojumizing". Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As if you guys never show up at a thread where I'm involved... Will Beback talk 23:14, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- "boojum", nonsense word coined by... Lewis Carroll in The hunting of the snark - Off2riorob (talk) 23:16, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know what the normal meaning of the word and as it's used by Wikipedia. As I have repeatedly said, the issue is not the source, but the relevance and context of the assertion.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:28, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Will Beback - If your indenting is correct and your comment is in response to User;Collect - he just said above, " but this claim is not even particularly contentious." - which appears to state the opposite of what you are suggesting. Off2riorob (talk) 22:27, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No one thinks that religious affiliation and sexual orientation are contentious in all situations, in some situations they are the basis of a subjects notability. As Bb23 said in an edit conflict , it is not the details but, "but the relevance and context of the assertion" that creates the possibility of contentiousness. Off2riorob (talk) 22:29, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that no one thinks that. Obviously some people here do. Will Beback talk 22:39, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the quote is right, but my issue is not contentiousness, just, as phrased, the assertion isn't useful to the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

excuse. I agree as I said its a pretty harmless factoid. Better than, Campells favorite color is maroon, but not a lot. Off2riorob (talk) 22:36, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem, I understood your initial comment above perfectly. Somehow, this discussion (above) has gone in another direction. Can't own articles, can't own topics, can't own anything. :-( ---Bbb23 (talk) 23:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, its a bit tangential indeed. You can own the benefits of your contributions to the project Bbb23, and thank you for yours. Off2riorob (talk) 23:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arturas Rosenbacher

Resolved

– speedy deleted by User:John - WP:G3 - hoax -

This new article purports to be about the new Executive Director and Chairman of the Board for WikiLeaks, based on entirely unverifiable sources. It has been created by User:Rosenbaa, and as such is either autobiographical, or the user is falsely representing himself as the subject. I'm unsure of how best to proceed: It may be factual, but it could also be entirely bogus. Any advice? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:22, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: another editor has raised an AfD - Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Arturas_Rosenbacher. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a hoax and should have been a speedy delete.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - I've come to the same conclusion. Why would Wikileaks appoint a 19-year-old as chairman? If it is a hoax, it is quite possibly a BLP violation too... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:52, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've requested speedy deletion: "Pages currently on proposed deletion or deletion discussion (see below) may be deleted through speedy deletion." See WP:DEL#PROCESSES.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete was accepted. I assume someone will close the deletion discussion (can a non-admin do that?).--Bbb23 (talk) 17:33, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done - by User:Metropolitan90 - Off2riorob (talk) 17:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anderson Cooper

The paragraph about Anderson Cooper's orientation may violate WP:BLP's requirement of high-quality sources; see earlier Tim Cook discussion for a nearly identical situation.

The citations are from non-mainstream sources, all of a speculative nature except for an article in the Washington Blade asserting that he "has in the past publicly acknowledged that he is gay" without elaboration.

As with Cook, Cooper has neither affirmed nor denied being gay, though he has provided a no-comment response when asked.

"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".

So, the question is again whether any of these mostly-speculative sources, or the sum of them, are reliable enough to allow the topic be included in the BLP; I lean against. AV3000 (talk) 23:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I iterate in many places - "contentious" claims require strong sourcing. In the case of Anderson Cooper, I am far from convinced that the sourcing rises to the level reasonably required by WP:BLP. In fact, it fails to reach the required level in my opinion. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:40, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting a bit absurd. Do we require people to say, in their own words and with excellent sources, that they are married? According to whom is there any contention about this subject's sexual orientation? Is there a single source which questions this? Will Beback talk 23:45, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how WP:BURDEN works, particularly with BLPs. AV3000 (talk) 23:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)No - and I note the absurdity really present here. The term "reliable source" appears to be a major problem for your position. Cheers. And I fail to see the relevance of this colloquy to the agreed principles of Wikipedia. If you feel that WP:BLP is overly protective of living people, just say so, and seek to have it deprecated from being policy. Collect (talk) 23:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think BLP is fine. It's the interpretation that Cooper's sexual orientation is "contentious" that i disagree with. In any case, AV3000 says there's a problem with the sourcing. Please be specific- which sources are inadequate? Let's remove those and keep the rest. Will Beback talk 23:59, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that AC is gay has more sources than almost any fact in the whole article, yet certain editors persist in wanting to remove it. One even demanded (perhaps facetiously) photos. They never try to remove other facts that are less well sourced. They assume it must be contentious, even while acknowledging that he has never contested it. It's just a fact about a public figure, and the endless re-hashing is a tiresome waste of time. Will, your offer to delete "inadequate" sources is WP:AGF, but I've seen that road before; after the sources get hacked away, someone says there are too few. One editor said that even where someone says "I'm gay," that isn't enough for the biography to say anything because who knows if he's still gay (maybe it was just a phase?). My favorite is the exasperated title, "How Many Times Can One Guy Get Outed?" That really sums it up.TVC 15 (talk) 03:26, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Moore (yet another 1992 playmate)

I'm happy with the result above for Tanya Beyer, and also with that for Stephanie Adams (also discussed above). But I'm puzzled by (in escalating order):

Barbara Moore (model) (of whom I had never heard until I edited this template), which says no more than (actually rather less than) what's here in the list of "playmates"
the unsourced tittle-tattle previously removed from it and dumped onto its talk page
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Moore (model) (as recent as this year)
the contrast between (a) this AfD and (b) the summary disposal of Tanya Beyer

So what am I requesting? Nothing in particular. We read above: This noticeboard is for reporting and discussing issues with biographies of living persons. Food for discussion among the disinterestedly interested. My own suggestion is that the article should be turned into a redirect; but as a non-expert on playmates I may be missing some especial noteworthiness (not apparent to me from the AfD votes). -- Hoary (talk) 01:10, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feloni

I am about to log off but would appreciate more eyes on this article. It has been heavily edited by a single purpose account, and the editor has many problems understanding how to write and how to use Wikipedia. I just started cleaning up the article today, and it needs a lot more work. The last thing to happen is the editor is removing reference maintenance templates without justification. I just finished posting a level 4 warning on his Talk page, but I can't stick around today to see what he does next.

For a good example of how awful parts of the article are, just read the Early life section, which is "supported" by a dead link.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:04, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

^ http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/kevin-myers/kevin-myers-why-should-we-burden-our-unborn-generations-with-debt-to-finance-fighter-jets-in-uganda-2851161.html

[1] ttp://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/kevin-myers/kevin-myers-why-should-we-burden-our-unborn-generations-with-debt-to-finance-fighter-jets-in-uganda-2851161.html

[1]

@@ Line 1,640: / Line 1,640: @@
 * '''Never''' Wikipedia should not contain ''unconfirmed'' information on sexual orientation of a BLP.  It is dangerous to the reputation of that person.<tt>  </tt>[[User:Ryan Vesey|'''''Ryan''''']]&nbsp;[[User talk:Ryan Vesey|'''''Vesey''''']]&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Ryan Vesey|<small>Review me!</small>]] 03:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 *:What is the difference between "confirmed speculation" and "unconfirmed speculation"?  The question also revolves around reporting any speculation. For example, should we report speculation on whether Sarah Palin will campaign for President? I think the answer is that we should not include rumors, but when speculation reaches the point of widespread discussion then we need to report that. For example, the sexuality of [[Clay Aiken]] was a prominent issue, and he was questioned about it in a number interviews. We reported that speculation and his denial. That seems like the right approach. &nbsp; <b>[[User:Will Beback|<font color="#595454">Will Beback</font>]]&nbsp; [[User talk:Will Beback|<font color="#C0C0C0">talk</font>]]&nbsp; </b> 03:29, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
-:::As you know the situation in this case is all the reporting comes from a comment in a Gawker article that attributed the assertion to ""since heard from two well-placed sources that this is indeed the case" - Is this the level of reporting that you feel is high enough to report and include sexual orientation in our BLP articles ? Do you support addition and attribution of such reports of sexual orientation? Do you believe the BLP policy as written now supports such additions?  [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 03:32, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 == Billy Corgan ==

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