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

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:35, 16 September 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]

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.[1] Will Beback talk 01:04, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Farther afield, it's been covered in the Herald Sun of Asutralia.[2] Will Beback talk 01:07, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Extensive coverage in the world news, according to Google.[3] 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]

I can not believe any editor would say "rumors started to spread that he was gay." is remotely near a reliable source for such a claim in a BLP. Further that it is insufficient to list a person on a list of gays on the basis of such rumours (yes Will, such a list is precisely what I mean at the ArbCom discussion - I suggest that adding a person to such a list is and should be verboten on Wikipedia without extremely strong factual sources). Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that Tim Cook has made no statement at all that he is gay. Unless I'm mistaken, this is all based on rumours and gossip. Totorotroll (talk) 15:31, 29 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.

- When should an encyclopedic project contain unconfirmed speculative sexual orientation reporting in relation to the living subjects of their articles? Reading the discussion and the quality of the citations above what if anything do you support including in the BLP at this time. Does current WP:BLP policy support inclusion of such speculative reporting, and if not and community consensus supports such reporting what should be added to the BLP policy to clarify that? - Off2riorob (talk) 04:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Version reworded slightly by Will Beback

- 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]

@Will Be back - 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 (unconfirmed by the living subjects) reports of sexual orientation? Do you believe the BLP policy as written now supports such additions? Off2riorob (talk) 03:32, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't know that - the issue I'm talking about is the Out magazine top 50, which has been widely reported. Will Beback talk 03:58, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I don't think there is a practical difference. Speculation is speculation and Wikipedia does not exist to further a speculated premise. My76Strat (talk) 03:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We should not speculate ourselves, but there is nothing wrong with mentioning widely reported speculation. Will Beback talk 03:58, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't the act of transmitting gossip gossiping? Leaning over the garden fence and relaying to your neighbour that Mrs Jones down the road thinks that Mr Smith at #666 is gay is the canonical form of gossip. John lilburne (talk) 07:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Gossip" is loose talk. Being given an award is an actual event. If we were to write the biography of John Lilburne, and said he was at the top of list for hunkiest men published in a wide distribution magazine, how is that a problem? If JL is called on of the "hunkiest men alive", should we decide on our own whether JL is really a self-identified hunk, and delete the reference if not?
Given that John Lilburne died 450+ years ago, I do believe we could delete the referenced based solely on deviation from the truth. John lilburne (talk) 17:56, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The phrasing of the question is almost as bad as the classic, "When did you stop beating your wife?" The real issue is, certain editors never accept WP:RS reports of any sexual orientation other than heterosexual. If a source says a man is married to a woman, or has a girlfriend, that's OK, but sources saying he's gay or has a boyfriend are always "speculation." One editor even demanded (perhaps facetiously) photos. Even if a subject says he's gay, some editors still call it insufficient because how do we prove he's still gay (it might have been a phase or temporary insanity). O2RR, I really want to WP:AGF, so can you please cite any examples where you've applied the same standard to both gay and straight subjects?TVC 15 (talk) 03:55, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The question is neutrally presented. We don't report heterosexual sexual orientation as its never or almost never reported in the press and never or almost never related to a subject notability - How many articles have you seen - Jonny who is a heterosexual man. My comments in regard to speculative or claimed sexuality is for this discussion when the subject themselves has not confirmed it. Off2riorob (talk) 04:07, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This feels like deja vu all over again, please look at some of the articles about Anderson Cooper's fellow news anchors, they almost all talk about 'married to X' and Walter Cronkite's bio mentions a girlfriend.TVC 15 (talk) 04:35, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree we should use the same standard when it comes to mentioning who someone is dating regardless of the sex or gender of the persons involved. I don't think we should necessarily apply the same standard when mentioning someone's sexuality. I do think we often report way too much on who celebrities are allegedly dating, it's true some editors are way to quick to dump tabloid gossip into an article. However both your examples appear to be poorly chosen. We would normally report if someone is married if reliably sources, regardless of the sex of the partner. In the WC case, he appears to have specifically commented on the relationship with the named individual (and he's dead although the person he was dating isn't). As far as I know, thew AC case doesn't involve any named individual, any marriage or even civil partnership and I'm pretty sure he has refused to comment on who he is dating. Nil Einne (talk) 19:01, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If we have to decide right now, then I must agree with Will Beback. However, I think it is worth considering the timing. Apple's publicity people are probably working overtime managing the coverage of Steve Jobs and his career and health, and the subject of the article is probably working overtime because he is a "workaholic"[4] and should have some time to consider how to relate to being a public figure. Like most people (including me), Tim was probably hoping Steve would return to the CEO job in good health. I would really prefer to wait a week, give them some space, let Steve retain the well-earned spotlight that Tim hasn't sought.TVC 15 (talk) 05:14, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I generally agree with Will Beback. There's no special rule here - if reliable sources report something and present it as true then we should include it. Of course, a tabloid saying "people are asking if..." and backing it up by the subject's refusal to comment does not rise to that level. We should also report cases in which someone is called gay, if the incident is notable, without addressing the subject's actual sexual orientation - only covering the incident itself. (I'm thinking of the Canadian newscasters who went after Johnny Weir a while back,^[5] and ended up in some kind of Canadian legal case - in that case certain people were trying to draw a different line on BLP. I should note that an exceedingly broad and open-ended case potentially touching on this is currently in front of ArbCom... ^[6] ) Wnt (talk) 03:59, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reporting was further compounded then when the LGBT magazine "out" - awarded him the number one gay spot on their top 50 list - leaving us with the dilemma - should we report that factoid which in itself asserts a sexual orientation that the subject has not confirmed. Off2riorob (talk) 04:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If a magazine named John Smith to its "top 50 leading men", would we argue over whether he's really a leading man? That'd be absurd. Will Beback talk 04:02, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is one of the points under dispute. You appear to assert that your interpretation of policy is that there is no difference between reporting someones unconfirmed sexual orientation and something as non personal at a "leading man" - imo it is more of a contentious thing to state as if fact claims about someones sexually when they have never confirmed it than the claim that that won a leading man award. That is my interpretation of BLP, that reporting of sexuality is a highly personal and in general private affair, and so a heightened level of sensitivity and quality of sources would generally be required for inclusion, Off2riorob (talk) 04:13, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If something is truly private, we won't find it in prominent reliable sources. Like it or not, personal information becomes public when it is widely published. Wnt (talk) 04:21, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we live in a mass media world and there are hundreds of thousands of blogs , papers of varying standards, even if some of those report on unconfirmed personal information about a living person that doesn't mean we should repeat it, does it? It is also possible to say that information is only reported in four out of four million possible locations. Off2riorob (talk) 04:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, WP:FRINGE does apply if the sources are indeed rare and doubtful. Wnt (talk) 04:30, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think fringe is relevent in this case, although the reports are in tabloid and LGBT focused reports , fringe doesn't apply - would you focus on the content presented for inclusion and its relation to the BLP policy as it exists and any possible alterations considering any consensus and insights that arise from this discussion. As per the discussion and citations presented in the discussion above, what do you support adding in this case according to current BLP policy? Off2riorob (talk) 04:35, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do see the irony here, in that what we are talking about is not sexual orientation, but rather is a person homosexual; that said WP:V and WP:UNDUE should be the guiding lights here, firstly if a cast iron source can be found for a persons sexual orientation and that persons sexual orientation is relevant to that persons notability then it should be included, otherwise it should be omitted. Under no circumstances should speculation be included, least it appears to be presented as fact. References to inclusion on lists of whatever should be avoided. Mt king^(edits) 04:48, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that Cook is on the "Top 50" list is undoubtable. Nobody is questioning that that's true, and when you denied that it was notable I showed otherwise. Whether the subject is actually gay is a different issue, one which we might never know the answer to. All we can do is summarize neutral sources.

Apparently, the term "contentious needs to be defined in the policy. Will Beback talk 04:39, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The top 50 list in itself is very low notable - it is only cited on en wikipedia after five years of existence in six articles - all of them are from previous years and are now dead links. Yes, I agree the term "contentious" and what that is in relation to living people is part of this issue - is it contentious to report in an encyclopedic biography on a living persons sexual orientation when it is very weakly asserted in tabloid and LGBT publications and the blogsphere (although not reliable the blogsphere weight gets reported in wiki reliable sources giving an inference of additional weight) when the claims are unconfirmed by the living subject of the article and only reportedly claimed by anonymous sources ? IMO it is contentious and as such is a violation of current BLP policy. Off2riorob (talk) 04:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The deadlinks are irrelevant. The number of WP mentions is not particularly significant either - we based notability on reporting in secondary sources, not on coverage in Wikipedia. No one is citing tabloids or blogs, so that's a straw man argument. Getting back to the essential fact, the subject's inclusion in the list has been widely reported and no one has issued any denials. Will Beback talk 05:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Never - if a person has publically declared a sexual orientation, we can include it. If the person has not declared it himself or herself, we have no business repeating the speculation of others on what is essentially a personal and private matter. LadyofShalott 04:41, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, what? The source is irrelevant, only what the person says (or doesn't say) matters? Absolutely not. The OJ Simpson article contains speculation that he committed murder even though he was acquitted because it is clearly relevant to his notability. If we only relied on what Mr Simpson said about himself, I imagine the article would be much, much duller. We can rely on reliable sources, even if they directly contradict what the living person says, so long as the source is reliable. (In this case, of course, the subject has never publicly spoken one way or the other.) In fact, traditionally Wikipedia eschews primary sources: "Colin Ferguson is not a murderer. (Source: Colin Ferguson)" would be highly dubious indeed. --69.165.195.59 (talk) 19:28, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, OJ was acquitted of criminal murder because a jury found the prosecution had not proved the case beyond a reasonable doubt, but he was held liable for wrongful death because a jury found the plaintiffs had proved the case by a preponderance of evidence; both juries may have been correct, fairly applying different standards of proof to the same evidence. Otherwise I agree with you, I just wouldn't have chosen murderers (or other felons) as examples.TVC 15 (talk) 20:20, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My earlier comment of never was made with a limited view in mind and I would like to expand/clarify it. Wikipedia should never decide that someone is gay. I don't care if we get a letter from the president, the prime minister, and the pope saying that Joe Schmoe is gay. We cannot definitively state that the person is gay unless they have stated that they are gay. If there is a case similar to what occurred with Clay Aiken, where there is widespread media speculation, Wikipedia can report on the speculation. Wikipedia must maintain neutrality and should not include information to support the viewpoint that the person is gay. When I earlier read the RFC, I read it to say "When is speculation a reliable source on someone's sexual orientation" Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that an encyclopaedia to repeat this type of speculation is just wrong. Mt king^(edits) 05:01, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you if the speculation is from a tabloid such as TMZ or the like. If there is widespread speculation, the issue has become a notable aspect of the person's life. Wikipedia should mention it. I think the best way to do so is to address the issue with a basis on the person's comments. I.e. Joe Schmoe responded to speculation on his sexual orientation with "I am not and never have been gay" or something similar. Ryan Vesey Review me! 05:29, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's correct. Will Beback talk 06:18, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speculation has no place in a factual setting such as WP. In the case of this type of speculation, even less so. Mt king^(edits) 06:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is between having Wikipedia editors speculating on their own, and Wikipedia editors reporting speculation in reliable sources. Sources legitimately speculate on numerous possibilities in this world, from the chances of a meltdown at a nuclear reactor, to the path of a Hurricane, to the possibility that a politician will enter a campaign. Reporting on this type of material shouldn't be given excess weight, but it'd be weird to totally ignore matters that have received extensive coverage in reliable sources. Will Beback talk 06:43, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right, Wikipedia editors have no business speculating. Once the speculation has been widely reported it can be included if it is not given undue weight. Ryan Vesey Review me! 12:44, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep out of the article, per WP:BLPGOSSIP: "Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. Be wary of sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources." This is policy, ladies and gentlemen. --JN466 12:55, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
what does "confirmed" mean? I suspect it means: confirmed by the subject. That is the standard we require for categories, but it is not required for article text, nor do I think it should be. If we go too far in that direction, we allow the content of articles to be determined by what people say about themselves. This approach, in general, is hardly consistent with NPOV. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:38, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
regardless you cannot deny that being in the top50 of out magazine is not an act of recognition that should go unmentioned. Him being considered to be a top 50 gay does not mean that our article says he is gay, all it says is that out magazine considers him gay or important to gay people. many of these lists will include people that are straight but considered important to the LGBT demographic/movement and in any case us omitting reliable sources published material is original research and we cannot do that.Gtroy (talk) 21:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for BLP policy update

- Contentious personal claims such as sexual orientation and religious affiliation should not be included in the body of BLP articles without comment and or verification from the living subject or other clarified or verifiable sources. (anonymous assertions would not support inclusion) - weight of reporting is also to be considered extremely carefully in regard to such contentious content, if high quality uninvolved sources report on the claims (or related claims, such as topic focused publications unrequested awards given that assert such sexual orientation) then inclusion may well be acceptable. Such contentious content requires consensus to include, no consensus defaults to exclude. - Off2riorob (talk) 03:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I could support such an addition, however I would propose the following

Contentious personal claims such as sexual orientation, religious or political affiliation should only be included in BLP articles with comment and or verification from the living subject. (anonymous assertions would not support inclusion).

my reading of your wording is that if enough people speculate it is ok to include, which I don't agree with. Mt king^(edits) 04:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for offering an alternative. My position is that if enough quality (independent of the topic focus) reliable externals report on the claims, then with attribution (if there is clarified and verifiable (not anonymous attribution) is available, there may well be a case for inclusion of a comment - if the addition is disputed then consensus to include will be required. Off2riorob (talk) 04:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this proposal is intended for the policy then it should be proposed on the policy talk page, not buried in a long thread about an individual case. Will Beback talk 05:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed it would be better to be moved to WT:BLP, as for Off2riorob's comment, I think that it should not matter who claims what in this area of someone's personal life, unless the person themselves comments and or confirms it, then speculation or gossip has no place in an encyclopaedia. Mt king^(edits) 05:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One issue is that religion and sexual orientation may or may not be contentious depending on the specific context. For example, the governor of Pakistan's Punjab province was recently assassinated by an Islamic bodyguard for opposing Pakistan's blasphemy law,[7] and the murder was widely celebrated by Islamist advocates of Sharia. I think we would hesitate to publish anything that poses a serious risk of getting someone killed. In contrast, Anderson Cooper is a public figure with a published autobiography and lives in New York and one of his fellow anchors at CNN recently came out and nothing happened.[8] The Islamists who killed the Pakistani governor might also try to kill AC for being gay, but they would already try to do that simply because he is American,[9] so it doesn't add much risk. Another issue is the extent to which someone is a public figure, and even why; for example, Jodie Foster became a public figure involuntarily as a child actor, but has tried to guard her privacy to the extent possible in that profession. Tim Cook was likewise very private, though he may now become a public figure as CEO of one of the world's most valuable and famous companies. Policies may arise by inductive reasoning from specific cases, but may be difficult to apply by deductive reasoning to other cases, so it isn't obvious whether these two subjects should be singled out for an official policy.TVC 15 (talk) 06:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: Claims about sexual, political or religious orientation of any lving person can not be based on speculation, but must be reliably sourced as actual statements of fact. Indirect claims can not be based on opinions of any person or organization. Short. Collect (talk) 08:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems simple and to the point. I can support this addition to the policy. Off2riorob (talk) 14:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Had Wikipedia then existed with such a policy, it would have prevented any reference being made to Liberace's homosexuality until his death. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not informed on details of liberace's life story, but there may well have been a case to not report on his speculated sexuality if thats what it was. Perhaps your correct though, it was to avoid possible censorship in highly notable cases that I added the "clause" - weight of reporting is also to be considered extremely carefully in regard to such contentious content, if high quality uninvolved sources report on the claims (or related claims, such as topic focused publications unrequested awards given that assert such sexual orientation) then inclusion may well be acceptable. Off2riorob (talk) 14:55, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Religious" and "sexual" should be considered separately. We could more easily analyze our options were we focussing on one at a time, and policy need not be identical for the two. Bus stop (talk) 15:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I promise if this policy is adopted to make it my duty to remove all text implying or suggesting that a BLP subject is straight / heterosexual / fancies people of the opposite sex, without a source explicitly and definitely stating that they are in fact heterosexual. Sam Blacketer (talk) 18:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you are forseeing problems with such an addition in regards to your "promise" would you please link to some of the content that you would consider removing so that it can be discussed. Thanks. (O2rr out and about account) - Gettingit5 (talk) 21:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to pick one example, more or less at random, we should certainly have to remove from Michael Bloomberg the claim that "is currently romantically linked with former New York state banking superintendent Diana Taylor". A romantic link clearly implies he is heterosexual, which is a claim about his sexual orientation, but there is no statement of fact anywhere cited to support it. He may have previously married and had children but as with Luke Evans, we can't assume that a previous sexual orientation has continued in the absence of a statement to that effect. In fact we ought really to play safe and delete the names and genders of any spouses of anyone who is married in a jurisdiction which only allows opposite sex partners to marry, since that is a clear implied claim about their sexual orientation. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't wait, just remove the nonsense now. John lilburne (talk) 22:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The nonsense, just in case anyone has not yet worked it out, is the policy proposals made above. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:40, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not seeing a comparison or that the proposed policy addition would have any effect at all on the content at that BLP - Bloomberg divorced Brown and is currently romantically linked with former New York state banking superintendent Diana Taylor - those two people seem to be in a relationship - which at least one of them has commented on? I don't see any unverified claims of sexual orientation? please be little more specific so we can get a consensus position on this. Sam, being a bit pointy and labeling good faith attempts to improve the project as nonsense are not very helpful, please attempt to find a solution to this repeated time sink and disruptive issue. Instead of simply attacking and creating a battlefield, what are your suggestions to improve the policy addition. Thanks - Off2riorob (talk) 02:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me explain it to you again and I'll put it in big letters to make my meaning perfectly clear.

Claiming someone is heterosexual is a claim about their sexual orientation

And claiming includes implying, assuming, presuming, writing as though it was obvious, etc. This proposal is drawn up to oppose the assumed evil of statements implying homosexuality on the part of BLP subjects who do not publicly discuss their sexual orientation. If implemented, then statements implying heterosexuality on the part of BLP subjects who do not publicly discuss their sexual orientation will be treated in exactly the same way. The statement that a man is romantically linked to a woman is one which implies heterosexuality; the policy requires this implication to be stated directly as fact but the New York Times does not do so. It does not say "Michael Bloomberg, who is openly heterosexual". My suggestion is that policy at the moment is fine and mentioning that Tim Cook was on a list of powerful LGBT people but does not discuss his sexual orientation is also fine. Sam Blacketer (talk) 08:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now let me explain. For several years my male neighbour used to have a male friend call round most evenings, that didn't make him homosexual, despite the rumours from the other neighbour that they were an item, and despite the fact that we never saw him with a girlfriend. Then five years ago a woman started calling around most evenings, that doesn't make him bisexual. Three years ago he announced that they were getting married, that doesn't make him heterosexual, though it does suggest a stronger possibility. BTW throughout the intervening years his male friend still comes around quite often, sometimes at weekends with a child, sometimes not. Unless my neighbour announces that he's heterosexual, bisexual, gay, a lesbian, or whatever, his sexuality is unknown and any comments on it pure gossip and speculation. John lilburne (talk) 08:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with JL here. As I've said before, we can and should implement the same policy when it comes to who someone is dating with the sex of both parties being irrelevant. This is somewhat different from whether we should allow specific comments on someone's sexual orientation from third parties. Putting someone in a list of LGBT people when there's no suggestion the person is transexual is clearly a comment on someone's sexual orientation since there's no way someone is going to be on such a list if they don't fit in to such a category (unless they're a honourary member). Of course some other organisation can categorise a person in which way they want, it doesn't have to be the way the person will categorise themselves. But the question remains whether we should mentioned the way some other organisation or person categorises someone when it comes to sexual orientation and other personal aspects (and just to be clear, I'm not referring to wikipedia categories here). In any case, who someone is dating is different and is not a direct comment on someone's sexuality. For example, presuming we take heterosexual to mean nearly exclusively attracted to the opposite sex or gender and homosexual to mean nearly exclusively attracted to the same sex or gender, both definitions which are commonly used; the only thing someone frequently (although in the MB case we only have 2 people) dating the opposite sex tells us is they are probably not homosexual. But even that is way too simplistic since many people find such labels don't really fit them or don't agree with the conclusions one draws. (For example, someone could have married and dated a woman but still consider themselves homosexual.) In other words, SB's conclusions on MB are rather flawed in the first instance. Nil Einne (talk) 16:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may have misunderstood - this debate is not about categorisation, which runs to a very strict standard of requiring self-identification (as it should). This is about all text possibly referring to a living person, and would prevent any indirect comment or implication of sexual orientation. Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:38, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose off2riorob's suggestion. Contentious claims about a living person do not belong in their articles, period. But if RS cover something and it's notable, then it may be included. There are no valid reasons to create special rules here. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 02:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Draft text

At Off2riorob's request, here is a suggestion for some text for the article.

In 2011, Out magazine placed Cook at the top of its "Power 50" list of the most influential LGBT people. Cook himself has not commented on his sexual orientation. [10][11][12][13][14]

That sticks to the known facts, relies on a highly reliable source, and avoids any speculation. Will Beback talk 04:56, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as per comments above, this has no place in his entry, it is of no relevance to his notability. Mt king^(edits) 05:02, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - the source itself (a blog-style editorial) refers to all this echo-chamber speculation as "rumors", making this a questionable source per WP:NEWSORG. AV3000 (talk) 05:12, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
oppose - Some of the content from the provided supporting Atlantic citation that imo shows why the claim shouldn't be included with the reporting that we have currently. - "Top Apple executives claim to be supportive, but worry that if Tim Cook comes out, the public perception of Apple could be harmed" - "To Be the Most Powerful Gay Man in Tech, Cook Needs to Come Out" - "it wasn't until this year that rumors started to spread that he was gay." - "Would an openly gay CEO -- not a bad product, not a flawed program -- hurt the house that Jobs built?" - all of its what if? type speculation and it is on the back of the exact same level of confirmation that the "Out" magazine added him to the list in the first place, this is a clear case of circular confirmation. Off2riorob (talk) 05:16, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added some more sources to show this is a notable and widely reported issue. Will Beback talk 05:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
oppose - Only notable if one goes back to Apple trolls in the days when they the rainbow logo. John lilburne (talk) 08:07, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
oppose - trivial content, akin to "so when did you stop hitting your wife?". That Cook appears to be very private over this matter lends absolute weight ot the idea of not recording meaningless gossip. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:58, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Of all the comments so far, I find this one the most difficult to understand. First of all, wife-beating is not trivial, it is in fact a felony. Second, the "So when did you..." question is a classic Loaded question, nothing like that is involved here. Third, so far the sources calling Tim "private over this matter" (your phrase) are at the same level of WP:RS as those saying he's gay, so if you accept one you end up accepting both. Why can't we just wait a week and see what (if anything) he or Apple says, and then decide?TVC 15 (talk) 11:32, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - question is a classic Loaded question, nothing like that is involved here; yes it is. We can't record that he is alleged to be gay (sigh), but we can report that he got listed on a list of LGBT people... same fallacy. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
support although really I would prefer to wait at least a week for the real people involved to formulate what (if anything) they want to say. Please, at this particular moment I hope Steve Jobs will be allowed to enjoy the accolades and limelight that he has earned, there will be a time to talk about other people at Apple but right now nobody wants to distract from what Steve has accomplished. BTW, though I don't presume to speak for any of the persons involved, I would guess that Steve already knew Tim was gay and if Steve commented at all it would be his trademark phrase, "Not a big deal." Tim would probably be too busy working on the supply chain to say anything.TVC 15 (talk) 11:02, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How on earth does any of that (aside from being speculative rubbish) have relevance? --Errant ^(chat!) 11:18, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wow, am trying (without success) to reconcile your "speculative rubbish" with WP:CIVIL, but the short answer is we've been requested to comment and the policies involved are WP:RS and WP:BLP.TVC 15 (talk) 11:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - And your comment relates to none of them, and is an example of exactly the sort of thing we should not be considering! --Errant ^(chat!) 12:26, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can not believe any editor would say "rumors started to spread that he was gay." is remotely near a reliable source for such a claim in a BLP. Further that it is insufficient to list a person on a list of gays on the basis of such rumours (yes Will, such a list is precisely what I mean at the ArbCom discussion - I suggest that adding a person to such a list is and should be verboten on Wikipedia without extremely strong factual sources). In short: Support O2RRs position. Oppose strongly Will's wording above. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The links in this example seem very bloggy to me. To support this, the sources have to be better. Furthermore, I believe that the way it is written right now makes it seem like he is gay. The comment doesn't even address the fact that it is only speculation. Finally, since he has not commented on the fact himself, and his page is so bare right now, I believe it is impossible to report on the issue without giving it undue weight. Focus on other improvements to the page first. Ryan Vesey Review me! 12:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Addition would violate WP:BLPGOSSIP. --JN466 13:03, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Wikipedia is not a blog, it is not a trashy tabloid, and most importantly, it isn't an appropriate arena for sections of the LBGT communities to pursue a campaign to 'out' people on the basis of rumour. Given the harm that has been done to LBGD individuals in the past as a result of such rumour-mongering, one might hope for a little more restraint. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:10, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The content of the sources militates against inclusion. Too much rumor, anonymous sources, and political/journalistic introspection.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:44, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Given the amount of media attention this has received, not mentioning it leaves a gaping hole in the article. Presenting it this way avoids a WP:BLP violation by sticking to what is notable and in reliable sources. I would also add that Cook didn't show up for the photo shoot for Out.-- Irn (talk) 17:30, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What "gaping hole" is that?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:48, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - The gaping hole being that he has been hailed in reliable sources as the most powerful gay person in tech, the most powerful gay person in the world, and the most influential LGBT individual. -- Irn (talk) 18:04, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support The first reference does indeed sound like it's twisting around on the hook trying to do anything but present its facts about Cook as true. By itself, it would fail. But the next reference, the Herald-Sun reference, is pretty unambiguous. I'm persuaded it's the kind of RS we want. Wnt (talk) 20:59, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This episode provides more evidence of why WP probably should not have any BLPs. Cla68 (talk) 22:40, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose - This is either complete speculation or someone knows something that Cook is declining to say publicly. In other words, it is totally gossip, and possibly outing. How ironic that it is Out magazine doing that to someone. WP has no business participating in gossip or outing. WP:NOTATABLOID really needs to be a blue link. LadyofShalott 01:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That Out named him number 1 in their "Power 50" is neither speculation nor outing nor gossip. It is an incontrovertible fact. -- Irn (talk) 08:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - If a magazine had slandered him, that they had written the slanderous comment would also be incontrovertible fact but would that mean that we have to cover it. NO. The point is that another publication has been willing to make a claim that we would not be allowed to make here. We do not backdoor that claim into the encyclopedia through attribution simply because another publication has made it. That violates the spirit of BLP right down to its core.Griswaldo (talk) 12:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Has the subject been slandered? Will Beback talk 13:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - WP:BLP does not say This policy only applies to slander. Sorry, Will -- the question you ask is not what counts. The question is Does this violate WP:BLP? And the consensus on this issue appears as clear as possible. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:14, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Will, I never said that he was slandered. My point was a hypothetical one, used in comparison. We do not allow end runs around our policies by way of attribution, in cases where the matter is a sensitive BLP concern. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 16:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Irn, are you deliberately missing the point? No, it is not speculation that they listed him, but for them to have listed him, they are engaging in gossip and possibly outing. There is no reason whatsoever that we should engage in repeating gossip (which is not necessarily the same thing as slander). LadyofShalott 15:18, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that those of us who support the inclusion and those opposed are viewing this from very different perspectives. From my point of view, we are neither engaging in outing nor gossip, nor are we even implying that Cook is gay. Rather, we are trying to make sure that his article covers notable aspects of his life, including all of the attention he has received for his sexuality even though he himself refuses to comment on it. -- Irn (talk) 16:17, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We are of course engaging in outing if we cover this. The idea that we're simply reporting that someone else has outed him is hogwash. If the information is in our entry it's in our entry, attributed or not. If you respect his privacy and respect the fact that this is gossip that he doesn't want to answer to, then you'll not reprint the gossip. It's that easy Irn.Griswaldo (talk) 16:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The outing (if that's what you consider it) has already been done and covered by multiple reliable sources. For us to ignore it is to pretend that it never happened or that it's not important. -- Irn (talk) 16:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The proposed wording is neutrally phrased, factual and well sourced. There is no shame in being described as influential. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Absolutely, 100% NO. We do not allow claims about living subject that otherwise would not be printed in the encyclopedia in through the back door simply by attributing them. Doing so would set a very dangerous precedent.Griswaldo (talk) 12:46, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The amount of press coverage that the topic has received makes the speculation on his sexual orientation notable in and of itself. To not cover the speculation when correspondents from The Atlantic and Reuters are is pretending that the speculation does not exist. Such speculation is clearly notable because it colours the media's coverage of him and therefore his own actions.--69.165.195.59 (talk) 19:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This is a roundabout way to include a claim that we're not supposed to be including directly. It's also likely to be an undue weight problem to mention it at all. Ken Arromdee (talk) 20:34, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That edit is exactly what our rules encourage. But, based on all the opposes, the consensus may be that our rules should be changed so that info in the article must pass the same hurdle as we require of our categories. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:51, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- yes, the comments here assert that contentious personal claims such as sexual orientation should not be included without comment and or verification from the living subject or other clarified or verifiable sources. The dispute here is a gay publication gave an award to the subject as top gay businessman) and there is clearly no consensus to include (which imo we need to include such disputed contentious personal claims) - the award asserts sexual orientation and they have no support for their giving the award to the living subject apart from a Gawker anonymous source, so BLP asserts "privacy" and a "cautious approach" imo clearly keeps this out even if other low quality tabloid sources and LGBT focused publications have repeated it. Off2riorob (talk) 03:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note that the gay publication in question (Out), which is the root source of most of the other citations being mentioned, describes itself as a "A gay and lesbian perspective on style, entertainment, fashion, the arts, politics, culture, and the world at large"; it's not exactly a high-quality news source with the pedigree of, say, the NYTimes, which has never published a monthly "nipple count" of images contained within (grin). AV3000 (talk) 13:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
  - A) Gawker is used as a source for hundreds of BLPs. The article in question is not anonymous. B) The Atlantic is neither a "low quality tabloid source" nor an "LGBT focused publication". C) There appears to be a trend towards suppressing or censoring material on homosexuality. I assume that the next step would be to refuse to report scandals regarding same-sex activities, because they imply something about the subjects' sexuality. Will Beback talk 04:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's the source of the claim that is anonymous.(you are aware of that, aren't you Will?) I think the community is fully agreed that Gawker as the origin of a contentious anonymous claims about a living person is not reliable , however much it is currently used on the project. Assertions of a trend to suppress or censor homosexual content is unsupportable completely. There is a trend - and that is to err on the side of caution in regard to assertions about living people, that trend has got nothing to do with homosexuality. Off2riorob (talk) 04:09, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) A) If Gawker (self-description: "Gawker - Today's gossip is tomorrow's news") is being used as a source for BLPs, that's nothing but regrettable and should be corrected. B) The Atlantic published this Gawker/Out-based item as online/blog speculation, not in their editorially well-regarded print edition. C) I've seen no such general trend in several years of patrolling and editing LGBT articles. AV3000 (talk) 04:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AV3000, regarding (C), I wish that you had followed O2rr's ~~advice~~stated example and not resurrected the AC debate, especially at the same time as this article; AC is a public figure with a published autobiography, and WP:RS report that he's gay, but you seem to demand "elaboration" as a new additional criterion, and that creates an appearance of being part of a campaign or trend to suppress. Out can be a WP:RS, but they also have a section expressly titled "gossip," and currently searching the Out website for "Tim Cook" returns mostly their Popnography site the title of which expressly includes gossip. One of the reasons I would prefer to wait is to see if the story moves from the gossip section and blogs into serious news articles. The "Power 50" list might qualify on its own, so if we must decide right now then I still agree with Will, but I think we may see more serious sources next week or next month.TVC 15 (talk) 04:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

O2rr's advice to AV3000 - Off2riorob (talk) 04:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) TVC, O2RR actually suggested on his talk page that I open a separate report for AC. And, although I'm not surprised that the AC case has been discussed in the past, I wasn't aware of that. And I don't regret doing so because I believe the two cases are closely related instances of a general issue. AV3000 (talk) 05:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In Germany Tim Cook is mentioned in LGBT media as a gay person.

Queer:Tim Cook (german) 92.252.96.171 (talk) 14:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whether he is gay or not is not really stated clearly by his ranking on a gay magazine, after all LGBT includes intersex, questioning, non-declared, straight allies, and PFLAG people too. It is citable and is all over the news and is worth mentioning what the reliable sources have stated about him. WE don't have to say anything we can just quote. Furthermore I suggest we follow a patter similar to what was done with the Anderson Cooper article, IMHO we need to take NO:OriginalResearch more seriously by not overzealously interpreting BLP. Him being gay or not is not a big deal, it is not libelous in any way, no one is suing out and no one would hold us accountable for aggregating an interesting fact reported on this guy but a plethora of reliable sources.Gtroy (talk) 10:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From the German wikipedia article - Cook is openly homosexual and lives in California. - supported by this outmagazine power 50 award - a claim presented as if fact that is unsupported by the supporting citation. What other open wikis do is not something we follow neither are their standards of reporting something that reflects our standards. Also - the fact that no one is suing is not a reason to include either. As for your "LGBT includes intersex, questioning, non-declared, straight allies, and PFLAG people too." - that may well be in some places but has nothing to do with Cooks BLP here. The interesting fact is what it boils down to - a homosexual publication without any confirmed evidence has given number one gay person award to this living subject. The simple inference is that the subject is gay. I would say looking at it - this is an attempt to either out a living person or force a living person to discuss his sexuality by Gawker (I gather they have a dispute with Apple inc or Cook himself) and out magazine (a LGBT magazine). Anyways , its not encyclopedic, its sexual titillation and baseless assertions better suited to the red-tops and LGBT focused publications - the best comment I have seen here is that the focus on his Bio should be his business and career history - go improve and expand that. The time sink I was hoping to resolve was to stop this being a repeat issue and add something to the policy that users could see clearly that lets them know that such speculation about subjects sexuality does not belong in en wikipedia BLP articles. - unless that is that the speculation is of such notability that the BBC is reporting on it. Off2riorob (talk) 14:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This discussion, and similar ones, might be more productive if the words "sexual" and "sexuality" were not used interchangeably with the term "sexual orientation". Unless I've missed something, there is no "sexual titillation" to be found here here any more than there is in a passage implying that an article subject is straight. I'd also suggest that, contrary to the apparent efforts of some editors on the project, Wikipedia is not the encyclopedia in which certain basic human attributes dare not speak their names. The 1911 Britannica is already online and hews to that standard. Rivertorch (talk) 18:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sexual tittilation is the speculating if someones orientated towards men or women when they have made no comment about such orientation themselves and where that persons notability is nothing to do with whatever their sexual orientation is - I don't see your point - "basic human attributes are covered all over the project, this discussion is about what kind of inclusion levels we give to speculation and unconfirmed non verified claims and reports about someones sexuality in BLP articles and to what level BLP supports inclusion of such reporting what are the standards of our reporting, the levels of Gawker and out magazine or are we to strive for the quality standards of the NYT and the BBC? (O2rr out and about account). Gettingit5 (talk) 21:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose per AndyTheGrump and Griswaldo's comments, and per WP:BLPGOSSIP and WP:UNDUE. Totally contrary to the spirit of BLP, and his orientation (whatever it may be) is not relevant to his notability. Ibanez100 (talk) 21:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support The statement as presented is entirely factual and documented and does not encroach on anything not previously widely known. --Sebcartwright (talk) 22:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sebcartwright, Wikipedia does not add gossip to its biographies, nor do we violate a person's right to privacy by adding irrelevant personal material. We have many biographies of people who might be staight or gay, and we do not normally report sexual orientation unless the subject has made a public statement and the fact is somehow relevant to notability.

We report that Lady Gaga is bisexual because she has said so in a Rolling Stone interview, and she is known for her LGBT advocacy. Privacy is not an issue. The fact is verifiable, and it is relevant to her notability.

Contrast this with Elana Kagan. Her article says, "Kagan has never married and has no children", and nothing more. There is no speculation whatsoever about her sexual orientation, though if you search Google you can find plenty. Jehochman ^Talk 00:33, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

===Media on Apple CEO Tim Cook's Sexuality: 'Come Out, Come Out...'=== I read about him now being "the most powerful gay man in the world" in The Week which in turn was reporting on Reuters.com article about the media's hypocrisy of not reporting it as if a gay man running the "largest and most important company n the world" should have his being gay as part of his profile because the stigma of gayness is so last year. So here is the media discussing why and how his being gay is portrayed or not by media outlets. It seems very strange that wikipedia would choose to suppress this information only because he hasn't announced it from the mountaintop. It seems a sentence about his sexuality, and the media double-standard of the mainstream press avoiding the subject, merits inclusion. Somestudy (talk) 07:21, 8 September 2011 (UTC) - Article here:http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/25/idUS422760388920110825 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Somestudy (talk • contribs) 07:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC) - WP:BANNED LGBT focused sockmaster User:Benjiboi - Off2riorob (talk) 03:26, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:BLP please. It is not up to Wikipedia editors to "out" someone who is not openly out. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:14, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even more, there's no need to make personal sexuality into an issue for a person unless they are making it so themselves. -- Avanu (talk) 13:10, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The principle is that we follow the sources. There are multiple independent reliable sources which have freely discussed the issue of Tim Cook, his sexuality, and his attitude to publicity about his sexuality. Some editors seem to have a compulsion to distort all normal practice to breaking point in order to argue for no mention of this topic, which is frankly becoming ludicrous. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:58, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the case at hand, your position attracts scant support. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:32, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That position has received plenty of support. But that support has been drowned out by persistent opposition. Will Beback talk 21:40, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Persistent opposition" by well over a dozen editors - whilst your position appears supported by fewer than half as many. I suspect that the "persistent" bit is shown by the number of edits by a single person promoting inclusion of such material -- say more than two dozen posts by a single person would appear, to me, to show a great deal of "persistence" indeed. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What matters is not how much support the position has received; what matters is the strength of the argument. Pointing out that more people agree with you does nothing to advance a discussion. -- Irn (talk) 21:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

* I looked to see which other main media outlets have discussed this and found these, with the articles' title; Forbes (business magazine) - "Tim Cook's Sexuality Has No Relevance As He Takes The Apple Reins", The Guardian - "Apple's Tim Cook isn't the only gay person in the IT village," ZDNet - "The sexuality of CEOs is a dull subject however...", DailyTech.com - "Meet Apple's New CEO, Tim Cook", The Atlantic - "To Be the Most Powerful Gay Man in Tech, Cook Needs to Come Out", "Reuters" - "Why I'm talking about Tim Cook's sexuality‎", BNet (CBS) - "Why Apple CEO Tim Cook’s Sexual Identity Isn’t — or Shouldn’t Be — News", Washington Blade (Gay news) - "Apple CEO Urged To Come Out As Gay", International Business Times - "Is New Apple CEO Tim Cook Gay?", Columbia Journalism Review - "Why Apple CEO Tim Cook’s Sexuality Is News". Reuters - "Tim Cook Is Now The Most Powerful Gay Man In The World", Wall Street Journal - "‘It Gets Better’: Tech Firms Step Up for Gay Teens", New York Observer - "Tim Cook Is A New Power Gay," "OutsideTheBeltway.com" - "It Is News That Apple’s New CEO Is Gay?" Somestudy (talk) 22:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC) - WP:BANNED LGBT focused sockmaster User:Benjiboi - Off2riorob (talk) 03:26, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Biel Personal section

Here is the text from her BLP Person section -

"Biel dated actor Adam LaVorgna from 1998 to 2001. They were co-stars in the film I'll Be Home for Christmas and on 7th Heaven.[33][34] She dated actor Chris Evans from 2001 to June 2006, and appeared opposite him in the films Cellular and London. She has also been romantically linked to actor Ryan Reynolds,[12] and baseball player Derek Jeter.[12][35][36] [37] She started dating singer Justin Timberlake in 2007, they broke up in March 2011.[38][39]"

This reads more like a magazine article. Should this text be kept? --BweeB (talk) 19:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what the specific BLP concern is. Is there something in there that is unsourced or doubtful? --FormerIP (talk) 19:19, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see the point: we don't want to be keeping a detailed history of someone's love life unless there's something particularly notable about it (marriage, children, divorce, lawsuits, jumping up and down on Oprah's couch...). Single people usually date, and famous people usually date famous people. While I wouldn't immediately strike the section while yelling BLP, I would argue (on the article talk page) that unless there was something particularly memorable about any of these romances, we shouldn't list them. --GRuban (talk) 19:33, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, GRuban, that was exactly my point. I will post a comment on the article talk page. --BweeB (talk) 00:32, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree quite strongly; an encyclopedia isn't a place to memorialize celebrity journalism. I also think there are BLP problems with the way Wikipedia uses vague phrases like "currently dating" to describe a wide range of social/romantic entanglements, from routine adolescent connections to casual sexual encounters to more substantial romantic linkages to what one conservative New York cleric recently described as a state of "public concubinage" (with regard to Andrew Cuomo). I certainly wouldn't favor making that last a standard WP usage, but we need something better than current practice. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:09, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proper analysis of this issue under WP:BLP is WP:UNDUE. How much weight do we want to assign something if it's reported by RS? If personal lives and dating history are reported by major newspapers then go with it even if some editor thinks it's worthless garbage. If you want to change practice, you must change policy first. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:04, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UNDUE, most emphatically, does not require that any content which might be sourceable must remain in an article. That would contradict WP:INDISCRIMINATE: merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. BLP calls for articles to be kept free of "undue weight given to minor incidents or to matters irrelevant to the subject's notability." Celebrity dating histories, no matter how reliably sourced they might be, must also be measured against this standard. Unless the "relationship" is significant enough in the context of the subject's overall life (the benchmarks suggested by GRuban are pretty good indicators), or has a demonstrable impact on the activities for which a subject is genuinely notable, it generally lacks the encyclopedic significance required for inclusion in an article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After getting what I thought was consensus for removal, here and on the article talk page, I removed the section. It was restored. I started a Request for Comments on the talk page: Talk:Jessica Biel#RfC: Relationships. Opinions welcome. --GRuban (talk) 14:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gilgamesh in the Outback

Read what is currently there and compare it to what Robert Silverberg actually said in the source used: "During the heyday of the shared-world science-fiction anthologies, back in the mid-1980's, I was drawn into a project called Heroes in Hell, the general premise of which was (as far as I understood it) that everybody who had ever lived, and a good many mythical beings besides, had been resurrected in a quasi-afterlife in a place that was called, for the sake of convenience, Hell. The concept was never clearly explained to me - one of the problems with these shared-world deals - and so I never fully grasped what I was supposed to be doing. But the idea struck me as reminiscent of the great Philip Jose Farmer Riverworld concept of humanity's total resurrection in some strange place, which I had long admired, and here was my chance to run my own variant on what Farmer had done a couple of decades earlier. (Second paragraph is not germane - deals with character development) It was all so much fun that I went on to write a second Gilgamesh in Hell novella, featuring the likes of Pablo Picasso and Simon Magus, and then a third. I never read very many of the other Heroes in Hell stories, so I have no idea how well my stories integrated themselves with those of my putative collaborators in the series, but I was enjoying myself and the novellas (which were also being published in Isaac Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine) were popular among readers. "Gilgamesh in the Outback," in fact, won a Hugo for Best Novella in 1987, one of the few shared-world stories ever to achieve that. By then I realized that what I was doing was writing a novel in serialized form. The book that resulted in 1987, To the Land of the Living was not primarily an expansion but a compilation: I drew together my three Gilgamesh novellas, making slight revisions here and there in the interest of consistency, and added a brief epilogue that gave Gilgamesh's seemingly random wanderings in Hell some emotional significance and an ultimate epiphany. The only major change in the original three texts involved deleting all material that referred directly, or directly grew from, the work of the other writers in the Heroes in Hell series. This was done to avoid any clashes over copyright issues. Since I had, by and large, gone my own way as a contributor to the series, with only the most tangential links to what others had invented, it seemed wisest to eradicate from my book any aspect that some other writer might lay claim to, and I did." This is the actual citation that Wolfowitz is quoting from. The nuanced selective choices are trying to rewrite history and put both Morris and Silverberg in a bad light. He makes it sound like Morris, who is younger than Silverberg, tried to nefariously sucker him in to writing for the series. Silverberg was the President of SFWA back in the 1960s - he is by no mean naive or gullible. He knew exactly what he was doing when he wrote in the series and when he left the series. A more balanced account was written on the Heroes in Hell page, but Wolfowitz keeps removing it, even after we make the changes he cites for deletion. This needs arbitration by an unbiased higher authority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.218.161.68 (talk) 05:07, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your post and concern for the accuracy of Wikipedia. What is the source of the quote you gave above? Wikipedia has clear guidelines for sources. WP:RS. If you can help us access the source you have cited above then we can see if it is being accurately represented in the article and make any needed corrections. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:59, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the source you requested: Thomsen, Brian (2006). Novel Ideas - Fantasy. DAW. pp. 205-206. ISBN 9780756403096. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.218.161.68 (talk) 21:57, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like a reliable source to me. DS (talk) 19:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Hullaballo Wolfowitz referenced Brian Thomsen's "Novel Ideas" as a citation for his revision that Robert Silverberg's "Gilgamesh in the Outback" was "originally published in July 1986 Asimov's" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gilgamesh_in_the_Outback&diff=449325690&oldid=444320250. It would be difficult for Hulaballoo Wolfowitz to challenge the Brian Thomsen citation given that HW also uses the same citation to assert "originally published" in the July 1986Asimov's. Dokzap (talk) 04:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)Dokzap[reply]

Mike Share

All of the information written about Mike Share is by Mike Share. Having researched him, I know that he has not played for many of the clubs he says he has. He has not been appointed a manager; he starts the clubs! The websites the information comes from - he writes these.

I am happy to provide more information on him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Genericgenie (talk • contribs) 08:30, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs sourcing, but I've compresssed it. It doesn't really say much about Share, mostly consisting of attempts rather than any real successes. I've nominated the most recent team he started for deletion and am thinking about nominating the Share article for deletion as well. Which editor do you believe is Share?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:23, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Share (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

- connected AFD - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ontario United FC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I think it's bbcsport who is Share. He is known to try to be authentic by quoting such illustrious sources as that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Genericgenie (talk • contribs) 22:11, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Better not to claim the subject is editing their article without verification - all you can assert is that in your opinion someone with a conflict of interest appears to be editing this article. Off2riorob (talk) 22:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Rob, but I also don't even understand your response. What "illustrious sources"? Also, please sign your contributions. SineBot is working overtime.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:28, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BBC Sport - illustrious source. Surely that makes sense?

You seem to be intimating that I have a conflict of interest here. I don't. I assumed Wikipedia wanted balanced, accurate articles. All of the Mike Share-related articles quote references from the websites he runs himself. Every time I have tried to edit them with my own, verified research (sources including Spanish FA, Exeter City, Gillingham FC, players who have played with him, NPSL, etc), 'he' has changed things back, sometimes adding more. If you care to look at the changes 'he' has made, you will find they only concern articles about himself or his vested interests. ^[1] is a starting point for you, I hope. Genericgenie (talk) 14:23, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think anyone was accusing you having a conflict. I was just having trouble understanding part of what you said. In fact, it occurred to me after I posted my question that you might be referring to the editor's username itself. Indeed, I wonder if his username violates WP:ORGNAME - see BBC Sports. I'd appreciate any comments on that issue from other editors. In any event, the Share article is being closely watched now and has been nominated for deletion, so we'll see how this plays out.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:18, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Zakrajsek

Resolved

– BLP violating material removed from article.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:07, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sourced material repeated removed, large paragraph of unsourced and irrelevant information added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.157.194 (talk) 17:08, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "sourced material" is a BLP violation because it does not support the assertions criticizing Zakrajsek. I have removed the section. I haven't looked at the other section that an editor tried to introduce in its place. For the moment, my biggest concern was with the BLP violation. I have commented on my removal on the article Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:22, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having now looked at the replacement material, it is mostly improperly formatted garbage. Maybe it comes from some earlier iteration that was better presented, don't know. As recently introduced, though, it has no place in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:28, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kellen Moore

Kellen is listed as a player in the western athletic conference. He plays for Boise State, which is now in the Mountain West Conference. Kellen is also listed as being a "communications" major. Boise State has no such major. He is a Communication major. There is no s in the word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.102.186 (talk) 20:40, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to make such minor corrections yourself, as long as you rely on what reliable sources say. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:27, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Anyone can make these edits (and if User:24... is correct then someone should), but there's nothing needing discussion here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:16, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a minor point of order that the page is semi-protected, so 24... can't make the edits. In the future, though, 24.98.102.186, you can use the article's talk page to bring up these kind of concerns. You can also place the {{editprotected}} template on the talk page of the article to ask someone to come along and make your changes. either way (talk) 00:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it. That's a lot of talk for an IP who probably can't follow this conversation. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 00:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tamil Tigress

This was already brought up at NORN, which is how I found it, but that doesn't seem to have solved the problem: a user is repeatedly reinserting personal analysis of interviews with the author of this book in an attempt to prove that she is lying, as well as unreliable sources such as blogs which criticize her. As per the instructions for this board, I won't copy/paste any of the quotes in question, but here is the most recent diff. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:41, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those additions are clearly inappropriate and should be removed on sight immediately. It violates WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS and WP:OR. (Hey, it's a grand slam!) --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:25, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Loonymonkey. Malke 2010 (talk) 18:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Winkler

Resolved

– Sourced in article.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:06, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Winkler OBE ? When was he given an OBE ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.208.126 (talk) 19:57, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In February of this year - it's sourced in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:01, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- http://www.education.gov.uk/inthenews/inthenews/a0074344/henry-winkler-receives-honorary-obe-for-services-to-children-with-special-educational-needs-and-dyslexia - Off2riorob (talk) 20:04, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ben T. Elliott

This biographical article looks like it was written completely by one of the subject's children. The relationship between the subject and the author (tom elliott) is documented in this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/25/magazine/25REPUBLICANS.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.207.22.236 (talk) 23:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As BLP issues on Wikipedia go, this article doesn't look particularly problematic at all. It can use a bit of cleanup, but unless anyone can point to some particular issue in greater detail, I'm not sure there's anything needing discussion on this noticeboard. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Sieburth

I would like to add two items to the authored books category:

Instigations: Ezra Pound and Remy de Gourmont (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1976) Poids et mesures/Weights and Measures (Dijon: Ulysse Fin de Siècle, 1988)

Richard Sieburth — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.141.185.144 (talk) 03:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

lenutaa_mirceaa

htpp://lenutaa_mirceaa — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.119.229.230 (talk) 06:24, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Iota Nu Delta - Controversies section

This section of this article is blatant defamation over petty rivalry--broadly displaying the alleged misdemeanor of a non-notable person, his picture, his university, and an organization in which he is allegedly involved. Not all of these things belong in the public domain. It certainly does not belong on the Wikipedia page of a national organization. It is blatantly defamatory to the person and the organization and has no relevance to the article. The page has been protected due to edit warring but this defamatory section should be immediately removed. Thank you for your time. (Winfinity (talk) 06:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]

I agree that the Iota Nu Delta#Controversies section is a misuse of Wikipedia and should be removed immediately. As the article is fully protected following an edit war, I was unable to do that, so I left a request here. If another admin sees this, you might like to consider removing the section. Johnuniq (talk) 07:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Orange Mike | Talk 13:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this frat group notable? afd? merge, .. Off2riorob (talk) 01:51, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lathika Srinivasan

Resolved

– September 12, 2011 User:Fastily deleted "Lathika Srinivasan" ‎ (WP:G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion article - has now been speedily deleted --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article 'Lathika Srinivasan' is a sarcastic article created for the purpose of mocking. It has no reliable citations nor is the person well known. I suggest deleting the entire article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Castroby (talk • contribs) 07:44, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The report is correct: the article is essentially an attack on the subject. It was originally created as Power Star Dr.Srinivasan (now a redirect to the moved article). From laziness, I avoid nominating entertainment articles for deletion, but this article almost qualifies for speedy deletion (perhaps {{db-person}}?). Johnuniq (talk) 08:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree. The early revisions of the article were written in a wildly promotional style ("he has a physique better than TR"), apparently in good faith, and then a vandal has later sarcastically added even worse hyperbole. I had difficulty distinguishing which was which too. I've removed the sarcasm, and plastered what's left with maintenance templates. I don't have any objections to someone either improving it; or taking it to AfD. (Or CSD A7 for anyone that feels optimistic about that, but I ~~don't think it's reasonable~~ think that's a bit drastic.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I usually don't recommend deleting articles since its not in the spirit of Wikipedia.But this person is not well known so no citations could be ever found, even if found its going to be highly sarcastic.I Am a big fan of sarcasm but I just think Wikipedia is not the place for it, articles like these just affect the credibility of Wikipedia.Castroby (talk) 10:03, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andy_Nicholson

Resolved

– Vandalism fixed. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.

Just reading the Wiki page for Andy Nicholson, former bass player for Arctic Monkeys.

The beginning of the article contains a description of Andy which is perhaps inappropriate.

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

I thought it best to bring it to your attention as whether he is or isn't either of these things it's probably best to edit!

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.127.225.3 (talk) 08:34, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I reverted the vandalism. Johnuniq (talk) 08:56, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chet Atkins songs

Just happened to be researching titles of Chet Atkins songs and the list that came up on Wikipedia is mostly a list of Beatles (McCartney/Lennon) songs - when I clicked on the song titles, it forwarded me to your article on that song and that it was indeed written by either McCartney or Lennon. Just thought I should mention it - maybe someone should take the time to look at the page more closely for accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.101.167.102 (talk) 12:42, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this posting is on the wrong noticeboard, Chet Atkins died in 2001... (and not sure what particular article the editor is referring to anyway). Shearonink (talk) 12:57, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, I think the poster might have been referring to Chet Atkins Picks on the Beatles, an album Atkins recorded that consisted of guitar instrumentals of Beatles/Lennon-McCartney written songs. Shearonink (talk) 13:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Topp

Dawn Black is not the leader of the Opposition in the B.C. Legislature. Adrian Dix holds that position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.187.150.35 (talk) 17:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noting this. I've corrected it. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:02, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Perry

Political silly season is again upon us, and quite evident in this BLP where trivia is being added as though it were of major importance, including mention of a youthful prank which is not particularly notable, a large section reciting a letter to Hillary Clinton, a whole paragraph devoted to Paul Krugman's zealous denial of any economic credit in Texas to Perry, a tax section almost entirely devoted to criticism of Perry, and a large paragraph accusing him of "crony capitalism" just to hit a few highlights of the melange retending to be a biography. And this is not the only article being hit during this silly season ... I bring it up here because one editor says I must have an axe to grind if I remove "crony capitalism" etc. from the BLP <g>. Cheers. FWIW, I have absolutely zero connections to anyone's campaign for President entirely. Collect (talk) 00:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just add to this that I got a thoughtful email from someone the other day pointing out that Krugman as a source should be treated very carefully, and I agree. He's an opinion columnist - a noteworthy one to be sure - but given the magnitude of coverage that Perry is getting and likely to get we should be careful to make sure to have a balanced approach.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You might wish to read Krugman's blog post about 9/11 -- mention of which has been kept from his own BLP <g> . In the case of Perry, one of the editors seems to be an SPA with under a hundred edits - all on Perry and Ron Paul, and with a fairly evident tone to his edit summaries. [15], [16], [17], [18], [19] are fairly typical of this editor's edits. Cheers. I think you understand that the "silly season" does not help Wikipedia advance as a project. Collect (talk) 01:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that Krugman is (merely) an "opinion columnist" and therefore is suspect is awfully hard to swallow. Yes, he writes for the NY Times -- but he is a world-famous economist, a faculty member at Princeton, Nobel Prize winner, etc. The fact that he writes for the Times does not undermine his standing in these other respects. I'm also deeply puzzled by use of the word "trivia" as applied to central campaign issues. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GPAs and their calculations are "central campaign issues"? Not. Did you read some of the sutff and the edit summaries? Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You included under "trivia" issues related to economic policy in Texas, taxes, and the nature of capitalism in the US. You didn't include GPA calculations. I responded to what you (and Professor Wales) wrote. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:57, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the subject of economics, he is an expert, but as a political analyst, he's no different from Maureen Dowd, Frank Rich, or any of their other opinion writers. --Coemgenus (talk) 10:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a sustainable distinction, when the issue is economic policy -- a topic on which Krugman is clearly an academic expert. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And such posts as Krugman makes about 9/11 being a day of shame for the US? I suggest that such is not really in his sphere of expertise <g>. Collect (talk) 11:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It depends what you mean by 'political analyist'. If he's analysing someone's economic policy from the POV of whether he thinks it's good/bad/helpful/harmful or the effects on the US economy or world economy or whatever or then I agree it's his area of expertise although I don't consider political analyist really comes in to it. If he's discussing whether he expects the economic policy to be helpful or harmful to the candacy or whatever then I wouldn't consider that his field of expertise Nil Einne (talk) 15:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

julian kirzner

he never played for western jets, only cental dragons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.50.20 (talk) 09:42, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Western Jets and other unsourced material from article.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Frederick

Last week I discovered that the Jeff Frederick article contains many statements supported only by citations from partisan political websites. The use of these citations would appear to violate the rule against bias.

I quote from Wikipedia policy: Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately...

After I deleted the biased references and the poorly-sourced material, the article was repeatedly reverted by unregistered editor(s). Next, on the advice of another editor I requested semi-protection for the article, since all the reversions had been done by unregistered editors. This was granted, but the article was then reverted by VaBio1.

It is claimed by editor VaBio1 that the citations are OK because he claims they contain quotes from the subject. However, the context of the citations is contrary to this, rather they are used to support assertions about the political career of the subject and to build his prestige. For example, it is claimed that one of his opponents is "powerful". Therefore these citations should be regarded as poorly sourced and contentious.

VaBio1 counters (Talk:Jeff Frederick), "Zeamays has yet to provide any evidence or even argument as to why information is unreliable." I counter it is self-evident that any statement supported only from a biased source is not worthy of Wikipedia. Also note that on the Talk:Jeff Frederick page VaBio1 has responded to my earlier posts interpolated before my later posts, which may give an unwitting reader the idea that he responded prior to my later posts, which was not the case. VaBio1 also makes the point that more valid references may be identified by reading the citations on the partisan political website. However, that requires original research, which is not permitted as the basis for Wikipedia material or citations. --Zeamays (talk) 13:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If using the word "powerful" was the only issue, we would have no problem. However, you omitted many relevant facts, none of which has been argued to be "contentious material", and in fact the material has been posted on this page for nearly two years without anyone suggesting that the material is contentious. Vabio1 (talk) 17:33, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see that two other registered editors have since agreed with me and edited the article. Vabio1 should do the work to seek find suitable authoritative citations if his opinions are supported. The fact that he does not shows that his position is weak. --Zeamays (talk) 19:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Authoritative citations have been found and referenced, but Zeamays refuses to review them and provide specifics about his objections, instead simply reverting back to his orignal edits with no regard for what changes have been made to address his stated concerns (which are vague at best), and no regard for actual updates of content. Vabio1 (talk) 16:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, Vabio1 has reverted to include references to the partisan politican website votejeff. He needs to be barred. --Zeamays (talk) 23:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, Zeamays refuses to provide specifics regarding his objections and simply wants his version of edits to stand with no or blanket justification, and we'd argue he is maliced and partisan due to his refusal to be specific and engage in a dialogue to resolve differences. We have asked for mediation on this. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/14_September_2011/Jeff_Frederick. We seem to be the only ones who want to discuss this to find consensus to get things resolved. Vabio1 (talk) 16:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I notice in a number of your posts you refer to "we" - whom is "we" - are you a role account operated by multiple people? --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia policy that I invoke has no malice, no partisanship. I have consistently offered the person or persons represented by Vabio1 the opportunity to correct the POV issues in the Jeff Frederick article by doing the necessary homework and supporting the statements with valid, authoritative references. That is not partisan. However, Vabio1 has resorted to an edit war and returns over and over to the same tired, meritless arguments. I do not see any editor other than Vabio1 who is supporting the idea that partisan political websites are appropriate as citations in Wikipedia. --Zeamays (talk) 00:49, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gary McHale

Entry does not conform to NPOV Contributor(s) appear to have close connection with subject Attempts to provide alternative views are quickly deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.226.118 (talk) 15:34, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note, the article has not been updated since May 31 of this year. Ravensfire (talk) 15:55, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barnaby Conrad

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,

I'm writing to correct some minor errors in the article on my father, BARNABY CONRAD (born 1922).

The article on this author is more or less accurate except that his list of nonfiction books includes several books actually written by ME---BARNABY CONRAD III (born 1952).

These books should be removed:

INTERVIEWS WITH MASTER PHOTOGRAPHERS (written with James Danziger) 1977.

JOHN REGISTER: PERSISTENT OBSERVER, 1998

RICHARD DIEBENKORN, 2003

VALENTIN POPOV, 2008

I am the author of a dozen books of non-fiction, and have a new novel coming out in March 2012, so perhaps it would be a good idea to do a Wiki article on me to distinguish Dad's work from mine

Sincerely,

Barnaby Conrad III — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.57.58 (talk) 20:05, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Hi Barnaby Conrad III. This seems like a reasonable good faith request - so - I removed the following. Supported by this book review, stating - "Barnaby Conrad III is a high quality, well-educated author that is sensitive and brilliant in his ability to articulte and capture the essence of John Register in his suberb new book." - (out and a bout Off2riorob - Avoidours49 (talk) 22:12, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Valentin Popov (2008) ISBN 9780976150954
Richard Diebenkorn : Figurative Works on Paper (2003) ISBN 0811842193
John Register : Persistent Observer (1998) ISBN 9780942627503
Interviews with Master Photographers: Minor White, Imogen Cunningham, Cornell Capa, Elliott Erwitt, Yousuf Karsh, Arnold Newman, Lord Snowdon, Brett Weston (1977) with James Danziger ISBN 9780448221830 (unsigned)

I used Google books and noted a number of books listed as by "Barnaby Conrad" with "Barnaby Conrad III" listed as author. The requests seem well-founded for sure. And it reminded me of Minor White whom I had met many aeons ago in college. Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I started Barnaby Conrad III. Any chance you could release a photo for us to use? --GRuban (talk) 15:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

bob dylan

Resolved

– Vandalism fixed. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First line of article has been messed up — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.75.15.101 (talk) 03:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you're talking about this, Cluebot already reverted it as "vandalism". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:16, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That ugliness lasted only one minute. Thank goodness for well-written bots. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Roger J. Williams

I emailed Dr. Davis and received a reply as follows after reading your article on Dr. Roger J. Williams. He asked me to contact Wikipedia in order to clear up mistakes. I hope I am following the proper procedure. Thanks.

> Hi Dr. Davis, > > Is the formula referred to above (Vitamin and Mineral Insurance Formula) the one referenced in Wikipedia as being Dr. William's formula for alcoholism? Or is there some formulation you could recommend?

Dixie Floyd

Response from Dr. Davis:

No. For alcoholism he recommended a "fortified" version with about 10 times more of most vitamins, and modestly higher amounts of most minerals. I recommend that you read his book in which he suggested this version, along with another supplement, glutamine:

The Prevention of Alcoholism Through Nutrition, 1981 (pocketbook), Bantam Books (used copies are likely available at Amazon).

Bronson sells something close to Williams's recommendation, Fortified Vitamin & Mineral Insurance Formula http://www.bronsonvitamins.com/92A/fortified-vitamin-mineral-insurance-formula

However, the suggested 1 to 2 tablets per day does not meet Williams's doses, which require 6 tablets per day, at least initially.

Bronson's talk about "collaboration" on the "jointly developed" formula is nonsense. As for being an "exclusive" Bronson product, that is true, but misleading, as any company is free to use Williams's suggestions without payment, and that has been true from the very beginning (as stated in Wikipedia). At one time another company did offer a similar product.

The Wikipedia article needs some corrections and improvements. Perhaps you could help with this. Williams published 3 books on nutrition and alcoholism, only one of which did he withdraw as stated.

Best wishes,

Don Davis

Donald R. Davis, Ph.D.

Retired from: Biochemical Institute The University of Texas Austin, Texas

> Thanks, > > Dixie Floyd > > from Wikipedia: > > Common differences in nutritional needs formed the basis of a vitamin formula Williams developed to diminish the craving for alcohol in people biochemically susceptible to alcoholism. In a course he taught as a Professor Emeritus at The University of Texas at Austin, The Biochemical and Physiological Bases of Individual Human Differences, Williams recounted his experience after publishing a book on this research. Because he had written that alcoholic people who got their individual nutritional needs fully met could drink socially without bingeing, he was assailed by people associated with Alcoholics Anonymous. Always a humble person, Williams allowed himself to be convinced that the social side of alcoholism was also of major importance. He withdrew his book and destroyed the printing. Williams never attempted to profit from this research; he gave his vitamin formula away to a number of pharmaceutical companies. A version modified by one of his former > colleagues, Dr. Donald R. Davis, is sold under the name Vitamin & Mineral Insurance Formula, by Bronson Laboratories. With the formula open-sourced by Williams, no company has completed pharmaceutical research to get US Food and Drug Administration approval for claiming it as a treatment for alcoholism. Williams himself testified before Congress in 1974 that "proposed regulations which would aptly apply to drugs would be inappropriate for nutrients and vice versa."[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.5.105.182 (talk) 17:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Perlow

Subject of article has removed documented criticism with citations.

Citations are two blogs with criticism of the subject. One blog is a documented article. One blog is a discussion of the subject.

I have returned the article to its pre-edited state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drinkzin (talk • contribs) 17:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except for a few circumstances, blogs are not considered reliable sources for articles. For WP:BLP articles, those circumstances are even more limited. Especially for critical/negative information, published secondary sources MUST be used. Ravensfire (talk) 17:48, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From a quick review of the two sources used to back the criticism, I've removed it. One source is a forum, the other is a blog. A quick good search couldn't find anything beyond the blogs on this, so the notability of the criticism is questionable. We don't put everything that's said by someone unless it's notable, which we gauge by it's appearence in secondary sources. Ravensfire (talk) 17:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Krugman

[20] has been strenuously objected to as an edit on that BLP. In point of fact, however, I think more eyes would benefit this article where even tepid criticism of the person seems to run afoul of WP:BLP as a matter of course. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:57, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the two sources that appear to be opinion pieces. It a rather blatant mistake to include cites to opinion pieces, in the lede no less where the specific material is not developed in the body of the article, to source that a person's critics claim that a liberal bias impugns their credibility. The editors who are edit warring over this are old hands here who should know better as a matter of style, reliable sourcing, consensus, BLP, etc. Nevertheless, the third source, an article in the Economist is a factual piece that sums up from a third party perspective that Krugman has critics, the critics complain about his political partisanship (which is somewhat different than merely being liberal or having liberal views), that he does in fact appear to be partisan in his writings, and that it is a significant aspect of his public persona, hence biographically important. The claim it makes is discussed in the body of the article at some length. If we accept that source as reliable, I don't see the BLP issue, though there can always be differences among editors about weight and relevance. And as a MOS issue, we don't need a citation in the lede if it's cited in the body (though in some extraordinary contentious cases it can help avoid dispute). - Wikidemon (talk) 18:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems that since almost every BLP about contentious figures have at least one word indicating such in the lede, that omitting it entirely from the lede is hagiographic entirely (noting the huge amount of criticism currently mentioned in the article <g>). Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:40, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly agree. Also, those that are continually removing it are all but absent from any discussion. It appears to be a clear case of simply not liking it. The critism in the lede is a fair summary of his work. Arzel (talk) 04:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the critical opinion pieces and criticism was developed in the body of the article, would that make the material appropriate to include in the lead? CRETOG8(t/c) 15:59, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Harte (Irish writer)

SubSection: Short Stories, paragraph three has been edited to contain unsourced, inaccurate and libellous allegations about Jack Harte and about Georgy Pryakhin. These are: 1. That Jack Harte brokered the publication of a book by Pryakhin in return for the publication of a Russian translation of his short stories. 2. That Pryakhin's works are considered anti-semitic and that he is associated with Russian neo-fascism. 3. By implication, that Harte is in some way sympathetic to or tolerant of anti-Semitism or fascism.

The only source given is an open source indymedia article, presumably written by the instigator of these edits himself.

These edits present a completely inaccurate, damaging and libellous portrayal of Jack Harte. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pasquale Paoli (talk • contribs) 18:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've already reverted the changes you believe are unreliably sourced and therefore a BLP violation. I don't know much about the source, but, in taking a look at it, I doubt it is a reliable source for these sorts of assertions.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ex-gay movement

BLP expertise, particularly in WP:BLPCAT subtleties, would be helpful at an RfC here. The issue is which criteria are used to include people in a list of ex-gay persons. --Noleander (talk) 18:40, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, the list is a list of persons associated with the ex-gay movement. The individuals listed need not be "ex-gay" themselves, although many are. The major issues are notability and poor sourcing. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boris Berezovsky (businessman)

Complaining re disruptive behavior of User:Deepdish7, who keeps reinserting poorly sourced, potentially libelous information, containing accusations of the subject of various crimes, including murder and funding of terrorism. All attempts to reason with the editor have failed. Request intervention. There is a parallel complaint about me by User:Deepdish7 on WP:COIN, with my detailed response, which is relevant to this report. --Kolokol1 (talk) 23:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been locked for the next two weeks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request to Permanently Lock the Article

Locking the article for 2 weeks is a temporary measure. User:Deepdish7 will resume reverting it to the disputed version as soon as it is unblocked. He said that himself, and has done so on many occasions before. Going into mediation with him is pointless, and the discussion in the talk page has been going in circles for two months without any consensus. We are dealing with a person on a mission to create an attack article aimed at exposing the subject -- an opponent of Vladimir Putin -- as a criminal, and the British decision to grant him political asylum as an act of hostility to Russia. He declared these objectives himself in his talk posts. This is not a matter of conflicting opinions, but of reliability of sources and NPOV and of good faith in using WP tools, or lack thereof.

Although I am not the subject of this biography, I admit having an interest in a fair and balanced treatment of Mr. Berezovsky in accord with WP policies. Let them brand me with COI, this still does not justify dissimination of contentious, poorly sourced and potentially libelous material.

Presently, there are two versions of the article on the record, which speak for themselves:

Version 1, the original attack article created by Deepdish and his support team (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boris_Berezovsky_(businessman)&oldid=439915507 )

Version 2, a collaborative effort of myself and other editors to clean it up in accord with WP policies (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boris_Berezovsky_(businessman)&oldid=450509807 )

The latest edit war, which resulted in the locking of the article, consisted in reinserting blocks of text from the first version into the second, and their removal.

Version 1 is a quintessential attack page; Version 2 is admittedly a work in progress, but it is pointless to continue improving the article in the situation of perpetual edit war declared by Deepdish7.

So I call on the administratiors to protect the article indefinitely, and assign a disinterested editor to vet all further additions, which could be drafted on the talk page, for adherence to WP policies.--Kolokol1 (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Too many accusations and too many unfeasible proposals. Deepdish accuses you. You accuse Deepdish. Russavia accuses you. You accuse Russavia. Deepdish accused Black Kite and wanted a different administrator to "handle" the article. You want the article to get some sort of special treatment with a "disinterested" editor reviewing the additions on the Talk page. I personally tried to do that and was given grief by everyone. I have no particular interest in the subject of the article. In fact, I'm probably much more ignorant of the subject matter than each of you is. Yet, when I tried to slow down the pace of the changes to the article (this was after the last lock) and review each change carefully, I was met with flak and contempt. So, I bowed out and have remained on the periphery since doing so. Frankly, I'm not sure that any of you should be editing the article, but that's not for me to say and certainly not within my power to implement. But my guess is that if after this particular lock expires, and if the same pattern continues, the locks will just become increasingly longer and the article, in whatever state it is, will remain in that state. An article - any article - is not a battle field, it's an article, and we're not improving the integrity of this article at all.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban them both. The disruption at the biography is/has recently been unending. Off2riorob (talk) 15:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not put us on the same footing. We may seem equally disriptive to you but the principal difference, from the standpoint of WP:BLP is that my opponent is trying to smear a person and I am trying to protect him within the BLP rules. Anyone who bothers to compare the two versions above would see this. The policy on this is very clear--Kolokol1 (talk) 21:05, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(retracted my support for a single topic ban) - Although you are defending the subject I think the point is somewhere in the middle and imo - the article will have more chance of WP:NPOV and will be less disrupted if your both restricted from editing there. Off2riorob (talk) 00:32, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rob, you might want to take a look at the discussion on WP:COIN before you agree with Kolokol.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:17, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I had seen bits of that at Coin...that user appears to have issues but the person creating the attack article is the one that bothers me the most. He is also attempting to name this subject as the murderer of the free press guy -.. Paul Klebnikov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - as the leading allegation has been removed from the lede there he is starting to revert war to the lede there also - that unsolved murder is the reason for deepdish's attacks here. He has only edited these two articles - this one to attack the subject and the other to leading-ly allege this subject was responsible for the murder. I am at the end of my wiki chances with deepdish. Off2riorob (talk) 00:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a ban request at ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:09, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Complete absence of edit warring at Sarah Palin article

Shades of Conan-Doyle's dog in the night here. An editor has recently added a section to the Palin bio regarding the content of Joe McGinniss's new biography of her - including references to an alleged affair with her husband's business partner, and to claimed use of cocaine and marijuana in her earlier life. Though this is sourced to the Daily Mail, a little Googling shows that other, more reliable sources are reporting the story (as allegations by McGinniss, rather than as necessarily factual), see [21] or [22] (and [23] for the allegations of a 1987 sexual liason with Glen Rice, also from McGinniss's book). The odd thing is the complete silence at the article talk page etc. I find it difficult to believe that nobody is watching the article, so what is going on? Have the Palinistas all abandoned her? In any case, I think a few more (neutral, or at least uninvolved) eyes on the article may be necessary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The wiki has lost a lot of editing, and SP doesn't attract as much attention as Rick Perry and others, now. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:59, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still editing Wikipedia pretty much every day, and (disclosure) I'm not all that fond of Sarah Palin personally. However, I think that any contentious claims about her need to be referenced to high-quality reliable souces. Perhaps the warriors have lost interest a bit because she isn't a declared presidential candidate, but we still have an obligation to maintain BLP standards here. Do you have a specific recommendation, Andy, or is this just a sociological observation? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My only recommendation was that uninvolved editors should keep an eye on the article. The McGinniss book seems to be attracting a significant amount of attention in the mainstream media (see L.A. Times review for example[24]), and we will clearly have to tread carefully to find a balance regarding how this is reported. (And BTW, for the record, I'm no Palin fan myself - though I suspect that is fairly obvious). AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:11, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am no fan of SP, or of editing US electoral politics articles in general, but no amount of overwhelming RS consensus is going to convince me to include that she might have had sex with some dude, a decade and a half before she became notable. That is the very thing that WP:SENSATION wants us to avoid. The other stuff, however, needs to be better sourced. In fact, I am not sure if it should be included at all. We are not a gossip rag, no matter what the subject. --Cerejota (talk) 14:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the sentence about Joe McGinniss's new book per Cerejota's impeccable reasoning and have placed the article on my watch list per Andy's request. The Los Angeles Times review Andy linked casts real doubt on whether this book, or reporting on it, can be considered a reliable source for the SP article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, I watch it every day, but I hate to edit without discussion on talk (and even more loathe to revert). I agree with Cullen's recent removal of this section, as it certainly is pure sensationalism. Worse, it's the type that will always inherently lack secondary sources (the he said, she said type). I guarantee it's not the last we'll see this added to the page. Fcreid (talk) 21:06, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The edit at issue is a splendid example of the political silly season "this person alleged that John Doe is still beating his wife" level of relevance in a BLP. Collect (talk) 23:06, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Im actually surprised that this hasn't come up earlier, i guess the Palin fever is starting to break ;-). I commented on the talk page that i dont feel this material should be included for more or less the reasons expressed by Cerejota, Cullen328, Fcreid and Collect. Bonewah (talk) 15:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I first posted material to the Sarah Palin article. As this has been reverted, I've now taken this to Talk:Sarah Palin#Joe McGinniss book. I've explained my reasoning there, and very much welcome additional input into this issue. I am unconvinced by some of the arguments above. WP:SENSATION does not appear to apply to me. This is not something merely reported in scandal-mongering papers. It's something being discussed in reputable, reliable source papers. It is not infotainment or churnalism. The above reference to WP:SENSATION appears to be a rather broad interpretation of what WP:SENSATION is actually about.

As I've said on the Talk page, the driving principle behind WP:BLP is the use of reliable sources, and we have those aplenty in this case. Wikipedia is not a gossip rag, and we should not repeat what gossip rags say. However, when a significant scandal is covered by multiple reliable sources, that is something we should cover, in a careful, measured, neutral and, above all, well-cited manner. Let's use all those cites given above! Bondegezou (talk) 16:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing that is being covered in reliable sources is the fact that McGinniss made the claims that he did. And, in any event, reliable sources are necessary, but not sufficient for inclusion in a BLP. Frankly, if this material doesnt qualify and sensationalistic gossip, I dont know what would. Bonewah (talk) 17:14, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Kalin

Andrea Kalin has a long history of COI edits by parties unknown, both named accounts and IPs. As a result, we have a long, lovingly-detailed promotional account of her film-making career, but no actual biographical information on the human being of this name. It's not quite a resume, but certainly not a real article about a living person: more a brochure for her production services. Can some fresh eyes have a look at it? --Orange Mike | Talk 13:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jochen Zeitz

self-marketing of an business major? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.97.192.148 (talk) 14:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno, but certainly a poorly written article.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notable - and reduced to two specific reliable sources thereon. Feel free to add to it. Collect (talk) 15:05, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kweku Adoboli

A $2 billion rogue trader story, just breaking, this is bound to attract questions of WP:BLP1E and recentism. His name is now being used by the BBC, WSJ, and FT but hasn't been officially released as far as I can tell. It personally looks ok to me, but it might help if somebody keeps an eye on it. Smallbones (talk) 16:04, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Sina (ex-Muslim)

In January, this article was created over a redirect to Faith Freedom International.[25] The article provides little biographical info, identifies the subject as "an apostate", and goes into excessive detail about this person's (an alias) anti-Muslim positions. Even the title is problematic; is "ex-Muslim" the best way to disambiguate this person? My feeling is that an Afd is in order, looking for other opinions. The Interior (Talk) 17:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, that strikes me as really inappropriate. I've moved it to Ali Sina (activist) until someone can come up with a better description. Gamaliel (talk) 18:04, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree the new title is better, I'm not sure if the old title was really as terrible as it sounds. It looks to me like it would be a name the subject would use to describe himself Nil Einne (talk) 22:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess what I was getting at was that if we know so little about this person that their defining characteristic is "ex-Muslim", then perhaps we need to look at notability. The Interior (Talk) 22:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Safwat Morsy

A person, by the name of Vilas Pendse, is trying to commit libel and slander against a living person Safwat Morsy. Wikipedia Article Website -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safwat_Morsy

Vilas Pendse goes by himself or sometimes as SFPeaceful. He has committed identity theft first by created a fake Facebook profile of Safwat Morsy and then created a couple fake Yelp profile to slander Safwat Morsy. Here is the San Francisco Police Report number (case number 110700524). More details -- http://www.alsabeel.org/component/content/article/40-nnouncements/136-urgent-message

I am open to constructive and true criticism of Safwat Morsy, but the blog article links have no sourced. Safwat Morsy never had any radical sermons and all sermons are video taped. Please let us know how we can provide links to all sermons that SFPeaceful is really lying about.

I hope wikipedia takes this seriously because a person is being slandered on Facebook, Yelp and now Wikipedia. Facebook and Yelp have taken action. Wikipedia is an interesting project and unfortunately someone is trying to use it for the purposes of slander.

I am requesting a Permanent Lock on Safwat Morsy article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.169.32.3 (talk) 19:09, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend that an administrator investigate and consider blocking the two editors who are attacking this man. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:39, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article has nothing in it currently that is libelous. However, the article is very poorly written and sourced. I've cleaned up the article and put in a refs tag. I'll also watch the article as it's no long semi-protected.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis W. Chiu

A case can be made for this guy's possible notability, but the current version combines the worst aspects of a smarmy jobseeker's resume, a political candidate's self-serving autobio and a would-be academic's desperately padded CV. I'm tempted to burn it to the ground and re-build from scratch, but it isn't really a total WP:CSD G11 candidate. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:34, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James Mattis DOB

An editor has raised an issue with General James N. Mattis' DOB through email:

It seems that on 20 Oct 2010 you updated James N. Mattis' birth date to September 8, 1950. That is incorrect and the source you sited for that date has been :told they are incorrect as well.

In a interview General Mattis did with the North County Times published on on June 24, 2007 (audio taped on June 19, 2007) he stated in his own voice and :words that he was 57 years old and proud of it. The audio of that interview has been deleted from the internet, but I have it on my hard drive. I listened to it :yesterday to make sure I was correct. You can read the article which does not recount that part of the interview, but you could contact the journalists and ask for :a copy of the audio. I would not assume that June 19, 1950 is his birth date, but doing the math certainly means that it is impossible for Sept 8, 1950 to be his :birth date because he could have only been 56 on June 19, 2007 if that were true.

http://www.nctimes.com/news/opinion/perspective/article_ad6c537b-a781-5f9a-8a74-c70b3b1181f9.html

My concern is that citing other internet sources without fact checking makes Wikipedia unreliable. I don't think I'll trust another thing in Wikipedia because of this.

I replied and updated the citation and got another reply -

Well I did annotate the Mattis Talk Page. However, I know the Congressional Hearing Transcript is incorrect and your information about his DOB is incorrect. :Citing two incorrect sources, one that cites the other that is OBVIOUSLY incorrect because of the dispute between his DOB and his MRD. Just because it says :Congressional Hearing (which I listened too again today) does not mean the person transcribing it made an error. It would better not to publish instead of :providing inaccurate information.

So, I'm moving on and will leave this subject and the incorrect data on Wikipedia. However, I'm forever suspicious of anything published on Wikipedia because :of you.

Can anyone assist me here? – Connormah (talk) 22:20, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would leave the birthdate as is. I would remove the public background check source, and if you want to add a second source just for the year, use this one. If it were someone claiming to be Mattis himself, I might be inclined to a different resolution, but this is a disgruntled, combative reader.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:48, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is another example of Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth - as I said in an email to him, if there were more discrepancies in his age, then I'd be more inclined to change it, but all sources I've seen seem to be consistent.

And in this instance, we don't even have a good basis to believe the DOB is inaccurate. So, it might very well be verifiable AND true.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

William Lane Craig

Recently there is one unique problem with the William Lane Craig article: three users have removed the majority of the content in the article and has repeatedly kept other users from adding more info. From more than 20kb in May 2010, the current article is less than half of that size.

Most notable is user User:Hrafn who began his involvement in this article since 26 May 2011, and has repeatedly deleted important information from the article with such reasons given as "Rm: WP:OR that is NOT IN THE CITED SOURCES!" despite not being familiar with the source in question; "UTTERLY worthless sources on UTTERLY unimportant website" despite the website being a part of William Lane Craig's ministry; and his arguments from the talk page contains things like "You "think you could be a member of an organization without believing in" the whole point for that organisation existing, whilst mouthing that organisation's claims on that subject? I don't think so. The world may not be "black and white" -- but religious conservatives' thinking generally is." (emphasis in original; last line clear indicative of inability to be objective concerning the article in light of its religious nature); "" whilst mouthing that organisation's claims on that subject" -- Craig is not a token evolutionist, and the DI is not Fox News. Think tanks (of any stripe) rarely, if ever, have "token people who disagree with it." And conservative Christians very much tend towards eliminationist groupthink -- see Rightwing authoritarianism for the details of the dynamics. Craig walks with, talks like and acts like a creationist -- so I see no reason whatsoever to pretend that he's not one when the subject comes up." (emphasis in original; also another indication of failure to be objective); and a whole list of anti-theistic views posted on the talk page clearly reveals that this user should be barred from making any further edits due to his inability to be objective about his edits.

The second user responsible for the vast reduction in information is User:PeterTheGreat (formerly Theowarner2, editing the article as User:Theowarner since 19 June 2010) who began on 18 May 2010. His responses on the talk page includes things like "Do a brutal edit and just eliminate everything that isn't covered by third-party sourcing. I'd love to see what that looks like." Mostly not notable edits, but he does make a large number of edits over the years which accumulated into this issue.

Lastly, there is User:Mann jess, who began editing the article on 5 June 2010. The problem with the user may not be bias or even objectivity, but rather a plain disregard of many sources with the false impression that primary sources must be avoided at any cost, and that even the Official Channel of the White House on YouTube cannot be considered as a reliable source.

An obvious problem with the way these three users handle editing on the William Lane Craig article can be seen in the way they removed a quote by prominent atheist Sam Harris about William Lane Craig, stating that he is "the one Christian apologist who seems to have put the fear of God into many of my fellow atheists"; while one user has given a Fox News report as a source, Hrafn went much further when discussing about the Sam Harris quote by saying "It is indeed a lousy source. The publisher isn't exactly known for being "Fair & Balanced" (no matter what their slogan may say), the writer appears to be a featherweight & the story is just a piece of publicity-seeking fluff. Speaking for myself, I can't understand this Christian obsession with Dawkins. In this instance he's the wrong choice for a debating partner -- Craig would be better off seeking a raconteur like Stephen Fry -- who would most likely make for a far more interesting and memorable debate. But Dawkins seems to be their Moby Dick." Mann jess takes the opportunity to outright remove the quote from the article ("Per forming consensus here, I've removed the addition.") despite the "consensus" simply consisting of Mann jess, Theowarner and Hrafn. All this in spite of the video of the source of the quote, which is the second installment of "The God Debate" hosted in the University of Notre Dame, being made available on YouTube since April 12, 2011, and the full transcript of the debate made available as early as May 3, 2011. This indicates either lack of fact-checking or outright denial of facts, which, either way, would be indicative of their incompetency and thus the main reason why they should be barred from making any further edits on the page.

In addition to the above, more details concerning the trio's bad faith in their editing of the William Lane Craig article are explained in this video. Maiorem (talk) 00:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Considering you're proposing I be topic banned, even if on the wrong noticeboard, it would have been nice if you'd informed me of the discussion. Some of your quotes are out of place, and your depiction could have been a bit more forthright. This dispute was started after consensus formed to trim the article based on its high reliance on primary sources (notably the subject's CV). A while after that had been taking place without objection, a quote (which brought this discussion here) was proposed for removal on the talk page, and was supported by nearly all the regular editors on the page, due to weight concerns. In the meantime, someone else decided to start canvassing on an external forum, found here. It appears this is where Maiorem was drawn into the discussion, and a week after the quote proposal had died down, he jumped in to give his opinion. That discussion can be found here. Maiorem's responses attempted to defend the reliability of a youtube video, to be used as a source, and so that's what our conversation centered around, but it concluded when he insisted that his intention was to demonstrate a supposed lack of good faith, not to change the article content. I'll let the rest speak for itself. All the best, — Jess· Δ ♥ 17:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

However, this is the right noticeboard to discuss an issue with the BLP. I have already asked prior to the making of this report if I should bring the matter here, in case you do not notice the timestamp. If you claim that my quotes are out of place, please show why. As it is, the current report is already overworded and if I need to include every single detail it would have dragged on even more. And no, three persons do not constitute a "consensus". Reliance on primary sources for a BLP is acceptable according to such criteria per WP:SELFPUB:

it is not unduly self-serving;
it does not involve claims about third parties;
it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Just because something took place without objection does not mean there was a consensus. As it is, Wikipedia relies on lay people to edit its articles, and most of the time people are busy instead of tending to this article, thus the false impression of "consensus" is simply due to silence and self-serving among the three users. Silence does not equal consent. The WP:Weight concerns are unjustified and based on User:Mann jess' personal interpretation of Sam Harris' quote rather than a face-value evaluation of the quote's weight. I was not even aware of the forum. The reason why I contributed to the discussion of the proposal one week after it has died down is because I only visited the William Lane Craig article for the first time in months and was appalled by the sudden lack of contents compared to its previous state, confirmed by a comparison of the article's history. My defense of using a YouTube video uploaded by the University of Notre Dame as a live recording of the debate between William Lane Craig and Sam Harris where the quote originated is only part of my response and the discussion is not centered around that one issue. However, it is true that my intention is to prove that there is no good faith edit being made by the three users and thus I request that they stop themselves from making any further edits, which has future impact on the article content. Maiorem (talk) 17:39, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This report is long on chat and short on examples. What is the specific BLP problem? Give a passage included or excluded wrongly. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 17:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided one obvious example in the report, and for other examples I have already pointed to the video which gives an analysis of some of the problems with the handling of this particular BLP. Maiorem (talk) 17:39, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have now read your report again. Please give a passage that is included or excluded wrongly. I am not watching your video. Thank you. Hipocrite (talk) 18:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have given the example in my second-to-last paragraph in the initial report, but for your sake I'll duplicate it here:

An obvious problem with the way these three users handle editing on the William Lane Craig article can be seen in the way they removed a quote by prominent atheist Sam Harris about William Lane Craig, stating that he is "the one Christian apologist who seems to have put the fear of God into many of my fellow atheists"; while one user has given a Fox News report as a source, Hrafn went much further when discussing about the Sam Harris quote by saying "It is indeed a lousy source. The publisher isn't exactly known for being "Fair & Balanced" (no matter what their slogan may say), the writer appears to be a featherweight & the story is just a piece of publicity-seeking fluff. Speaking for myself, I can't understand this Christian obsession with Dawkins. In this instance he's the wrong choice for a debating partner -- Craig would be better off seeking a raconteur like Stephen Fry -- who would most likely make for a far more interesting and memorable debate. But Dawkins seems to be their Moby Dick." Mann jess takes the opportunity to outright remove the quote from the article ("Per forming consensus here, I've removed the addition.") despite the "consensus" simply consisting of Mann jess, Theowarner and Hrafn. All this in spite of the video of the source of the quote, which is the second installment of "The God Debate" hosted in the University of Notre Dame, being made available on YouTube since April 12, 2011, and the full transcript of the debate made available as early as May 3, 2011. This indicates either lack of fact-checking or outright denial of facts, which, either way, would be indicative of their incompetency and thus the main reason why they should be barred from making any further edits on the page.

And that is not my video. Maiorem (talk) 18:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To summarize, your problem is that the article excludes a quote from Sam Harris saying "William Lane Craig, is 'the one Christian apologist who seems to have put the fear of God into many of my fellow atheists,'" is that correct? Hipocrite (talk) 18:30, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is incorrect. The problem is that these three users have repeatedly demonstrated lack of good faith and/or incompetency in their editing of this BLP, this Sam Harris quote being merely one example of the bigger problem. Maiorem (talk) 18:39, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide specific examples, using WP:DIFFS and brief explanations of instances where said users were damaging the BLP. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 18:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See for yourself. Maiorem (talk) 18:58, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A brief review of the "before" and "after" versions shows the "before" uses totally unreliable sources, like www.reasonablefaith.org, and www.closertotruth.com. The after version appears to use published books. I can understand why a hagiography might be your preference, but honestly, the baseline short version is far better than the unreliably sourced version. Propose specific incremental changes to the article that improve it and see what happens. Hipocrite (talk) 19:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, how do you justify your view that ReasonableFaith.org is an unreliable source? In fact, why is Closer To Truth not considered a reliable source either? Secondly, you have ignored the removal of published sources such as The Cambridge Companion to Atheism (2007) by Quentin Smith, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics by William Lane Craig, the blog of Brian Leiter, Access Research Network, and even Whittier Daily News, all of which have been removed in the current version. These are a total of seven references which contribute to much of the removed content. Please explain why these are considered unreliable sources, as the reliability of these sources were not even discussed in the article's talk page. Maiorem (talk) 19:38, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orson Scott Card

Prolific Sci-Fi writer Orson Scott Card apparently disagrees with the LGBT movement on a number of levels. Needless to say that has been causing a flurry of editing on both sides of the aisle. Some extra eyes and rational voices would be helpful. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:28, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above summary is not particularly accurate or helpful. A recent article in the Guardian (8 September) has highlighted a furore in the media and on the web with the reissue of Card's novella Hamlet's Father, whom according to that article is portrayed as a "gay pedophile". The question is whether Card's political/religious stance, in particular his opposition to the legalization of same-sex marriage, should be mentioned in the lede. That prompted a discussion in which many editors, some of them newly arrived, have commented and that issue now seems to have been resolved. Mathsci (talk) 01:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Apick

IMBD is referenced as Mary being born in 1954. Somebody keeps changing her birth year to 1961 with no reference. Ericsean (talk) 01:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would be great to find something besides IMBD. The Interior (Talk) 01:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and have removed the birthdate until another source (reliable) is found.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joe McGinniss

It appears someone has edited this page to attack him.

I just checked back and the attack language at the top of the article is gone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.53.175.53 (talk) 01:47, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Polanski talk page

On the talk page of Roman Polanski I believe there are some slanderous comments about his victim. Here the relevant edits [26] and [27]. If every single source out there says she has stated from the beginning it was not consensual, should he be allowed to suggest she said "yes"? Dream Focus 02:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the comment I made in response to a claim that Polanski should be included in the Child molester category, and its vague and not slanderous in any way. User:Dream Focus wants to add polanski to the Rapist cat and is simply attempting to demean my position with rubbish libel claims. Off2riorob (talk) 02:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please take care to not violate BLP on this talkpage - This has been well hashed out massively - I suggest if you were not involved in the prior discussions please read the archives Personally I see your comment about child molester as close to a violation itself. Its hair splitting personal opinion, stat rape is fine in this case. At least that was the previous consensus. Rapist suggests the person did not say yes, whereas in this case is was not a bit like that." - Off2riorob (talk) 02:09, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rapist suggests the person did not say yes, whereas in this case is was not a bit like that. Not a bit like her not saying yes? What? How is that not slanderous? And the rest of the conversation isn't relevant here, I'm here to discuss only that comment, and the discussion about it that followed. It says to link to the offensive bit, not to copy it here. Dream Focus 02:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, your ? .. ? say it all. You don't know what I meant only that I said, its not a bit like that. I disagreed with your portrayal thats all. Off2riorob (talk) 02:17, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't the issue here. Answer the question about what you said and stop trying to divert attention from it. Do you believe she consented? Is there any reliable source out there that says she ever changed her story once about being raped by the guy? Dream Focus 02:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said on the talk page - I don't care if she consented or not, all I care about is attempts to unduly categorize the living subject of the article. Off2riorob (talk) 02:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other opinions please. Is his statement suggesting that she lied about being raped, and actually wanted him to have sex with her, slanderous? Doesn't that violate the rules about comments about living people? Dream Focus 02:23, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't put words into my mouth, your portrayal is of your opinion about my comment and not about my comment itself. Off2riorob (talk) 02:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell? Everyone state how you interpret his comment please. "Rapist suggests the person did not say yes, whereas in this case is was not a bit like that." Dream Focus 02:26, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, hell yourself, get over yourself, and go do something creative. Off2riorob (talk) 02:27, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You know you did something wrong. You are trying to portray the issue as something unrelated. Your comment is there, there is only one possible meaning. Arguing back and forth with you is pointless. I'll try to ignore you until others come and read what was said, and then state their opinions. Dream Focus 02:32, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong is like your claim that I have broken the rules .. we have guidelines and policy here, not rules - done something wrong is not my resisting your attempts to add undue categorization to a living persons wikipedia biography, it is not remembering my mothers birthday. Off2riorob (talk) 02:34, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, Off2riorob's comment is well within reasonable bounds if you consider the information contained in this New York Times article from 2009. The 1970s were rather extreme in one direction, and today's societies are rather extreme in the other. (From my personal experience: A friend of mine owns a sexual education book printed at the time with a respectable German mainstream publisher. I once read it and found it curious, in part misguided, but not particularly concerning overall. Later I learned that it has since been outlawed by the Federal Department for Media Harmful to Young Persons.) It helps to remember that consensual sex between two children of approximately the same age and maturity is by far less of an issue (in fact, it should not be an issue at all, although some jurisdictions are broken) than asymmetric cases. The difference is of course entirely due to socially constructed reasons, and in 1970s' Bonobo culture these did not apply to the same degree.

Polanski's claim that the sex was consensual is not at all implausible, to the limited extent that sex with a 13-year-old can be consensual (sexually experienced or not). He wasn't convicted of more than that. And his probation officer said it was likely consensual. That's more than enough reason for the article not to claim or imply that it wasn't consensual. Hans Adler 19:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Xenia Tchoumitcheva

Xenia Tchoumitcheva (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). This is a BLP of a young European model/actress. It would seem to be established on the talk page, using various sources, that there are two competing birth dates. The earlier date seem to be backed by sufficiently reliable sources. The later date is backed by the models agency and agency controlled releases. The later date was apparently asserted in an OTRS email from the subject or a representive (see top of talk page). The conjectured explanation is that the agency has fabicated and pushed a later date to increase the marketability of the model. There is a foreign language source reporting the model being questioned about it, and I think she claims ignorance about some mistake and a need to check with her agents (see here). There is now a long history of slow edits whereby associated SPAs or IPs were inserting the later date into the article. Following substantiated challenge, IPs now resort to removing the earlier birthdate, leaving birthdate unmentioned. Other editors would like to keep the earlier, more reliable, date in the article. The options would seem to be:

Insist on stating the earlier date, contrary to the agency official data.
Allow the agency official data, knowing it to be likely incorrect
As above, but explicitly state something along the lines of "Agency asserted birthdate"
Include in the article information about competing birthdates in different sources.
Not make any mention of birth date.

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BLP issue over at ANI

Over at WP:ANI#Dispute over lawsuit sources at Porter Stansberry, we're having a discussion about BLPPRIMARY and its use as a citation for the allegations against Porter Stansberry. There's quite a revert war going on, and there definitely seem to be severe disagreements about whether BLPPRIMARY constitutes a blanket ban against using court filings as a source, or whether it merely prevents sourcing claims and assertions in BLPs. I just thought you guys would probably be able to shed some light on the subject. Van Isaac_WS^contribs 04:10, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since an "assertion" simply means "a positive statement or declaration, often without support or reason", any claim pulled from a court document necessarily falls under this prohibition. I think it applies equally to statements including "Bobbert is a murderer", "Bobbert was charged with murder," and, even "Bobbert is 46 years old and employed by Bobbert's Rent-a-car". Nothing in a BLP should be sourced to court proceedings, court filings, or court transcripts. Am I wrong? Qwyrxian (talk) 06:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

but WP:BLPPRIMARY says "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person". In this case it is being argued that the assertion is not about a living person but is about a complaint filed by the SEC. Thincat (talk) 14:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The next edit to this page removed an edit I had just made, I expect in an edit conflict. Again: There needs to be a reliable source saying why the SEC complaint is in any way pertinent. Without this there is an implicit assertion that the primary source is indeed relevant to the person. As is being said at Talk, a secondary source for the whole matter would be preferable. Thincat (talk) 16:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that court documents are not reliable sources is that they require a legal opinion, which is by definition POV. When that opinion is rendered by a reliable source (i.e. a court reporter), it is then usable as a reliable secondary source. Once again, any editor's opinion about the meaning of a court document is on its face POV. A further issue that I have with using court documents is that they rarely encompass the totality of the issue. An arrest record for murder will not show the results of the prosecution and thus can be unduly prejudicial, and this is yet another great reason for not allowing court documents as sources.Jarhed (talk) 18:14, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Johann Hari

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

A flurry of edits over the last couple of days has given rise to headings like "Professional disgrace", and "Admissions and apologies", and other misuse of an article to push a point. Some of the excitement possibly follows from the text "using Wikipedia to make malicious attacks on others" which appears in the lead. I came across this article when reverting an attempt to highlight the event with an addition at Sockpuppet (Internet). Johnuniq (talk) 07:53, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This editing is the direct result of reports and commentary published very recently in several leading British newspapers following an internal inquiry by The Independent, the results of which have not been made public. However, an apology from Hari was published in that paper yesterday, which describes his editing of BLPs on wikipedia; he refers to some of those edits as "juvenile or malicious". [28] Some of the articles, particularly that of Christina Odone, mention his editing of wikipedia and his username. Mathsci (talk) 08:26, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks. I just stumbled across the user name and the ANI discussion where the user was banned, and I see that this may be a case where pointy headings are appropriate. It looked like the usual pile on when I encountered it from the edit at Sockpuppet (Internet), but some strong text that is properly sourced may be warranted. I still think there should not be a record of every sockpuppet at that article. Johnuniq (talk) 08:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pointy headings are exceedingly rarely appropriate - and are not appropriate here. "Plagiarism" is the taking of a person's words and thoughts and presenting them as one's own, and is a specific legal wrong. In the case at hand, there is a valid issue as to whether taking a person's own words and ascribing them to that same person is "plagiarism" or just "lazy journalism." Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - there are direct examples of Johann Hari doing this, which were outlined in exhaustive detail in an earlier version of the article, and which are still referenced in the current article. Yonmei (talk) 19:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For example, Hari took a quote (word-for-word) which interviewer Matthew Todd had got from rugby-player Gareth Thomas, in an interview published in Attitude. Copyright for that published article belonged to either Matthew Todd or to Attitude: Hari did not attribute the quote he took to either the writer or to the magazine, but simply republished it as if it had been said as part of Hari's interview with Gareth Thomas. There were other examples in other interviews: the specific example which began the professional crisis was of Hari having taken verbatim quotes from Negri on Negri: in conversation with Anne Dufourmentelle, first published in 2002 as Du retour : abécédaire biopolitique. Hari had used the English text from the 2003 translation by Malcolm DeBevoise but had presented the quotes from the work authored by Anne Dufourmentelle and Negri, translated by DeBevoise into English, as part of Hari's own interview with Negri, without crediting the authors or the translator. This is plagiarism, and has been rightly identified as such in every single source I have personally seen aside from Hari's own self-description of his actions. However, I have invited editors to contribute sources disputing that this is plagiarism on the Talk page of the article, since obviously if there is public dispute about whether this constitutes plagiarism, it should be recorded in the article.Yonmei (talk) 19:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LaRouche Movement

Is this article at all subject to WP:BLP? One editor at [29] and [30] has asserted:

:::::::So? The man is not the movement. This article devotes very little space to Lyndon LaRouche

and

While Girvin was being interviewed on a sidewalk by a TV reporter, someone walked behind her and said "Polly, you're going to die" which the reporter said sounded like a threat.^[2] Due to that and what she said were other threatening behaviors, Girvin went into hiding, gave up her practice, sold her home, and left the state.^[3] *LaRouche said that a U.S. Attorney who was investigating the movement's fundraising, William Weld, "does not deserve to live. He should get a bullet between the eyes", according to a statement given to the FBI by LaRouche's security consultant, Roy Frankhouser.^[4] According to one report, experts stated that LaRouche's involvement in the matter allowed his phone solicitors to raise money by saying they needed contributions to fight child abuse in Nebraska.^[5] An editor delete these three passages with the explanation: actually - WP:BLP and the ArbCom decision apply.[31] Could he or another edit point out which part of the BLP policy and which part of which ArbCom case applies to these passages.

Whilst I consider that any article which makes such claims directly impacting a living person is absolutely subject to WP:BLP and that these claims would absolutely disallowed in, say "Kennedy Administration" etc. I further suggest that the ArbCom decision of just a week or so back, and in which Will was active, makes such Wikilawyering actionable. I further suggest that Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (the "BLP policy") is a fundamental policy requiring, among other things, that all biographical articles must be kept free of unsourced negative or controversial content, unsupported rumors and gossip, defamatory material, undue weight given to minor incidents or to matters irrelevant to the subject's notability, and unwarranted violations of personal privacy. is clear. Editors who edit biographies of living persons and other articles referring to living persons are reminded that all editing of these articles must comply with the biographies of living persons policy and with the principles set forth in this decision. is also clear. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a BLP violation here. Could you specifically detail who the living person is, what the problematic content is? Are you arguing that the statements are

Unsourced negative or controversial content
Rumors and gossip
Defamatory
Provided Undue Weight

or that they are

Violations of personal privacy?

Clarity would be helpful. Hipocrite (talk) 14:39, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You find absolutely no BLP connection in LaRouche said that a U.S. Attorney who was investigating the movement's fundraising, William Weld, "does not deserve to live. He should get a bullet between the eyes", according to a statement given to the FBI by LaRouche's security consultant, Roy Frankhouser ? Astounding! I would have thought it a contentious claim requiring extremely strong sources. Collect (talk) 14:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that. I said "I don't see a BLP violation here. Could you specifically detail who the living person is, what the problematic content is?" Are you saying that content is unsourced? Hipocrite (talk) 14:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The allegation is ascribed as fact relating to a living person. In fact, allegation of a capital felony. One for which no conviction ensued. The person involved has an "interesting" background. (Roy Frankhouser seems to have been one of the most arrested liars in US history). The allegation therefore was, and is, specifically contentious, and not "reliable source", and the use of a source reporting an "allegation" of a capital offense by such a person does not rise to the level of being "beyond rumour" by a mile. Thus the edit was, and is, subject to WP:BLP and the claim that the article is not abot a living person was, and remains, ludicrous. Is this sufficiently clear? LaRouche may be the most despicable man on earth, but all articles containing claims about him (or anyone) must adhere specifically to WP:BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I provided a succinct list of things that are violations of BLP above. Could you explain which of the various options was violated (Unsourced or poorly sourced controversial content, Rumors and gossip, Defamatory, Provided Undue Weight or Violations of personal privacy), and how, exactly, it was violated? You appear to be arguing that something that the sentence is in the wrong order as opposed to saying "Subject said something according to person quoted in report" it should read "According to person in report, subject said something." Is that accurate? Hipocrite (talk) 15:09, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rereading above, I think I should be more clear. I read your argument and was unpersuaded. It is not a rumor that Frankhouser said those things - they are, in fact, part of a federal indictment. I consider the Houston Chronicle to be a reliable source - and it's, by far, not the only source to report the quote in question. While LaRouche denies the quote (and his denial should be included), a federal indictment saying something is not merely an allegation that the thing is true made in the press, it's a fact worthy of note. Hipocrite (talk) 15:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Nope - it is repetition of an allegation of a capital crime - the assassination threat of a federal officer -- by a specifically unreliable informant. I trust everyone else can see that. Cheers. And let's still to a non-refactored discussion, please. The remaining sections you just-re-added are of zero utility here. Collect (talk) 15:27, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's important that you explain how the things you removed as BLP violations which I believe are not even remotely BLP violations, are, in fact, BLP violations, or, of course, you could put them back. If there are sources that discuss Frankhouser's unreliablity in the context of the widely reported allegations in the federal indictment, those sources should also be included - however, it appears at this point that you are unwilling or unable to support your position that items directly reported by Time, the Houston Chronicle and the LA Times, among others, are BLP violations that should not be included in our article. Hipocrite (talk) 15:31, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to not even see an egregious violation as a violation - why not let others weigh in and give their opinions? I am sticking to one example for the simple reason that you deny teven this example - the other examples were, and remain, contrary to WP:BLP but it would overtake this whole page tto handle the semantic arguments which would ensue on each of them individually and as a group. Hence, the rational position to stick to one of the three here. I trust you understood that reasoning, and only used the rhetorical "unwilling or unable" as a "Wikilawyering mode of discussion". Cheers. Now Let's hear from others and not continue this colloquy! Collect (talk) 15:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd very much like to hear why you reverted the other two examples out. Let's hope that someone uninvolved with this issue, like me, shows up to comment here, and perhaps comment on those other two "examples." Hipocrite (talk) 15:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a sub-issue, I'd like to understand more about the two sections you neglect to mention - in this edit, you removed not only the Frankhouser allegation, but also the Pauline Girvin death threat and the Nebraska sex abuse phone hoax. I've provided sections where you can explain how those are BLP issues below. Hipocrite (talk) 15:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Frankhouser was an admitted liar, informer and infiltrator, with a self-confessed history of telling people what they wanted to hear (which included LaRouche; Frankhouser made up lots of memos addressed to LaRouche, purportedly from a high-ranking US intelligence source, but in fact based on a media contact he had). I have some sympathy for the view that he is not a reliable source for what LaRouche did or didn't say. By the way, re Hipocrite's edit, Frankhouser was a government informer before he joined LaRouche. Having the denial there certainly helps, but without telling the reader a little more about Frankhouser I think the passage is still dicey. --JN466 15:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to add whatever info about Frankhouser you think is appropriate. Please be careful when using the phrase "reliable source," - while Frankhouser is a source in the journalistic sense, in the Wikipedia nomenclature, the "reliable source"s are Time, the Houston Chronicle, and the LA Times, among others. Hipocrite (talk) 15:58, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And rumours reprinted in "reliable sources" remain rumours. And when a rumour is from a convicted felon, there is a remote chance <g> that the "rumour" is, indeed, "contentious." See the Palin discussion above where rumours from a non-felon were dismissed as violating WP:BLP fairly overwhelmingly. And the bit about me "reverting" anything out -- others should note the two "sections" you added are quite notably empty per the discussion above. I was unaware it was heinous to remove empty sections. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Let's hear from others and not continue this colloquy?" It's not a rumor that the indictment quoted the felon. I'm discussing your reversions to the article. Hipocrite (talk) 16:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IOW, a rumour started by a felon becomes usable in any BLP as long as a reliable source reprints it? Despite the WP:BLP strictures on rumours and allegations? - that appears to be your position? Cheers -- I think the others see your precise stance clearly, as well as my stance. Collect (talk) 16:33, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, it's not a rumor, it's a report of a conversation he was a part of. Secondly, it's not just a random reliable source reprinting it, it's a federal indictment, reported on my multiple major newspapers and one of the largest weekly magazines. Thirdly, there is no BLP stricture on "allegations," in fact, the only place the word "allegation" appears in the entire policy is "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." Oddly, that sounds a lot like what we have here, dosen't it? Hipocrite (talk) 16:37, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

and you then felt obliged to edit so that the actual original BLP clear violation was fixed? The violation was, if you have not forgotten it, a clear statement that LaRouche had made a death threat made as a matter of fact. Sorry if I feel that allegations of a capital crime require substantially more than "a reliable source reprinted it" sort of logic. And it clear that you did as well, else you would have left the original wording intact. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So let me get it clear - your problem with this whole passage was sloppy editing, and I fixed it? Let's move on to the other two. What's wrong with them? Hipocrite (talk) 17:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. The allegation was, and remains, a violation as far as I can tell. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pauline Girvin death threat
Nebraska sex abuse phone hoax

Chris Mason (darts player)

Chris Mason (darts player) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article could really do with some experienced BLP editors going over it. It is being edited by (probably) the subject, and some administrators. For the last year it has flipped between a bit of whitewashing, and restoration of the referenced 'controversies'. The referencing is poor (in places non-existent) and mainly to local papers, and the controversy section is over-dominant in the article. The details in the "hammer attack" section are out of proportion, and possibly misleading because of it. The "benefit fraud" section relates to dates in a span of three months, not two years, and it's "when applying", not "while claiming" which implies more continuity. The most recent diff looks like this. If some experienced editors could take a look, I am convinced it could be improved. The bloke is upset and complaining and saying some things are untrue. He would probably prefer some things never happened, and probably pushing too far the other way. But if he's suggesting the article is unbalanced I think he's probably got a point. It could do with some editors who can really reflect what the sources are saying, in good proportion. 199.167.132.119 (talk) 18:53, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ken boyd (politican)

Please help to resolve edit war between anonymous user with multiple IP's.

Continuously inserting information which is not sourced in any way and false. User is linking to sources which do not verify claim. User is refusing to address these concerns even after the article was locked. I have laid out step by step why some portions of article need to be changed on talk page but other editor will not discuss any of them outside of two and will not compromise. Help resolve this PLEASE.

Rules state I am not allowed to list the unsourced and false material here. Where should I? Escytherdon (talk) 19:09, 16 September 2011 (UTC)escytherdonEscytherdon (talk) 19:09, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That article has some real NPOV issues. I tried reading the discussion and my eyes crossed. You guys are all over the map with what you're talking about. So I don't know who is trying to put what in, but it's obvious that the current version has a lot of POV material in it. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The three revert rule allows me to remove information of a bis and unsourced nature placed by sockpuppet or banned accounts. I will be doing that now and would LOVE for community involvement in rebuilding the page. Escytherdon (talk) 19:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)escytherdon19:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have made some edits to the page. Most of the "anti" material is sourced, it seems. --BweeB (talk) 19:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being sourced doesn't mean it isn't being given undue weight or being presented in a POV way, agreed? Niteshift36 (talk) 19:58, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOOO< I had so much info written here and when I submitted it Wikipedia stated that another editor had posted and it deleted it. x.x

Please consider the following:

He has been noted for his strong support of developers and sprawling developments. (Where is the citation for this? No he has not)
He says he did not serve in the Vietnam War because injuries from an automobile accident prevented him.[1] (Saying he 'says' that he did not is almost accusing him of lying. Why include it?)
In 2009, he told C-Ville Weekly he would not run for reelection to his Supervisor seat in 2011.[1] (This is actually a flat out lie. He did not say he wouldnt, he said he would consider not but wasnt sure. This is referenced earlier in the article, why state it a second time?)
There is no Hollymead controversy. This received two days worth of media attention and is now gone. If it was worthy of note in Wikipedia it would be an issue in the current election or even in the previous ones, it has not been. What makes it worthy of note in a biography? It is also very badly misrepresented here.
Boyd did not play a central role in the bypass decision, he has had the same vote for it for ten years. He did not even bring it up, another supervisor did and another one after that changed their vote giving the pro people the majority.
The OLD bypass was listed as wasteful by the taxpayers for common sense, not the new and re-designed one. This is misleading and false.
The source for the bypass being unpopular is a closed facebook group. How is this even a source?
the editorial was not unprecedented. The daily progress is not conservative, and why is only one side of the issue being represented? Best to simply state facts about the issue rather than messing with quotes from both sides.
Why is cynthia neff a non-notable person for Wikipedia (her page was deleted) yet she is given reference in the article and her website listed at the bottom?
Stating that during the congressional run he wanted the DoE abolished is a lie. Reading the article, he says he wants it to operate at the local and state level and not the federal.

Thoughts and THANK YOU 20:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)escytherdonEscytherdon (talk) 20:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your response gives the appearence of a bias of your own. And trying to address 10 points all in one post.......well, that makes it pretty difficult for anyone else to assist. Slow down a little. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. I do NOT want to be bias. As I have stated before if I could write a page for Cynthia Neff I would but it was deleted. I only want this to be accurate. I will rely on more experienced editors to help with this. If we could address the first two points I would appreciate it.

He has been noted for his strong support of developers and sprawling developments. (Where is the citation for this? No he has not)
He says he did not serve in the Vietnam War because injuries from an automobile accident prevented him.[1] (Saying he 'says' that he did not is almost accusing him of lying. Why include it?)

Escytherdon (talk) 20:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC)escytherdonEscytherdon (talk) 20:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

^ http://lesrosbifs.net/2011/05/the-return-of-mike-share-from-spain-to-canada/
^ Man who calls Queen a pusher worries town; By MATTHEW WALD. The Gazette. Montreal, Que.: Apr 14, 1986. pg. A.1.FRO)
^ 'VERY FRIGHTENING' FOES SPEAK OF HARASSMENT FROM LAROUCHE CAMP Ken Fireman. Philadelphia Inquirer. Philadelphia, Pa.: Mar 30, 1986. pg. A.4
^ "Indictment says LaRouche wanted to smear official to block probe" Houston Chronicle 17 December 1986, p. 14
^ Chronology of the Franklin Hoax Casey Set Sex-Abuse Rumors in Motion; Omaha World - Herald. Omaha, Neb.: July 21, 1991. pg. 6.A

[1] ttp://lesrosbifs.net/2011/05/the-return-of-mike-share-from-spain-to-canada/

[2] Man who calls Queen a pusher worries town; By MATTHEW WALD. The Gazette. Montreal, Que.: Apr 14, 1986. pg. A.1.FRO)

[3] 'VERY FRIGHTENING' FOES SPEAK OF HARASSMENT FROM LAROUCHE CAMP Ken Fireman. Philadelphia Inquirer. Philadelphia, Pa.: Mar 30, 1986. pg. A.4

[December_1986,_p._14-4] "Indictment says LaRouche wanted to smear official to block probe" Houston Chronicle 17 December 1986, p. 14

[5] Chronology of the Franklin Hoax Casey Set Sex-Abuse Rumors in Motion; Omaha World - Herald. Omaha, Neb.: July 21, 1991. pg. 6.A

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

@@ Line 970: / Line 970: @@
 :12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)escytherdon[[User:Escytherdon|Escytherdon]] ([[User talk:Escytherdon|talk]]) 20:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 :*Your response gives the appearence of a bias of your own. And trying to address 10 points all in one post.......well, that makes it pretty difficult for anyone else to assist. Slow down a little. [[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]] ([[User talk:Niteshift36|talk]]) 20:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
+:*My apologies.  I do NOT want to be bias.  As I have stated before if I could write a page for Cynthia Neff I would but it was deleted.  I only want this to be accurate.  I will rely on more experienced editors to help with this.  If we could address the first two points I would appreciate it.
+*He has been noted for his strong support of developers and sprawling developments.  (Where is the citation for this? No he has not)
+*He says he did not serve in the Vietnam War because injuries from an automobile accident prevented him.[1] (Saying he 'says' that he did not is almost accusing him of lying.  Why include it?)
+[[User:Escytherdon|Escytherdon]] ([[User talk:Escytherdon|talk]]) 20:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC)escytherdon[[User:Escytherdon|Escytherdon]] ([[User talk:Escytherdon|talk]]) 20:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

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