Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

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

Animal X

Animal_X_(band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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?

I don't see any BLP issues in the article.Jarhed (talk) 18:00, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Gudrun Schyman

Gudrun Schyman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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.

I don't see any obvious BLP issues in the article and there is no recent talk page discussion. I have removed the dispute tag. If there are still BLP issues, please open a fresh talk page section that details the issue.Jarhed (talk) 18:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Zara Phillips

Resolved

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

Zara Phillips (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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)

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

Gilgamesh in the Outback

Gilgamesh in the Outback (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

Note that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz doesn't challenge the reliability or accuracy of the source. What he does challenge is the use of the source to support phony claims of "controversy" and related innuendo of impropriety regarding the story's author, as introduced into the Heroes in Hell article by an IP/SPA.[1] Since this source doesn't in any way support such claims, inserting them into an article is an obvious BLP violation. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:13, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Please take note of the information contained on "The Hugo Awards" website, written and administered by the Hugo Awards organization itself (publication data from the website: "© 2011 World Science Fiction Society "World Science Fiction Society", "WSFS", "World Science Fiction Convention", "Worldcon", "NASFiC", "Hugo Award", the Hugo Award Logo, and the distinctive design of the Hugo Award Rocket are service marks of the World Science Fiction Society, an unincorporated literary society.") http://www.thehugoawards.org/hugo-history/1997-hugo-awards-2/, reporting that Mr. Silverberg won the Novella Hugo in 1987 for "Gilgamesh in the Outback" as published in "Rebels in Hell" of the Heroes in Hell series. I believe, of everyone, the Hugo Awards organization itself would have access to the most accurate information regarding its own awards process. I also do not believe anyone would accuse the Hugo Awards organization itself of being "biased" or guilty of supporting "phony claims" or "innuendo of impropriety" based on their own records from 1987. 'See' [2] Hulcys930 (talk) 03:20, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Please stay on topic - does the nuanced use of quotations violate NPOV when compared to the original or not?98.218.161.68 (talk) 16:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Citing an accurate and neutral paraphrase of the Silverberg quote addresses the issue raised by Hullaballo Wolfowitz as to if "Gilgamesh in the Outback" was "originally published" (HW's phrase) in the Isaac Asimov's SF Magazine with a cover date of July 1986. I believe use of this term is erroneous because it suggests a rights publication sale that has not been cited. This is what I wrote on HW's Talk page and other places. I present it here for background. Note that a paraphrase with selective quotes to be accurate should not contradict the work's subsidiary rights issues. Here is my comment: By reverting "first serialized" to "originally published," as Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and Mr. Ollie have done on the Heroes in Hell series article, the Heroes in Hell anthology article, and Robert Silverberg's "Giglamesh in the Outback" articles, HW and Mr Ollie repeat the error of not citing the source for how it is known that the work is "originally published" and confuse a common English phrase with a precise term of art used in publishing contracts. "First serial" is accurate in describing a work that first appears in advance of book publication. Technically this is called a "subsidiary right." "An Introduction to Publishing Contracts" by Charles Petit, Sean Fodera, and the Science-fiction and fantasy writers of America explains the relationship of subsidiary rights to book publication. The authors write, "Subsidiary rights are ancillary to the actual publication of the work by the acquiring publisher ... Exercise of these rights before publication is known as first serial rights." , p. 14. Note the phrase "ancillary to the actual publication of the work by the acquiring publishers." To use the phrase "original publication" may be acceptable in common language when the book form is the actual first publication in any form, or when a magazine is the acquiring publisher. However, to use it to refer to a first serial for part of a work that later appears in book form is inaccurate and may confuse the bibliographic record. If there is a subsidiary rights first-serial publication, in my opinion using "original publication" is erroneous, because it implies this is the actual publication of the work by the acquiring publisher. While using the phrase "first serial" to refer to a single publication of a work that later appears in its intended book form may lack specific verifiability, its use is defensible if that work later appears as part of a whole book. It can be inferred that a publication that appears first in partial form and later in a book by the acquiring publisher is a first-serial right. As a Wikipedia project, I would propose an editor write an article describing traditional publishing terms such as "subsidiary rights," "first-serial rights," etc. It is clear that many editors who do not have specialized knowledge of publishing terms need some guidance. The colloquial use of "original publication" may not always be precise or accurate. Speaking to the specifics of this garbled edit by Hullaballo Wolfowitz and Mr Ollie in the latest revision of the Heroes in Hell anthology, and other revisins in related article, I propose deleting the term "original publication" in this article and others. As a noncontroversial compromise, describe other publications of the work without time quantifiers such as "first," etc. Merely state the date of the publication and its title. However, given this explanation here of subsidiary rights and first-serial rights, the use of the term "first serial" is more verifiable than "original publication," which in my opinion is not verifiable at all.Dokzap (talk) 00:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)Dokzap

Paul Krugman

[3] 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)

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)

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)

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)

Also strongly agree. Strongly opinionated op-ed writers, there is always a ton of criticism, so you need to make sure that the criticism comes from RS, which tends to be nil. And I pretty much agree with that for a BLP, it is an article about the person not a place to rehash his views. But, in order to state what he does, you have to say he is a *liberal op-ed columnist*. If the article is otherwise good NPOV, how is the reader supposed to figure out what the person does?Jarhed (talk) 08:07, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

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)

This person is a celebrity opinion journalist with a huge following, of course there is going to be criticism. Strict BLP policy should apply, in that all such criticism must come from reliable secondary sources and not other opinion sources. In other words, for this person's BLP, almost all personal criticism is going to be invalid because no reliable secondary sources are available other than other opinion pieces which, according to BLP policy, are invalid for BLP facts especially negative ones. If everyone followed this rule, BLPs would be much more accurate and easier for editors to work on.Jarhed (talk) 09:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems that I might just not fully grok WP:BLP, because that's a surprise to me. Where does the policy say that a critical piece (say, an attributed editorial in a respected newspaper) isn't an acceptable source for there being criticism? CRETOG8(t/c) 17:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

In addition to the very strict WP:BLP guidelines, this has to do with notability. That is, the notability of the criticism to the subject of the article, which should not be confused with the inherent notability of whomever stated the opinion. It is not notable to an encyclopedic understanding of an individual that some random pundit criticized them unless that criticism turns into a much larger issue for them that gets reported on by second-party reliable sources. If the only criteria for including criticism was that it was printed in a "respected newspaper" then every single political figure's bio would be nothing but a coat rack of criticism (and the more famous they are, the more criticism there would be). --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:58, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I see your question on this noticeboard a lot, and I always wonder why it is so hard to understand the difference between the front page of a newspaper and the editorial page. The difference seems obvious to me. Editorialists opine on a wide range of subjects with widely varying reliability, while news articles report the news. A news article is from, say the WSJ, while the editorialist is just himself. For a BLP fact, especially a negative one, the opinion of a single person is insufficient for inclusion as per BLP. Grok now?Jarhed (talk) 16:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I haven't bothered to look at the Krugman article, but of course assuming good faith, I can imagine a "roundup" of opinion about Krugman from other notable opinion journalists that could give the article the flavor of Krugman's notability. If they were all from RSs and spanned the range of opinion, that might be a nice, NPOV addition to the article.Jarhed (talk) 16:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

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 [4] or [5] (and [6] 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)

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)

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)

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[7]), 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I'm afraid I don't follow how you are interpreting WP:BLP. I've re-read it and I don't see anything comparable to your language of "necessary, but not sufficient". If reliable sources like The Guardian, LA Times etc. are covering the issue, I don't see how it can be dismissed as "sensationalistic gossip" alone. While I appreciate your comments so far, Bonewah, I don't see how they relate to policy or reliable sources, which I understand to be the central principles behind all our efforts here. Could you perhaps re-explain your point with specific reference to policy? Bondegezou (talk) 20:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The material includes accusations of felonious criminal activity not sourced to any named person. If that is not almost a textbook definition of "sensationalistic gossip" I wote not what would suffice for you. Collect (talk) 21

01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Ive explained my thinking at length on the SP talk page, including quoting the relevant portions of BLP policy directly, I dont know what more you want. Further, between here and the Sarah Palin talk page 8 different editors have rejected inclusion of this material in her biography so far with only you arguing for its inclusion. While that does not preclude further discussion and minds changing, i think you are clearly swimming against the tide here. Perhaps our time would be better spent not arguing in the face of such clear consensus. Bonewah (talk) 23:17, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the McGiniss book is WP:RS. McGiniss is an author with a long track record of major books, it was published by a major publisher, and it's been widely reviewed.

Whether it's true is another question, which we can't decide. We should include the charges and the reviewers' reactions. That should keep it WP:NPOV.

Whether it's salacious is irrelevant. Unfortunately in the public discourse, WP:RSs regularly publish salacious information (which I don't think has anything to do with their qualifications for office), as they did with Bill Clinton, Eliot Spitzer and Anthony Weiner.

So now the vote is 2 to 8, and as you know WP:CONSENSUS is not a majority vote. --Nbauman (talk) 17:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The allegations made in the book are currently covered by Wikipedia in Joe McGinniss#The Rogue: Searching for the Real Sarah Palin, along with analysis of his claims by other reliable sources (which are not supportive). The reviews claim that McGinniss relied on anonymous sources for his claims, this is definitely a big no-no for us per the BLP policy. Unless there's some corroboration for his claims, they should stay out of Sarah Palin and Glen Rice. Kelly ^hi! 17:11, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Rice himself admitted to sleeping with her. It should be included in his wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.227.232 (talk) 05:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLP prohibits material that doesn't have a WP:RS; a book by an author of many books with a major publisher is a WP:RS. I don't see anything in WP:RS that prohibits books or articles which themselves quote anonymous sources. All the President's Men is a WP:RS even though it doesn't identify Deep Throat, isn't it? --Nbauman (talk) 15:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

• Definitely keep new info out the page It would violate the wikipedia rule that editors have to take into consideration the living person and the implications such claims can have on their lives. This is to controversial at the present time with reliable sources saying different things and it is not so relevant to her overall history and bio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apolo91655 (talk • contribs) 00:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

We've taken into consideration the implications on the living person into consideration. We've also taken into consideration the fact that she's a public figure (in the libel sense), that she's thrust herself into the public forum, that she's been outspoken on many issues, that she's a politician who held positions of public trust, that she's talked of running for president, and that the public has a right to know all the information about her that they might consider important in deciding whether to vote for her. We've also taken WP:CENSOR and WP:WEIGHT into consideration. I personally don't think salacious material is relevant, but it made a big difference for Bill Clinton, Elliot Spitzer and Anthony Weiner. If it gets media attention -- book reviews -- then it meets WP:WEIGHT and has to go in. And it has. --Nbauman (talk) 15:40, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Media attention != relevance. In the case of Spitzer and Weiner, the relevance is clear, they lost their jobs over the affairs. Similarly with Clinton, depending on the incident, he either had to go to court or it led to an impeachment trial. No such relevance exists in this case. Bonewah (talk) 16:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, media attention = relevance. Otherwise, how do you determine relevance? Do you just say, "I don't think it's relevant," and delete it?

I think that if there's a hypocrisy issue, it's relevant. If one of the issues that Palin used to further her political career was chastity before marriage, and she had a one-night stand with a basketball payer before she was married, that would be relevant. Whether Joe McGiniss' account is true is not for us to decide. We only decide verifiability, not truth, and include the skeptical reviews. McGiniss is a published author, his publisher is an established publisher, so fairly or not, it's a WP:RS as defined by WP. --Nbauman (talk) 04:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The book and allegations are mentioned in Joe McGinnis - however, the allegations don't belong in biographical articles about people mentioned by the book, because other reliable sources say that this book is not reliable, as shown above. A possible new wrinkle is that Andrew Breitbart has published e-mail from McGinniss which possibly shows that claims in the book are hoaxes or lack evidence,[8] though none of that should be included in Wikipedia unless documented by other sources. Kelly ^hi! 13:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

That's not the way we do things in Wikipedia. The standard for admissibility is verifiability, not truth. If one source that we define as WP:RS says that somethig is true, and another WP:RS says that it's false, we include both the charges and rebuttal, and let the reader decide.

I think that McGinnis and Breitbart are both irresponsible and often wrong, but my opinion doesn't entitle me (or anybody else) to remove their claims. All that it entitles me to do is to add to McGinnis' claims, and Breitbart's claims, the reasons that other WP:RS give for not believing them. And that's what we should do in the Sarah Palin article.

Even if we agree that McGinnis' charges are completely wrong, they have gotten so much publicity that the charges and rebuttals should be included in the article. People who read Doonesbury will wonder if they're true. If they see no reference at all to McGinnis, they'll wonder whether Wikipedia is censored. And the answer will be yes. --Nbauman (talk) 13:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLP does not agree with that position. Contentious material must be sourced to reliablke sources and while the normal presumption is that published works can be used, where the preponderance of outside sources is that the material is deliberately used as a means of attack (see the NYT and WaPo reviews) and the material is sourced to anonymous sources, and the material relates to felonious activity, the policy actualy requires that such material not be used in the BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Please give a link and quote the WP guideline you're referring to. That's not my understanding of WP:BLP, and it's not my understanding of WP:NPOV and WP:CENSOR either. --Nbauman (talk) 22:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Probably WP:GRAPEVINE ("Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person...that relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet Verifiability standards"}. See also WP:RELIABLE - "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or which lack meaningful editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional, or which rely heavily on rumor and personal opinion. (emphasis added) Questionable sources should be used only as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves...They are unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties." Also WP:BLPGOSSIP - "Be wary of sources that...attribute material to anonymous sources." WP:LIBEL may also apply here, as the Palin family has notified the book's publisher to preserve evidence in advance of a lawsuit.[9] Kelly ^hi! 14:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Sarah Palin edit

We have numerous reliable sources saying that this book was published and that it's been controversial. It's kind of bizarre to pretend that it doesn't exist. The article should at least refer to it briefly. We don't need to repeat the allegations but we should acknowledge it, and also mention Palin's reaction to it and to the author, which are also notable.   Will Beback  talk  20:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a tabloid whose joy is in printing material specifically found to be trash by the reliable sources - WaPo and NYT, inter alia. But heck - I suppose the fake Irving autobiography of Howard Hughes should be used for claims in the Hugehes article by the standard you propose - the same level of "realness" is in both. Cheers, but I think consensus is exceedingly strong here, Will. Collect (talk) 21:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Every major news source has talked about this book, if only to call it trash. It would not violate any part of BLP to say that a book was publsiehd that has been called "trash". The existence of the book, and Palin's reaction to its writing and publication, are not gossip. As for the Irving biography, it's mentioned in the Howard Hughes biography. It should be, because it's very notable even if it was a hoax. The McGinniss book should at least be mentioned.   Will Beback  talk  21:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipedia does mention the McGinniss book, and the controversy engendered, in Joe McGinniss. Kelly ^hi! 21:45, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Howard Hughes is probably not the best example here, since he is not alive...probably a closer analogue would be Jerome Corsi's work about Barack Obama, no mention of which will you find the Obama BLP. Kelly ^hi! 21:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The Palin article should probably say something along the lines of

• Palin complained publicly when writer Joe McGinniss, who was writing an unauthorized biography of her, rented a house next to hers in Wasilla. Palin increased the height of her fence to block his view. After the book was published, Palin threatened the writer with a lawsuit, saying that the book is a 'series of lies and rumors presented as fact'.

That would not violate the letter or spirit of BLP, and would refer to what appears to be a significant issue that she has reacted to publicly.   Will Beback  talk  21:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

(ec)In order to maintain neutrality, you'd have to include statements from the other RS's, like the New York Times, LA Times, Washington Post, and others who derided the book as an agenda-driven, badly-sourced attack piece. Mention of the lawsuit would likely end up requiring mentions of the McGinniss e-mails obtained and published by Breitbart, and McGinniss' response to them. Then it would quickly expand past the weight it deserves in the Palin article. Since there seems to be general consensus that the book is trash, it should likely just be kept out of the Palin biography, as we do with other attack "biographies" like Corsi's work on Obama. I'm not seeing how this situation is different. Kelly ^hi! 22:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The proposed text deals entirely with Palin's actions. I don't think it's necessary to bring in a lot of other aspects since, as you point out, the matter is dealt with in great length in another article. As for the Corsi book on Obama, I am not aware of any similar actions he took in response. Per the Streisand Effect, reacting to something often brings it greater prominence.   Will Beback  talk  22:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Meh, rather than belabor the point endlessly I'll just say I disagree. Palin's actions (actually her attorney's actions) don't have much weight in the context of her overall biography. And the text really wouldn't be neutral if it didn't convey the WP:RS opinion of the book, which puts the legal actions in context. So far the consensus has been to exclude McGinniss' allegations, I'll wait to see if that changes. With respect - Kelly ^hi! 22:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The proposed text doesn't mention the allegations, so that's beside the point. We could add that it was "widely criticized" or something to that effect, but I think it'd be best to keep it short.   Will Beback  talk  22:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Here's a revisipn based on the input from Kelly:

• Palin complained publicly when writer Joe McGinniss, who was writing an unauthorized biography of her, rented a house next to hers in Wasilla. Palin increased the height of her fence to block his view. The book, published in August 2011, was widely criticized. Palin's lawyer threatened the writer with a lawsuit, saying that the book is a 'series of lies and rumors presented as fact'.

Any other input?   Will Beback  talk  00:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, to prevent being misrepresented, I'm still with the above consensus that the material doesn't belong at all. Just to be clear, where are you proposing to put this - in one of the subarticles (like Public image of Sarah Palin? Kelly ^hi! 00:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above concered different material. I'd suggest putting this into chronological order, under "After the 2008 election".   Will Beback  talk  00:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

That section seems primarily concerned with significant political activities (book authorship, "death panels", Tea Party movement, "mama grizzlies", and Presidential run speculation. I'm not sure how tabloid reporting on a discredited writer can fit in with appropriate weight. Kelly ^hi! 00:23, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The fact that she raised her fence and the fact that she has reacted to the book are not "tabloid reporting". They are widely reported incidents in the subject's life.   Will Beback  talk  00:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Today, the New York Times reported that Palin was...doing nothing. There are literally thousands of reliable sources writing about her, we can't possibly include everything, especially stuff extremely questionable on BLP grounds. Kelly ^hi! 00:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

There is absolutely no question that this book was written. It is not a "questionable" assertion. More has been written about this than about numerous other items included in the biography. For example, the article devotes as much space to her view on the troop surge in Iraq, a topic about which she merely has an opinion that few people have ever discussed. I'm not saying we should devote much space to it, just a few lines. I don't see any specific BLP policy clause the requires us to suppress mentioning this book.   Will Beback  talk  00:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Not questioning that the book was written, but I'm just not seeing any comparison with weight given the rest of the section in which you want to insert this. There are thousands of articles about Palin's looks, breasts, glasses, even discredited speculation she caused the 2011 Tucson shooting. We ignore most of it, not sure why we need to include mention of a book by a discredited author with equal weight to her impact on the 2010 Congressional elections. Kelly ^hi! 00:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure this book needs mentioning at all. But mentioning the book, mentioning negative reactions to the book, mentioning that is was controversial, mentioning legal action about the controversy, all whilst skirting around the question of what was so controversial in the first place? If I made that edit, I think I'd feel a bit like I was working for Pravda.--FormerIP (talk) 00:25, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Pretending the the book never existed and that Palin didn't react publicly to McGinniss's moving next door to her would be more "Pravda" like then simply acknowledging briefly that these things have happened. People who want to learn more can follow the link to the writer's biography. There's nothing in the proposed text which violates either the letter or the spirit of BLP. If you think differently, please quote the specific text that says we must not mention the existence of unfavorable but well-known biographies.   Will Beback  talk  00:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying that. What I would say is that the episode is either noteworthy or it isn't. If we begin the tale, we should also end it, not tell three-quarters of the story so as to protect the subject of the article from having to read the same thing on Wikipedia as she has already read in all mainstream news media in the US. --FormerIP (talk) 00:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

We often give incomplete accounts of something when a more complete discussion exists elsewhere. "Widely criticized" is a fair summary. Can you suggest a few more words which would summarize it more completely?   Will Beback  talk  00:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Per WaPo: Derided as being a hit piece by a writer who said he hoped it would end Palin's career" comes to mind. His hope, he admits, is to cut short whatever is left of her political life, a spectacle he likens to “the cheap thrill of watching a clown in high heels on a flying trapeze. seems to accurately reflect what the WaPo reviewer sees as his motive for writing the book. Reliably sourced enough? NYT Although most of “The Rogue” is dated, petty and easily available to anyone with Internet access, Mr. McGinniss used his time in Alaska to chase caustic, unsubstantiated gossip about the Palins, often from unnamed sources like “one resident” and “a friend.” Yep -- the McGinniss book was not only "criticised" it was roundly trashed by the major newspapers. Heck even in the UK (Daily Telegraph): These are the depths to which Joe McGinniss has sunk, 42 years after he wrote a fine book called The Selling of a President about the 1968 Richard Nixon campaign. / For no discernible reason other than blinded hatred of Palin (and no doubt to make some money) McGinniss moved to Alaska in 2010 and rented the house next door to his subject. This stunt – and his synthetic indignation at the understandable ire it prompted from the Palins – is given extensive treatment.. Yet some editor thinks that Wikipedia should in any way promote such trash - seen from the viewpoint of all the major newspapers? Sorry Will -- this goes far beyond accusing LaRouche of calling for the murder of a prosecutor ... this is plain and simple malignity. [10] Even Keith Olbermann and Bill Maher would not push the book -- which I suggest Wikipedia should not come within a league of pushing. Apparently one editor's mileage varies - even from them. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:22, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Mentioning the existence of a book, and saying it was "widely criticized" or "trashed", isn't really promoting it. Rhetoric aside, are there any policy-based objections to the proposed material? If so, please cite the specific text in question.   Will Beback  talk  03:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

See my response to Nbauman immediately above this section break (presumably the post to which you initially posted on this board). Kelly ^hi! 03:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

If the proposal here is to mention the McGinness book in a sub-article, okay, but there's no need to say that Palin "complained" about him, or whined about him, or fretted, or lashed out. Just keep it short and concise, and say she "objected" to his presence. And leave out the crap about the fence. Maybe she entered and left in darkness too, or blasted music to annoy McGinness, all of which would be as trivial as raising her fence. And also leave out the "threats" (more negative connotations in the word "threat") by Palin through her attorney. If she sues, that might be non-trivial. Only an experienced Wikipedia editor could take this crappy book and use it to call Palin a "complaining" and "threatening" bitc*.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Taking that input into the draft, we get:

• Palin objected publicly when writer Joe McGinniss, who was writing an unauthorized biography of her, rented a house next to hers in Wasilla. The book, published in August 2011, was widely criticized.

Any further input?   Will Beback  talk  05:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Fine for a sub-article, IMO.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's intended for the biography. But a longer version could go into the "Public image" article.   Will Beback  talk  06:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm fine with the short version in a sub-article, but I don't see why it should be mentioned in the main Palin article, which isn't the place to describe everyone who's creeped her out or trashed her. She's objected to a million things, including the Fed's second round of quantitative easing,[11] but they can't all be covered in the main Palin article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with the above mention as it is now in a sub-article but it is not notable enough for the main article. If other stuff exists in the main article that is less notable than this book, then the other stuff should obviously be removed.Jarhed (talk) 16:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I object to the inclusion of this material in any Palin related article. For any sufficiently famous subject, literally thousands, if not tens of thousands of articles will be written and to mention all of them in wikipedia simply because they appeared in print somewhere would result in a desultory mess. Other than to wave the reliable source flag, no one has made even a prima facia case for the inclusion of this material. It is totally irrelevant and a gross violation of a number of policies. Bonewah (talk) 20:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The "prima facie" case for including this is that Palin has responded personally to the activities of McGinniss. It's not an issue of something that someone wrote about her - it's about what she has done regarding McGinniss. There's nothing in BLP which says that we must suppress the mention of unfavorably, or even trashy, biographies. this was written by a notable author, issued by a mainstream publisher, and has received considerable attention. Including a mention of it in the article would not have any effect on Palin.   Will Beback  talk  23:06, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

If that is your case for inclusion, then I stand by my objection. Nothing in your response indicates that this material has any lasting importance to the subject, your hand waving not withstanding. Bonewah (talk) 02:10, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Upon what policy languuge are you basing your objection? the appearance here is that editors are objecting based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which is not sufficient reason.   Will Beback  talk  22:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Really? You actually need a rule to tell you to only include that which is relevant to the subject? How about common sense or perhaps discretion? Hell, at some point you might even note the consensus against inclusion, even if you dont agree. Bonewah (talk) 23:24, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on policies. This is a well-known event. The proposed text is neutral. No one has given a good reasons for leaving it out. If there's nothing else I'll go ahead and add it.   Will Beback  talk  00:26, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

(Undent) People can and do often make policy-based comments without explicitly quoting policy. Looking at some of the comments above, it appears that many of them allude to the following policies and guidelines:

• WP:SS: "Summary style is accomplished by not overwhelming the reader with too much text up front by summarizing main points and going into more detail on particular points (sub-topics) in separate articles."
• WP:NOTNEWS: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion."
• WP:UNDUE WEIGHT: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint."
• WP:BLP: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives...."Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:31, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for providing concrete issues to respond to. WP:SS, a guideline, refers to the general organization of an article. There's no question that a couple of sentences would be better split off into a standalone article. WP:NOTNEWS, a policy, refers to events which have short-term notability. This issue has been written about for over a year, so that clearly doens't apply. WP:WEIGHT, a policy, is very important here. It says that matters should be covered in Wikipedia article in proportion to their coverage in independent sources. On that basis, this issue deserves to be included, much more so than many other topics which have received less attention but are given space in the article. The language quoted from WP:BLP is important, but no one has asserted that saying McGinniss moved next to her and wrote a book about her is a "titillating claim".   Will Beback  talk  01:52, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

More than one editor has said above that a brief mention would be okay in a sub-article but not the main article, because it is a detail, and such details belong in a sub-article instead of a main article. More than one editor has said above that this info does not have much enduring notability; there was press coverage when the author moved in next door, and now there is press coverage because the book has been published, but in between there wasn't so much, and there's no reason to expect much in the future. Regarding undue weight, more than one editor has indicated above that it would be wrong to include this in the main article while omitting comparable info about other things Palin has objected to (eg QE2), and other comparable authors who have written books about her. Regarding BLP, yes the fact that she didn't like it when someone moved in next door to her is a somewhat sensationalist, titillating, tabloidish tidbit, and all the more reason to keep it out of the main article, if not out of the sub-article too.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

(ec)I would go further and add that relevance is important here. Further, I feel that Will, you are not giving WP:WEIGHT and WP:BLP the consideration that those policies deserve. You are insistent that everyone else quote you the rules which forbid the exclusion of this material and seem to believe that anything which is not expressly forbidden by the rules must be included. This is simply not the case. I do not feel that you have made a strong case that this material is relevant enough to be included at all, and I cant help but feel that your constant call for others show you rules forbidding its inclusion is merely cover for the fact that not much at all has been said about why this is important enough to include. Indeed, WEIGHT says almost exactly that "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news." Undue weight says several times that "significance to the subject" is what is important and so far, the only time you have even attempted to establish significance was to by claiming that because Palin responded to the book's claims, they must be relevant. That is an incredibly weak argument, especially considering how salacious these claims are and the fact that this is a BLP. Bonewah (talk) 02:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

If you think "WP:WEIGHT" should be our primary guide then would you agree to deleting all the material which has received less attention than this book? 02:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I already recommended that as a remedy for anyone claiming that this non-notable book should be included. However, you should be aware that such is not considered a valid claim as per WP guideline: Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. In any case, there has been extensive discussion on the talk page of the article about how bloated it is. I don't think anyone trying to pare it down would encounter much objection.Jarhed (talk) 03:19, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT is a policy which we need to follow, while Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is just an essay and merely informative. I've started a fresh thread on the article talk page about issues which have received less coverage than this, yet receive more weight.   Will Beback  talk  03:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

You are mistaken, both are guidelines not policies. You can find the link to the WP document that gives the definitions of both at the top of the BLP article.Jarhed (talk) 06:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I earlier said that I was fine with a bare mention of this book in a sub article but I been convinced otherwise. Voluminous reliable sources attack this book's sourcing and its author's veracity, and every salacious claim has been denied by the subject with no evidence that she is not telling the truth. This book is trash and unacceptable for a BLP in any form.Jarhed (talk) 07:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I certainly do object to inclusion of this data as per plain BLP policy. The policy explains that notable events for celebrities generally have a mention in more than one publication. In this case, all we have is one book that is making the salacious claims and nothing else. Mentions of the book in other publications count only for the notability of the book, not the claims contained therein. This is the real issue: if there were any truth to these salacious claims, they would be extensively reported on by multiple news sources. There is no such coverage, as such they cannot be reliably sourced as per BLP.Jarhed (talk) 02:44, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Here's the multiple sources for celebrities guideline: Wikipedia:WELLKNOWN#Public_figures. I might point out that this guideline was made precisely to cover cases such as this: salacious but unverifiable claims made by an otherwise reliable author and publisher for the purpose of selling books.Jarhed (talk) 03:09, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Let's say John Doe writes a biography of Sarah Palin. What standard of notability do you think would need to be met before we mentioned it in the WP article?   Will Beback  talk  03:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

For an article on a controversial figure, biographies might have to be handled case-by-case. For the current discussion, I would feel a lot more comfortable with including it if you could find one reliable source that didn't say the book was poorly sourced.Jarhed (talk) 03:33, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

No one is proposing adding the claims from the book, only a mention of the existence of a notable book. The existence of this book has been reported in multiple new sources.   Will Beback  talk  02:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the book has some notability, but mainly for its author. I note that the book is covered quite well on his own WP article. Just because an author publishes a book about a celebrity does not make it notable for that celebrity. Palin's mention of the author on her facebook page also does not make the book notable.Jarhed (talk) 03:09, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

What would make it notable, aside from being mentioned in hundreds of newspaper articles?   Will Beback  talk  03:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I would urge you to read the BLP policy one more time, because it seems to me that the inclusion of this book in a BLP is clearly covered there.Jarhed (talk) 03:36, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Folks keep saying thatm but they seem unable to find any actual part of it which says that we should omit any mention of a notable biography.   Will Beback  talk  03:48, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

From wp:blp "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" (emphasis mine) From wp:undue: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news." (emphasis mine) Honestly, ive never seen an administrator so determined to ignore Wikipedia's core principles as you seem to be now. Bonewah (talk) 04:05, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Is the New York Times a reliable Source? What about The Washington Post? Boston Globe? Newsweek? Anchorage Daily News? Sunday Times of London? The Christian Science Monitor? Philadelphia Daily News? El Mundo? The Sunday Telegraph? Los Angeles Times? The Globe and Mail? Houston Chronicle? The Independent? National Post? The Ottawa Citizen? Pittsburgh Post - Gazette? The Guardian? The Ottawa Citizen? Philadelphia Inquirer? San Jose Mercury News? Tulsa World? St. Louis Post - Dispatch? Contra Costa Times? The Daily Mirror? Every one of these newspapers thought the book was notable.   Will Beback  talk  04:21, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

<--Relevance, Will, relevance. Just because something has appeared in a reliable source does not automatically make it relevant to the subject of an article. The undue weight section I quoted just above says exactly that "This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news." If an event is in the news, it is therefor in reliable sources. Undue weight makes clear that this is not enough, going so far as to say that this is especially a concern. If you dont see how the passage I quoted above means what I just said, what the hell do you think it means? seriously, when you read the words "discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic" what do you think that means? Im honestly asking. Bonewah (talk) 04:47, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

So do we agree that the existence of this book has been noted in numerous reliable sources? If so, then we should be able to agree that it is has received enough coverage that WP:WEIGHT indicates it should get a mention.

As for relevance, I don't understand the argument that a widely reported biography by a notable writer and a major publisher is not relevant to a WP biography. How do we establish the relevance of a book about the subject?   Will Beback  talk  05:01, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Your argument is starting to remind me very much of the talk page discussion about Trig Palin not being Palin's son. The same arguments were made back then, reliable secondary sources, the quantity of the coverage shows weight, etc. I suppose it wouldn't be appropriate for me to ask you to search the talk page archives (all 66 pages of it) and just substitute "McGinniss book" for "Trig" in the discussion. I invited you to read the BLP again hoping that you would get from it that it is unacceptable to use a source in a BLP that is widely reputed in reliable sources to be poorly sourced. This is not my opinion, the reliable sources say so. I would like to understand, from your reading of BLP, why you think it is appropriate to use this source.Jarhed (talk) 07:13, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Rather than asking me to read old archives on a different topic, I'd like you to read what I've written here. I'm not proposing using the McGinniss book as a source. Is that clear?   Will Beback  talk  23:17, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Will, if you "don't understand the argument that a widely reported biography by a notable writer and a major publisher is not relevant to a WP biography." its because you are choosing not to get the point. Ive spelled out, in plain English, how both wp:blp and wp:weight expressly say that the mere appearance in a reliable source does not automatically establish relevance to a subject and that both policies make clear that only material which is significant to the subject should be included. I cant spell it out any more plainly than that, and, frankly, I think that no matter what I say you will simply go back to repeating the line that because this book is mentioned in a reliable source it must be mentioned in Palin's bio. Thankfully, im going off for a weekend holiday so someone else can continue this dead parrot sketch, but please note that my silence does not mean my acceptance. Bonewah (talk) 11:36, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I believe that WP:WEIGHT requires we give issues which have received significnat coverage some space in an article. For reasons which I don't understand, you believe the opposite. That much is apparent. Have a great weekend.   Will Beback  talk  23:17, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Ina Garten

Ina Garten (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Several editors (including myself) are attempting to include information from a recent news story about Ina Garten, where she repeatedly declined requests from the Make-A-Wish Foundation before ultimately being rejected after she reached out to the family in question. This content dispute has been active since March 2011, but recently resurfaced due to an appaearance on the Crackle.com home page. The story has been reported by the following sources: ABC News, Business Insider, Salon, TMZ, Mediaite, Slate, AOL, The Los Angeles Times, The Daily Mail, Yahoo!, E!, Huffington Post, and OK! Magaine.

Citing previous consensus, several editors have repeatedly reverted any mention of this controversy in the Ina Garten article. The reasoning behind the reverts have been violations of WP:BLPGOSSIP, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:NPOV, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, and WP:UNDUE. The editors have questioned the reliability of the sources, and pointed out that the incident is a minor event that is not relevant to Ms. Garten's biography or career.

Arguments for inclusion cite the uncontested verifiability of the claims, as well as the reliability of the sources (LA Times, ABC News, Slate, Salon) and the well-documented coverage of the issue (including both secondary and primary sources, from Make-A-Wish and Garten's PR team). The subject of the article is well known, meaning that if the write-up of the incident is modest, and written in a disinterested tone, it would not contravene WP:BLP or WP:UNDUE.

Note: a prior posting to the BLP Noticeboard went "unresolved" here: [12], and talk page discussions have not been productive. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 23:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks like it is time for an RFC. Bring in more editors, have a straw poll, see where things stand. Gamaliel (talk) 23:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

It just seems to be complete trivial low quality attack trash, add my vote to keep it out of the article completely. The distorted weight given to such titillating crap in wikipedia biographies is disgusting. Off2riorob (talk) 23:55, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Junk, plain and simple. Frankly, I fail to understand why anyone would devote so much effort to trying to get trivial nonsense like this into Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Off and Andy. --BweeB (talk) 00:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree as well. --JN466 11:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

• - Its a WP:featured article from five years ago , (one of wikipedia very best articles) looking at it I don't think its of that quality now. It looks ready for a review. - Wikipedia:Featured article review - Off2riorob (talk) 00:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree with the above, I don't see a reason to include this information. Yes, it happened. That doesn't mean it deserves a place in a BLP. Dayewalker (talk) 00:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I opposed adding this gossipy stuff back in June, both here and on the article's talk page. This faux, whipped up controversy consists of the fact Ina Garten (a person famous enough to receive far more requests from charities than she can possibly honor) didn't respond to a specific charitable request. Some editors are claiming that we should report what she didn't do, somehow implying that she is heartless. I thought consensus was clear against this in June, but a few tenacious folks have made it their personal campaign to add this "information". I will put the article on my watch list and encourage others to do so as well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

A posting on Crackle.com has given this issue new life -- the "tenacious" editors lobbying for the inclusion of this material in March have already been properly stymied and shooed away. I was under the impression that the criteria for inclusion was verifiability, not fairness, or even truth. Ina Garten is a public figure, outspoken in her philanthropy efforts. Whether this story is trashy, disgusting, whipped-up, junk, or totally unfair...it's reliably sourced, verifiable, and relevant (though "relevance" is admittedly a debatable aspect). It's rare for a celebrity to be criticized for failure to participate in philanthropy, but it's not entirely unheard of -- Lady Gaga came under criticism for not recording a charity song for the 2010 Haiti Earthquake (the snub has a one sentence mention in her article). But I can see how editors would interpret this story as irrelevant gossip, so I will happily abide by consensus. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 05:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

This is the Cracked Mag link ColorOfSuffering is referring to. --04:33, 25 September 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

Garten works extensively for a variety of causes, including battered women, cancer patients, AIDS awareness and animal rights. She supports them both financially as well as in person. Garten gets about an hundred new charity requests each month. Like most people in her position she has had to hire a PR person(s) to sort through her correspondence, field press questions, and respond to those requests. There are a lot of worthy requests she has to decline and those requests are filtered through that person(s). . One of the charities she supported was the Make-A-Wish foundation:

The Make-A-Wish Foundation has a very strong working relationship with Ina Garten, a celebrity wish granter who has generously made herself available to grant a wish in the past. Ina is a good friend of the Foundation and we are grateful to her for her support of our mission.[Our charity] regards the planning of wishes as a private process among the parties involved.” From time to time, planning for wishes doesn't turn out as originally envisioned, despite people’s best intentions and efforts. In such cases, the Foundation is committed to working with the wish child and family to grant another wish.

Each wish we grant requires extensive support from many people, and we respect that no individual has an unlimited capacity to grant children’s wishes on demand.

We regard the planning of wishes as a private process among the parties involved.

— Make-A-Wish

Additionally, she is not a one-man-band. To fulfill a wish and reproduce what she does on TV, she needs to coordinate with the others that work behind the scenes.

A seriously ill 6-year old boy enjoyed watching Garten’s show with his Mom and asked to have her cook a meal for him. Garten's PR representative declined the request for the second time. The little boy, once he understood he did not need to know how to swim, decided to swim with the dolphins instead. According to the mom he was thrilled with his new choice. She saw Garten as snubbing the family rather than her having work commitments and being asked 1200 times a year asking for her involvement making it impossible to fulfill all the demands. The gossip site TMZ then posted their story The reaction to that event was described in CBS’s Chow website, under the title “The High-Tech Smearing of Ina Garten” as an online lynching. TMZ did not report

• how Make-A-Wish works nor
• find out that “The Make-A-Wish Foundation has a very strong working relationship with Ina Garten, a celebrity wish granter who has generously made herself available to grant a wish in the past. Ina is a good friend of the Foundation and we are grateful to her for her support of our mission.”
• report how many requests a celebrity normally gets
• that an employee filters charity and correspondence for her as well as most celebrities
• the impossibility of fulfilling all worthy requests or
• give a reasonable report of her other charity efforts

All these distortions would have made anyone look bad.

At the start of the weekend, an LA Times gossip blog entry echoed the TMZ story but warned readers there was another side to the story still to be told. Sure enough, she did respond on Monday. On March 29th, that same gossip blog issued a more balanced entry, titled “Barefoot Contessa Ina Garten was unaware of request, but will now host her young fan”. It reported that Ina Garten had finally heard of the request that her PR person had turned down. By that time, the mother had published on her blog an entry titled “PLEASE STOP THE MADNESS” (the title was in all-caps). The parents were still angry at Garten.

You need to ask yourself why this cyber-lynching was beneath Fox News, CNN, network news such as NBC, CBS, Fox, ABC. It was beneath the New York Times, Wall Street Journal --even People Magazine. It was covered by a mostly-unseen ABC property called “ABC News Now “ for 36 seconds. In my highly-populated area, Comcast doesn’t carry it in my area. Time-Warner in NYC doesn’t show it. Has any editor seen “The Buzz” before a Google search uncovered it. It is the equivalent of the minor leagues in baseball. It recycles ABC broadcasts already seen on TV and some additional 36 second hamburger-helper to fill a 24-hour news hole. Not worth a second of time even though the morning shows need to fill 3,000 hours on the 4 morning shows alone.

Here is Ms. Marikar's article from http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/barefoot-contessa-turns-make-kid/story?id=13238578

SHEILA MARIKAR (@SheilaYM) March 28, 2011 “ABC News Now” “The Buzz”

The "Barefoot Contessa" has time to star in her Food Network show, pen cookbooks, and cook at charity luncheons for her well-to-do fans. But apparently, her schedule was too packed to meet a 6-year-old boy stricken with leukemia who requested a cooking session with her through the Make-A-Wish Foundation. She turned him down, twice.

Just In this introduction, she is actually giving reasons why Garten really is so busy and twists them into reasons she should have plenty of time. Even a charity event that raised money to preserve America’s early history(including a farm dating from 1640) becomes framed as a way to hang out with richy-rich friends. She downplays her making time for a stricken kid before so she did make time to meet with a stricken child. She neglects to mention her other charitable activities. If “ABC World News” is the major leagues (New York Yankees) and the middle-of-the-night “World News Now” is the minor league , “ABC News Now” is in whatever league goes beneath that one. “ABC News Now” is not the same as “World News Now” (which is broadcast). How many editors have seen “The Buzz” on “ABC News Now” before it being brought to your attention by an editor here? How did he discover it?

In my years on the net, this is the first time I have ever seen a comment from a journalist appear after an article: Ms. Marikar, the highly-biased angle you took in this article made it hard for me to read as a fellow journalist. It's completely understandable that a celebrity chef of Garten's magnitude would not be able to grant every appearance and favor asked of her. Now—of course she's dealing with a PR crisis, but only because it was created for her by journalists like you who are looking for the next juicy celebrity scoop. “Charmingsnob”, March 28th It is a manufactured event. Why do you prefer her judgment over the rest of ABC News that did not publish the gossip? Re: Salon link you provided, they said

Hey, what do facts matter when there's an opportunity for a good old-fashioned character thrashing? Who cares, even, if it's at the expense of the alleged victim? Haven't been angry enough yet today, Internet? Take it out on Ina, let the facts and Enzo's family's feelings be damned.

I guess they agree with me.

Other blogs also see this as a cyber-lynching: http://www.etiquettehell.com/smf/index.php?PHPSESSID=4717276e164989b9a47f4f4479f6580b&topic=92605.0

http://ifrymineinbutter.com/2011/03/26/this-is-why-we-cant-have-nice-things-the-people-vs-barefoot-contessa/

Why do you prefer OK magazine over People? And OK magazine publishes lies on its front cover such as OK Rob Pattinson marries Kristen Stewart. Never saw People do that.

--Javaweb (talk) 00:25, 22 September 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

Except it was reported by Fox News, as well as The Washington Post. It was also reported on by The Philadelphia Inquirer and The Hollywood Reporter -- two more news organizations with well-established editorial oversight. In fact, per WP:NEWSBLOG, even the gossipy Los Angeles Times blog qualifies as a reliable source. The New York Times did mention it obliquely, but not in a dedicated article: [13] so that doesn't really count. So I agree; the story was not picked up by every news organization.

However, this was a newsworthy event that received a good amount of news coverage -- maybe not complete saturation, but that's not a requirement for inclusion, per WP:V or WP:BLP. Celebrities ignore charity requests all the time; no one is disputing that. The thing that makes this newsworthy is the fact that the family of the child cancer patient went public with the rejections. "Fair" or not, it was widely covered by reliable sources.

Her philanthropic efforts are great; if those philanthropic efforts can be sourced, I think they should be added to the article, since plenty of other well known figures have entire philanthropy sections; Lady Gaga, Brad Pitt, Rachel Rey, Bill Gates, Heidi Klum, et cetera. I am not interested in giving her a "cyber thrashing." I have no interest in her reputation one way or the other, and my opinion (or any Wikipedia editor's opinion) of Ina Garten is totally irrelevant. Here are the three core content policies:

1. Is the information verifiable? Yes.
2. Is the information original research? No.
3. Can the information be presented in a neutral tone? Debatable.

I would argue that simply mentioning the controversy does not, in itself, violate WP:UNDUE. It is possible to include this information in a neutral, dispassionate, balanced, responsible, and conservative way that addresses the controversy without explicitly condemning Ms. Garten. The Salon article is a perfect example of that, because it acknowledges that there was "firestorm," but it put the media coverage, Ms. Garten's response, and the child's condition in perspective. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 07:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

No. Just wrong. There is nothing remotely 'neutral' about discussing a bogus 'controversy' drummed up by sections of the media on a slack-news day. Ina Garten's notability has nothing whatsoever to do with her philanthropy (or alleged lack of it). In any case, there is very little 'information' to include - she was asked to do something, and declined. Everything else is hype, speculation, and spin. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:43, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you citing policy of some kind? WP:BOGUS, perhaps? WP:SLOWNEWSDAY? I feel like a broken record here but I'll repeat: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." You believe the story is bogus, hype, speculation, and spin -- that is all irrelevant. We are not, and should not be discussing the merits of the controversy. Our obligation is to determine whether or not the information is verifiable, reported on by reliable sources, and portrayed in a neutral manner in the article space. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 22:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for all of your posts on this topic ColorOfSuffering. Agree with everything you have said 100%. So far the only reasons I have seen people give for not including is 1) undue weight (so make it a sentence); 2) it is a bogus controversy (irrelevant, as you addressed, can even include material calling it as much); and 3) sources are somehow not good enough, which they clearly are. This information is verifiable, widely-reported and noteworthy. Include it already. Some people seem to have an agenda here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.90.176.20 (talk) 21:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• I believe we are talking about text similar to this edit regarding a "Make-A-Wish Foundation Controversy". The text is pathetic gossip that belongs nowhere on Wikipedia, and particularly nowhere near a BLP—the subject declined to do something, and Wikipedia should not be used to make a smear out of the non-incident. Johnuniq (talk) 11:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree, this edit is incredibly unweighty. I would propose a more modest, balanced approach to including the content. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 22:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Herbert Mataré

Herbert Mataré (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

According to User:Wikinaut (talk) Herbert Mataré died on September 2. I did not find any reference yet, but he has send a copy of the death card to OTRS: "Dem Support-Team liegt unter Ticket:2011092210019198 ein Scan der Todesanzeige vor". Can somebody check this OTRS ticket and confirm that this enough to allow the update of his article, till the official reference is available? -- SchreyP ^(messages) 18:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Can somebody answer above questions? Is the OTRS content enough as reference for the recent changes on the article? -- SchreyP ^(messages) 17:20, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Case still open at WP:OTRS/N#Herbert Mataré -- SchreyP ^(messages) 10:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Étienne_Tshisekedi

Étienne Tshisekedi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is not neutral. The information is highly biased, especially as one reads on in the article. I noticed that it recently underwent a lot of heavy editing, and this is likely why. Given that this person is a political figure and running for a coming election, this bias is not surprising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarewen (talk • contribs) 08:56, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

This politician has been around for a long time, and there's a lot of info about him at Google Books. The best way to improve the article would be to use that info from Google Books, accompanied by a lot of footnotes. Unfortunately, Google Books doesn't seem to work well on an iPhone, so I can't get started on it right now.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, the article has now been thoroughly overhauled. Unfortunately, it took a second thread below to get me off my butt (or rather to get me on my butt in front of a desktop computer).Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:16, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Paul Krugman (2)

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

As I understand the policy on avoiding self-published sources this should be removed from the article on Paul Krugman because it is based on personal self-published blog. However, one administrator reverted me twice claiming that blog post "is acceptable as a source of the expert's professional opinions regarding the issue" [14] even though WP:SELFPUBLISH explicitly says that we should "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert". Can somebody please clarify this issue? -- Vision Thing -- 20:35, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

content:- However, economic historian Brad Delong defended Krugman as intellectually honest, and stated that Crook failed to understand the economic argument that Krugman was making.

source:- http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2009/02/in-which-clive-crook-succumbs-to-the-high-broderism-i-think.html

Brad DeLong is a recognized expert and more than acceptable as an RS. Here he is being used as a source not for factual information on Krugman, but for a source for DeLong's opinions about a published article. I fail to see what is wrong here. The alternative is for the published attack to remain in a BLP unchallenged, which violates BLP more than including a self-published defense of Krugman by an expert, which is only prohibited by stretching the policy and interpreting it in the most myopic of ways. I should note that the same editor complaining about including this defense of the BLP also supports including a broadly-worded negative statement about the BLP in the lede of the article sourced only to a few negative opinion pieces. Gamaliel (talk) 21:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

What my alleged argument about another issue has to do with this? -- Vision Thing -- 21:15, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I think editors editing patterns on a biography are relevant on this noticeboard. All editors should edit from a WP:NPOV point of view - a recent arbitration case noted that editing from a one sided position is an example/violation of a WP:COI - Off2riorob (talk) 21:22, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Then I should note that Gamaliel is showing much greater tolerance for sources that praise Krugman (in this case he is willing to allow use of self-published blog on BLP) than for those sources and interpretations that are critical of him. -- Vision Thing -- 21:28, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I know you are, but what am I? Seriously, this is nuts. The only way using this would be in any way equivalent to what you want in the lede would be if I was using DeLong to make a statement like "Krugman is widely seen by everyone as awesome and studly." Gamaliel (talk) 21:32, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

It has everything to do with is, as you are advocating including negative material on much flimsier grounds than the ones used to justify the inclusion of this particular defense of Krugman. So it appears that the obvious explanation for this is that you are either pushing negative material or removing positive material in a retaliatory manner. Gamaliel (talk) 21:25, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

If you claim that self-published blogs written by experts are a reliable source for BLP than there is no limit on claims that can be included in this article on Krugman. -- Vision Thing -- 21:47, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Your comment seems ot mis portray the comments posted here. Of course such a position of an article full of self published comments of experts would not be correct. Occasionally such additions may be acceptable. Off2riorob (talk) 22:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I had a bit of a look and in this case is seems to be more or less acceptable - a fair rebuttal to the opinion of Crook that precedes it, which is Crooks own opinion published in his column - Delong's comments are not really claiming anything about Krugman , as in Krugman did this or krugman did that, just the opinion of an expert, seems to qualify as acceptable. Policy/guidelines are usually written to allow some degree of interpretation and editorial inspection. Off2riorob (talk) 21:09, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Same criteria should be used for both criticism and praise. DeLong is claiming that Krugman is "intellectually honest". If he was claiming that Krugman is intellectually dishonest would you still find use of it acceptable? -- Vision Thing -- 21:19, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Different criteria for different things. The BLP policy treats negative material more harshly. That's just the way it works. And these are very different matters you are treating as the same. You advocate in the lede a broad, sweeping negative statement based on a few negative opinion columns. I advocate including a single defense of Krugman based on a single column and make no broad, sweeping claims about Krugman. Gamaliel (talk) 21:25, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) - I will reserve my opinion on that hypothetical case. In this case looking at both the sources I feel the one you have been removing is almost required as a rebuttal - he is after all a very respected expert on the subject. - Without out imo, it is a bit one sided - feel free to perhaps find another rebuttal in a stronger source and discuss replacing it Off2riorob (talk) 21:27, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, BLP treats criticisms and praise equally. [15] -- Vision Thing -- 21:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; - thats the point really - the rebuttal of Crooks negative opinion of the subject is almost required. Off2riorob (talk) 21:36, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Rebuttal is welcomed if it is based on a reliable source. However, per our policy that deals with reliable sources, this is not a reliable source for BLP. -- Vision Thing -- 21:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I and Gamaliel disagree with you on that interpretation of policy in this case. Lets wait for any other users to comment. Regards. Off2riorob (talk) 21:58, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

That policy explicitly permits the uses of sources like DeLong: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert" Gamaliel (talk) 22:02, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

In fairness, Vision is right on what the policy page says on this. The language about using SPS on living people is clearly intended to qualify the sentence which says SPS may be considered reliable; meaning, SPS may be considered reliable on subjects other than living people, and on themselves. At the same time, presenting only the criticism and not the rebuttal presents an obvious NPOV problem. The only unobjectionable proposals I've seen are to either improve the sourcing for the rebuttal or to remove both. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 23:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm inclined to just remove both. It seems unreasonable to include criticism from an opinion piece in a WP:BLP and then fight the rebuttal for policy reasons. Policy would indicate that we shouldn't be putting opinion pieces in BLPs in the first place. --Loonymonkey (talk) 15:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Isn't violation of policy good enough reason to remove something? Only issue here is source of rebbutal, especially now that I've added secondary source for criticism. -- Vision Thing -- 18:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. And it's a violation of policy to just arbitrarily add criticism to a BLP. Some random pundit's opinion of Krugman is not notable enough for a biographical understanding of Krugman. It would need some reason to be included, not just that his name is mentioned. --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Gamaliel, did you read the last sentence of that section? -- Vision Thing -- 18:42, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Basically I agree with Off2riorob here - though it should be clearly noted that there's several BLP issues here, not just regarding Paul Krugman; both Clive Crook and Brad DeLong are alive and well AFAICT. Anyway. This is what you get for opening the can of worms which is using an opinion piece (by Crook) in the first place. If that is acceptable then so are DeLong's comment on it. Of course, you could just not include Crook and there'd be no need to include DeLong (my preferred option).

Also, DeLong isn't just an "economic historian", he's an "economist" who's done some work in economic history. But his work has been far broader than just EH. Let's at least get that part right. Volunteer Marek  22:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I had also thought that the best solution was to remove both opinionated comments. Off2riorob (talk) 22:22, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with O2RR. Vision Thing appears to be denigrating a living person by removing reliable sources that support that living person and overstating the case against that person. This is highly problematic behavior, and Vision Thing needs to knock it off, post-haste. Hipocrite (talk) 17:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Nancy Dell'Olio

Resolved

 – Article cleaned up and editors watching.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:14, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Nancy Dell'Olio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Not that I don't appreciate the often sarcastic and acerbic tone of this article--I'd be lying if I said I didn't--but I'm pretty sure this is not the way a Wikipedia biographical article should read. I almost don't want to see it go, I wish there was a section for more opinionated columns or something, but I appreciate what Wikipedia has offered me over the years too much and I'd hate to see this type of material coverage become a norm. I come to Wikipedia to get a good base of understanding from which to form my own opinions, not have them made for me. This is why I'm reporting this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NGH2 (talk • contribs) 00:09, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The article is a disgrace. Apparently, the editors who have worked on the article have decided that Dell'Olio is a somewhat comical figure, and so the article can also be comical. I've done some work cleaning it up, but it needs a lot more, and I won't have time today to do it.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:01, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I refreshed it with some trimming for blp an npov. - It looks like it has been a single person with a dynamic talktalk account editing from london, there are multiple occasions of negative attacking SPI edit sessions from this user - if they return request semi protection. Sadly she is highish profile at the moment and one day last week there was 5600 views of that attack crap - shame on the project. Off2riorob (talk) 02:10, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking over after I logged off last night. I did a few more tidies this morning. It's still an odd article, but at least it's no longer an eyesore. Oh and thanks to NGH2 for bringing the article to our attention.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:14, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

• - there was an attempt to re add the attack page tonight by Contributions/87.74.132.36 - to any watchers please keep an eye on the bio - semi protection is the next step. Off2riorob (talk) 19:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Kent DesOrmeaux

Kent Desormeaux (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I changed the subject's last name to reflect spelling according to his own website, but the user Materialscientist is claiming - in contradiction to Wikipedia's own rules - that this is not considered a reliable source.

cur | prev) 23:45, 23 September 2011 Materialscientist (talk | contribs) (10,586 bytes) (rvt: see your talk page; (i) keep reference names; (ii) provide reliable sources (his webpage is not) - all other sources don't capitalize O) (undo) (cur | prev) 23:28, 23 September 2011 72.179.5.17 (talk) (10,586 bytes) (I have capitalized the "O" in DesOrmeaux's last name to accurately reflect the French spelling as it is used on Kent's own website: http://www.kentdesormeaux.com/) (undo) (Tag: possible BLP issue or vandalism) (cur | prev) 08:55, 23 September 2011 Materialscientist (talk | contribs) m (10,586 bytes) (Filling in 3 references using Reflinks | fixed dashes using a script) (undo) (cur | prev) 08:49, 23 September 2011 Materialscientist (talk | contribs) m (10,270 bytes) (Reverted edits by 72.179.5.17 (talk) to last version by 69.204.185.42) (undo) (cur | prev) 08:09, 23 September 2011 72.179.5.17 (talk) (10,270 bytes) (undo) (Tag: possible BLP issue or vandalism) (cur | prev) 08:00, 23 September 2011 72.179.5.17 (talk) (10,270 bytes) (→Brief biography) (undo)

Unfortunately, such cases are not that easy. Even if your changes were 100% correct, the references must keep the name of the sources, that is mass substitution is not a solution We go by reliable sources, and do not consider the subject (Kent DesOrmeaux himself and his website) as such, and this is the real problem. In other words, we do not support the idea that anyone can suddenly decide how he/she wants to be called - we look at how most of the (English-speaking, as this is English wiki) world calls him/her. Countering a mistake, which was propagated by multiple reliable sources, is a difficult task. Surely, providing government sources can do that. Otherwise, we can say that he is called both DesOrmeaux and Desormeaux (without saying what is "correct"), but we need reliable sources for DesOrmeaux. Materialscientist (talk) 23:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you asserting that wikipedia is a reliable source from which to learn how "DesOrmeaux" is properly punctuated, but asking an individual with that surname how it is punctuated is NOT a reliable source? Kent DesOrmeaux did not suddenly decide how he wants to be called. If the individual's website is not reliable, then what might be considered reliable so that I can prove to you that the correct spelling of this man's name is "DesOrmeaux" and help to improve the accuracy of wikipedia and diminish this website's reputation for propagating false information. Would a phone book be a reliable source? I could also provide a birth certificate; most people consider birth certificates to be valid. I hope you will deem it as valid as wikipedia! If not, then it is disappointing, to say the least, that a wikipedia patroller will accept the propagation of false information acceptable because overcoming the "red tape" that you describe makes presenting accurate information a "difficult task."

Please try to understand the problem. I didn't say it is easy. We trust reliable sources, that they checked the spelling before publishing it. There is no easy way around (to sort out rumors/hype/etc., which is what we mostly get from such situations). We are not supposed to analyze the sources, but sometimes (in such cases, for example) we get into it. We need alternative reliable sources to start doing that (at least to present alternative spellings). We can't analyze ID, birth certificates, and such - a third party can, and they can publish information based on such sources, which we can use then. Note, that generally, what a person says about himself/herself is not a reliable source, unless verified by reliable third parties - there could be dozens of reasons for tweaking personal bio details, obvious and non-obvious. Materialscientist (talk) 03:47, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

You are quite plainly asserting that an individual does not determine his or her name, but that journalists are the entities responsible for naming an individual. This is ludicrous to anyone who cares about the accuracy of knowledge, and this is exactly why Wikipedia is never trusted as a reliable source for any level of scholarly paper, from the college freshmen level and beyond. If consistency to the source is of primary importance, then why is the “O” not capitalized in the link to Kent’s own website? “Note, that generally, what a person says about himself/herself is not a reliable source, unless verified by reliable third parties.” What is your own reliable source for this statement? I made changes to reflect biographical accuracy in accordance with an individual’s website, and then you changed my corrections based solely on your own opinion that this is “unreliable.” Can you site the peer-reviewed journal article that proved that what people say about themselves is unreliable? Wikipedia approves Kent DesOrmeaux's website as a reliable source of information about him: "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject (see below). This is from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.179.5.17 (talk) 19:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

All this because of a disagreement about whether to call him "Desormeaux" or "DesOrmeaux"? His website capitalizes the O whereas secondary sources do not. Right? According to WP:SPS, the website can be used as a reliable source for information about the subject as long as five criteria are met. The only one that might not be met here is Materialscientist has some doubt as to the authenticity of the website? I'm guessing. It looks like the other four have been met.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:09, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

We've got a situation that all sources of the article (and basically all web sources) use Desormeaux, whereas the subject calls himself DesOrmeaux on his website, and the IP was mass substituting Desormeaux by DesOrmeaux in the article (including the references). This might well be a propagated error, and we can, and perhaps should mention both spellings. All I asked was do some research and provide as many reliable sources on DesOrmeaux as possible, so that we could consider changing the name. So far I only saw his webpage. (PS I might have been wrong that his web page can not be used as a reliable source, but this is not really the issue here) Materialscientist (talk) 00:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The little bit of research I did shows only the subject spelling his name that way, no secondary sources. Obviously, titles and references can't be changed. The only question is whether the subject's spelling trumps the other sources. My reaction is it does, but I also think it's much ado about very little. The difference is innocuous, and the subject should know better than the secondary sources. It's not like his age or some other statistic where the subject might have reason to misrepresent the statistic. The only thing I can think of that might be at play here is that the subject's last name was spelled one way at birth, but he has since discovered that the capital O spelling is more authentic. I have no idea, for example, what spelling he uses on official documents, and I'm not sure it matters. However the issue is resolved, there should be an explanatory note in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:37, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I know nothing about this particular case, but I agree with Materialscientist as Wikipedia should not be used to correct a bunch of reliable sources. There are three issues: What is the subject's legal name? What name is used by reliable sources? What name would the subject prefer? The subject's preference may be worth noting (if a reliable source has commented on it), but it should not be used to rewrite an article. What would we do if, say, an entertainer decided to add "!" to their name on their website? Answer: we would follow sources. Johnuniq (talk) 02:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

It is generally a fiction (in the U.S. at least) that there is such a thing as a "legal name", just as it's a fiction that there is such a thing as a "legal signature". You can call yourself whatever you like and you can even use different names if you wish, as long as you are not doing so for some illegal purpose. In Wikipedia, we sometimes get around this issue if, for example, we know the subject's birth name, but he uses a different name professionally (cited by reliable sources), or if the person actually uses multiple names, in which case we can list aliases (again if cited by reliable sources). This case presents a more unusual problem, and I've proposed my preference as to how to resolve it below.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:40, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Many people with the surname "DesOrmeaux" capitalize the "O." This is nothing like adding an exclamation point in one's name. The reason the "O" is capitalized is because these are two different French words combined into one surname. ("des" means "from" - "orme" means "elm") There are other French surnames used in the United States that capitalize letters in the center of the name. A few example are LeBlanc, LeFleur, and LeDoux. Here are a few reliable sources which demonstrate that many individuals with this surname capitalize the "O," including Kent DesOrmeaux, according to his own website. ESPN: http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/columns/story?columnist=hays_graham&id=4433796 Louisiana State University: http://etd.lsu.edu/docs/available/etd-04112007-094810/ The DesOrmeaux Foundation: http://desormeauxfoundation.com/ The Roman Catholic Church: http://www.stmarymagdalenparish.org/parish-staff And though I don't consider wikipedia reliable, perhaps in this case it will consider itself reliable: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wade_DesArmo (It seems to me Wade probably got pretty exhausted with explaining his name to people.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.179.5.17 (talk) 02:46, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Some of you describe this as overreacting. I feel like I'm banging my head against a brick wall to try to convince you that the "O" is capitalized even though a quick google search does not confirm what I'm trying to teach you. I'm sure Kent also became exhausted with correcting people, which perhaps began the propagation of spelling his name "Desormeaux" in the mass media. 72.179.5.17 (talk) 02:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Please understand that we have many hundreds (if not more) edits per day changing someone's name, nickname, birthday, birthplace, etc., against reliable sources. They may be good-faith attempts to correct errors, or bad-faith attempts to introduce them. We can't easily tell, and go by reliable third party sources. There is no use "banging one's head against a brick wall" here. We don't create sources, we follow them. Materialscientist (talk) 03:12, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I actually have some sympathy for the OP here. IMO we it comes to a person's name, we should always use personal preference except in cases of stage names and the like. When the preference is clearly expressed, even if it's a SPS (but there's no doubt the subject is behind the sourced) I would follow this. However this comes in to conflict with WP:Common name. We do have guidelines like Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Tibetan), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese) which tend towards this but not any overall guideline. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Proper names does suggest we should use someone's preference (in a related area) if it has regular and established use in RS. Nil Einne (talk) 06:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I thought about this some more after logging off yesterday, and I think the best solution is to leave the name spelled as is but to put a footnote in the article that he spells his name as DesOrmeaux on his website. It might be different if he explained the discrepancy between the two spellings and why he currently spells it differently from the newspapers, the Hall of Fame, etc., but without more, or even a complaint by the subject, that would be my proposal.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Looking in to this more carefully, it seems I misunderstood the details. I thought the OP was claiming they were the subject and wanted the spelling changed. I should clarify then that the usage on his website without any explaination wasn't really what I was thinking of when I said the preference should be clearly expressed. I was more thinking of something like Bbb23 mentions when there is some explaination in a SPS where the person mentions they prefer their name spelled/capitalised/whatever in a certain way. In a case like this, I'd learn to the RS anyway (but Bbb23's proposal seems okay). It's worth remembering a website is sometimes maintained by a publicist or someone of that sort so it may not always be the case the subject really has that preference (they may not care for example). Also in case there is any confusion, I'm solely referring to someone's name. Factual details like birth dates etc are more difficult since it's not simply a matter of preference. Nil Einne (talk) 19:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I would like to point out that this person is hardly a unique case. There are many famous people who capitalize their own names in a non-standard way. Just because they do so does not mean that reliable sources can follow their non-standard practice, but for the sake of balance in a BLP the person's preference and practice should be describe. My favorite example is E. E. Cummings, and I think this article handles the issue perfectly.Jarhed (talk) 18:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the Cummings article is analogous, nor do I think DesOrmeaux's capitalization of his last name is necessarily "non-standard". I certainly don't think that we need the kind of extended discussion that's in the Cummings article in the DesOrmeaux article. As I believe I've already stated, we stick with the spelling by the reliable sources and footnote his website's spelling. However, because the IP has apparently lost interest and because I don't think any of this is a big deal, I haven't made that change.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Leon Bright

Leon Bright (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

You have Leon listed as a Running Back with the CFL BC Lions. Leon was actually a Wide Receiver. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bcsportsfan (talk • contribs) 00:25, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Per the newspaper article "B.C. Can’t Find Bright", Leader-Post (March 18, 1981): "Bright came to the Lions as a running back from Florida State in 1977 and led them to the Western Conference playoffs with a 10-6 record. He also has played wide receiver and defensive back in B.C., besides returning punts and kickoffs."

Per the newspaper article "Move to Big Apple Pays off For Bright", Star-Phoenix (December 19, 1981): "Playing with the Lions, I matured a lot as a person and as a football player. It made me a much better player because it made me that much more versatile. I played a little running back, wide receiver, tried defensive back, and ran back kicks".

I've updated the Wikipedia article accordingly.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Eron Falbo

Resolved

 – Speedily deleted.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Eron Falbo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article does not meet any criteria for notability, it does not use any reliable sources (according to Wikipedia's definition) and it sounds like advertising. It sounds very much like the person himself, or someone very close to the subject, has written it. This article should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.15.133 (talk) 16:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I note that you have requested speedy deletion of the article. I'm not sure how far that will get. At the same time, the article appears to have been written by Falbo. I have left a COI tag on the editor's page, along with a username tag as his username is fairly close to the name of the production company that apparently is owned by Falbo (according to the article, one of his AKAs is Leon Quills). In terms of notability, I've done no searching for sources, but the sources cited in the article are generally not supportive of notability.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:43, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The speedy deletion based on G11 (unambiguous advertising or promotion) was declined with the following comment by the admin: "May be a7able but isn't promotional in its entierty". The speedy deletion request was originally based on G11 and "fails to meet relevant notability criteria", which I guess was the IP's attempt at doing an A7 ("no indication of importance"), but another editor removed it because it's not a valid criterion. Not sure what would have happened had the IP properly specified A7 or if the other editor hadn't removed part of the tag.

Since the decline, I have stubbed the article because virtually nothing in it was reliably sourced. I seriously doubt the subject is notable, but I'm not going to AfD it because the last time I AfD'ed an article that I had removed sources from I got pummeled by one of the commenters in the AfD discussion who assumed I'd "set the article up" to be deleted. It's a wonderful wikiworld.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

After discussion with the admin who declined the speedy delete about the history of the article and the speedy delete tag, the article was retagged and speedily deleted.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Nicolas Berggruen

Resolved

 – Cleaned up.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:24, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Nicolas Berggruen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Reviewing the talk page shows that Bioplus (talk · contribs) clearly has an axe to grind against Nicolas Berggruen. Bioplus insists on using his own extrapolation to describe the subject pejoratively as a party animal, without any sources supporting his claim, and now 86.173.211.194 (talk · contribs) is adding the same material, which absolutely quacks WP:DUCK to me. WilliamH (talk) 18:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Rm puff as well -- is he actually "notable" per WP? Collect (talk) 18:22, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I think so. It would appear that he has begun working in politics in California as one of the cited sources (the interview) talks about.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Étienne Tshisekedi

Resolved

Dear Sirs,

Further to our 2 emails we sent to "info-en-q@wikimedia.org" complaining about the validity and neutrality of the content published on your website regarding the biography of Etienne Tshisekedi, we were very disappointed for not receiving any response to our request.

As we wanted to follow all procedures as stated in your terms and conditions in regards to changes which are not minor and failure of response as mentioned here above, we decided to correct these damaging affirmations on the biography of Mr Etienne Tshekedi.

Our concern, except cables from wikileak, is that the content published by Mattgirling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mattgirling), one of your Administrator on the person of Etienne Tshisekedi contain defamatory information and its sources are biased and not legally reliable; for instance the quote used about the assassination of the First Prime Minister of the Democratic Republic of Congo Mr Patrice Emery Lumumba.

The delibarate choice of the Editor not to mention the political and life struggle of Etienne Tshisekedi.

We will indeed be happy to see readers not being misled as it is the main aim of Wikipedia to provide non biased and also trustworthy information.

We sent our reaction to the editor notifying him about the character of his changes.

We hope and trust that you response to this dispute will help really readers to have correct information from your website.

Kind regards

Alain Kabuika — Preceding unsigned comment added by EditorUd (talk • contribs) 19:32, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Please note that there is a section above about this BLP. EditorUd has been repeatedly invited to discuss at the article talk page why he has deleted sources that are apparently reliable, but EditorUd has not discussed anything so far at the article talk page.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:39, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I make no claims about the current sources in the article, but removing sources en masse and adding even more text with no sources is not acceptable. Regardless of the current sources, the text is written largely unbiased (even if it is factually negative) whereas the proposed addition by EditorUd is far from neutral.

It appears that EditorUd has got confused over who added what material; I simply reverted his edit as I felt it was against policy. I resent being told I deliberately chose not to mention certain aspects and have deliberately defamed an individual. I request that EditorUd retracts this accusation.

As is clear on the article's talk page, Anythingyouwant and I have offered help to EditorUd. I've not got the time or knowledge to sit down and rewrite the article at the moment, but have suggested EditorUd brings content and sources to the talk page so we can work something out. This offer has been continually ignored, and his repeated reversions (despite his unfulfilled claims that [he]'s "opened to a constructive discussion"), he is now in violation of WP:3RR. matt (talk) 20:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The bit about him being involved in the Lumuumba killing was iffy (cite did not appear to support wording) so I went to the New York Times for what appears to be a reliably sourced claim. Collect (talk) 20:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

That's okay by me (I quoted the non-NYT source at the article talk page, BTW). Collect, now that Google News Archive is gone, did you find that NYT article using a general google search of the web, or instead using advanced google news search?Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

(Undent) The article has now been overhauled. Thanks to User:Collect and User:Mattgirling for the help.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Journal of Cosmology

Journal of Cosmology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Is the usage of the blog Pharyngula ok to source this statement? "it isn't a real science journal at all, but is the ginned-up website of a small group of crank academics" I believe this is an attack on a BLP although no names are mentioned. So is the blog OK to use to call the editors of a journal "Cranks" Darkness Shines (talk) 20:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's a widely reported quote featured in nearly all the coverage about the Hoover controversy. See e.g. [16][17][18][19], and so on and so forth. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

A few comments. First, another editor has removed the phrase "of crank academics", apparently in an effort to appease Darkness Shines. Second, there is an edit war going on and a report by Headbomb of Darkness at WP:AN3. Third, it might help to cite to some of the secondary sources for the quote in addition to the source (Myers) of the quote itself. Finally, as to the BLP issues, it's borderline. The journal has received a lot of negative press, and to the extent that criticism of a journal is criticism of the journalists, I don't see that as a BLP issue. It's just that Myers speaks his mind more directly and more colorfully.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:13, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Darkness has also raised this issue at WP:RSN.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:15, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The result of the edit-warring report was full protection of the article for 3 days.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:25, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Louie Gohmert article and rogue user

I removed the section on Gohmert's comments on Obama policies towards the Middle East. As far as I've research this only has been referenced to on Talking Points Memo which is a web-based political journalism organization created and run by Josh Marshall, journalist and historian covering issues from a "politically left perspective," The other references in Google are also all from left-wing blogs. http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&source=hp&q=louie+gohmert+islamic+caliphate&pbx=1&oq=louie+gohmert+islamic+caliphate&aq=f&aqi=&aql=1&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=570l6454l0l6744l29l21l1l4l4l0l314l2410l5.9.2.1l21l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=ff4e2b09f4e053ae&biw=1152&bih=584 From what I have seen all the referrals to this quote are attributed to left wing sources promoting a point of view. The source who put this cited CSPAN directly, not what should be cited if this was truly a controversy. In the mainstream media for instance it doesn't look like this actually caused much controversy. The other two incidents are more cited in the news media. For instance, the Terror Babies incident should indeed be kept in because it was widely covered in the news. The college of fine arts director incident was also not covered widely outside of one story on CNN and again on the website Talking Points Memo so I am not sure if it should be included because it also did not cause controversy. I have read the guidelines for reliable sources and the context of the, and the guidelines on controversy and I am not sure if these fit the context to be included. Just opening up the discussion. --Andy0093 (talk) 22:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Controversial_articles I forgot to add. I don't know if these comments belong here and were controversial just because they enflamed one side of the political aisle. Article related to other figures like Nancy Pelosi, John Boehner, Eric Cantor and Steny Hoyer do not have a controversies section even though I am sure one side could carve one out with the hundreds of floor speeches these people have given. --Andy0093 (talk) 22:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore the article has continuously been stopped from being edited by a ip user. He has been using three IP address 99.168.72.86, 75.60.185.120, 75.60.186.187 and two user names Jdblack326 and Johnnyb.3261. The IP addresses all trace back to Columbus, Ohio and have the edits are all revert attempts to edit and a section in the article entitled "Implication Obama is complicit in creating a Islamic Caliphate." He seems to have now made an account Johnnyb.3261 after being warned about being blocked. He has refused to engage in the talkpage rather. He has reverted any attempt to modify this section or put in perspective changing the article back a total of at least 11 times with the edit summary (These statements, accurately reflected in the heading, attracted national attention and are historically significant as example of the type of inflammatory rhetoric that has been employed in the 112th Congress along with hate speech against the Presi)

--Andy0093 (talk) 00:38, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

• Louie Gohmert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I believe we are talking about edits like this. The article has been fully protected owing to an edit war, and the text is currently not in the article. The proposed text is totally inappropriate for Wikipedia because it is synthesis whereby an editor has decided that a particular extract from some statement indicates something. Johnuniq (talk) 03:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Phil Collins and Dana Tyler

Resolved

 – Discussion now moved to more appropriate and centralized one at Talk:Phil Collins#Dating gossip. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

• Phil Collins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Dana Tyler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

For two weeks, Kumkwat (talk · contribs) has constantly removing information about Collins and Tyler dating despite multiple warnings not to do so ([20]). With the situation continuing, I am taking this discussion here to see if others can voice their opinions on this matter. Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

What opinion would you like? He's citing 3 sources. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 02:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, the 2006 reference is not considered a valid source for relationship claims. What I actually meant was: the user in question was re-adding the invalid sources in those articles. Should we remove those if possible? Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:43, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Is this a controversial issue for any reason? The third source is from 2010 and from the music section of the Telegraph. I'm not sure why an issues is being made of this. Are there conflicting reports? Otherwise I don't understand why you all keep reverting him. If one of the soruces isn't great then remove that one source.Griswaldo (talk) 03:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think this is controversial. I am partially involved in this issue. The conflicting sources in question can be found here and here. Does this make sense? Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:40, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

How are those sources "conflicting" with any other sources? Don't all three sources say that the two are dating, and isn't the third from 2010? I'm not sure I understand where the controversy is.Griswaldo (talk) 03:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes. However, the sources do not state that their relationship is current or continuing. Should we open up a discussion on the talk page to see if we can sort this out? Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

That's what you should have done, like, yesterday. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The discussion is now open here. Sorry for any confusion this may have caused. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Darlton Kenton

Darlton Newton Kenton. Chef and author of three published books. Was raised and educated in, Jamaica. He has been writing poetry since the age of nineteen. Kenton trained at the Culinary Institute of America. He is also the owner of DNK Catering Services LLC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darltonk (talk • contribs) 03:26, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

You may wish to consider using WP:AFC. Can any of this information be found in a newspaper? Hipocrite (talk) 18:20, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Shawn O'Sullivan

This page currently includes the following line in the section titled 'Life After Boxing': "Currently Frequents Vic's place and enjoys the drink." This seems slightly cruel and libelous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wlkrryan (talk • contribs) 06:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Y Done — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Marko Attila Hoare

Marko Attila Hoare (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I don't know if this is the right place to report it, but I'm concerned about this academic's biography because the negatively worded lead is entirely sourced from a rather obscure web site. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 22:26, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I hardly have any expertise in the subject matter, so it may be appropriate to describe him like that, but the source seems rather questionable. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 22:30, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

yes, its not a reLiable source for wikipedia and the lede was very opinionated in a attacking way. I removed it - it has been there a while though....it was added in Feb 2010 by Special:Contributions/82.160.239.145 - Off2riorob (talk) 22:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Louie Gohmert

Louie Gohmert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• - Louie Gohmert edit war.

Now that the page has been locked. Can the community offer their opinions as well. I've made my views on the section known but will put it again below. This is the history behind the dispute.

I removed the section on Gohmert's comments on Obama policies towards the Middle East. As far as I've research this only has been referenced to on Talking Points Memo which is a web-based political journalism organization created and run by Josh Marshall, journalist and historian covering issues from a "politically left perspective," The other references in Google are also all from left-wing blogs. http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&source=hp&q=louie+gohmert+islamic+caliphate&pbx=1&oq=louie+gohmert+islamic+caliphate&aq=f&aqi=&aql=1&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=570l6454l0l6744l29l21l1l4l4l0l314l2410l5.9.2.1l21l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=ff4e2b09f4e053ae&biw=1152&bih=584 From what I have seen all the referrals to this quote are attributed to left wing sources promoting a point of view. The source who put this cited CSPAN directly, not what should be cited if this was truly a controversy. In the mainstream media for instance it doesn't look like this actually caused much controversy. The other two incidents are more cited in the news media. For instance, the Terror Babies incident should indeed be kept in because it was widely covered in the news. The college of fine arts director incident was also not covered widely outside of one story on CNN and again on the website Talking Points Memo so I am not sure if it should be included because it also did not cause controversy. I have read the guidelines for reliable sources and the context of the, and the guidelines on controversy and I am not sure if these fit the context to be included. Just opening up the discussion. --Andy0093 (talk) 22:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Controversial_articles I forgot to add. I don't know if these comments belong here and were controversial just because they enflamed one side of the political aisle. Article related to other figures like Nancy Pelosi, John Boehner, Eric Cantor and Steny Hoyer do not have a controversies section even though I am sure one side could carve one out with the hundreds of floor speeches these people have given. --Andy0093 (talk) 22:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC) Furthermore the article has continuously been stopped from being edited by a ip user. He has been using three IP address 99.168.72.86, 75.60.185.120, 75.60.186.187 and two user names Jdblack326 and Johnnyb.3261. The IP addresses all trace back to Columbus, Ohio and have the edits are all revert attempts to edit and a section in the article entitled "Implication Obama is complicit in creating a Islamic Caliphate." He seems to have now made an account Johnnyb.3261 after being warned about being blocked. He has refused to engage in the talkpage rather. He has reverted any attempt to modify this section or put in perspective changing the article back a total of at least 11 times with the edit summary (These statements, accurately reflected in the heading, attracted national attention and are historically significant as example of the type of inflammatory rhetoric that has been employed in the 112th Congress along with hate speech against the Presi) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy0093 (talk • contribs) 01:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Its complete partisan rubbish. Its just a soapboxing coatracking attack on Obama. - Off2riorob (talk) 05:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

It would have been better to continue the discussion at #Louie Gohmert article and rogue user above rather than start a new section about the same issue. I gave my opinion earlier: the proposed text (which Andy0093 removed) is totally inappropriate for Wikipedia because it is synthesis. Johnuniq (talk) 11:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

José Eduardo dos Santos

José Eduardo dos Santos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is an important key to understanding contemporary Angola. Unfortunately few Wikipedians with a solid knowledge of the subject matter have until now been contributing. A more intense particpation would be all the more important as again and again partisan edits are made, bent on either preventing critical information from appearing in the text, or on the contrary on introducing polemical texts and/or references. It would thus be helpful if more people took part in the constant attention called for. -- Aflis (talk) 12:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Laurence Tribe

Resolved

 – some experienced NPOV/policy compliant trimming has benefited the bio

Laurence Tribe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Serious BLP issues are raised by the subject of the article in an RfC on the talk page. Input by experienced editors would be useful. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:04, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

There's been a very good response to this notice, so this section can be archived. There were numerous, serious BLP issues in that article that have been addressed. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thanks to the editors there. I also notice that the user that was historically replacing the content is blocked for block evasion - Special:Contributions/ZHurlihee - Off2riorob (talk) 21:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Would that other BLPs also were cleansed of such "stuff" introduced by editors less interested in an encyclopedia than in being "sensational" in articles. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:38, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Michael Clemons

Pinball Clemons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• - Michael Clemons' "Pinball' nickname

For the correct record...Michael Clemons nickname "Pinball" came from guest Running Back coach Tom Cudney, NOT, Bob O'Billovich!!! Here's exactly how it originated...

In 1989 at the Toronto Argonauts training camp @ the University of Guelph after every practice, all the coaches would gather in a room to review and discuss the most recent practice and player performance. Each coach was asked by Bob O'Billovich, "What players looked good and who stood out"?! I (Tom Cudney) said, "...Michael Clemons is like a little 'Pinball'! He hits, spins and bounces. He's very difficult to tackle". That evening a sports reporter from a Toronto TV network (City TV-?)interviewed, then Head Coach Bob O'Billovich. During that interview, Bob was asked who looks good in camp, part of his response was that "...Michael Clemons is like a "Pinball" out there. The rest maybe history and yes, Michael "Pinball" Clemons earned his own merit and acclaim, but for the true record...Bob O'Billovich did not orignate the nickname "Pinball" for Michael Clemons, ...Tom Cudney did!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.59.229.122 (talk) 17:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Scott Ritter

Scott Ritter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Currently, the lead at Scott Ritter is 50% devoted to discussing sexual misconduct. The article's body is more around 15% devoted to sexual misconduct. The sexual stuff is not related to his notability. I can see having a sentence in the lead, but I guess an argument could be made it doesn't belong at all. Should the lead mention the sexual stuff? Jesanj (talk) 21:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Some mention in a dignified manner in the body can not reasonably be avoided - but I reduced the sensational ("juicy bits") stuff. Collect (talk) 22:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. You meant to say lead instead of body I assume. Jesanj (talk) 23:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Lacey Sturm

Lacey Sturm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:Lauren3333 repeatedly adding material from the subject's website, http://laceymosley.com/. Some is paraphrased, some is just directly copied. Have left several messages on editor's page. I'm at my WP:3RR limit and require some additional support in explaining the problem of copyright violations to the editor. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Continues to add material and now claims material is from a YouTube video. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I reverted after investigation of the users desired addition (and it is clearly disputed and in need of discussion) and linked the user to this discussion. Considering their single purpose and revert filled edit history over a two week period - Another replacement without discussion after attempts to discuss without any success imo is report and block worthy. If I was an administrator they would be blocked already. We have a duty of care to the living subjects of en wikipedia articles to pick up such attacking COI BLP violating contributors as soon as possible and block/ban them or topic ban then early as possible. Off2riorob (talk) 01:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Mem Fox

There is an unresolved problem with the article for Mem Fox. Mem Fox is an Australian children's author whose husband has been convicted this year for underage homosexual sex with one of his school students. This case has had notoriety and has been followed closely on Australian television and in national papers. Mem is a very well known children's author who published her last book in April 2011. She is most notable for writing Possum Magic. She is also a public persona - a few years ago she was all across the Australian media for equating child care for young children with child abuse.

The article in question is well established and includes plenty of other biographical detail. I feel there is no bias in including the fact of her husband's conviction. However there has been a small number of editors who feel it should not be referred too at all. Their argument, as I understand it, is that 1) Mem played no direct role in his crime, and therefore it is not relevant to her biography 2) if it were to be included on Wikipedia it should be on a Malcolm Fox page (ie husband’s own page – though clearly he is not notable for anything other than his being married to Mem and the above crime).

The issue is her husband is convicted and it is a notable feature of her personal life. Mem has stood by her husband, with many photos and TV footage published of her attending his court appointments. Unsavoury, yes, but it is worth a line in her biography. I think it is Wikipedia should not be about “tasteful” censorship, or exclusion of public, third party reported information.

I'd be grateful for wise heads to consider the discussion above and give some guidance. The editors involved have fairly fixed positions and I think we agree resolution is unlikely despite polite talk-page discussion for some weeks.ROxBo 10:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

This was previously discussed on this noticeboard here. Nothing significant has changed - Mem Fox is a children's author who's husband was recently given a suspended sentence. Mem Fox has made no personal statements on this, there have been no suggestions that she was aware of her husband's actions, and her only action has been to accompany him to and from court hearings. There was some suggestions on the talk page that her husband's actions reflect on her, as a children's author, and thus it should be included, but there is no evidence of this anywhere. According to WP:BLP, with people who are relatively unknown, we need to keep the article focused on issues related to their notability. Malcolm Fox is notable, in so far as he is, as the wife of Mem Fox and in regard to his actions. Mem Fox is not notable because of her husband's actions, especially where were not related to her. - Bilby (talk) 11:06, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I am afraid that Bilby is the main opposition to adding in the fact to Mem Fox. I welcome Bilby's comment to fill out the posting here, but I think it it clear the arguments are entrenched on both side. I am however surprised to see this addition 27 minutes after my post.ROxBo 12:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed: if the issue is notable, write an article about it; if the husband is notable, write an article about him. Neither of those is going to happen, so piling stuff into the wife's bio is not an acceptable substitute. I just had a quick look at Mem Fox where I found "Fox attracted controversy in 2008 after claiming entrusting very young children to childcare is child abuse" with this News Limited article as the ref. I wonder if Fox really did say that. Yes, the article has the text in quotes, but the article is much more nuanced: Fox said that a childcare worker had told her "...wonder how we have allowed that child abuse to happen". Johnuniq (talk) 11:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Please see discussion page to further quotes.

Can no one add an independent comment?ROxBo 10:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Charles Kushner

This article is about Charles Kushner. Two editors concerned with Wilda Diaz, a peripheral character in the article, are editwarring. I've tried to fix BLP probs about Kushner, but their "bleed-over" editwarring on Kushner is getting worse. 3RR doesn't apply to BLPs, but editwarring does. So I'm looking for a BLP admin to look over the article, talk page and, most especially, edit history and counsel all three of us. I think I'm within poicy but it's starting to feel like I'm becoming an inadvertant party to an editwar from another page, so admonish me, too, If I'm wrong. David in DC (talk) 11:23, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Someone took notice and improved the article immensely. The two warring editors still seem to have difficulties with how BLP works, but as to Charles Kushner I think the problem's solved. I'm not wading into Wilda Diaz, or the topic of BLP and people of Puerto Rican ancestry generally, which seems to be the focus of the warring. But someone who's objectivity and assumption of good faith as to these edit warriors might not now be called into question probably should. David in DC (talk) 15:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Jonathan Morris (priest)

Subject was brought into the priesthood by the Legion of Christ organization, and appears to have held a position of some authority within it. A defender of the subject keeps removing that information from the article, since the association with the now-discredited Marcial Maciel does not reflect well upon Morris. I tried to find a good NPOV way of putting the information in, but was reverted by the defender/"owner". --Orange Mike | Talk 13:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

1) Can anyone explain how an organisation becomes discredited because of the actions of one of its members, and how it is that that discredit taints the rest of the membership? 2) Can any one explain why it is important to document this guys association with said organisation in the first place? John lilburne (talk) 14:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The Legion seems to have operated more or less as a cult, with Maciel in the L.Ron Hubbard role; and Morris' defenders are desperate to disassociate him from his background as an active particpant therein, given the revelations about Maciel. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Diane Rehm

 Done Collect went in and cleand-up the vandalism, still worth keeping an eye on, but in current status its ok.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 18:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC) In the 1st paragraph of this article she is referred to as an "old hag". It appears that the article has been edited to not be neutral about "liberal" thought, and seems negative against liberals instead of being neutral as should be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Turner200 (talk • contribs) 14:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Diane Rehm

 Done Collect already went into this article and cleaned up the POV.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 18:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Makes disparaging comments about Diane Rehm, including calling her an "old hag":

Under the heading "Personal Life," the writer says "She espouses liberal viewpoints, which allows her to continue to broadcast on NPR despite the availability of better broadcasters. NPR has a liberal tilt that is so bad that they continue to let this old hag broadcast."

This is definitely violates your biographies of living persons policy and needs to be deleted immediately.

Lisa Dunn — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.9.134.38 (talk) 14:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Larry Walker, Artist

Larry M. Walker (b.1935) is an American artist living and working in Georgia, USA. A 1952 graduate of the High School of Music and Art in Manhattan.

The baseball player Larry Walker is incorrectly cited as a fine arts graduate of the Fiorello H. LaGaurdia High School of Music, Art and the Performing arts.

Larry Walker is a recipient of numerous awards and recognitions and was Director of the Georgia State University School of Art and design from 1983-1993 .

There is not at present a Wikipedia biography for the artist, however there is for his daughter, the American artist Kara Walker

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kara_Walker — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.249.217 (talk • contribs)

I've changed the link on the page The High School of Music & Art so it no longer directs to the athlete. I've set it to the redlinked Larry Walker (Artist). However I don't have the time at the moment to research further to see if a stub should be created or not.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Dennis Ross

Dennis Ross. This article could use some looking at. A lot of it goes on and on about negotiations that he took part in, so that that material overwhelms any personal information about the man himself. BigJim707 (talk) 20:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any BLP issues in the article. Great author, BTW, I've read several of his books.Jarhed (talk) 07:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Christopher Stasheff

Christopher Stasheff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An admin advised me that I might want to bring up this subject here, for my own education at least. It's a BLP of an author with, as far as I can tell, no known sources which meet Notability for Creative professionals. I'm interested in the general principle of voting "keep" on deletion discussions based on the intuition that RS establishing notability ought to exist, but with no such sources actually known. Maybe we ought to have a principle in policy that if no RS are found during a deletion discussion, the article shouldn't be kept? B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 20:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I had this come up in a discussion once and it was difficult to get my head around also but I accepted it in the end - its all tied up to ignore all rules. If there are no WP:RS to be found but users with perhaps personal knowledge of the subject or from the same locality are supporting it as notable. As long as there is nothing contentious in the article its acceptable for the time being - ...it might even be ok until citations are found (open ended) but you might look back after some months and see if additional cites are in place if not and you feel the same way you might renominate. Ultimately if doesn't get a couple of citations some passer by will sent it back to afd again and that is the way of the wiki - there are no rules (not fixed in stone anyways). Off2riorob (talk) 21:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense. Not my personal inclination, but maybe I should just drop it. No one else seems bothered by the disconnect between our sourcing policy and the reality. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 21:09, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I am sure the other editors will be looking out for one or two to add in the future. Such situations where editors apparently vote comment against policy are quite rare, it was a good learning point for me. - The article I nominated was a small library in the states, as in this case - a pretty harmless rare IAR exception regards. Off2riorob (talk) 21:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Um, not exactly rare.... really very common I think. Yeah, I just have to get used to the obscure corners being unsourced but kept. You'd think from a perusal of the policies that unsourced material should be tagged, then deleted, and that BLPs with no known notability should be deleted, etc. But then you get loopholes, such as the argument on the other page that even though we don't have any sources from which to actually write an article, since the guy is mentioned in some list-type books and encyclopedias of fiction he's "regarded as an important figure", for example. I think this is all stuff, but I guess it's a nonstarter. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 21:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, one option is to keep out of the dark corners of the project, hehe. I think standards of reporting and Wikipedia:Policy and guidelines compliance is higher now than ever before. Please note I have not really investigated the notability of the person (he's a horror writer with released book is all I have looked at). I am just really chatting about the broader issue. I feel an essay coming on ..WP:LOOPHOLES - if you feel strongly about it WP:DRV is an option, but I think it will be endorsed there, they only look at the close of the AFD. Off2riorob (talk) 21:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

That would be a fun essay, "You don't have to establish notability according to GNG if the person can be proven to be important." Cool :D B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 21:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

"proven to be important" - see it's a WP:Loophole.... Support - complies with WP:Loophole, ha.. Off2riorob (talk) 21:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Independent sources added. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

He's the author of 44 novels[21] published by the likes of Random House[22] and Macmillan Publishers[23]. That ain't hay. --GRuban (talk) 21:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

You know, those are very cool if they are genuinely sufficient. I did know about them, and took them to be insufficient for a BLP. That's all. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 21:54, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Domenico.y

User:Domenico.y (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This user has contributed heavily to BLPs including Adam Schuck, Davina Reichman, and articles tangential to Reichman such as iClothing and the Being Born Again Couture Fashion Show. Lots of sourcing problems have been brought to the user's attention in several fora: user talk, article talk, and afd. Among several serious problems at the Davina Reichman article, this user has repeatedly restored content there (especially content on "influence") along with refs that don't support the claims in any way. [24] [25] [26] The user also restored content referencing the subject (Q&A interview, Linkedin profile, statements by associated business Being Born Again Couture Fashion Show, etc) The user doesn't seem to be listening to reason based on WP:BLP, WP:BIO, and WP:SOURCE. I've reverted the Davina Reichman BLP 3 times now. Instead of relying solely on WP:3RRNO, I'd like to bring this user's edits to attention here. Any advice? JFHJr (㊟) 22:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• - I left the user a note linking them to this discussion. I also asked them to take it easy and left a 3RR note and a bit of advixce, clearly they are passionate about the topic. Off2riorob (talk) 22:27, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a heap for stepping in. I do appreciate it. JFHJr (㊟) 22:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• - Thanks Off2riorob Domenico.y (talk) 18:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y

Hi JFHJr,

What I glean from the article: is that Anina has unsupported claims of:

"This led to further work, and she then engaged an agent. Anina has modelled for many designers, including Sonia Rykiel, Dries van Noten, Salvatore Ferragamo, and Turkish haute couture designer Yıldırım Mayruk" and "She has spoken at New York University to female photographers, and presented mobile reporting" and "Anina has been written about in magazines such as Paris Match, Stuff, Mobiles, German Amica, Elle, and more" - it is not referenced and therefore a BLP, is this correct?

Also, will you read my comment on the last comment please and tell me what you think? I am sorry that I appear to have not referenced this before, as it would have cleared up some stuff about me referencing what is obvious to me, looking at the photos and seeing the influence, but is not so obvious to somebody that is not interested in fashion and therefore requiring some "proof". I am sorry if I did not make myself clearer.

Thanks. Domenico.y (talk) 18:25, 29 September 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y

Please take a look at WP:BLP. BLP means "Biography of a Living Person." The Anina article is a BLP and needs to conform to basic guidelines. Unreferenced contentious claims should be removed from any BLP. Contentious here means questionable claims that can be positive, negative, or neutral – I think most claims on notability can be contentious. If you have more questions or comments about Anina, try posting on your own talk page or on the Anina talk page for continuity. It also helps others looking into Anina identify what the issues are. Likewise, it's helpful to keep your discussion about Danina Reichman in one place (your questions have been answered in several other places). Please keep in mind several editors communicating with you have pointed you to Wikipedia pages using links that begin with WP: and even spelled out the guidelines for you. Many of the answers to your questions are at the other end of these links, so please take time to have a good read. JFHJr (㊟) 22:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

This editor has again repeatedly submitted problematic edits ([27] [28]) despite advice ahead of time from three editors in several different fora ([29] [30] [31]) that the particular edit would be inappropriate. The advice contains explanations and references to relevant policies and guidelines, however Dom seems to have disregarded it. At this point, my opinion is that the user's edits have become disruptive. I don't think his willingness to read and take advice has anything to do with his English capability, since he has no problem making various hefty arguments on his side. I also don't think this is going to stop, even if and when an AfD consensus is reached. Is there something else that might be appropriate in this case? JFHJr (㊟) 18:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

You have to make a decision as to what policies and/or guidelines Domenico is violating and take appropriate action. If you believe he is actually violating BLP, you can request a block. If you think he is edit-warring (not necessarily violating 3RR), you can request a block. If you think he is "vandalizing" articles by removing reliably sourced, relevant material or adding unreliably sourced material, you can request a block. These requests would normally require sufficient, formal warnings to stop. I think you've gotten a bit bogged down by all the discussions in so many forums and should focus your attention more carefully on what the problem is ("disruptive editing", albeit a common term, is a bit general) and proceed accordingly.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:41, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Davina Reichman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Off2riorob (talk) 18:43, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Rachel Blanchard

Resolved

 – Unreliably sourced material removed and many editors watching.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Rachel Blanchard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is persistently altered by a stalker who claims that she is married with two children, when this is not the case in any way. The most recent alteration can be seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rachel_Blanchard&action=historysubmit&diff=452371471&oldid=447935989 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.85.84 (talk) 04:03, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the report - if it happens again I will request a few months WP:semi protection, I added it to my watchlist. Off2riorob (talk) 11:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm watching it as well - if it happens again I'll semi-protect it (or ping me Off2riorob if you see it happen). --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 14:24, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I reverted the changes yesterday. Her supposed marriage is all over the web, but I couldn't find any reliable sources in support of it.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Angus & Julia Stone

Resolved

 – Unsupported maintenance tag removed.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Angus & Julia Stone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article relies on references to primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject, rather than references from independent authors and third-party publications. Please add citations from reliable sources. (June 2008)

Hi there, I've been trying to "clean up" the citations and sources for this article since last week. I do not think the comment tagged at the top of the article is still current or relevant to the case. So far all the sources I've reviewed seem reliable and it would help if you could please give examples of specific sources you do not think are credible. I'm a big fan of Angus & Julia Stone and would love to have an accurate account of their life/biography, but also recognise the fact that a banner such as this reflects upon the article in a negative light.

Thanks very much for any help/advice, Su-Yin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suyinchan (talk • contribs) 10:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Back in June 2008, an additional sources needed tag was added to the article. Then, without explanation, on September 11, 2010, an editor changed the tag to the current primary sources tag here. I see no support for it now, so I will remove it.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Mutiny (band)

I'm concerned about the names of individuals stated in this article, which are unreferenced - and without appropriate verification - in terms of "presumption in favor of privacy", the NPF policy and other aspects of BLP. However, it is only a list of names - I'm not saying that there is anything that might adversely affect a person's reputation. In such cases, when individuals are named on an article with no supporting references - should they be removed pending a reference? Or, would that be too heavy-handed?  Chzz  ►  20:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

It's a matter of judgment. I tagged the members section. After waiting say a month (just my view as to how long to wait), remove any unreferenced names.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Chelsea Field (singer)

This person is only notable for one thing. As of today, this person is likely to remain a low-profile individual. According to rule BLP1E, this person does not qualify for a Wikipedia entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.136.193.214 (talk) 05:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• Chelsea Field (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I don't see a problem in the article. Is there something wrong or undue? Or, are you just suggesting that the subject does not satisfy notability? This page is not the right place to suggest that; try WP:HELPDESK for advice). Johnuniq (talk) 07:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

She does look quite low notability - but she has charted at 56 and that would likely make her a keep - firefox is telling me there is a untrusted location in one of the citations - careful if you investigate it. Here is some links for her - http://www.celebrity2day.com/chelsea-field/videos/ - Off2riorob (talk) 07:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The security warning is benign as the only problem is that the peoplecmg.com link is using https (why!?) and it has a certificate which expired today (however, I doubt if the reference verifies the assertion). However, the chelseafield.com link is a problem because it shows that the subject no longer has a website (the domain is now controlled by one of the scammers who grab expired domains and try to sell them). However, I'm happy to hear that #56 is sufficient for notability, and I do not think anything further is needed here. Johnuniq (talk) 08:28, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks much for the details Johnuniq - Round here if your a country music singer you don't even need to have charted to get a fair bit of support, nominate for deletion at your peril. Yes, I think this is resolved. - Off2riorob (talk) 08:34, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

John Fleming (U.S. politician)

John Fleming (U.S. politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Requesting eyes on this article. It appears to be devolving into some ugliness. Thank you. - Philippe 13:59, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Not an easy issue. Fleming made some controversial remarks, which are correctly reported in the article. The aftermath is messy because we have to draw lines on what's reportable and what isn't. I've backed out some of the latest changes to that section, done by two single purpose accounts with a history of poor editing of the article. However, it still leaves the article reporting on what all the blogs say about what Fleming said, not to mention some remarks by Jon Stewart on The Daily Show. I would favor citing to the reliable sources that themselves report on the blog controversy (there are some of those) rather than citing to the blogs. I'd also leave out the quotes from the blogs (one of the SPAs added block quotes).--Bbb23 (talk) 14:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

(I'm not sure whether I should be posting this here or on the article's Talk page.) When I came to the article a few days after Fleming's remarks, it appeared to me that a single editor was responsible for keeping all mention of the remarks out of the article despite several people attempting to add the info, and two editors (besides myself) saying on the Talk page that it should be included. I have since been engaged in a very long and repetitive discussion (on the Talk page), between myself and the one objecting editor, about the significance of the comments. My view is that Fleming seems to have received more significant and widespread media coverage for this incident than for anything else he's done, so it should be mentioned. I added the info, making it as brief as seemed reasonable, and since then have been trying to balance the goals of allowing others to edit it (I don't want to seem like I'm owning it) while excluding stuff with blatant POV overtones, which seems to include the majority of attempted edits to the section. I would very much welcome the input of neutral editors. The objective that Bbb23 suggested above, of including only third-party sources reporting ON the controversy, sounds fine to me (and if those sources didn't exist, I wouldn't be trying to include the info). Theoldsparkle (talk) 15:44, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with posting here, thanks. These kinds of incidents always make a big splash in the media at the time and then for a while after. I agree it should be in the article but kept to a minimum. Report the comments. Report a little of the reaction. That's it. I'll wait and see if anyone comments on the Talk page (I opened a new section) or here before making those edits myself (unless someone beats me to it). I wouldn't worry about ownership when your goal is to maintain the integrity of the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:49, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I have already stated my position on this in the talk page. An interview that received some coverage for one day does not automatically mean this was significant in his bio. I believe there is no long-term significance to suggest mentioning of it. Truthsort (talk) 18:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Pepper spraying of the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators

Pepper spraying of the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is about a New York City police deputy inspector who has gained notoriety for pepper-spraying demonstrators. Does this meet the criteria for attack page? I lean in that direction. Experienced BLP hands should take a look at this one. It is proposed for merger, but I wonder if deletion is warranted. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:26, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

To me, this seems like a pretty clear case of BLP1E. It should be merged with Occupy Wall Street should there be enough room there; if not then this should be perhaps reworked into an article called Anthony Bologna pepper spray incident. Gamaliel (talk) 17:42, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

If it wasn't for the merger proposal I'd have probably proposed it for deletion. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:43, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I would say - nominate it at AFD anyway - it clearly shouldn't be existing as a biography. There is looking like no consensus in the merge discussion Off2riorob (talk) 20:19, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Bologna (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Wouldn't that be considered forum-shopping? I'm a little worried about that. But I would certainly support an AfD if someone else starts one. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Forum shopping is not good - but I don't think this action would be Fshopping really - you think an article should not stand alone and you suggest a merge and the merge is rejected on a local basis by interested editors - then you are in your right to bump it up to AFD to get outside opinions. I edited the content away from the biography to the event and boldly moved it to - Pepper spraying at the Occupy Wall Street demonstration - Off2riorob (talk) 20:59, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

(ec) The renaming may rectify matters, if it's allowed to stand. Let's see. Meanwhile the sourcing of both the pepper spraying article and the Occupy Wall Street articles both could use some scrutiny. I've removed sourcing to Gawker and Indymedia for inflammatory negative text on Bologna. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I saw you were looking deeper - I just skimmed the top off , so to speak - I have not had an in depth look at the sourcing. Off2riorob (talk) 21:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, one little quibble. The pepper spraying actually took place away from the demonstration site on Wall Street. It took place at a march from Union Square to Wall Street, a couple of blocks from Union Square. To be precise, I thnk it would have to be Pepper spraying of the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators. Or am I being too anal? ScottyBerg (talk) 21:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

This is the BLP noticeboard. You can never be too anal here. ;) Gamaliel (talk) 21:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

moved as per ScottyBerg's comment. Off2riorob (talk) 21:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

No matter how you look at it, the article is a mess, using videos and obvious non-RS sources to make attacks on a police officer, who is not even named in some of the sources. A good broom would reduce the article to under a hndred words max. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I am edit warring with a single A single purpose account User:PromiseOfNY - about this - I am in danger of getting blocked. I am not going to edit it again in the nest couple of days. Off2riorob (talk) 22:26, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the article a bit, just to make it clearer what we actually have before we decide what we think should be done with it. It was silly to have a lead, so now it's just a short article. It essentially says that Bologna is being investigated for the pepper-spraying (the pepper-spraying is not "alleged" - even the police admit it happened - the issues are whether it was appropriate and whether the videos were doctored and/or misleading). It also has the accusation against him from the 2004 convention. In my view, the 2004 convention shouldn't be there. It's an accusation that hasn't been adjudicated yet. Police officers get accused of all sorts of things all the time - we can't create articles for that. The current media blitz is just that, current, and it too consists of accusations and an investigation. There's no doubt in my view that it's WP:BLP1E - the only question is whether there is sufficient coverage to warrant an article.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:41, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with your assessment. I'm glad more eyes are on the article. There is definitely major SPA interest in the entire subject area. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:05, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Jean-Philippe de Lespinay

We have French opponents very agressive. Each day, or almost, they are vandalizing our page and attack us. They are French computer scientists and the Jean-Philippe de Lespinay invention is a technique that allows to program without computer scientists... That's why they want to remove the article. They are well placed to know that this invention is real and indisputable, with sources real and indisputable, so they never criticize them. They do not propose improvement of the text, they act to achieve the suppression. They use a method that succeeded with WP fr (for now, because we will request arbitration): denigration by a group of boyfriends. As we are only four contributors, fight is unequal. We are accused of bad faith, bias and forbidden to defend ourselves.

These people are fully aware of the inner workings of Wikipedia, not us. They install various kinds of banners, without explaination, restoring them when we delete. They remove half of a section of our article and seven references. They attack members who defend us : "The [Sockpuppet investigation] could now be completed with User:Pat Grenier (why Pat Grenier AND Pat grenier ?), User:90.54.117.217 and User:Chris project --Rigoureux (talk) 10:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)". They continually refuse constructive discussion, never expose ONE argument against the contents of our article and never explain why our work is assumed not to obey the WP rules. In WP fr, they asked for "a few" references proving Lespinay's notoriety. We provided a list of 80 references, most were photocopies of newspaper articles, the others were links to independent websites. Then they are lying in the discussion page of our WP eng article: "39 "page cannot be found", 3 other access errors, 11 written by Lespinay, 6, including an ad, have a passing mention of either Lespinay or his business, 12 have one to three sentences about Lespinay and/or his business, but were not considered convincing for some reason, 2 press articles mention maïeutique, in its common sense but not as a formal method, in the context of Lespinay and his business". It is a risky approach because it is enough that we give you this list and you'll realize they are trying to mislead the reader WP.

Between 1986 and 2010, there were several hundreds of newspaper articles and Tv or Radio emissions referring to JP de Lespinay, his inventions and his reasoning expert systems installations in big companies. It is easy to check. The 80 references list is only what JP de Lespinay found himself and saved.

In conclusion, Pgr94, the "Administrator specialist of intervention against vandalism", doesn't intervene against vandalism of our article. And we suffer...