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

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 04:47, 30 March 2012

Skip to table of contents

Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.

Shortcuts

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.

Sumunumus

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

Sumunumus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Wk36963 (talk · contribs)
Sumunumus (talk · contribs)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Hurt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Please take a look. This article seems to be BLP, quite possibly an autobiography, of James Maurice Hurt, Jr. I recommended a move to some form of his name as title. I wrote a longer explanation of my concerns on the talkpage, but ran into "edit conflict" when waxing expansive here. The article is quite informative, if somewhat unencyclopedic, tending to laundry-list style and pamphleteering, liner-note style, but when I tried some minor copyedits a month ago, they were immediately reverted. This seems to be a case of a single author jealously guarding "their" article from anyone else's input.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.178.10 (talk) 08:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs serious attention. First of all, its creator, Wk36963, had redirected both their user page and their user talk page to the article and its talk page [1], [2]. I've corrected that, but now find that there is a duplicate of the article at User:Sumunumus. Wk36963 stopped editing on January 3, 2012. Sumunumus registered their account the same day and with their first edit copied the article to their user page. I've tagged it for multiple issues. Its style is completely unencyclopedic. It is full of personal details which are unpublished anywhere. It has no real sources, just external links to videos and trivial mentions, although there is much better material out there to source at least some of this. Note that the YouTube uploader of the linked videos is "sumunumus". Other than that, there is no indication whatsoever as to why this article should be titled "Sumunumus". I'm going to move it to the name he is professionally known by, "James Hurt". Voceditenore (talk) 14:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I know what happened. From this edit summary: "moved User:Wk36963 to Sumunumus: Starting a new user page", it's possible that this was inadvertantly moved into article space, i.e. Sumunumus, rather than to User:Sumunumus. - Voceditenore (talk) 14:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've proposed deletion as an entirely unsourced BLP. Verbose promotion of a non-notable individual. JFHJr (㊟) 04:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The PROD was removed by someone who found "reliable sources" that are clearly not substantially about the subject, except for an interview, which can never serve as a yardstick for notability. I removed the unsourced autobiographical drivel because it was overly promotional, quite WP:UNDUE (chronicling high school and college achievements not covered by anyone anywhere), and involved claims about living and dead third parties. This article should probably be taken to AfD, but I'd like input from other BLPN regulars before I proceed. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 23:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated for deletion. JFHJr (㊟) 18:31, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rush Limbaugh

Does it violate BLP to describe this individual as antifeminist, sourced to Men & Masculinities (ABC-CLIO), Postmodern Texts and Emotional Audiences (Purdue University Press), American Culture in the 1990s (Edinburgh University Press), Listening In (University of Minnesota Press), ..., ...? User:Arzel claims that it's a BLP violation, but I pointed out that BLP specifically and repeatedly talks about unsourced or poorly sourced information about living people, not any information about living people with which a user may personally disagree, and that these academic sources (in addition to the news and mass-market sources also available) are thus more than adequate. Arzel prefers "critic of feminism," which does not seem to appear in any sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all - such a description is almost certainly an opinion and, as such, citable only as the opinion of the person holding it. Second - your first source ("The Piano ...") is an opinion piece in the first place, and only makes the claim as a parenthetical aside - not a specific claim of the author. The second source makes a parenthetical assertion about a "typical anti-feminist tirade" which is clearly "opinion" and also clearly not a specific claim about Limbaugh. The third source is even more clearly an opinion piece - calling Limbaugh a "male hysteric" which I doubt would pass muster as a claim in any BLP. Thus we have clearly opinion pieces being cited as though they were facts - which is contrary to WP:BLP ab initio. Just as we can not call Limbaugh an "obnoxious bigot" just because someone in Worcester called him one [3]. Collect (talk) 14:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at the sources again and then retract your false claim that they are opinion pieces. It's really not very collegial to waste people's time by making these sorts of claims. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please retract your "false claim" that I did not read the "sources." If one can not note that they are stating opinion and not fact there is little reason for this noticeboard to exist. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:36, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When "opinions" are stated by academic source after academic source after academic source (after news source after mass-market source), we commonly treat them as "facts." Unless it's also "just an opinion" that, I don't know, Barack Obama is liberal. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obama called his mom an "unreconstructed liberal" (in "The Audacity of Hope") but has not self-identified as "liberal." With his sometimes contradictory stances, I suspect that the simple term would vastly over-simplify his positions. I fully think he viewed "Obamacare" as a pragmatic solution to the medical cost problem, rather than as an ideological solution thereto. Collect (talk) 16:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You could use your "academic source" to say "Limbaugh is a 'male hysteric'" - which I quite suggest is not a "fact" but an "opinion." Or the Worcester Telegram to say "Limbaugh is 'an obnoxious bigot'". I suggest others can see that such are "opinions" and only "opinions." BTW, arguing with bearers of bad news does not improve the news they brought <g>. Collect (talk) 15:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like the words of a great sage are pertinent here: "Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man". All joking aside, there is a preponderance of reliable sources which indicate that Limbaugh is, and considers himself to be, an antifeminist. We do have him to thank for the term Feminazi after all. a13ean (talk) 16:03, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your mind is made up <g> - but that is not the purpose of this noticeboard. The aim here is to follow WP:BLP to the letter. IIRC "feminazi" is an "extreme or militant feminist" per Merriam-Webster. Opposing "extreme feminism" is not precisely the same as "antifeminist." Use of the term antedates Limbaugh per [4] 4 July 1989 in LA Times. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:14, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fear you have misunderstood my comment. I could care less about the article and have never edited it, but I do believe that there are sufficient reliable sources to merit a mention in his BLP. I similarly did not claim that he coined the term, but without his popularization of it, it wouldn't be notable. a13ean (talk) 16:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Ayers has been described as a Terrorist by many many reliable sources. Do we label him as such in his article? No. Assume a different deragatory straw man term and see if you feel differently. "Rush Limbaugh, a noted drug abuser, said....." I think it is clear that this is a BLP violation. Arzel (talk) 17:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Our article doesn't call Bill Ayers a "terrorist", but it does correctly state (in the lead) that he founded a "communist revolutionary organization that conducted a campaign of bombing public buildings". By way of analogy, it seems reasonable to detail the antifeminist positions Limbaugh has taken over the years—most recently, his stated belief that women interested in insurance coverage of contraception are "sluts" and "prostitutes" who should be compelled to submit footage of their sexual encounters to him as the price of access to contraception. But it's probably unnecessary to use the term "antifeminist" directly, as that would be inflammatory and a matter of "opinion". MastCell ^Talk 21:08, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Just the facts ma'am. Lets just stick to the facts.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a BLP violation. Funny thing about these discussions -- some people conjure up "BLP violations" out of their own worries that a term like "anti-feminist" is negative, when in all likelihood Limbaugh himself would consider "anti-feminist" a badge of pride. In any event, if the academic studies in question are not merely voicing an opinion but have some sort of systematic approach to descriptive labels of this sort, then it's perfectly fine to note their use of the term. If it's merely a gratuitous label, then perhaps not -- so it's a matter of assessing how the judgement is being made in their work. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its absolutely going to be undue as suggested in the lede as desired by User:Binksternet - diff - especially as its a political position and the articles a biography. Its aggressive labeling in the lede. Whenever you see cite farms like this, Limbaugh is considered as an antifeminist[44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51] - with opinions presented as if fact you know theres a POV attempting to be asserted. All such attempts as this, to present opinions as if facts and in an undue opinionated partisan way are the worst kind of violations of WP:BLP - and WP:NPOV - This comment, in all likelihood Limbaugh himself would consider "anti-feminist" a badge of pride. from User:Nomoskedasticity is imo a violation of BLP even on a talkpage. Youreallycan 17:15, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good thing it's just your opinion, then. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Utter nonsense, he is quite clearly an antifeminist and proud of it. No need to mention the word in the lead we can just note that he has criticized feminism and the women's movement in general. In the article body it is a nobrainer to include it. Perhaps even note that he has been frequently been referred to as a misogynist. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again - please consider removing your interpretation of the subjects opinions against BLPtalk - He holds views strongly supported in the conservative movement such as ....bla bla is the position to report. Youreallycan 21:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have considered it as much as I am going to.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rob, why do you try to prove a negative point by linking to a calm and considered talk page entry from me? You say, "as desired by" me but then you ignore the fact that I proposed putting "antifeminist" in the lead section while developing same in the article body. You then point to Paintedxbird's eight citations in a row as an example of "a POV attempting to be asserted" but I see this instance as the opposite: an easily supported statement that has been opposed by entrenched reactionaries, and in response the "farm" of citations is inserted by Paintedxbird to show how out of touch are the reactionaries. Binksternet (talk) 23:23, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on making a post which quite proves YRC's point. I would commend you to read WP:NPOV and also WP:TRUTH at this point. And try a glance at WP:PIECE while you are at it. Cheers and have a cup of tea. And refrain from refactoring words of others, and when they complain - follow the advice to undo your refactoring. Collect (talk) 23:31, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your logic escapes me. Ciao. Binksternet (talk) 18:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

+1. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Collect and Youreallycan in that it violates BLP to use the term 'antifeminist' in the article to label Rush Limbaugh. Rather than forcing one opinion conclusion or another on the Wikipedia article reader, the article needs to be an WP:NPOV account of Limbaugh's life that allows the reader draw their own conclusions, such as whether Limbaugh is hostile to sexual equality or to the advocacy of women's rights. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Undue weight for that to be a primary descriptor, as Limbaugh is a lot of things. Further, although there is no doubt that he is against feminism, it is a matter of opinion to say whether he is for or against women, or for or against equal rights for women, or whether feminism is the same as equal rights for women. If I read that he was an antifeminist I would take that literally, that he is against feminists, which is no doubt true. He calls them Nazis. But others read that to mean that he is against the underlying goal of feminists to bring about better conditions for women, which is a different thing. Those are all political / personal positions. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:54, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BLP check request

I am proposing that the article Rush Limbaugh – Sandra Fluke controversy be checked against WP:BLP & WP:NPOV. Please see the discussion I have started here. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:14, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Klugman

Should the below entry be added back:

In 1999, Klugman discussed undergoing surgery to correct erectile dysfunction, where he received a penile implant, with TV Guide. "I'm not ashamed of that. It's a medical thing, a surgery that is done millions of times. But there's all this humorous ridiculing and silliness that goes along with it," he said.

NEWSMAKERS: Pikachu – Misunderstood or Potty-Mouthed?. Hollywood.com (1999-12-31). Retrieved on 2011-07-31.

--George Ho (talk) 08:37, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Giving things a cursory read, I don't have the impression that passage is of any enduring biographical or encyclopedic significance, though the fact seems pretty readily verifiable. The same can be said for several other passages still in in the current version. Here, the quote in particular lends to undue weight, drawing out discussion but giving no clear meaning to its inclusion. Compare the mentions of Viagra in the Bob Dole BLP for when something like this is more clearly significant (and to the point of quoting). JFHJr (㊟) 19:24, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To imply, should such content be removed or left as it is? If removed, which ones? --George Ho (talk) 04:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Hawkins

Jim Hawkins (radio presenter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The subject of the article Jim Hawkins (radio presenter) is very unhappy about it. If you're logged into Facebook, look here - he considers it the work of stalkers and is readying to "name and shame". The page's original creator flagged it on my talk page for attention. No actual details of the problematic content as yet, but certainly a serious once-over won't hurt - David Gerard (talk) 00:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've been keeping an eye on this article for several years after previous complaints, and a few years ago did a full review of the article content (including verifiability etc). I think it is compliant. But it would be very good if somebody else could check again. I did try to work with subject to clarify the errors he felt it contained [5], but no information was ever forthcoming.

For years, the subject has been complaining about the article, errors, privacy intrusions etc, and in fact I recently realized that Jimbo himself courtesy blanked the talkpage back in 2006 for these exact reasons.[6]

I would agree that the behaviour of one editor on this article has been problematic over a long period of time, and also that it could be considered bullying and harassment. I expressed my concerns in this recent thread on ANI [7]. I think a topic ban might be in order, but I guess this is not the place for that.

At the same thread at ANI, other editors questioned whether we should go to AFD again. Hawkins' notability is not totally clear given the paucity of independent sources (he works for the BBC, so those aren't independent), coupled with the subject's longstanding objections to its existence. I am inclined to think that this may be the course to take at this point.--Slp1 (talk) 12:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for Deletion is the way to go. Just leave the man in peace now, for Christ's sake. --JN466 20:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A few experienced users that have watched the issue unfold have said clearly they don't give a damn about the subjects wishes and that they assert the subject is just upset because they wouldn't let him add what he wanted and that they will support the articles existence till the cows come home - no matter what limited notability the subject has. (I added a bit of poetic license)- I supported deletion then, "Hes a radio host in the afternoon on such a station - yes, everyone that needs to know that already knows it. The loss to the educational mission of the project through the deletion of this bio would be zero." , and I support it now. The deletion discussion from over two years ago is quite revealing - 2009 AFD - The subject is talking on twitter and on his radio show about how the wikipedia article has detrimentally affected his health ... Youreallycan 21:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can somebody explain - just explain - if anybody did anything wrong about this article other than adding the month and day of a birthday based on a Twitter post and in apparent contradiction to one of the miscellaneous terms of WP:BLP? Some people make it sound like we had some kind of bully mob on the loose at Wikipedia, not one guy adding a couple of bytes of possibly truthful information. What's the truth? Wnt (talk) 01:22, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have it right; the only issue is that a possibly correct birthday was inserted and the subject does not want that in there. Talk about a tempest in a teapot. Binksternet (talk) 21:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now at - Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jim_Hawkins_(radio_presenter)

Philip DeFranco

Resolved

– Alternate reliable source found, point now moot.--Alizaa2 (talk) 16:43, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of days ago, an anonymous editor changed the article subject's name, with a ref to a WHOIS report. Following the policies on WP:BLP, I reverted the additions, however another IP added another ref. I'm very skeptical about these edits, I would like other editor's opinions on this. -- Luke (Talk) 01:41, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the subject, I think the current source is alright for his name. Seems that the source is reasonably reliable, and that it's information from an interview. JFHJr (㊟) 01:53, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have to consider the subject? The second source (whois record) should be removed as a primary source.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:55, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, well, sometimes a little. I was thinking that when the subject is an apparent youtube phenomenon, the bloggy section of otherwise respectable news reporting is to be expected. Simply to report his name, the source is probably acceptable. I've removed whois. JFHJr (㊟) 02:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate source for name has been found, which is an article from The Baltimore Sun, which is reliable. Original whois source removed and now made redundant, so point now moot.--Alizaa2 (talk) 16:43, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paula Wagner

Resolved

– Image replaced. JFHJr (㊟) 17:01, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The photo on the page is not of Paula Wagner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt Polk (talk • contribs) 14:11, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know? I'm not good at this sort of thing, but, after all, this is Hollywood, and who knows what anyone really looks like?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:53, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm that there is an OTRS ticket that makes the editor's complaint above appear legitimate. In addition, although the appearance is similar, other images don't quite match (see this confirmed image for example). --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:39, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The image you note is the image I saw most often on the web, and it certainly looks more conservative than the image in the article, but I tried to focus on the features and couldn't be sure. Again, I'm bad at this, so I'll let others decide.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:07, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As it's in doubt - and looking at the picture and the rest of the google returns - it does seem doubtful to me - I have removed it, better out than in unless we are certain its her. - Here is the picture at commons for users to compare with the google search returns.Youreallycan 21:24, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Back to my point about Hollywood, the key question is not whether it's her but whether it looks good. Kidding, of course, I agree with your reasoning.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have never understood why we don't seem to apply our core policy of verifiability to pictures. Here we read "Unsourced contentious material about living people must be removed immediately. This policy applies to all material in the mainspace" (my emphasis). The picture was clearly unsourced, since this is not a reliable source, and contentious. We do not decide by our own discussion what the truth is -- we go by what independent reliable sources say. Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense to me to apply the policy to a challenged image, but I wouldn't want to go so far as to insist on inline sources for all images (I interpret policy to require sources for all assertions in all articles, not just "challenged" assertions).--Bbb23 (talk) 22:14, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We don't require that images come from reliable sources in the first place (WP:IUP), so it makes no sense to require that they carry a citation. The origin of any image is specified on the file page. FormerIP (talk) 22:40, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just because IUP doesn't list "reliable source" as a requirement doesn't necessarily mean the encylopedia doesn't require verifiability of anything in an article. The absence of such a requirement in IUP can't trump the statements in the verifiability policy. In practice, of course, we don't "cite" images in articles, but I could easily see someone saying we should. This is all somewhat abstract because the image has been challenged and removed, and we're really just discussing Cusop Dingle's point in a broader sense.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just that the policy doesn't explicitly require an RS, it's that it explicitly permits use of images that are not from an RS. The vast majority of our images are user-created or found, appropriately licensed, on the Internet (most usually from Flickr or something else that is not an RS). If there is an error in the description of any of those images, it can only realistically be dealt with by someone noticing it. FormerIP (talk) 00:11, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[8] appears to confirm it - it links back to Luke Ford (see the youtube link at the bottom) suggesting he is reliable for the claim that this is Paula Wagner. I would say like Bbb23 facially these are the same person ( a little weight difference, eyebrows shaped, hair styled differently) but eyes, nose, mouth and bne structure areidentical. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 00:21, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The image is disputed here and there is a valid OTRS ticket confirming the disputed nature of the image. If Luke Ford misidentified the subject we should not replicate the error here. Under WP:BLP this is enough to remove the image until it can be confirmed as a true representation of the subject. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 00:29, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm comforted to know, that per Stuart, my visual abilities aren't as bad as I thought they were. However, I agree with Ponyo that we must err on the side of caution.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:35, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's no way it's her. There's a few other pictures of the mystery woman here. Google for images of Wagner or flick between this picture of Wagner taken a week prior to ours and this one. Case closed, IMO. FormerIP (talk) 01:43, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, All in the Family; you're not supposed to add IMO after "case closed" - they're mutually exclusive. :-) Wagner was honored at the same event as the mystery woman. Sure wouuld be nice if there were captions on that website for the mystery woman. Didn't they know we would have this issue?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:53, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stifle yourself! I think you mean Till Death Us Do Part, not that I get the reference you are making.

I guess it would be all round marvellous if we could actually identify our mystery woman and put the picture on her article, but I'm not sure I fancy our chances. FormerIP (talk) 02:14, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Archie used to say case closed ([9]). Then, when Edith got more assertive in the show, she started using the phrase to Archie, as did Gloria. I've never seen Till Death Us Do Part.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:41, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose "case closed" is probably an Americanisation of "stands to reason, dunnit?", which is what Alf Garnett used to say. FormerIP (talk) 15:31, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Yes, it's clearly not her - I have nominated the picture for deletion discussion at Commons - Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Paula_Wagner.JPG - Youreallycan 07:41, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Apparently the former image has now been removed from the German Wiki as well. I'm glad to see that we have a photo of the right person now. Lithoderm 03:26, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ronjohn and LoLa Monroe

Just came across this, Ron has been repeatedly adding to the Lola page that she was previously a stripper, his only references being to himself, [10] and a rather questionable youtube video of somebody who is not the subject and which itself makes note of the inaccuracies within the interview. This has apparently going on for a long time: [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], and a bit of edit warring the last few days. I would appreciate it if someone could deal with Ron, who doesn't seem to get it--Jac16888 ^Talk 00:25, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted his latest restoration of the material and left a warning on his Talk page. In addition to violating BLP, he's close to violating WP:3RR.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:39, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since he has been restoring this content for over 3 years now, don't think 3RR really comes into it. And you have been reverted rather quickly by an anon [16]--Jac16888 ^Talk 00:41, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't fret too much, it was just as quickly reverted by yet another editor who watches this page. It'll sort itself out.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:44, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How shocking, the IP was actually Ron, who forgot to log back in before coming to rant on my talk page [17]. I would block this guy myself if I wasn't technically involved, would someone else please do the honours--Jac16888 ^Talk 00:49, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(←) This BLP's sourcing looks in poor shape at the moment. There two references are to www.lolamonroe.com and to sandrarosenews.blogspot.co.uk. The first of these redirects to Miss V Inc, a PR company; the second is a personal blog. Neither looks like a reliable source. Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:28, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The citation to the blogspot source itself was a gross BLP violation, so I removed it (WP:BLPSPS, WP:NPOV, WP:RS). On a cursory search for references, I quickly found that swaths of the prose were actually WP:COPYVIOs. I retained some information that seemed supported in somewhat reliable sources. The magazine I found, Up and Coming, is blatantly promotional and not acceptable for any claims of significance or notability, but is probably alright to source info on the subject's early life. That said, the bigger claims are still entirely unsourced. JFHJr (㊟) 17:58, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Ovenden

I have never heard of this person. I think being part of a little known group hardly qualifies. Fom what I can gather on the internet, the book mentioned was privately published.

Any opinions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.7.92.254 (talk) 18:32, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, an encyclopaedia is precisely for the things you haven't heard of ... but I think the question is Is Emily Ovenden notable? in the Wikipedia sense of notability. That would be a question to discuss on the article talk page or at Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard. You might like to consult the general notability guidelines and entertainer and creative people special guidelines first. Cusop Dingle (talk) 19:15, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To make it a little quicker, it looks like she has been in a classical music group that sold 0.5 million CDs and a rock group that is less successful but has received reasonably widespread media coverage (and has a WP article). So, she is notable, and she also avoids exclusion under WP:BAND. FormerIP (talk) 19:23, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

POV pushing at Jacques Cheminade

Resolved

Some IPs and a SPA are pushing 2 unsourced false claims ([18], [19], [20]):

Loans by private individual to candidates are admitted in French presidential campaigns (which is false); they further claim such loans should be interest free (which is precisely why loans are forbidden). See here for example.
An "expert" consulted by a Sunday newspaper has supported Cheminade's claims, when the reported opinion is on civil (i.e. not electoral) law and the European Court of Justice has ruled the matter is not civil.

I have added a reliable source by a specialist in French constitutional law in a peer-reviewed publication with quotes of the rulings. Neutral attention to the matter would be welcome. Thanks, — Racconish^Tk 19:30, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Paid Operatives & Conflict of interest editing

These two essays include claims about living persons (one of whom is a Wikipedia editor in good standing) with quite pointed language, and without reliable sourcing as required for contentious claims about any living person on any page whatsoever on Wikipedia - including userspace, projectspace and mainspace etc. The query is - are "essays" exempt from the absolute requirements of WP:BLP? If not - can s0meone please work on cleaning them up - I only marked one, but clearly most of the named living people are, in fact, living people per BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:49, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Christoher-Lee dos Santos

Hi,

I am the talent agent representing the Artist Christopher-Lee dos Santos and we have noticed the wiki page dedicated to Christopher-lee dos Santos has numerous false entries regarding our client. We as a talent agency are out to protect our artists best interests and we see that a number of incorrect additions/quotes have been placed on our artist's wiki page.

There is no proof of our client saying any of the quotes on this page and it is deformation of character.

We recommend the page be edited at once.

Thank you for your time,

SA Talent Group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SAtalentAgency (talk • contribs) 01:43, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Defamation," not deformation. While Dos Santos may have removed many parts of his blog since the Wiki article was created, I do have screen captures from when those statements were made and printed on his blog, so yes, there is proof of his "making those quotes." Statements about "a very biased fan on the loose who is out to exact revenge" are just silly; revenge for what? The article was written in a neutral tone and only includes quotes from critics and Dos Santos himself, and the page also includes quite a bit of other information about his work. Even if those quotes from Dos Santos himself were removed, the reviews are still legitimate as are his quotes given to news sources.Bobbyandbeans (talk) 01:59, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eternity (2010 South African film) has some of the same issues, and has also been created by User:Bobbyandbeans, just as Christopher-Lee Dos Santos was. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:18, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SAtalentAgency, is DSfilms.blogspot.com Dos Santos's blog? Ian.thomson (talk) 02:29, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of biggest box office bombs

Hello! I've been trying to remove claims about living people [21], but I am being reverted by a new user whose main contributions have been to this List of biggest box office bombs. My problem is that the content of the list is not well-defined, so anyone can add any movie to the list if they think it's a bomb and it lost money. To claims like "Eddie Murphy had the biggest contributions to film losses" are completely subjective (not to mention unsourced). But I haven't been able to remove it dispite talk page discussions (see also the discussion at WikiProject Films). Tell me if I'm out of line here; thanks for any comments, or help. Mlm42 (talk) 17:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not claim that Eddie Murphy had the biggest contribution to film losses than any other actor or person in his entire career. It presents that in this specific list Eddie Murphy appears in more bombs than any other actor, and as a result his contribution in total film losses of the movies found in this list only, is the biggest one. It is just statistical information about the list. Clicklander (talk) 18:01, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nonetheless, it is an assertion about a living person, capable of being read as a criticism of him. WP:BLP mandates that any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source. This material has been challenged, and hence must be sourced. If it is unsourceable, as seems likely here, then it must be taken out. Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:09, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For once again, there is no critisism of this or any other person in the article! It is pure statistical data. No source is needed for something is in fact already obvious from the list.Clicklander (talk) 18:22, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you say that "no source is needed"? WP:BLP is a policy which explicitly states that it must be explicitly attributed. Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:27, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because the source is the list itself.Clicklander (talk) 18:31, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Wikipedia article is not a reliable published source: see the sections WP:SPS and WP:CIRCULAR in Wikipedia:Verifiability. Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:43, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it isn´t. But this has nothing to do with statistics. Statistics are summarizing and analyzing what you see on the list. No other additional input is added.Clicklander (talk) 19:39, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then they are original research and synthesis. None of this provides any reason to escape the requirements of policy that these statements must be explicitly attributed. Cusop Dingle (talk) 20:07, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Cusop that the statistics prose is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The analysis itself must be sourced, and because it is apparently drawn from the user-made chart, I highly doubt any such source exists. It doesn't matter that the user-made chart has sourced entries; the use of that sample is WP:SYNTH. If anyone has ever published findings on box office bombs in a reliable source — and I suspect several probably exist — those could perhaps support prose along these lines, but probably not what's currently written. JFHJr (㊟) 20:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess in order to be synthesis it has to come to some conclusions. I do not see any conclusion here. This section presents nothing more than statistical numbers.Clicklander (talk) 20:55, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a never-before-published analysis of a data set created on Wikipedia. The statistics and discussion are WP:OR. "Conclusions" are irrelevant. JFHJr (㊟) 20:58, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I don't get it. How something can be called "research" with no conclusion??Clicklander (talk) 21:17, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I think the rest of us are puzzled by your continuing to maintain that this material is somehow exempt from the policy requirement "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source". Are you saying that this is not material? Or that it has not been challenged? Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I am clear to what I am saying. I never said anything about exemptions. Any information on Wikipedia must have reliable source. If “Statistics” do not have reliable source that means that the list itself does not have reliable source either. Statistics are nothing more than interpretation.Clicklander (talk) 12:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On-wiki interpretation is exactly what's prohibited. That section should be removed. Replace it only with sourced content as to any prose including scope, method, and topic. JFHJr (㊟) 02:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Behring

I just added a reference about a charitable donation that Ken Behring made, after I had noticed an inept addition by an IP editor. In reviewing the article, I am of the opinion that the "Controversies" section may give undue weight to criticism of Behring. Sexual harassment charges were settled out of court, and I think that there is too much attention devoted to criticism of his big game hunting. I would be grateful if other editors would take a look. I am a big fan of the Blackhawk Museum he founded, which displays his donated collection of classic cars, so perhaps I am not neutral on the matter. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:47, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Parisen

The personal information section of the article on Jonathan Parisen is full of errors and false information. Parisen was never charged with being intoxicated and he was never given a test to prove whether or not he was in fact intoxicated. Parisen was not on a New York City Subway when the said event took place, it happened on Staten Island which doesn't have a subway. Steven Santiago was nowhere nearParisen when he was hit by the train and it is thought that he was looking to see if his train was coming when he was hit by a train coming in the oppsite direction. Santiago who was given a blood test at the hospital was intoxicated at the time of the event which likely caused his being hit by the train. It is rather disturbing to me that the NY Post is being used as a reference for this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.34.177.152 (talk) 01:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eduardo Maruri

Eduardo Maruri's article has 2 defamatory articles I would hope to be removed. Since they are biased opinions of an angry soccer club fan. Strictly the onse that talk about Eduardo's Barcelona Sporting Club Presidency and Accused Of Corruption.

I tried editing but seem to be having trouble with the "edit summary" I give. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrechi (talk • contribs) 16:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sections are adequately sourced, and Wikipedia is not censored. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- I made a few removals and improvements. - Youreallycan 17:47, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Butler (private investigator)

I am the Carl Marino that is referenced in the article. Someone continues to change the article, writing libellous material about me. It is probably one of the "PI Moms" that were scorned when they lost their show. They also knew about the illegal activity, but did not come forward to report it as I did. I did not threaten, sabotage, or anything that they keep listing. I also did not, and have not lied about anything from the beginning and the DOJ and FBI stand by me and my actions. I would appreciate it if these people were not allowed to write damaging lies about me. Thanks.

Carl Marino — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.117.147.52 (talk) 20:47, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article cites a large number of news sources for that section. Please demonstrate either that the article does not reflect those sources, or ask those news sources (of which we have no control) for retractions. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've just read the current sources and I do not believe that the material being removed by 67.117.147.52 (talk) is supported by the references cited. The Dr. Phil ref does support the on-air badmouthing by Dr. Phil (which comes across as self-serving, to me) and an SF Chronicle story focusing on Marino questions his motives to some degree and mentions his desire to be on the TV show, but does not support the charges in the article. All of this material has been added by User Kidrage01, who has made no other edits on WP. Finally, the lengthy information about Marino is WP:UNDUE in Butler's article. If this content could be defended, most of it should be in it's own article on Marino, or all of it should be in an article about the corruption case and related people. BTW, I'm not a regular participant here and I have not previously seen or edited the Butler article. Hope I'm not raising extraneous issues.--Hjal (talk) 23:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, your interpretation of the situation and investigations of the citations in comparison with the content is top notch, well done and welcome. All of User:Kidrage01's additions Special:Contributions/Kidrage01 need further investigation as they are clearly a single purpose conflicted user. Youreallycan 08:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed further chunks of material about Marino as unsourced or, worse, not verified by the alleged references. This last is most disturbing. Cusop Dingle (talk) 19:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trayvon Martin

-Trayvon Martin, Marijuanna

Im sure many of you are aware of the Trayvon Martin shooting, and its ongoing news story. For several days the article has included that Trayvon was at his fathers house while on suspension from school, which a coulple of (now known to be false) reasons. Today, his parents announced that the reason was a bag containing pot residue. This has been exceptionally widely reported in the media, in relation to the shooting. Some editors (and one admin) have removed this well sourced information, claiming BLP/BDP. BLP itself obviously does not apply as trayvon is dead. BDP I believe does not apply, as the information is exceptionally notable and been reported by practically every RS on the planet, and was originally released by his parents, so the "affects living relatives" portion should not be in force either. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A few relevant links for reference:

VQuakr (talk) 21:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just one of the many news sources reporting on this : "Trayvon Martin was in Sanford the night he was shot to death because he had been suspended from school, and his father wanted to spend time with him" http://miami.cbslocal.com/2012/03/26/pot-blamed-for-trayvon-martins-suspension/ Gaijin42 (talk) 21:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BDP clearly does apply; if there was no source for this information, for example, we would absolutely not include it because content related to BLP's (in this case relatives of the deceased) must adhere to WP:BLP. However, I agree with Gaijin that this content is verifiable. The subject matter also does not constitute original research, provided no speculation about a connection between the suspension and shooting incident is included in the article (none was there as of the most recent edit war). That leaves whether it is neutral to include this information (and by extension editorially favorable to do so but that isn't really within the scope of BLPN). To me this content does appear neutral as well, as it relates to the events that occurred in the days before these two people crossed paths. It is critical that no speculation about direct causality between the suspension and the shooting be included in the article per WP:NOR, and as a topic only tangentially related to the subject of the article this probably only rates the ~2 sentences that were already in the article prior to the removal. Thoughts? VQuakr (talk) 21:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am absolutely ok with avoiding causality as I dont believe it is needed, but if other editors disagree, wouldnt the above quote make it acceptable since the SYNTH/OR was being done by RS? Gaijin42 (talk) 21:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well sufficient RS sources, and since the source is the family itself, I suspect that it is past the "contentious claim" standard as well. The article contains claims about Zimmermen which have less obvious relevance than these about Trayvon. Collect (talk) 21:33, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gaijin, in the article you link to above, the parents express anger that the information about the suspension was made public. What is the basis for your statement that the info was leaked by the family? VQuakr (talk) 21:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I may have misread that the information was _initially_ released by the family. Certainly it could have been leaked from some other source. However, the family has now confirmed it, as per paragraph 2 of that source "Ryan Julison, a spokesperson for Treyvon’s family, confirmed reports that surfaced Monday blaming the suspension on a plastic baggie found in Trayvon’s bookbag.", Once acknowledged by the family, I dont think BDP can apply, although I will admit it is not as clear-cut as it would be if they were the initial source. We have a very cler standard for disparaging information appearing in BLP, about notability and reliability, and this is WAY beyond meeting those standards. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:44, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The confirmation by the family covers the verifiability aspect of the BLP requirement, but everything at WP:BLP still applies (maybe we are using differing connotations of the word "apply")? The aspect of this discussion that is borderline is whether inclusion of this content is neutral, in that it might represent overcoverage since no reliable source has indicated that drugs were a factor in Martin's behavior that night but only were a factor in his presence. VQuakr (talk) 21:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We are using different meanings of apply. Of course the standard (BDP) is applicable, I mean to say none of its clauses are activated in such a way that the information should be prevented. Regarding the undueness, I think there are three facets 1) It is (coincidental) causality as to why he was in sanford. 2) martin was being presented as squaky clean no issues - while certainly not derving being shot, killed (or imo even arrested - LEGALIZE!!!) it does round out the bio of martin and make him into a "normal" kid instead of the hypothetical angel some would portray. 3) Zimmerman mentioned "on drugs" in his call. hopefully we get a toxicology/autopsy which gives us the truth regarding if he was on drugs at the time, but an accusation was made, and there is some level of evidence that trayvon used drugs at least casually. I DO NOT THINK any of the above arguments should actually be made in the article, as they are entirely OR/SYNTH, but we should provide the facts to the reader and allow them to do their own OR/SYNTH. (although point #1 was explicitly made in the linked ref, so should be ok imo). Gaijin42 (talk) 22:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zimmerman mentioned "on drugs" in his call. hopefully we get a toxicology/autopsy which gives us the truth regarding if he was on drugs at the time, but an accusation was made, and there is some level of evidence that trayvon used drugs at least casually. I DO NOT THINK any of the above arguments should actually be made in the article, as they are entirely OR/SYNTH, but we should provide the facts to the reader and allow them to do their own OR/SYNTH. (although point #1 was explicitly made in the linked ref, so should be ok imo); there is no rush - wait for the tox screen, and the inquest results. Without the context you are using Synth to provide editorial support for the content, which is equally not allowed :) --Errant ^(chat!) 00:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything wrong with including this in the article. BLP doesn't apply as the subject is deceased. As for BDP, it does say "However, material about dead people that has implications for their living relatives and friends, particularly in the case of recent deaths, is covered by this policy." However, since the family has publicly confirmed this, that makes BDP moot. And unfortunately, it appears than an admin is abusing their tools to win a content dispute he's directly involved in.[[22]] This probably needs to go to ANI. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies self-reported himself to AN, which I think is exceptionally straightforward and honorable for him to do, and I think any potential abuse can be ignored in light of the minorness. I do think his action should be reversed, and moved back to semi-protection, but I dont think any further action needs to be taken against drmies. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:46, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I didn't realize that he self-reported himself. Thanks for the update. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Throwing my comment in; Drmies acted out of concern for policy rather then taking other worse actions. The fact he used his tools only allowed for discussion and sources, additional arguements and questions of whether not it should be included to be properly made. It clearly was not a selfish act to try and win a content dispute; I don't think any of us would claim it either. I've been a neutral supporter of both sides and certain materials have been turning up that outright attacked Martin. I believe that the fact which was so such a widely reported matter should be included. It establishes the background events which lead up to the fatal shooting. ChrisGualtieri (talk)

I commented on the talk page but:

The reason for suspension is trivial detail - but because it is an illegal thing the media love it. It has no relevance for us though, following good editorial judgement and the standard approach.
- To address a point directly; martin was being presented as squaky clean no issues - while certainly not derving being shot, killed (or imo even arrested - LEGALIZE!!!) it does round out the bio of martin and make him into a "normal" kid instead of the hypothetical angel some would portray - this is not the correct way to attempt this. I agree, the media will portray Martin as squeaky clean, they always done in news stories like this. It is the reason why newspapers are generally poor sources on controversial and divisive issues. The correct way is to cut through the bullshit and report the specific facts of the case, with good editorial judgement. If the article portrays Martin in a non-neutral light, then that is an issue to fix through rework, not faux-"balancing" with bad stuff :)
The Zimmerman history needs to be culled on BLP grounds - per our standard approach of not reporting charges that do not result in convictions unless distinctly notable in their own right. This is the more urgent issue at this time.
The article is a disaster zone of weaselly wording and soapboxing. Case in point, which caused Tracy Martin to further question why Zimmerman was not arrested after shooting and killing an unarmed teenager with no criminal history. I haven't dug into the contribution history yet, but some individuals might need gentle reminders of our basic policy.

Just my thoughts so far. --Errant ^(chat!) 00:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

re zimmerman - I would normally agree with you, but here I think the "squeaky" issue is even stronger. Zimmermans "squeaky clean record" was specifically cited by the police as one of the reasons he was not arrested. As the police have themselves been accused of racism or other bad handling of the case, this is directly relevant to the ongoing controversy. For both martin and zimmerman, its not like either of them were notable in any way to go find unrelated sources. We only know this information because it was reported directly in the context of the case. Yes, if it bleeds it leads, and the media sucks, but if we second guess them to this degree, we should pretty much delete every BLP article out there that is at all controversial. These facts are a major part of the controversy and attention being generated by the media and publicGaijin42 (talk) 01:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The way I would handle that is find sources that say that exact thing, and note it within that section. I wouldn't go into detail though; just a sentence or two referring to past incidents/charges for... whatever. In terms of the rest of your comment; resist the temptation to use biographical detail dug up by the papers, it is not usually of tremendous relevant to the event (as we are not writing a biography). Realistically it would be better to work the biographical material into the event prose - this can be done with a deft hand, and usually makes the unrelated detail more apparent. It's good practice to assume their past life is distinctly irrelevant, unless tied directly to the event by the media - and then it can be recorded in that specific context. --Errant ^(chat!) 01:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gaijin42 (talk) 01:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most of Errant's points are correct, though I see minor mention that your post on the other page made some errors. He was suspended for possession and his father wanted to spend some time with him because of it. He doesn't live with his father, he was visiting and was not familiar face in the neighborhood. While the cause and effect matter are weak, the situation could just be resolved by removing everything not related to the case; including Zimmerman's 2005 arrest and dropping of charges. Getting rid of the bios would go a long way to making sure that we have no need for the suspension reason of pot. Its just easier, cleaner and further away from the media firestorm. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, yes that is the correct approach --Errant ^(chat!) 07:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with placing the information about why he was suspended in the article for the reasons explained by others above. Also, it appears that RS are beginning to report other pejorative information about the kid, including that his Facebook picture is rather more menacing than the picture his family released, comments on his Facebook and Twitter accounts appear to implicate him in drug possession and possible drug dealing, as well as involvement in other violent incidents. I believe all of this is relevant for the article. Cla68 (talk) 06:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't record pejorative information (although the word doesn't mean what you appear to think it means). We do record negative information. But not that, certainly not from news sources, who are of proven tenuous reliability during high profile incidents such as these. "Menacing" pics? Man... --Errant ^(chat!) 07:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So...... what?

Is there a concensus here or not. I've made a proposal Talk:Shooting of Trayvon Martin#Proposal, can people make their opinions known there, so we can decide if something needs to be done. Should I move the whole thing here? Or is this article just going to stay on ice for 2 days? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On removing biographies

I think there is 0 chance this will be successful, and predict the article will have to be semi-permanently fully protected to enforce this. bio information on both participants is everywhere in the media, and in the public consciousness, and is (in my opinion) a deeply integral part of the event and controversy. I personally think the info is valuable, in fact essential to understanding what happened and what peoples motivations/actions may have been - but will abide by the consensus - but the legions of people who come to this article and (don't) see information that is missing will add it all back in. If established editors do it, we can at least have some semblance of balance, NPOV, etc. vs the unwashed masses that will literally destroy this article. All of this information is exceptionally well sourced with coverage from every major news outlet. And you are fooling yourself if you think books, documentaries, dramas, etc are not going to be made about this. (And btw, if "dont use the news" is the standard, about 90% of all event/bio/pop pages should be deleted) BLP and BDP are surpassed by a ridiculous margin. We can have an article that boils down to the essential facts. "George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin." There, that is the entire article. Everything else is about the people, the events leading up to the shooting, etcGaijin42 (talk) 13:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And you are fooling yourself if you think books, documentaries, dramas, etc are not going to be made about this.; I don't mean to be too critical. But if I had a penny for every person that said this every time a media storm gets covered on Wikipedia. For kicks I usually keep track of some of the larger ones - and so far only one (of, say, 10 or so) has actually resulted in "books, documentaries, dramas" - and that was mostly because it came up again and again in the media for several years. I very much doubt this one will join it. You might be taking my advice above to the extreme (if "dont use the news" is the standard, about 90% of all event/bio/pop pages should be deleted); what I usually suggest is critical thinking, careful coverage and a healthy dose of common sense/skepticism when using media sources during a press barrage. --Errant ^(chat!) 22:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other suspensions

NYTimes reports Trayvon was also suspended previously for truancy and graffitti and was found with jewelry and a screwdriver. Would this also be appropriate in the article? Cla68 (talk) 22:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. But I doubt you care much given the way you just re-inserted the previously rejected material on spurious grounds, rather than contribute to the talk page discussion that is trying to figure out how to work the material in appropriately. I recommend reflection on the critical analysis of source material. --Errant ^(chat!) 23:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Errant, personalizing a debate isn't very helpful. One of the reasons the regulars at this board have as much credibility as they do, is because they maintain an objective distance and I appreciate their opinions. Cla68 (talk) 23:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the "do not personalize" misdirection. Snore. Brusqe, certainly. My advice is the usual, that I give to those who (objectively?) are struggling with BLP matters - especially those related to current events. Above you suggested we should post pejorative information about individuals - a troubling stance. And now you have been underhand about restoring the material. This board deals tangentially with behavioural issues; and one piece of advice most commonly given is engage on the talk page. I reiterate that advice. --Errant ^(chat!) 23:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Errant, please don't try to discourage me or anyone else from asking for advice at this board. Cla68 (talk) 00:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was just being grumpy because it was late. But in all seriousness; I think you need to engage in much more depth on the talk page. Sure, solicit input here, but getting a consensus here and then imposing it on the article is only going to cause strife. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's well-sourced and relevent to the article, but you should also include the family's statements that they are trying to tarnish Martin's reputation. Remember, we don't take sides, but we do cover them if we can cite reliable sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zhirinovsky's ass

This is an intentional double-entendre and in my view beneath this project. See Template:Did you know nominations/Zhirinovsky's ass, User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#A_DYK_in_the_making.

The article was twice moved to Zhirinovsky's donkey; each time, the move was reverted by Russavia (talk · contribs). Are we really now stooping so low as to want to put blatant BLP violations like this on this project's front page? After we've just had a DYK fiasco? There is an RfC about the rename on the article's talk page, but in my view it should be moved to Zhirinovsky's donkey right now under BLP policy. --JN466 00:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, and I think blocks need to be considered if people (no names) are going to continue being disruptive over the article name. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 00:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The name is fairly trivial (FWIW it doesn't seem to be a BLP problem to me, the point is it's supposed to be a declaiming statement, from Zhirinovsky himself, about Russian politics - so his name is hardly at risk). The actual problem is that the article is written like a joke, and probably presents something of a BLP concern for Proshka. Instead of arguing about the move perhaps efforts would be better devoted to bringing to content more in line with our practices... ? --Errant ^(chat!) 00:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest curtail RM and admin move to WP default donkey Judging by the Russian text which clearly says donkey (which is how Wikipedia describes wikt:donkey), and the mischievous/malicious/non-WP:RS content of the only English source for "ass" in the article, this does a little look to me as a gaming the system to demand a RM. It would do no harm for the move to happen, rather than drag out. Imagine if this was "Obama's ass." We'd move it presto wouldn't we? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In regard to the comment below that the "sources (!) use both "donkey" and "ass"" let's be clear that in Russian there is no pun whatsoever between wikt:donkey and wikt:buttocks. Yes the chap is a fool, publicist, and back in January did in fact (unrelated to the donkey) bare part of his rump for a nurse Жириновский оголил свой зад. Фото, but neither WP:BLP nor WP:DYK exist for editors to claim innocence but restore and insist on an edit for a childish double entendre when non-involved native English-speaker editors have made it clear that the double entendre is not wanted. Someone please put WP first on this. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Proshka. If the article is about the donkey, then it goes under the name of the donkey. If it's about the person and his election campaign it goes under the person. The current title is clearly a BLP violation, and the article itself is WP:UNDUE. In fact the whole thing is a BLP mess. Cusop Dingle (talk) 06:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed - the whole thing is a disgusting POV use of the project in violation of BLP and NPOV, all disguised under the false claim of an April fool joke - all the involved users should be blocked indefinitely. En Wikipedia has zero need of such contributors, they are detrimental to the projects neutral encyclopedic reporting goals. - Youreallycan 07:36, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Guys, the question of the name of the article aside (the sources use both "donkey" and "ass"), some of you apparently simply do not understand what you talk about. Such is the reality of Russian politics, or at least the reality of one Russian politician - Zhirinovsky. This article is about yet another brilliant performance by a political clown, which Zhirinovsky is (everyone in Russia knows that, including Zhirinovsky himself - he produces political scandals every other day and is a star on talk shows and comedy shows; and reliable sources confirm that). With this donkey add and its subsequent discussion he tried to produce as much controversy and fun as possible, and there is no point in reducing it under the pretense of BLP. Zhirinovsky would be happy in getting more attention, and really, tell me, is it normal that a top-level politician swaps ass in the election ad, claims it is a symbol of the country and then discusses it on official TV debates and comedy shows, producing a (very notable) scandal in the media (on the top of multiple scandals he produced in the past)? You could not describe what has been intended to be a joke and controversy concealing the fact that it is a joke and controversy. GreyHood ^Talk 09:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The only English-language source using "Ass" that you have been able to provide is an English text on a Russian website, written by someone with a less than perfect command of English. The New York Times says donkey. --JN466 12:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If Zhirinovsky's campaigns are notorious then, assuming they are noticed by independent reliable sources, we can look forward to an article under a title such as "Political campaigns of ...". Mr Zhirinovsky may or may not be notorious for jokes, but this is an encyclopaedia, not a jokebook. Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per the NY Times, we should use 'donkey'.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Darrell Issa

This page has been subject to numerous unfair subjects being inserted. Due to Issa's necessarily antagonistic role as Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, he is the target of numerous left wing organizations and smear attempts, and many of these are showing up on his wikipedia page, a standard not likewise seen on similar Democratic congress member's pages.

The content does not meet the standards of an encyclopedia. Unfounded allegations being made by left wing organizations against a right wing politician do not amount to legitimate controversy unless seriously addressed by congress or law enforcement. Many of these sections link to left wing websites like the Huffington Post, or show no resolution, only that allegations were made. That's a pretty weak standard.

The three biggest offenders, full of only unsubstantiated allegations and absolutely no real action by a member of congress or the Office of Congressional Ethics: Industry insiders on his oversight team Letter to businesses Office of Congressional Ethics complaint

These are just open smear attempts, some even accusing him of enriching himself by favorably intervening on behalf of companies which the article itself states several paragraphs above that he divested himself from entirely upon election to congress. There needs to be a higher standard.

This clearly violates having a neutral point of view and verifiability if the allegations themselves have never come close to being verified and come from extremely poor sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.179.70 (talk) 00:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, its absolutely a smear attack written with biased partisan sources. En Wikipedia has a serious problem in the American political biographical sector with all its articles and neutrality. A majority of the long term experienced editors here are liberals and democrats so neutrality is sadly viewed through their eyes. I doubt if it will be possible to remove the partisan content, best of luck to anyone that tries, you will have to watch out for the wiki ban-hammer or be prepared to spend months and months, likely to no avail, talking it through with them on the talkpage. - Youreallycan 07:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that the IP was justified in removing the material twice (and reverted by two editors)? That the Watchdog Institute, now the Investigative Newsource is not a reliable source that can be used? Dougweller (talk) 08:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't look at the edit history just the current article and a few of the citations - however any editor is justified in a good faith attempt to make an article more neutral and less of a partisan attack , so if thats what the IP was doing then yes. I did warn him in regard to repeated reverting in regards to watch out for the ban-hammer. As for Investigative Newsource, its the first time I have seen it, it doesn't seem to be used much here? search returns and the watchdog-org redirect is only used in this single biography on en wikipedia - search returns- Youreallycan 08:34, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The included claims relating to other living people are, however, contrary to WP:BLP (persons "associated" with a named person do not equal a reason to post that innuendo about the named person in other articles absent actual RS strong sources for the claims). Collect (talk) 19:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vijay Kumar Singh

I am concerned about yet another "breaking news" Indian corruption scandal that may end up swamping a BLP. I would appreciate some thoughts regarding the coverage of both the date of birth and bribery allegation sections of this article. The d.o.b. one is now a past event & hopefully we can thus get a useful consensus regarding the level of detail etc.

I'll note this thread on the article talk page but, honestly, discussing this sort of thing there will not achieve much, in my experience. - Sitush (talk) 13:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was the person who suggested Sitush to start a thread here, as I think that the dispute about the General's date of birth should be extensively shortened because, as it is now, it is a clear violation of WP:UNDUE. And I'd also like to see the bribe offer section entirely removed; Wikipedia should not be used to spread gossips of juicy scandals – and, what's more, the General's involvement in the issue is only tangential.

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 13:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Salvio regarding the d.o.b. section. I am not sure that Singh's role in the bribery issue is tangential - he is the person alleging that he was offered a bribe. Nonetheless, I'd like to see it kept under control. Right now, it could probably be reduced to a single paragraph rather than the rolling news story that it is. - Sitush (talk) 13:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree the DOB section is WP:UNDUE and needs to be summarized. Editors have taken 5 of 20 sources and used them to create a section that is 50% or more of the article. As well, I don't like rolling news stories. There is no harm in having one or two sentences but anything more while the story is still developing is a misuse of the encyclopedia IMHO.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jack MacLellan

The article name "Jack MacLellan" should be spelled "Jack Maclellan". No capitalization of the L in Maclellan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.108.143.135 (talk) 20:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From a quick check on Google, it seems to be written both ways - though the "Maclellan" version seems more common. Ideally, a source that indicated which way he writes it himself would help. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:15, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

April Fools DYKs

Wikipedia:April_Fool's_Main_Page/Did_You_Know

Several of these involve jokes based around living people. Zhirinovsky's ass may be the worst (a reference to a Russian politician's donkey; the same word is not used for "donkey" and "buttocks" in Russian) but there are others; one idea is to suggest that a living person "blows up animals" while omitting the information that the hook is actually referring to balloons.

Can this ever be appropriate, sense of humor or not? Ken Arromdee (talk) 21:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Lurie

Done

Someone is repeatedly adding defamatory material (of a personal nature) to this page. I've removed it three times, but they persist. Can they be blocked? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jacob_Lurie&diff=484246404&oldid=484065603 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.7.71.210 (talk) 21:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The content has been removed, notices about our content policies placed on many of the user pages and the article has also been semi protected so that people who have not created an account cannot edit it. (Unfortunately, that also means that during the duration of the protection, you will not be able to edit the article directely either, unless you create an account.) -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reese Witherspoon

Resolved

– Ancestry sourcing examined, prose rectified. JFHJr (㊟) 22:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone is asserting that Reese Witherspoon is a descendant of John Witherspoon, signer of the Declaration of Independence. I have repeatedly edited this assertion to something more factual. I do not know who keeps changing the edits. Reese may be related to John Witherspoon the Signer, but she is definitely not a descendant of John, The Signer. What is the difference? To be a descendant, she would be a great(n) granddaughter of the Signer. I have worked with her father to establish the link and he has not or cannot. While it is possible that the two lines of Witherspoons may descend from some common ancestor, this has not been documented. There are two schools of thought about John the Signer being a descendant of John Knox, the reformer. Some Scottish genealogist say yes, others say no. But again, not a documented genealogical fact. As a Witherspoon the Signer descendant, I do have a comprehensive genealogy of his descendants. And I was raised with the John Knox story. I also know that there were several John Witherspoons in the Revolutionary War, and I do suspect that Reese could possibly tie to one of these patriots. But she is categorically not a descendant of John Witherspoon the Signer.

How do we clean up this error in a living persons bio? And ensure it does not sneak in again.

Regards, Jim Alexander, Wiki editor, and Registrar-General, The Society of the Descendants of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Signersbuff (talk • contribs) 00:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for posting here. I've noted that the claim you've referenced has been disputed. I've checked what's available among the sources in question, and I've rectified the article prose according to my understanding of the source itself: the subject claims this descent, but no reliable third party has published anything on her genealogy besides her own claim. I've no doubt the subject believes it, but the sources are reporting her statements about herself. Meanwhile, what you've brought here is original research, as well founded as it might be. It's not enough to do away with any claims altogether, but your challenge alone is enough to merit revision. If you want, feel free to follow up here or on the article talk page. Happy editing! JFHJr (㊟) 04:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A book published in 1877 cannot possibly support a claim about the ancestry of someone born in 1976. I have removed the assertion that she is a descendant of John Knox. She may or may not believe that, but we should not report anything unless and until a reliable source becomes available. Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A book published in 1877 could certainly support a claim of ancestry of someone born in 1976, if other sources can be used to trace back far enough to the people covered in the 1877 book. "Book says X was descended from Y. Other sources say Z is descended from X. WP:CALC Z is descended from Y". Gaijin42 (talk) 16:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Lively

In this edit [23] a living person is being characterized as "trying to harm ... people." This is a serious accusation. Do we need multiple sources as required by WP:WELLKNOWN? – Lionel ^(talk) 02:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marwan Parham

Dear Whom Ever It May Concern,

The information in the biography of MARWAN PARHAM is incorrect on many levels. I am the Managing Director of his company Bliss Inc Entertainment and his personal Manager for his professional DJ career, Marwan AKA DJ Bliss. I am also the creator of his Official Website www.djbliss.com.

We would like to request for this page to be removed and would like to create his page as authorized by Marwan Parham.

Kind Regards,

Tanya Julz Ivin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.97.61.26 (talk) 09:40, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman

This needs resolution, article talk is unable to develop consensus, and slow edit war (overwhelmed by massive number of productive edits elsewhere) is happening

George Zimmerman, shooter, made allegedly racist comments during incident, and allegedy racist statements in the past and had arrests but not convictions for assault and domestic violence

Trayvon Martin, victim, described as "on drugs or something", and "up to no good", "suspicious" during incident, has history of pot, grafitti, and theft, but no convictions

All information incredibly well sourced by both parties. All information is being added (or removed) without OR/SYNTH, just pure recitation of the facts as reported in MANY MANY MANY reliable sources, and in the case of Martin's past, publicly acknowledged by the parents, and an ongoing part of the controversy "They killed him, and now they are trying to kill his reputation"

There is consensus that the information regarding Zimmerman should be included. No consensus if the information for martin should be included. I believe it should be both, or neither. (personally I think both should be included) In both cases, the history informs the user about the participants past actions. In both cases the information provides no direct evidence as to what happened or didnt happen during the conflict. In both cases the information can be used to judge (by the reader, NOT OR/SYNTH in the article) the reliablility/accuracy of the statements by or about the participants.

Zimmerman is accused, by the family and the media of being a racist, and tendency to violence. Martin is accused, by Zimmerman as acting suspiciously, as if on drugs, and of violently attacking Zimmerman.

Either the background is relevant, or it isnt, but it is exceptionally widely reported, there are no real BLP/BDP issues as everything is sourced, notable, public, and acknowledged.

Gaijin42 (talk) 13:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be specific, here are the details that are being debated being included

Zimmerman : Arrest but not conviction for assaulting an officer, previous statements alleged to be racist attributed to zimmerman by neighbors (no actual proof they occured other than statements), restraining order against ex-fiance regarding domestic abuse (abuse alleged in both directions, both spouses subject to restraining order)

Martin : 3 school suspensions for 1) pot residue, 2) being in an unauthorized area of schoool while under suspicion of grafitti - and found with a backpack full of womens jewelry Martin said "was a friends" that he declined to name while in possession of a screwdriver on school described as "burglary tool", tardiness (obviously of lesser importance/relevance to the article).

In both cases no convictions, but were administrative actions taken by the relevant officials.Gaijin42 (talk) 13:54, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just because something is "widely reported" does not mean it is acceptable or appropriate for a Wikipedia article. see WP:BLP1E and WP:BLPCRIME for example. -- The Red Pen of Doom 13:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting policy does not help, everyone knows the policy. The question is does the policy prevent inclusion of one or both or none of the participants background. Additionally, the policy does not say "do not include", it says "give serious consideration". Thats what this debate is about. Also that policy specifically says "For people who are relatively unknown" which does not apply to either person at this point. Gaijin42 (talk) 13:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BLPCRIME says to defer to Wikipedia:WELLKNOWN for well known individuals. I think these two fit that criteria a this point. "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article — even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." That bar is far surpassed for all of this information. Gaijin42 (talk) 13:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I've argued on the article talk page, I think that histories relevant to the topic should be used, while everything else shouldn't. To whit, the reasons for Martin's suspensions has no relevance, so it shouldn't be in there. However, Zimmerman's history of violence seems relevant, and may be used. I have heard it argued, though, that we shouldn't detail histories of violence unless they resulting in convictions. Zimmerman has no "convictions", though it appears he did reach a deal on his resisting arrest with violence charge. If WP policy does explicitly ask us not to include incidents which didn't result in convictions, than the whole shebang should be excluded.LedRush (talk) 14:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zimmerman accused Martin of looking like he was on drugs. And up to no good. A history of drugs and behavior that directly qualifies as up to no good (trespass, graffiti, alleged theft) is not relevant? It is an alleged pattern of behavior in both the case of Zimmerman and Martin. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Our purpose here as Wikipedia editors is to provide an informative article for our readers. If something can be sourced to multiple high quality reliable sources, it probably belongs in the article. As WP:BLP says, "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article — even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, martin is dead, so the protection of BLP are significantly weakened. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know I, and others, have made this argument on the article talk page, but just to get it on the record here, I want to respond to comments regarding the suspension for pot possession. Firstly, there wasn't even a criminal charge, nontheless a conviction. This adds weight to the argument that it shouldn't be noted, but is not dispositive. More importantly, the fact that Martin had been suspended for possession of pot has absolutely no relevance to the shooting incident. Zimmerman had no knowledge of this, and therefore the fact that he told the operator that Martin looked like he was on drugs is neither more or less reasonable with the information regarding pot possession. What including the information does is insinuate that either Martin was indeed on drugs or that Zimmerman had reason to believe he was. The former is a clear WP:BLP violation, and the second is factually untrue as Zimmerman had no knowledge of the prior events. If, however, the toxicology report comes back and it is shown that Martin was on drugs at the time of the incident, we must include that information. Martin's state at the time of the incident is the only information that can inform the actions of Zimmerman and Martin during the incident.LedRush (talk) 17:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A past history involving drugs, when related to a later insinuation of drugs, has the exact same relevance that a past history of violence, or racism has to a later insinuation of violence and racism. A pattern of past behavior makes an accusation of later behavior more plausible. It is not direct evidence. But If I said I saw Lindsay Lohan drunk and high, most people would believe me. They would not believe me if I said the same thing about one of Obama's kids. This has nothing to do of if I personally happened to know about their previous history (or non history). Zimmerman accused martin of acting suspiciously. The readers deserve to know that Martin had some history of trouble that makes that a plausible (not necessarily factual) accusation. They also deserve to know that Zimmerman has a past history of alleged racism (be on the lookout for black youth), which makes the accusation LESS plausible. For us to decide that one or both are not relevant is clear OR and POV, when the practically infinite number of RS, including both media and official agencies have said it is relevant (but again not definitive)Gaijin42 (talk) 19:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

← This is basically one step away from bringing up a rape victim's sexual history to try to discredit them. One has the right to go to the store to pick up snacks for one's family without being accosted by a large, angry, armed man and ultimately shot to death. A previous school suspension for marijuana has exactly zero bearing on that right. If Martin had a history of violence (as, apparently, did Zimmerman) then that might have some bearing on this particular act of violence. But bringing up the fact that a high school kid apparently used marijuana is evidently an effort to insinuate that he somehow brought what happened on himself. That's the reality of how high-profile cases are tried in the media, but it's beneath us to be party to it. That's WP:BLP in a nutshell. MastCell ^Talk 19:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are putting words into my mouth. I did not say he deserved it. I think he did not, and Zimmerman should be tried. Zimmerman is being called a racist for the things he said and his suspicion of Martin. Removing all things that might corroborate that suspicion is POV against zimmerman. Martins past has no impact at all on the actual shooting. It DOES have impact on zimmeramns decision to find him suspicious, follow him, call the police on him. The ONLY information directly related to the shooting, is what was happening in the 10 seconds prior to the shooting, if zimmerman was getting beat or not, if martin reached for the gun or not, made a death threat or not (all not-proved allegations from zimmerman) and who started the physical confrontation. But there are MANY things relevant to the events that immediately preceded the shooting. the past behavior and prejudices of BOTH participants ARE absolutely relevant to if zimmerman was justified in being suspicions in the first place. If he was not justified in having the initial suspicion, then that increases the probability he is a racist, and increases the probability the shooting was directly due to his racist mindset. If he was justified, that decreases the chance he was acting under a racist mindset as well. WE ARE NOT IN A POSITION TO DECIDE. To claim the information is irrelevant is to be directly making this decision on behalf of the readers and is OR and POV. it is absolutely a POV to decide that information is not relevant, and that POV is NOT SUPPORTED BY POLICY. WP:WELLKNOWN WP:VERIFIABILITY WP:BLD If you thin you are supported by policy, please quote the specific passages of the policy that you think preclude this information.Gaijin42 (talk) 20:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But it doesn't have an impact on Zimmerman's decision to find him suspicious etc. etc. Zimmerman did not know these things when he decided to follow Martin. These are being brought up after the fact in order to justify Zimmerman's actions. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How, exactly, would Zimmerman have known that Martin was suspended from school? Wait, I understand - you want the article to say he was suspended from school so we insinuate that he was a drug addict, and thus Zimmerman should have shot him? Got it. Yeah, you probably shouldn't edit articles about people. We don't insinuate negative things about people. Hipocrite (talk) 20:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My logic has nothng to do with zimmerman knowing about the suspensions. It has to do with the plausability of martin actually and objectively acting suspiciously at the time. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

your "plausibility" has headed into untenable grounds. it may impact your personal belief, but cannot be used in any form in an article without actual specific sources making the "plausibiity" claim.-- The Red Pen of Doom 21:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Gaijin42, you're kind of digging yourself deeper and deeper here...if your reason for including the information is because it makes it seem as though Martin was "objectively acting suspiciously," you really need to reexamine your commitment to NOR and NPOV. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MastCell and LedRush are right. Martin's "trouble" is not relevant to the incident and only serves to make the unsupported-by-sources implication that Zimmerman had a reason to shoot him; it does not belong in the article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zimmerman said that he thought Martin was acting like he was on drugs, so if Martin has a history of drug use, it is relevant. It's no different than Zimmerman having a history of violence. But honestly, I'm really not comfortable with this line of reasoning because this rationale violates our policy on NPOV: using our own personal opinions to overrule what reliable sources say on this topic.

But ultimately, we exist to serve our readers. By omitting key parts of the controversy from the article, we leave our readers less informed. If a reader says to themselves, "Hey, what's this I hear about Martin getting suspended from school for marijuana?" or "what this I hear about Zimmerman making a racist comment?". If they come to our article and we don't cover it, we have done them a disservice. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We are WP:NOT a tabloid. This makes as much sense as "teach the controversy" does in science class. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The autopsy report hasn't been released yet. If it says that Martin was on drugs at the time he was shot, then the marijuana incident, as LedRush said, becomes relevant. Until then, or if it comes back clean, Zimmerman's speculation that his victim was on drugs is meaningless to us. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:29, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about "up to no good"? There will be no autopsy findings that can show that, and some of the suspension were definitely for things that were "up to no good" - grafitti, backpack full of jewelry. There is no evidence that Martin had already engaged in a crime while on the walk, but the backpack indicates he may have been involved in crimes in the past, and may have been acting suspicius (casing?). This is counterbalanced by Zimmermans alleged racism (hypothetically seeing all blacks as criminals?) and mall-cop attitude that may have seen completely innocent behavior as suspicius. We should let the reader evaluate both of their histories and decide which one is more plausible. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We don't insinuate to the reader that persons were engaging in crimes when no reliable source has said that said that persons were engaging in crimes. I am not kidding - you really need to stop now. Your willingness to defame the recently dead without reliable sources is rapidly reaching the point where you will be sanctionable under WP:BLPSE. Hipocrite (talk) 20:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bring it on. HE IS DEAD. BLP does not apply. I am not insinuating he was acting suspiciously. HE WAS DIRECTLY ACCUSED OF THIS BY ZIMMERMAN. As a result, zimmerman has been called a racist. Nobody knows what martin was doing. Martin does have a history of things that people would consider suspicious. Therefore, it is possible and plausible, he actually WAS engaged in such behavior at that time. this in no way justifies his being killed. stop putting words into my mouth. It also does not prove he was engaged in such action. Zimmerman has made statements many consider to be racist. This makes it possible, and plausible that he was a racist bastard who hates black kids. we do not know. we should let the reader make their own opinion. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"However, material about dead people that has implications for their living relatives and friends, particularly in the case of recent deaths, is covered by this policy." We do, in fact, know what Martin was doing. Reliable sources have reported that he was returning from a 7-11 with tea and skittles. The only words being put in to your mouth are yours, when you say that we need to insinuate to the reader that Martin was "casing" (your word) or "acting suspicius" (your word). Please find reliable sources for your racism. Hipocrite (talk) 21:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, there's a big difference between saying "Martin was acting suspiciously" and "Zimmerman said that Martin was acting suspiciously". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And it's in the article now that Zimmerman said that. What's not in the article now is the proposal that the article say "Zimmerman said Martin was acting suspiciously. Martin was suspended from school for being in an unauthorized area, vandalzing, and having MJ residue in his backpack, so who KNOWS what he was doing - We report, YOU DECIDE," which is what's being proposed here. Hipocrite (talk) 21:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Articles on controversial topics like this are always a mess, and I try to stay out of them, preferring to offer advice at a distance. The article is rapidly changing and it's been a couple days since I last read it. I see now that it says "Martin's suspicious behavior" in Wikipedia's voice. That's not right. Nobody know whether Martin was acting suspiciously. We only know that Zimmerman said he was acting suspiciously. We need to be very careful on how we phrase things. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This has now been fixed.[24] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I consider you calling me a racist a personal attack. why dont you take a look at WHO FUCKING STARTED THE ARTICLE, and the edits I put in, before you call me a racist.We DO NOT know what martin's actions were. We know what martins parents SAID his actions were, and they were not there. I am absolutly not saying that we should put into the article that martin was casing the homes. I am saying zimmerman said he was suspicious. Martin had previously acted in ways that are suspicious. It is directly relevant to if Zimmerman is completely making shit up or not, or might have actually seen something. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)No, it has nothing to do with being tabloid. Do you think we should ommit the Monica Lewinski scandal from Bill Clinton's article? Of course, not. And we do have an article on Intelligent design. It's a Featured article if I recall correctly. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"But ultimately, we exist to serve our readers" - as an encyclopedia. I really dont think that it is Wikipedia's responsibility or that we are actually serving our readers either short term or long term when we specifically vere from presenting encyclopedic coverage in favor of "clearing up" potential misinformation in current public media circuses. That easily leads to UNDUE focus on ephemeral, emotional trivia. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Roscelese that the Trayvon/marijuna residue suspension is irrelevant unless and until a positive toxicology report is released. Let's also remember that 'possession' (of residue) is different from 'under the influence', and that school violations are significantly different from arrests and convictions or incidents resolved by the criminal justice system. Keeping POV out of this article is very difficult, and I hope everyone can engage in some introspection. Part of that difficulty is the scope of the article itself. It's too early to characterize the meta-event, and yet that is the scope. I think in these cases, less is more, and simple is preferable, knowing that over the course of time, just what all this was about will become clearer and less controversial. ArishiaNishi (talk) 21:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A comment from someone who has so far stayed out of this dispute: I think that one or two editors may need to be reminded that Wikipedia is not a court of law. We are not here to present 'evidence for the prosecution', or 'evidence for the defence'. Our readers are not jurors, assigned with the duty of determining innocence or guilt. This is an online encyclopaedia, and we should confine ourselves to summarising, accurately but briefly, the more cogent details of the events around which the article is centred, in due proportion to the weight assigned by such sources - with the obvious proviso that we consider tabloid tittle-tattle etc of little merit. We do not have to cover every bit of 'evidence' that might be seen as significant at a later trial - if for no other reason than that we should not be engaging in crystal-ball-gazing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Gaijin. Both sides of this story belong in this article, good or bad. As long as the information is presented in a non-biased view, then we have done our job of creating a complete and informative article that a reader will be able to access and come away with their own opinions. That is what WP was designed for was to create a source of information that is presented in a NPOV that leaves the reader with the satisfaction that he was presented with "all' of the information and not had certain information ommited or censored. We leave it to the reader to form an opinion for themselves, after being presented with all of the reliaby sourced facts in this case.Isaidnoway (talk) 03:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Reynolds (Politician)

I am a close friend and associate of Peter Reynolds'. The content I see and the link I forwarded to him are not the same. One states he is the leader of CLEAR, and the link I forwarded to him states that he is self-appointed and is libelous slander. I have requested a new password and requested permission to edit, but I do not recall my password and am still awaiting a response with a new link to reset my password. I can absolutely state that the link I sent him is filled with false, slanderous information. He is indeed the leader of CLEAR, and has been subject to "infighting" and endless attacks in the UK. I live in the US, and am a very close friend and associate/assistant. Please assist me immediately in rectifying this misinformation. Mr. Reynolds will validate that he has authorized me to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.255.239.151 (talk) 13:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. This article has recently been the subject of vandalism, so you probably encountered it at an inopportune moment. Please note, though, that it is not considered OK on Wikipedia to delete the contents of an article, as you did twice earlier today, without the agreement of other community members. If articles are not in a good state, they should be improved using what is there as a starting point. Because this article is a biography, its information should be cited to reliable sources. This is not the case at the moment, so if you wanted to go through the process to get it deleted you may well be successful: WP:AfD. Thanks. FormerIP (talk) 21:40, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Adams (theatre actor)

Is http://instinctmagazine.com/blogs/blog/instinct-cover-guy-nick-adams-discriminated-against a reliable source for making the specific WP:BLP contentious claim [25]

He is openly gay.

My reading of that blog from "Instinct magazine" fails to make that statement, as it only states he has a "boyfriend" which, as far as I can tell, is not sufficient to aver "openly gay." Collect (talk) 14:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Really? The fact that he titled the post "Turtle Gay", mentions his boyfriend, and compares himself against other people in the area who are straight? And was on the cover of a gay magazine?Gaijin42 (talk) 15:37, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that someone is "openly gay" is only "contentious" when the person is not in fact openly gay. I'm fully on board with the notion that we wouldn't describe someone like Ted Haggard as openly gay. But it really isn't necessary to "protect" someone like Nick Adams. Q for Collect: is it "contentious" to say that someone is "openly straight"? (Oh, sure, there's no need to in most cases because being straight is "normal" and therefore assumed -- though that point reinforces the point of asking my question.) Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All the discussions on BLP have reached a conclusion that sexual orientation is not a matter of surmise by non-RS sources, no matter how certain one is that he is "openly gay."

Note specifically:

Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources.

Which clearly applies here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "surmise" here. Adams identifies himself as gay in the blog post in question. Let's end this charade about how naming out gay people as gay on Wikipedia is the worst thing ever. (Incidentally, Nomoskedasticity, Haggard is out as bi.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find no such comment in the blog. Nor is the blog even written by Adams. BLPCAT is policy. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The blog http://thenickadams.blogspot.com/2009/07/turtle-gay.html, linked to from http://www.nickadams.biz/ which IS nick adams self identified blog and biz sites, containing all of his contact information included the lines "They screwed with the wrong gay. ", "looked at my boyfriend then smirked" "then watched a group of straight guys" and named the post "Turtle Gay"

http://micahjesse.com/interviews/spotlight-nick-adams-queen-of-broadway-micah-jesse-interview/ "Did you struggle with that? Were you picked on?

NA: Absolutely, I think that’s why I was so excited to find the arts community because I felt like I could be myself and what I was good at was celebrated. At school, kids would make fun of me for doing shows, so I’d try to keep that a secret, but being gay was a whole different thing."

http://greginhollywood.com/nick-adams-talks-to-advocatecom-about-nyc-club-gay-snub-and-using-the-internet-to-spread-the-word-9218 "“It’s been tough times for [the gay community], and I think people are more sensitive now to little things like this that, in 2009, are just unacceptable. And especially with the help of the Internet — we’re a strong community, we have a lot of pride, and I think it’s beautiful to see people I don’t know back me up on this and say, ‘We shouldn’t have to deal with this.’”"

http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/01/12/Nick_Adams_Likes_Ryan_Reynolds_Abs/ "Nick Adams, the out Broadway star who's as well known "

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaijin42 (Gaijin42) 22:41, 29 March 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

Adams has stated his sexual orientation on his blog (which BLP explicitly permits as a source), in an It Gets Better video which covers both the primary and secondary bases because it was covered by the Advocate, in interview after interview. There is no special secret clause of WP:BLP that says "ignore everything else written here if you really really want to censor someone's sexual orientation." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:47, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Kahneman

Resolved

– Content sourced. JFHJr (㊟) 23:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

in the wikipedia article / page for daniel kahneman, under the personal life heading, dr. kahneman is erroneously described as being married to Anne Treisman. because i know the kahneman family personally - kahneman's son lives in my apartment building and is a close friend of mine - and i take care of the kahnemans' computer & IT needs in tel aviv (where mrs. kahneman - her name is irah - and their son, michael both reside), i can assure you that she is not anne treisman. additionally, whoever thought that kahneman is married to anne treisman, apparently also wrote the wikipedia article / page for her as well, because it once again incorrectly lists her as being married to kahneman. i believe the author may have been confused because kahneman & treisman have worked together and are both princeton faculty members. kahneman's wife, irah, is not a professor and lives here in tel aviv not far from where i reside. please rectify this error as expeditiously as possible as this seems somewhat disrespectful to his actual wife, and i feel that daniel & irah deserve better, more accurate treatment - not to mention your readers.

if you are still not convinced of the error, please see this publication by kahneman, which he dedicated to his wife irah, his son, michael, and his daughter lenore.

http://www.princeton.edu/~kahneman/docs/attention_and_effort/Attention_lo_quality.pdf

thanks very much beau schutz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.186.13.185 (talk) 14:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced, so removed. Please feel free to do this yourself next time. But thanks for letting us know in any event. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-added it with a reference: Daniel Kahneman's Autobiography on nobelprize.org. Anne Treisman is his second wife. In his Nobel Prize autobiography Kahneman writes about both his first wife, Irah, and about Treisman whom he met in 1965 and married 12 years later. Voceditenore (talk) 15:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure the information is current? I take the point that Irah was his first wife -- I'm only wondering whether there have been any changes since 2002. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to this Treisman and Kahneman were still married in September 2011 (7 months ago). I'm not sure, how much recent it needs to be. Voceditenore (talk) 15:29, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me -- certainly better than a source 10 years old. thanks, Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:29, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note also the Acknowledgements page of his 2011 book, Thinking, Fast and Slow. Voceditenore (talk) 15:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marty Morrissey

This page regarding an Irish TV/Radio journalist is the subject of repeated alterations. I believe that accounts may be being set up just to amend this page. Not sure where this is coming from, probably an Irish forum like Boards.ie

I can't sit here making changes all day, I'll check back later. Is there any way to lock a page like this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ByrneD (talk • contribs) 16:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are currently no glaring problems with this BLP; you've reverted the vandalism. The same vandal appears to have vandalized other BLPs; these were also corrected through normal editing. If you think this article is of particular concern, you might consider requesting semi-protection at WP:RPP (protection from IPs and/or new accounts). BLPN is not the correct forum. Bear in mind that if a protection request at RPP is successful, you will be unable to edit the article as well, since you have a very limited editing history. In the meantime, I'll be happy to watch for further vandalism. JFHJr (㊟) 23:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 565: / Line 565: @@
 <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/Gaijin42|Gaijin42]] ([[User talk:Gaijin42|Gaijin42]]) 22:41, 29 March 2012‎ (UTC)</span>
+::Adams has stated his sexual orientation on his blog (which BLP ''explicitly'' permits as a source), in an It Gets Better video which covers both the primary and secondary bases because it was covered by the ''Advocate'', in interview after interview. There is no special secret clause of [[WP:BLP]] that says "ignore everything else written here if you really really want to censor someone's sexual orientation." –[[User:Roscelese|Roscelese]] ([[User talk:Roscelese|talk]] &sdot; [[Special:Contributions/Roscelese|contribs]]) 04:47, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 == Daniel Kahneman ==

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards