Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

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

Narendra Modi

In the article about Narendra Modi, There is a section "Uttarakhand Controversy". This section has neither any verifiable authentic primary source nor citation about any authentic claim by the party concerned. It clearly violates the policy about BLP.

Policies about what articles should say Three main policies cover content:

1) neutral point of view (all articles must take a fair, balanced and neutral stance), 2) verifiability (facts in articles must be verifiable from reliable sources), and 3) original research (users' and editors' opinions and "popular knowledge" are not suitable for encyclopedia articles). A fourth core content policy on biographies of living persons states that biographical articles must be written to the highest standard using only high-quality sources, and provides for more drastic handling of errors or problems in such articles.

The Uttarakhand controversy is poorly sourced, includes unverified statements (unreliable sources of Times of India which mentions as "sources in BJP"; name of no big leader/ press statement cited), without any original reserach/investigation. This was even clarified by the newspaper later.

Hence this section needs to be deleted as it is in clear violation of Wikipedia policies(policy no 2, 3 and fourth core content policy) stated above.

The section is purely an act of vandalism.

And since the article is protected, one cannot edit it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.212.144.141 (talk • contribs)

Lists of "Rampage killers"

If you manage to wade through Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of rampage killers you will see that I am having a bit of trouble communicating with User:Lord Gøn, a single-purpose account whose focus is "rampage killers". Note that we currently have no article on Rampage killers although we have several sortable lists of them. One BLP issue with those lists has now been fixed (the editor was including people on the lists of "killers" who had not killed anyone because they "intended" to kill people) but one question remains problematic.

WP:BLP could not be clearer that "A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law" but Lord Gøn insists on the rightness of including people who references only say have been "arrested". In some cases, the perpetrator of such a crimes may be found not responsible for the crime because of mental disease or defect, but that is not the situation we are discussing here. These are people who have been arrested for the crimes but we do not know if they have stood trial and been found guilty, are awaiting trial, have been exonerated, or have been diverted to a mental health facilty - all we know is that they were arrested.

It seems like a blatantly obvious violation of WP:BLP to include these people in lists of "rampage killers", but perhaps wider discussion is necessary. I will invite Lord Gøn to participate. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:58, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

One comment... I've asked Delicious carbuncle to tag or remove the BLP violations but, as yet, there's been no activity. Perhaps someone can convince this editor to do something about the problem, rather than just forum shop at Jimbo's talkpage, or AFD, or here. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Not much point in removing them if the main editor of these lists is adamant about putting them back and/or adding more in the future. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Another bad faith accusation. Looks like you're trying to collect 'em all... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I can only go by what Lord Gøn says, but I didn't start this discussion so that you could continue being a WP:DICK, I started it to get other opinions about the specific question that has been raised. You know where my talk page is if you aren't going to comment on that topic. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, by now it's clear you have some kind of DICK obsession, I'm not interested in that. You have identified an article with one, two (how many?) BLP violations, but instead of fixing the violations, you've run to Jimbo, run to AFD, run to this noticeboard to get someone else to do the work. Good effort! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:38, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

1) The fact that we don't have a "rampage killer" article is completely irrelevant. We have articles about topics that are very similar, and if you wish, you could try to get the article renamed to one of those. This is a reason to rename the article, but not to delete it.

2) All rules, including BLP, are subject to IAR. There are several reasons why someone might be an unconvicted killer, such as being not guilty by reason of insanity, being incompetent to stand trial, having diplomatic immunity, or being in a country where such killers are tried in secret. Rampage killers generally kill in an extremely public manner leaving lots of witnesses and evidence such that there is no doubt that the person accused did the killing, even if they escaped conviction because of insanity or some other such reason. If BLP is phrased such that we can't call them killers, that's just a badly worded rule that should be ignored. Furthermore, the fact that it is possible for the law to decide "this person killed, but has not committed a crime" implies that *we* can likewise say "this person has killed" without accusing them of committing a crime, so the policy isn't even worded badly--you're just misinterpreting it. Ken Arromdee (talk) 01:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Ken, I twice explained to you that you are discussing a completely different scenario (here & here). Perhaps someone else can try to explain the difference between what you are describing and simply having no information other than someone was arrested. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:15, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• Since you are referring me here to continue our discussion, here I am. Though I really don't know in how many different places this discussion has to be started, because imho one would've been sufficient, and that is Talk:List of rampage killers.

Anyway, you are selectively quoting BLPCRIME, and I ask you to read it again, in its entirety, including the footnotes, because after your quote above it continues to say that we should seriously consider not to include material suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured. That does not mean "never do that", but "consider if it is necessary and well sourced". Please take notice of footnote 6, which states, quote: "BLPCRIME applies to low-profile individuals and not to well-known individuals, in whose cases WP:WELLKNOWN is the appropriate policy to follow." And then take a look at WP:WIALPI what constitutes as a low profile individual, quote: "Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable." Now you tell me that someone running into a mall, shooting a dozen people is not actively seeking media attention. As the Westroads mall shooter wrote regarding his upcoming shooting spree: "I'm gonna be fuckin famous." Anybody going on a rampage is doing so either with the clear intention to, or at least with the knowledge that he will become the focus of media attention, and therefore BLPCRIME does not apply and your argument falls flat. (Lord Gøn (talk) 12:48, 3 September 2013 (UTC))

First off, the discussion is here because so that editors other than you and I will weigh in. Secondly, you are misreading why WP:BLPCRIME exists in the first place. It suggests that if someone has a WP biography but is not a widely-known figure, don't include accusations of crimes in their biography. Thirdly, you cannot assume the intentions of the alleged perpetrators. In the case you cite, we can rely on his words, but it is not reasonable to assume that this is true of all cases. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

As I see it, there are no restrictions for other editors to post at the talk-page of list of rampage killers, or the AfD, so anyone wanting to weigh in and state his, or her opinion could as well do it there, too.

And no, I am not misreading BLPCRIME, you are. BLP applies to any person still alive, not only to those who have a WP article. Any living person mentioned in an article is subject to BLP, no matter if he/she is notable enough for an entire article. But any person that is actually notable enough for his/her own article, is probably high-profile enough to not be subject to BLPCRIME, because it is very specific in that it does only apply to low profile persons.

The victim of a mass shooting, for example, would be a low profile individual, because it did not actively seek out media attention, but just happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time, so to add that said victim had defrauded 100,000 dollars from his employer, that would be covered by BLPCRIME, and should be removed, if it is unsourced, or irrelevant in the context the person is presented.

But the shooter himself? No, never. There's probably no more drastic way of attention seeking than to shoot up a public place, so the act alone is enough that the perpetrators cease to be low profile. But if you want to say that we don't know if they did it, as long as they have merely been arrested, then you have severe misconceptions of how a rampage killing is generally executed. These are not crimes where the perpetrator walks in, does his deed and then escapes, with the police arriving some time afterwards, doing its investigation and then arresting a suspect days, weeks, or maybe months later due to circumstancial evidence. No, what they do is walking in, attacking people until they are either overwhelmed by their victims, or until police arrives, whereupon they either commit suicide, get shot by police, or are arrested. It rarely even happens that one of them flees his killing grounds, they just stay there, and kill, until they are stopped, so there's almost never any question who did it, and in those very few cases where it is so, I refrain from adding the perpetrator's name, or the entire cases, e.g. the Glynn County Mass Murder. (Lord Gøn (talk) 18:33, 3 September 2013 (UTC))

Adding an unconvicted living person a list of rampage killers because you 'know they did it' is a violation of WP:BLP policy, plain and simple. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

What if the sources clearly state he did it, with no ambiguity whatsoever? Ain't Wikipedia about verifyability, not truth? (Lord Gøn (talk) 18:53, 3 September 2013 (UTC))

If what you say about these kinds of crimes is true, and I believe it is, then there will be very few cases where this issue comes up. If they have committed suicide or have been killed, then it isn't a BLP issue, since they are no longer a living person. If they have only been arrested, then you cannot add them to a list of "killers" (or "attackers" if the list criteria get changed). There would be more leeway in a full article where you could discuss what has been reported by credible sources, but there's no way you can put someone's name in a list of killers without the reader drawing the conclusion that they are a killer. And, despite your opinions, we wait until the courts have decided if they are killers or not. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:17, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, let's agree to disagree on that matter forever. You say, naming the arrested person can never be done, I say common sense demands to state the obvious, and not naming someone like Anders Breivik as the perpetrator, with or without conviction, will make us look like complete buffoons. As I have previously stated there have been edit wars about naming Jared Lee Loughner and James Eagan Holmes in the list, and they were eventually settled by adding that they were suspects. Anyway, no matter if we name the arrested person or not, any reported rampage killing that corresponds to the list's terms of inclusion should be added, and then we have to write something into the perpetrator-cell. (Lord Gøn (talk) 23:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC))

If you write the name of an unconvicted person into a column marked 'perpetrator', you violate WP:BLP policy. If you violate WP:BLP policy you are liable to be blocked from editing, regardless of whether you disagree with the policy or not. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:16, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I know that you see it that way, you've said so several times. I know that others see it the way I do. Also this is not a matter of disagreeing with the policy, just with the interpretation of what it actually says. (Lord Gøn (talk) 23:29, 3 September 2013 (UTC))

I have yet to see anyone agree with your interpretation. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:18, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLP policy is entirely clear regarding such matters - there is no room for 'interpretation': "A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law". AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:26, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• DC asked for new opinions. I'll be one. It looks like the AFD is quite clear, the list/article is needed, if possibly under a different name. I agree with DC's point that we need to be quite certain that anyone we call a rampage killer is one, this is a very highly derogatory claim; if there is any reasonable chance that someone isn't one, they should not be in this list. But I also agree with Ken's point that this does not mean they have to have been convicted of murder; one obvious example besides the one he mentioned is that many of these folks died at the end of their rampage, and the state didn't go through the bother of trying their corpse. So we need to go case by case. If there is any case that is still in doubt, it should not be on this list.--GRuban (talk) 18:44, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Agreed, thanks. It seems pretty obvious to me that any BLP violation should be removed. It didn't need an AFD for that. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
• From the discussion here, it sounds like the guidelines would be something like:
  • If a suspect has been arrested, but not convicted, we can't list them there. There's no deadline, we can wait until they are convicted or plead guilty. We wouldn't want to be complicit in a case like Richard Jewell, and that's exactly why we have BLP. Yes, that may mean some dead obvious listings will be delayed for a bit, but that's not the end of the world. If the event is in itself notable, we can have an article on it, explaining the situation in enough detail to satisfy BLP.
  • If a suspect has been found incompetent to stand trial or not guilty by reason of insanity, but it's beyond doubt that they were the killer, I think inclusion would generally be appropriate.
  • If the killer committed suicide or was killed during the attack, and it was certain that they were the attacker, inclusion is acceptable.
  • Obviously, those convicted of such an attack may be included.
• Anyone else's thoughts? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:33, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I concur with Seraphimblade's assessment. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:18, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I think this contradicts itself--the first says they must be convicted but the second lays out cases (incompetence, not guilty by reason of insanity) where they don't need to be convicted. Ken Arromdee (talk) 14:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Isn't "not guilty by reason of insanity" a court finding? And in the case of incompetence to stand trial there never can be a court finding, although the facts may be clear. On the whole, I think Seraphimblade's criteria make sense. If editors want, I could create an WP:Editnotice for the articles concerned, laying out the inclusion criteria. This would show up whenever anyone clicks one of the Edit tabs. Andreas JN466 15:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

So, what's the difference between the many mentions of the "accused" in the 2012 Aurora shooting and a note saying that the "accused" is still accused in the list? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:39, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

The difference is that the list is labelled 'killers'. And before anyone asks, you can't Wikilawyer around inclusion by saying that 'the list only states that they are accused'. If they haven't been convicted, they don't meet any reasonable criteria for inclusion in the first place. If the criteria includes 'alleged killers', the list title would have to be 'List of alleged rampage killers' - which would still violate WP:BLP policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:14, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

So the article on the Aurora shootings uses "alleged" many times, any reason why this shouldn't apply to the list? After all, the article is called "2012 Aurora shooting" and if there's an implication that someone did it (i.e. did the "shooting"), as described therein, there's no difference, right? In fact, this "alleged" killer has his own article. So, once again, why would we remove him from the list if it was adequately noted that he's still only accused? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:32, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

It is reasonable and likely that a reader will assume that anyone in a list called "List of rampage killers" is a rampage killer. That is not true of the article about the event. We also treat things in list articles differently from articles devoted to a particular subject. This seems a good time to point out that renaming the list to something like "List of alleged rampage killers" is a non-starter. Media reports may identify people as the "alleged" or "suspected" perpetrator, but going from that to "rampage killer" becomes an exercise in original research. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:12, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Ah, eventually you are mentioning the one point that actually may apply, and if I were you, I would've constructed my entire argumentation around it. Yes, it is true that BLP demands to treat lists differently and to not add any information that may suggest a person has committed a crime, but I have addressed this part in a previous comment already, and still think, that if there is no reasonable chance that the arrested was not the actual offender, which is the case in most rampage killings, then the rule should be ignored, because it is an immoderate impediment to the addition of relevant information.

You probably see this issue entirely from the point of rigidly enforcing Wiki policies, whereas I see it from a more scientific point of view, asking myself, what kind of information would I want to have present in such a list, so it helps me to find more on the subject. And the name of the arrested is doubtlessly of great value in this regard, so to me this is an obvious case of WP:IAR.

Also, there are apparently people who agree with my pov, because, as I said, there have been edit wars about the removal of names on grounds of BLP, and their eventual settlement was to add "suspect" either after the perps name, or in the additional notes, so it's not as if there wasn't some sort of community consensus already how to handle this. (Lord Gøn (talk) 11:38, 5 September 2013 (UTC))

Please read and absorb what people here have said. This isn't a case where "ignore all rules" is going to work for you. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I did read what the others have to say about it, and if the community comes to a different conclusion than I do, so be it. I simply wanted to say that it may be detrimental to the providing of useful information. (Lord Gøn (talk) 15:28, 5 September 2013 (UTC))

It may well be just easier to remove the "alleged" rampage killers in this case, although Delicious carbuncle's assertion that list articles are treated differently from articles is ignorant of current editing behaviour. Lists are articles, just a different type. They should be referenced just as an article should be referenced. They should stand alone. Just because some editors don't follow this, it doesn't make it right. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:04, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Since I'm already in complete agreement with Seraphimblade's assessment and criteria, thereby considering this discussion done, I just want to say I have a problem with the word "killer" being used when we're then using criteria from the judicial system, which btw "killing" is not a crime. Murder and manslaughter are crimes, requiring more to the facts than just someone "killed" someone, you have to reach certain criteria to be indicted, even before you ever have the chance to be convicted. You can kill in self-defense, and never be brought to trial but technically you ARE a killer. You can kill a deer, you're a killer, but did you commit a crime? (depends on the season I suppose). I guess it's part of the reason I get upset when someone says "Thou shall not kill" instead of "Thou shall not murder" (there's a difference and only one is found in the Bible).

As a further aside "innocent till proven guilty" technically doesn't occur under the US Constitution, it's one of those "exists in the penumbra" rights, drawn forth from the 5, 6, and 14th amendments and the common law heritage of the US; though as a signer of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights the US is bound by its statement of "presumed innocent until proven guilty" which per the US Constitution all treaties have full force as the "supreme law of the land" as if they were a part of the US Constitution, regardless of any conflict with state or federal law or even the Constitution itself.Camelbinky (talk) 19:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

The US constitution is a red herring: "A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law" is WP:BLP policy. And no, you can't Wikilawyer round it by claiming that calling someone a 'rampage killer' isn't an assertion that they have murdered. It clearly is. Anyway, this discussion has gone on quite long enough, and it is entirely clear that inclusion of an unconvicted living individual in a 'list of killers' is a gross violation of policy, regardless of attempts to suggest otherwise. Frankly, I'm astonished that anyone remotely familiar with Wikipedia policy should suggest otherwise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:01, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Let's not be too categorical, and take it case by case. In general I agree with you, but being categorical that way leads to, for example, needing to delete most of the FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives list as evading arrest is a crime, and yet many of them have not actually been convicted of evading arrest... There will be cases, as discussed above, when people who have not been convicted for various reasons will still be fine on that list. --GRuban (talk) 21:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that's a bit apples to oranges. If we say someone's on the FBI's 10 Most Wanted list, and they in fact are, that's a simple factual statement. It's not saying they're guilty of a crime, it's saying they're wanted by the FBI and on the Most Wanted list, and they verifiably are. On the other hand, saying someone is a "rampage killer", when they are only accused of a rampage killing, is not a correct statement. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:51, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Since it seems we're at a pretty good place here, unless anyone objects, I'll go ahead with Andreas' suggestion of an edit notice. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Kidnapping of Hannah Anderson

Two different IP addresses and one seldom posting user, most certainly the same person just using different accounts to not break the three revert edit war rule, keeps adding the word "allegedly" before the word "abducted", despite the police already concluding he did kidnap the girl. Discussion on the talk page has not convinced this person. Talk:Kidnapping_of_Hannah_Anderson#allegedly_abducted_is_slanderous_horrible_BLP_violation Some familiar with BLP issues, please look into this. To accuse the girl of lying, saying its only "alleged" she was kidnapped, and insinuating she was part of the murder of her family members, I believe is slanderous and a BLP violation. Please join the discussion there. Dream Focus 18:48, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

My sense is that the editor(s) who are proposing to insert/have inserted the words "alleged" and "allegedly" have done so because they are being legalistic and exercising what they see as an abundance of caution, since the sole suspect (now deceased) has never and will never be tried for and/or convicted of the crime. I do not think that the inclusion of these qualifiers impunes the integrity of the victim (and only remaining witness to the events), and so I do not think they violate guidelines for WP:BLP. There has been much debate in Talk about whether these qualifiers are necessary or even appropriate given the facts of the case. I think they are not, but I don't see their insertion as a BLP issue. If someone tried to explicitly introduce the theory (which exists, in some limited circles) in the article that the victim is lying and that no kidnapping took place, I would oppose it since many authorities have concluded and stated to media that that one did (WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE). That is not the case here. Dwpaul (talk) 17:37, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Saying the victim was "allegedly" abducted implies she may have been a willing accomplice. There is no credible claim to that effect in reliable sources. The investigators categorically repudiate the idea. Including "alleged" just gives credence to wild unfounded speculation that arose between the first sighting of the abducted girl and the shooting of the abductor, and adds to her victimisation. I have removed it from the article, and I'd appreciate it if admins could keep an eye on the article and issue appropriate warnings if yesterday's edit war starts up again. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:31, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• And he is now changing the infobox to say the guy was the "suspected perpetrator" instead of just "perpetrator". [1] Is it a BLP violation to report what the police report says? Do they need to go to trail to prove he was responsible for the double murder and the kidnapping? Dream Focus 21:09, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
• "He" is me; I am not the person responsible for the original edits that prompted your BLP submission; I've been the one walking the middle ground. And yes, he is the suspected perpetrator. And yes, they would need to go to trial to "prove" that he is responsible for the murder, fire and kidnapping, but that will not happen, since he is dead. So he will remain the suspected perpetrator, with strong circumstantial evidence to support the suspicion but without a finding (unless and until there is an inquest, which is relatively uncommon here in the US, and which officials may not initiate since there are no other suspects). Let the reader draw their own conclusions; we don't need to alter the known facts to force an outcome. Dwpaul (talk) 21:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

And the term "suspected perpetrator" doesn't imply any doubt that a crime occurred, only that the criminality of the suspect is unproven (a fact in this case). This is no longer a discussion of a potential BLP violation, since nothing about the current article has the prior effect. Dwpaul (talk) 21:56, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

This is a bit like what DiMaggio's sister is doing at the moment, attempting to soften up the image of of her brother and lay some culpability onto the kidnap victim. I'm not surprised at all to see this creep into the Wikipedia. Tarc (talk) 21:58, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, one of the editors who prompted this discussion by inserting "allegedly" before "kidnapped" cited comments by the sister as basis, which prompted me to point out to that editor that the family of the (now dead) suspect doesn't get to dictate the terms used to describe him. However, I don't see that "suspected perpetrator" is image softening, or has the effect of blaming the victim, it's simply the fact of the matter at this point in time. Dwpaul (talk) 22:04, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

User Anthonyhcole has reverted my edit [2] and I'd like additional opinions because I strongly disagree. I carefully cited basically every sentence. It's one thing if he had an issue with my wording, but there's no excuse for removing valid citations and just editing the text that referenced them. ThVa (talk) 16:59, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

The two citations of reliable sources included information which has already been widely reported, specifically about 13 phone calls between the suspect and the alleged victim prior to the crime. The editor then proceeded to discuss unofficial theories about potential complicity of the victim not supported by the citations, and in fact are discredited by them. One included an unequivocal statement from a law enforcement officer at the center of the investigation that no complicity was suspected. The editor also introduced theories about the victim faking her injuries, citing a non-reliable source (blogger) who speculated based on two photographs of unknown origin or authenticity and no official information. The reversion was based on WP:RS, WP:BLPGOSSIP and WP:AVOIDVICTIM, and I fully support them. Dwpaul (talk) 20:45, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Although the title of the article has not (as yet) been changed, the narrative and headings now refer to abduction of the subject rather than kidnapping. The distinction (by my reading) is that legally, the crime of child abduction doesn't hinge on lack of willingness of the victim to accompany their abductor, whereas kidnapping generally does. This should resolve the debate here on WP about whether a crime was committed in Miss Anderson's removal to Idaho, a source of much of the BLP controversy concerning this article. Seeking consensus in Talk now about changing the page title to match. Dwpaul (talk) 17:44, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Though not finding it, nor many new opinions on the subject. Please consider weighing in on the Talk page. Dwpaul (talk) 20:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Privacy of youths personal info

I guess this would have been better posted here.. sorry for any confusion pls see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Privacy of personal information -- Moxy (talk)

Eszter Balint

Hello,

I am the subject of this article and I see that an inaccurate birth year has been repeatedly inserted and then even more inaccurately re-inserted. I just removed it for the second or third time. I I have a fairly good idea of the source of this posting, and I believe this is done with malicious intent, and in any case, it is inaccurate. I have just removed it again and left the birth year blank. Please be on the alert for any new re-insert of a birth year from the same source. I believe it has been under username WIlliam DFG however the same user could change usernames. Thank you. Eszter Balint — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bardybardy (talk • contribs) 13:24, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Graham Fitch

• Graham Fitch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Most of the actually cited content in the article is related to a now-debunked series of accusations of personal misconduct for which the subject was never charged and has been thoroughly vindicated. As a result of an OTRS request, I cleaned up the page to remove details of the accusations and put more weight on emphasizing that he was cleared [3]. But there is still a slow-moving edit war over whether this section should be included at all, and I think we have to take the subject's interest in having the record purged seriously.

causa sui (talk) 19:05, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

The allegations themselves are noteworthy due to the fact that Graham Fitch's complaint against SABC for the SABC Special Assignment episodes "Prelude For A Paedophile" and "Finale For A Paedophile" resulted in the largest ever fines levied by the Broadcasting Complaints Commission of South Africa (BCCSA). The BCCSA found the SABC guilty of negligence and defamation. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Do you think it would be acceptable to trim out the data about what the accusations were? For many people, merely mentioning the possibility than an educator is a pedophile and a drug addict can be enough to leave the stink of suspicion on the defamed person for life, even if the accusations are completely baseless. causa sui (talk) 00:15, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Melanie Griffith

I've just removed some information from Melanie_Griffith#Personal_life per WP:BLPCRIME. I think the sentences about Don Johnson (source: People.com) need looking at as well. -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 22:15, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Dunno how long that information was in the article. I suspect had this BLP been of a male actor, things would be different. -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 04:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Good deletion, its salacious cherry picking from a memoir. Not a reliable source for such serious allegations IMO.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:04, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I've tidied up the Johnson section. I think its OK now. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Keithbob. -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 18:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, if it gets deleted from one article, why should it stay in the other article? Is Tatum O'Neal#Autobiography claims also a BLP violation? StAnselm (talk) 21:51, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 23:49, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Mark Latham

Mark Latham is an ex-Australian politician who still spends quite a bit of his time talking about (and being interviewed about) politics in Australia. During the last election cycle, he made some comments either about the judgment of Tony Abbott, or about his negative perceptions of the attractiveness of another candidate (depending on how you interpret the focus of the remarks). User:OSX has added information about this interview to the article, (see Mark Latham#2103 federal election) and I've objected and attempted to remove it pending an establishment of consensus...but OSX has repeatedly reinserted it. My argument is that one particular interview that Latham made during a campaign in which he was not a candidate that got are time mainly in articles about "Gaffes of the 2013 election cycle" is not something of lasting importance that belongs in the subject's biography--that is, that it's not WP:DUE. OSX disagrees. Could we get some outside input, please? Qwyrxian (talk) 22:27, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, the truth is that probably the whole article needs to be reviewed for excessive commentary, but focusing on just this section is a good start. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:29, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

So...no input at all? Qwyrxian (talk) 07:48, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

User:68.180.101.240 and lobbyists

User:68.180.101.240 has edited a large number of articles of living American politicians to identify them as "lobbyists". This is fine, even in the introduction, but this user is placing it as the first piece of identifying information (i.e. "Bob Smith (born 1942) is an American lobbyist and former President of the United States"), even before their primary reason for notability. And this user is edit warring when editors attempt to relocate this identification to later in the introduction. In the case of Howard Dean, it was added cited to a source which contradicts this identification, a source that says he works for a lobbying firm as an advisor but is not registered as a lobbyist. IANAL, but doesn't this accuse him of an illegal act, unregistered government lobbying? This whole matter strikes me as having some serious BLP implications but I'd like some more thoughts before I start mass reverts. Gamaliel (talk) 03:04, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Agree. Looking at the bulk of these edits together, they seem to be made with a single purpose. The editor is moving through dozens of biographies and changing the lede to state that a person is a lobbyist (often erroneously), usually without providing refs. At the very least, the ones that incorrectly characterize someone as a lobbyist are clear BLP violations, but the other ones are also problematic. "Lobbyist" often has a pejorative connotation when referring to someone otherwise notable for public service. If it's not their career, just a consultancy or whatever, it shouldn't be in the lede. --Loonymonkey (talk) 03:46, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, my source for almost all of the un-reffed inclusions is the Center for Responsive Politics: http://www.opensecrets.org/revolving/top.php?display=Z. The distinction between being formally known as an "advisor" to a lobbying firm versus being a registered lobbyist is, as the Howard Dean source itself notes, "largely illusory". Simply stating that someone is a lobbyist doesn't necessarily mean that person needs to be registered. And many more of them are in fact registered as lobbyists. Before I made these edits, almost every page of politicians-turned-lobbyists beared no mention whatsoever of their lobbying activity. Every single politician whose page I've edited - aside from a couple that have since been reverted - is in fact engaging in K Street lobbying as a part of their career. I believe I have thus made significant improvements to the precision of such articles. If you have any more objections to particular pages, state them and I will assess their merit.68.180.101.240 (talk) 05:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

We have very strict rules about factual sourcing in articles involving living individuals. It doesn't matter if you or I agree (which I do) that the distinction is "largely illusory". We can't eliminate that distinction and factually assert in Wikipedia's voice that he is a lobbyist unless the source explicitly says so. The matter of Dean aside, the issue isn't that you are mentioning that these individuals are lobbyists, the issue is the manner in which you do so and the placement of that information in the articles. For the record, I do think this information does add value to these articles, I'm just taking issue about where it is placed. Gamaliel (talk) 17:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I've only checked about less than a dozen of these articles, but I've already found three major errors where people have been labeled "lobbyists" when the cited source specifically states that the person is not a lobbyist, and in one case, says they are legally forbidden from lobbying. I'm going to revert en masse. Gamaliel (talk) 17:34, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

What's incredible and pathetically disingenuous is that not only did you remove the placement from the beginning of the leads, but you also indiscriminately reverted without bothering to insert any mention of their work for lobbying firms anywhere in the articles, let alone the leads. So much for merely taking issue with where the information is placed. If you have any credibility, you'll go article-by-article and correct your mistakes, but I have so little faith in you that I'll be doing it. 130.91.142.1 (talk) 18:23, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I did it for the reason I stated above, the large number of factual errors. If you wish to correct these errors, you can restore this information to the article. You can't insert a bunch of factual errors and then complain about how they were removed. Gamaliel (talk) 18:28, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, you can. Indeed, 68.180.101.240 did. You just can't do it expecting for your complaint to make much of an impression. David in DC (talk) 20:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

You're right, point taken. I guess that sentence of mine ended with an implied "...and expect me to take your complaint seriously." Gamaliel (talk) 21:23, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

He has continued to make similar edits as User:68.180.29.133. These are a great improvement, but there was one significant error and they do require some tweaking. We should keep an eye on this. Gamaliel (talk) 03:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Significant error? Go take a look at Paul G. Kirk and come back to me. The only error was yours for failing to look at other sources. Also, protip: when you make an edit explaining that information should be moved elsewhere in the article, then move the information yourself instead of waiting for others do it for you. 68.180.29.133 (talk) 04:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The error is mine because I didn't clean up your mess the way you wanted me to? That doesn't even begin to make sense. Gamaliel (talk) 04:40, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll be simple for you: go edit the Dirk Kempthorne article right now and add to the body the specificity about lobbying that you claim you desire. Do not simply remove the edit for the purpose of telling someone else to add it when you can do it on your own. 68.180.101.240 (talk) 15:42, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Please keep posting here. It makes it easier to keep track of your changing IP addresses. Gamaliel (talk) 23:01, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I've been posting from the same computer all this time. If you consider keeping track of my IP's a high priority in my life, be my guest. Also, your habit of avoiding any discussion on talk pages is unseemly, embarrassing, and indicative of remarkably low self-confidence.68.180.101.240 (talk) 23:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

You seem like a pleasant fellow. Gamaliel (talk) 23:41, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm very pleasant to people who are intelligent enough and honest enough to deserve my respect. Unfortunately, you're neither. 68.180.101.240 (talk) 00:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I will try to soldier on somehow without the respect of such a brave internet warrior like yourself. Gamaliel (talk) 03:10, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Please do. Put that prestigious University of South Florida degree to its appropriate use and keep deriving your life satisfaction from being a Wikipedia editor.68.180.101.240 (talk) 21:38, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh, no, you insulted my skool! We're gonna hafta fight during recess. Gamaliel (talk) 21:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not insulting your school. I'm insulting you. Bye, kid. 68.180.101.240 (talk) 22:32, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Sophie Anderton

A lot of sourced, but derogatory, info has recently been added to this article. I'm concerned about WP:WEIGHT. To me, the "Personal life" subsection is starting to read like an attack piece. I've started a talk page thread on the topic. I'd appreciate some additional eyes on the article. David in DC (talk) 10:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

This article has some serious BLP issues IMO. English tabloids are being used as sources for slanderous text. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:01, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Dearie me. On a page under 'pending changes' protection no less! Those sources should be nuked on sight. -- Tabloid Terminator (Hillbillyholiday ^talk 20:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC))

Its all cleaned up now. Nice work folks! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Best known for

I often see the phrase "best known for" in the first sentence of the lead of BLP's. To my way of thinking, this is an editorial judgement we can do with out. (Unless there is a reliable source that says "he/she is best known for XYZ".) Instead of saying: Mr. Jones is best known for his role in XYZ film, why can't we just say: Mr. Jones starred in XYZ film? Why the value judgement "best known for"? I see this so often that I thought I would ask here for other opinions in case my thinking is way off track. Examples are Bruce Springsteen, Hector Berlioz, Peter Buck, Nick Mason, Steven Stills, Roger Moore and many more. Any thoughts from others? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

And a follow-up question: In the case of an actor, does inclusion of particular work(s) in the "Known for" feature of IMDb.com[4]] constitute a reliable source for this judgement by an editor? This information is helpful to the reader to quickly establish familiarity with the subject, which is the purpose of the lede (and may be all the information the reader was looking for). Dwpaul (talk) 20:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Drop the "best" and we're fine, in my opinion. Nothing wrong with saying "Johnny Smith (born April 31, 2013) is an American janitor known for his janitor work at Billy Nobody's mall." Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 20:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll support removing it without a source, but there are sources for many of those. ([5]; [6]; [7]) How many sources are there about Nick Mason that don't start with "drummer for Pink Floyd"? Saying that X is someone's most famous work is an important part of writing about them - perhaps that rephrasing will suffice? --GRuban (talk) 17:01, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

For example, just below is a discussion of George Zimmerman. That starts with "best known for his criminal prosecution and acquittal in the shooting of Trayvon Martin". Is this really an editorial judgement we can do without? I can't see starting the article without saying that in some form. --GRuban (talk) 18:33, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Bhanwari Devi

• Bhanwari Devi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There's an OTRS ticket that is requesting what is essentially a POV check (although not worded that way of course) on this article. Looking at it I see a lot of emphasis placed on the "allegedness" of the crime against this person, and we'd be well-served if we make sure that's indeed the case and not a bunch of POV warriors trying to diminish the incident and the effect on the subject for whatever reason. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, the verdict is supposed to be released today (I think), and there's a very good chance we'll be able to remove all of the "allegedly" results; perhaps just waiting a little will be easier. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:53, 11 September 2013 (UTC) Wait, that's someone different, ignore that; I'll check the article more carefully. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Follow-up: I've just cut major chunks of purely offensive material from the article based on no sources and intended solely to defame the subject of the article. Could you follow up with the filer of the OTRS ticket and see if this gets at what they wanted? Qwyrxian (talk) 02:26, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

@Qwyrxian: Many thanks for that, it looks a lot more balanced now. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 15:58, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Neon Genesis Evangelion and Anno

• Note; There is an ongoing discussion at The Reliability of Protoculture Addicts magazine that involves a source used in the article which is in dispute, please share your thoughts on the sourcing there.

@Folken de Fanel: continues to reinsert an inaccurate comments from an unreliable source on Hideaki Anno's interview in Newtype Magazine. Another editor removed this and I agreed with its removal, Folken reinserted it anyways. I removed it countering that the book was unreliable and it was not accurate and lacked appropriate context. Folken reinserted it to an questionable editorial in Protoculture Addicts, which also was not an accurate translation and the information he inserted did not match the text he reinserted. Also, the Protoculture Addicts source is an allusion, not a direct quote and is out of context. The comments are a response to the "Anno is dead" and other death threats the director had received. I removed it again and gave a lengthy post on why it was wrong. After correcting them misinformation and cited the actual source, Folken removed it as "RV unsourced non neutral edit and reinstate perfectly reliable content" which is false.[8] The information is inaccurate and being used to advance a position that was not in the source. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I also notified the user of this discussion, and he removed it.[9] ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:56, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Whether or not a source is reliable is not a BLP matter.—Ryulong (琉竜) 14:24, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

In this case the reliability of the source is being used to justify a BLP violation by drawing a conclusion unsupported by the original document. The well known translation on the site is, "For example, someone mentions my name, saying, "Anno is dead". If that person were next to me, perhaps I might hit them. On the message boards someone can still make a rebuttal, but this remains at the standard of toilet graffiti." Translation matter aside, the context is important here, taking something out of context to arrive at something not said in the source is wrong on numerous accounts. RS typically deals with the publication, not the individual articles or their content as being "right or wrong" and since this is a novel interpretation by someone aware of the materials, I rather have it be handled at BLP where the root matter can be analyzed. Though the article's reliability which is both dubious and not preferred by Wikipedia's measure, the original source is the best and not some editorial "telephone" discussion. Furthermore, the round table discussion was and is all we need for Anno's rebuttal to actual criticism and not this derived double comment Folken advances. Given the events surrounding it, the Evangelion documents alone paint a pretty good picture of the context and give ample reason why its usage is questionable. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:15, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

ChrisGualtieri has not read either my source or my edit, therefore he acts upon an outdated and inaccurate representation of what he thinks is my edit. This has happened before, and unless he decides to carefully read all of what he is discussing, I can't see where this discussion would go. Because there is absolutely no difference between what he says, what my source says, and what my edit in the article says.Folken de Fanel (talk) 15:38, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

No, actually ChrisGualtieri is even incapable of reading his own source, which does not allude to death threats anywhere, but does start with "The 26th episode that some diehard fans rejected…sure, it’s true that some fans were frustrated by the absence of continuity with the original story. But on the Internet, among other things, we have read some very scathing criticisms." Folken de Fanel (talk) 15:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• I will wait for a volunteer before continuing. As someone well-versed in this topic, I am willing to explain this in detail, but I do not want to bloat this further than necessary. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Note that as far as I know, ChrisGualtieri is not a Japanese-speaking user and doesn't have the original Japanese interview. He is relying on an English fan-translation found on an unreliable fansite here, which is itself a translation of an older French fan-translation of the original Japanese interview, from an unknown fansite. I am relying upon a summary of the interview by a prominent North-American publication, Protoculture Addicts, here. That ChrisGualtieri is even trying to compare a fan-translation of a fan-translation to a professional translation and summary is just baffling. But reading the 2 versions there is no difference, and even ChrisGualtieri's fan translation starts with the comment "The 26th episode that some diehard fans rejected…sure, it’s true that some fans were frustrated by the absence of continuity with the original story. But on the Internet, among other things, we have read some very scathing criticisms", then prompting the "graffiti on a wall" comment. My edit in the article is this: "in response to excessive criticism and gratuitous attacks from anonymous fans on the internet, he made controversial comments in a Newtype interview in June 1996, in which he compared their messages to "graffiti in a public toilet", and I honestly don't see how it would be different.Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:12, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

@ChrisGualtieri What statement in the edit do you think violates BLP? This seems to be a content dispute, and the content may or may not be translated appropriately, and may or may not be appropriate for the article, and may or may not come from a reliable source, but I see no defamation, libel, attack etc that should interest this board. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:47, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I was told to bring it here because it concerns the misrepresentation and out of context quotation of Anno, which is being attributed to the subject in a negative manner. Anno did not say what Folken quotes. Also, I do not believe the source is a reliable and objective commentary of the original source. I do not believe the comment is appropriate for the article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:54, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

So that's an issue of source reliablity, and not BLP, because the quote is properly sourced and attributed.Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:45, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Concerns are WP:BLPSOURCES, WP:GRAPEVINE and WP:BLPGOSSIP because of the attribution and stating and going as far an attributing quote to Anno which was paraphrased is a BLP matter. It is more than just the source reliability, three points of BLP apply to its usage in the article and BLP has a far stricter standard than anything else. Also, per GRAPEVINE I am removing it by policy. Do not reinsert it again during this discussion. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:52, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The 3 points you're citing all hinge on source reliability. To clear the matter once and for all, I've asked the question at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Reliability_of_Protoculture_Addicts_magazine. Note that per WP:GRAPEVINE, "although the three-revert rule does not apply to such removals, what counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Editors who find themselves in edit wars over potentially defamatory material about living persons should consider raising the matter at the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on the exemption." Given that all the users besides us have indicated this was not a matter of BLP and that no defamatory material was found, your reasoning for the immediate removal of disputed content is quite shaky, and your edit itself is nonconstructive.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:41, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

You have forum shopped it and billed this as about the reliability of the entirety of the publication at A&M.[10] You are attributing something negative or controversial to Anno and doing so with synthesis or a novel interpretation, that is the BLP concern. Your polemic arguments are tiring and your usage of PA over the original source is particularly non-sensical because it is your justification to lambast Anno with synthesis and your own novel assertions that he says one thing and means another. To top it off you use the bad paraphrasing as a quote when Anno wasn't even discussing the criticism of the work. We also have 3 perfectly valid sources for Anno's response and none of them require third or fourth hand accounts or re-interpreting as you assert here. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:56, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

My thread at RSN calls for commentary specifically on the capacity of PA to accurately translate/summarize a Japanese interview in an editorial. Surely you understand that PA's reliability to do so hinges on the whole publication's reliability. Sorry but the rest of your rant isn't taking into account any actual content so I'm not bothering to answer to that.Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

George Zimmerman

Newly spun off article from the Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin. Subject is in the news again recently in regards to a domestic dispute. soon-to-be-ex-wife made a 911 call saying he had a gun and was threatening her. wife has now recanted, saying she never saw a gun, police say no gun found. Although Zimmerman probably qualifies for WP:WELLKNOWN at this point, I believe this is a violation of WP:BLPCRIME and WP:TABLOID as at this point there is not even an allegation of a crime anymore, yet we are saying "On September 9, 2013, in Lake Mary, Florida, police responded to a 911 call by Zimmerman's estranged wife, who reported that Zimmerman had threatened her and her parents with a gun and had punched her father in the face. Zimmerman was detained and questioned by police.[28] His wife refused to press charges and recanted some of her story. No gun was found at the scene. Police were investigating a broken iPad for video to determine if they would press charges."

I don't want to get in an edit war as I have reverted some of this content twice now (removing the detail of the allegation, and just saying she called 911), but I believe this could use additional eyes. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:27, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

People are obviously trying to add this information because they don't like Zimmerman, don't like that he was acquitted, and want to insert information making him look bad. It's not as if this information is relevant to the shooting or trial. You could make a much better case for having a Trayvon Martin article with certain well-known negative information about Martin (since this information *has* been brought up in the media in connection with the shooting) but right now we don't have such an article at all and I would imagine the people who approve of the Zimmerman article would disapprove of that. Ken Arromdee (talk) 19:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I doubt this has anything to do with anyone's personal feelings about Zimmerman. The media in the US have made Zimmerman into a celebrity of sorts, as they tend to do. As such, they are going to continue to report on his activities, especially if they can draw a connection between those activities and the incident which made him a household name. Is there actually a BLP concern here? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:12, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

If I was a reluctant celebrity, I don't think I'd want a baseless accusation from an ex-wife in an enyclopedia article. Even if the article says it's baseless, there's still that doubt a mention at all places in readers' minds. Wikipedia should stick to things that did happen. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:24, September 11, 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the new Wikipedia. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

A bit different here. That accuser didn't already recant (or if she did, we don't mention it). More reasonable to err on the side of "She might be telling the truth" in that situation. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:54, September 11, 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)In that case at least it is a he said/she said situation. In the GZ situation, its a she formerly said, but has now recanted, but we are reporting it anyway. We are reporting an allegation, that nobody is actually making. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:56, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

If I understand the situation (and I may not, since it is of absolutely no interest to me and I have not read any of the reports), no one is saying the allegation was not made. Recanting something is not the same as denying it was ever said. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:08, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

No, but it means the original statement turns to empty words, which carry far less weight in determining fact, but retain their power to persuade already presumptious readers. It's not even a minor thing which the subject of the article did, but someone related to him, so the fact of the accusation itself doesn't seem appropriate here (and no, I don't suggest we create an article for his wife to remedy this). InedibleHulk (talk) 21:19, September 11, 2013 (UTC)

I think the editorially responsible thing to do would be to restore the redirect to Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin and include only what was relevant in that context, but I don't think that's going to happen. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:35, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Guy Cobb

• Guy Cobb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Bud Light Daredevils (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Maybe three years since I first came across the biography, which continues to be handled like a private scrapbook page by a WP:SPA. The Daredevils article appears to be a duplicate of the bio. Any thoughts as to deleting, merging, or otherwise improving this would be appreciated. JNW (talk) 23:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Gary Null is not a Quack or a crackpot

Maybe he's not the sharpest tool in the shed on AIDS, I don't know everything about him. But what I do know is this: He's a nutritionist, not a superhuman perfect dude. And he is personally wealthy because for 40 years now he's operated organic farms and made supplements and written books that people want. He's being badly savaged by what is on the Wikipedia page on him.

It's basically a retread of what is on the Quackwatch page. It doesn't mention Shelley Null. It doesn't talk about any of his latest books, or that he is largely making movies for social acivism now. It doesn't say that he immediately pulled the bad supplement off the market and sued the supplier, it makes it sound like somebody's gloating over a mistake he made. The wording of the Vitamin D incident sounds like somebody is enjoying the fact that he got hurt and ignoring the fact that he did all the right things as a person who sells supplements. That's amazing to me. There aren't any lists of his books, or dvds...

I tried to just move the criticism stuff to one section, but really I'd have to move almost all of it to the criticism section because you've just got scandals in there. You think in 40 years of being a public figure somebody could live a life without scandals? I think not. Esp not a guy who is constantly in the limelight on the radio, making products, selling things, being an alternative kinda guy. I mean, he's one of the original boomers who started the alternative health revolution. He's been living healthy longer than I've been alive. After reading what you have here on him, I'm just stunned, it's like you've sold out to the Quackwatch people, who are no saints, I'll tell you. I added some things I thought were relevant, but I can only start the process of adding the positive things that are completely ignored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.225.67.129 (talk) 06:41, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

IMHO, the article Gary Null is actually surprisingly kind to him. You need to read WP:FRINGE and WP:RGW. From what I can see, Mr Null is what would commonly be termed a "crackpot" or a "quack" by medical scientists. You might want to read the articles on quack and crackpot as well. The question as to whether Mr Null has honest intentions or not is largely irrelevant when he is promoting "medicine not based on evidence" to people while disparaging evidence-based medicine. Barney the barney barney (talk) 13:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• Is there something I'm missing here? He's an alt med, aids denialist, anti-vaxxer, megavitamin proponent and anti-evidence based medicine. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:06, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I think I made it clear that he is none of the things you say, but if the editors of Wikipedia feel this way about him, I'm talking to a wall. I can see that my edits, which were simply to create a Criticism section, and move the worst of the criticism there (a courtesy you extended to the Quackwatch article, but obviously people for whom you have biased opinions aren't included in any courtesies), the addition of a couple of simple lists of his publications, and a beginning on what he has been doing lately, social activism, which I could only find two links quickly one against building Nuclear Power plants (Greenpeace is against this too, are they crackpots?), and one against GMO's where he presents scientific evidence against their use. I know that evidence exists, I researched that myself in an unrelated project. Do you buy genetically modified food? And if you do, are you comfortable with it? If so, fine. But I can assure you that not all farmers are comfortable with it, and neither is everyone, and that's because of some scientific evidence and the behavior of corporations (corporate bullying). That doesn't sound like being against evidence based science. That sounds like somebody with real ethics. Maybe you don't have time to find out the facts on him so it's more comfortable for you to demonize him. I don't agree with everything he says. I think the risk-benefit ratio of vaccines is good enough to warrant their use on a mass scale but your polarized article focuses only on his most fringe qualities and doesn't discuss the more boring vaccine issue, doesn't discuss his organic gardening, his exercise videos, his juice books, his health guides (which he's been selling for 40 years). People wouldn't buy them if they were no good at all. You're missing a lot about him.

Since it's obviously futile for me to edit the article (you'll just revert it like you did before), I'll let you do the research and all the work yourself. Go to youtube and educate yourself on what he's really like, then go to amazon and look up his latest books, then to his website and find his DVDs... etc. hey, I could've done it for you. But I guess bias is bias. 24.225.67.129 (talk) 14:47, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

A stopped clock is right twice a day. He may have used evidence-based science for his opinions on nuclear power and GMOs — I haven't checked the references. He has not used evidence-based science for his opinions on AIDS, vaccination, and megavitamins. (In the interest of full disclosure, I'm not completely convinced that HIV is the sole cause of AIDS, because of the number of people with HIV but no other symptoms of AIDS, and the number of people with AIDS where HIV has not been detected. That doesn't mean that I agree with Gary's analysis of the subject.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

IP, ultimately articles in Wikipedia must reflect what others say about him in reliable sources in relative weight based on the predominance of those views. You mention some possible information to add, that's possible but you've got to have independent secondary sources that discuss things. And before you ask, court records do NOT count. Consider using the articles talk page to discuss possible changes and especially your sources. Please remember that blogs and self-published advocacy websites just about always fail the reliable source requirement. Ravensfire (talk) 17:24, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Ah Great, so not only is he an aids denialist, anti-vaxxer, etc he's also in the Anti-GMO (I suggest you check the opinions of scientists in this area, and every food safety authority) and Anti-Nuclear brigade. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:06, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, I didn't know anything about the AIDS issue until I read it here, and I don't know what he said or how he said it. I also have not done any research about that, but I can understand that people would be upset about the issue. My concern is the omission of facts, and the mischaracterisation of somebody who isn't a fringe character even if he does occasionally say things that are unpopular. I believe that's called non-conformity and was something highly prized when teachers wanted students to not drive drunk, but is something less than glamorous now that we're all "adults" supposedly. Maybe his thoughts just don't fit into soundbites. I think that he's wrong twice a day, and the rest of the time, he's right, using your analogy of the clock.

As for using the talk page, my edit to that was deleted too. I wasn't going to reply anymore here, but I talked myself into it because you suggested using the talk page. Well, boy howdy do I feel empowered now! You've got some excellent watchdogs, I'll give you that. I think they've got rabies. 24.225.67.129 (talk) 18:03, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

If someone is widely viewed as outside the mainstream, or as a crank or quack, then our neutrality policy demands that we convey their reception honestly to the reader rather than hiding it. While non-conformity is an admirable quality in many ways, it tends to be counterproductive when it leads to encouraging people with HIV to go off their anti-retroviral medication. In any case, you're welcome to your views, but you're not welcome to enshrine them on Wikipedia in place of actual reliable third-party sources. Your contribution to Talk:Gary Null violated this site's policy on material about living people; that's why it was removed. MastCell ^Talk 18:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Bat Ye'or

• Bat Ye'or (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello,

Could you confirm or invalidate this and this ? Was there really a BLP violation? (I do not ask about the previous edit) Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:47, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Such a statement is a BLP violation if unsourced by relevant and notable reliable sources. . What reliable sources are you using to identify him as a conspiracy theorist? Gaijin42 (talk) 21:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Labeling people negatively or positively beyond their principal claim to notability requires multiple unambiguous reliable sources that call the subject exactly that. If you have that then it's not a straight BLP violation, however there are a few other considerations such as undue weight that may come into play. Consider also that when a label is negative it's best to word things neutrally, making clear that you (as an also neutral Wikipedia contributor) are not passing judgement on the subject. John Doe is a saxophonist that has been called a 'stuffed bunny' by X, Y and Z is better than John Doe is a saxophonist and a stuffed bunny. That said, there are labels and there are labels, so each case might be different. If there is already a discussion on the talk page about this then I'd recommend sticking to that. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:22, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

It's clear from the sourcing that the subject is most notable as conspiracy theorist and that she is widely-described as such. It's also clear that this is not just a popular slur.

Just by the way, given that she is a very controversial figure, the article overall does not give the impression of complying with NPOV. The appraisals appear cherry-picked - in fact, a large chunk them pretty much lifted from the back cover of her book Eurabia. Formerip (talk) 22:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

James Jannard‎

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

If someone has a chance to review this article and its recent activity, that would be helpful. User:Spieden is editing the article in rather odd ways and persists despite warnings. He now claims he is Jannard in this somewhat threatening comment. Based on the nature of his edits, it's possible, but at a minimum he appears to be cherrypicking what he wants included in the article and what he doesn't, not to mention not providing sources for some of the material (e.g., 14 grandchildren). At first I thought he was a garden-variety-but-not-poop vandal, but now I'm not so sure. He may just be an obstinate article subject. Vandals are easier to deal with. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 03:51, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm really, really trying to engage him and suggest more constructive ways of dealing with this, but all I've gotten back are legal threats. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:05, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

People (magazine)/People.com at Brad Pitt article or other WP:BLPs

Like I stated at the Brad Pitt talk page: In this edit, John removed People sources and replaced them with WP:Citation needed tags in some cases, citing WP:BLPSOURCES. I have to point out that People is generally not considered tabloid journalism, at least not by Wikipedia, which is why the Brad Pitt article was elevated to WP:Featured article (FA) status with People sources. People has been taken to this noticeboard more than once, and is generally accepted as a reliable source for biographies of living persons (especially when it comes to sourcing itself with regard to a person having given an interview to the publication). Instead of reverting John, because I'd rather not get into a WP:Edit war and because I figured that someone else would likely revert him, I decided to bring the matter to the Brad Pitt talk page; this discussion, if I had reverted John, was likely inevitable.

John's response was the following: "It's a gossip rag and is not a reliable source." I asked at that talk page if anyone else was interested in weighing in on this matter before I brought it here; no one else has weighed in there thus far. Though many experienced Wikipedia editors, including me at times, do not give the WP:OTHER STUFF EXISTS argument much credit or mock it, it is a valid argument in this case. Using People as a source in BLPs, as long as it is used appropriately, is standard practice. I know this from having seen it used in many WP:BLPs, including WP:Good articles (GA) and WP:Featured articles (where the sources are usually extensively analyzed during the nomination process, especially with regard to WP:Featured articles), without any problems. And now John removes it extensively from this featured article. He even removed it from an instance where the text was referring to Pitt giving an interview to People, which I find odd. I wouldn't put People in the same category as the National Enquirer or the Daily Mail at all, especially not the former.

So, yes, thoughts on this matter from this noticeboard are needed. I will also alert WP:FILM to this discussion, considering that they deal with BLP issues with regard to actors often. Flyer22 (talk) 04:37, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you, Flyer22 that People magazine is generally considered a reliable source for biographical information about celebrities. As a Time Inc. publication, they have a reputation for professional editorial control and fact checking. Personally, I dislike their editorial emphasis, but there is a big market for celebrity news. And many top-tier celebrities trust People with exclusives because they know that magazine is not prone to publishing fabrications and unverified gossip. All sources must be used with caution, but I think this source is useful and generally reliable for entertainment celebrity biographies. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:11, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Cullen's assessment is spot on. People is generally a reliable source for celebrities' lives. Binksternet (talk) 05:33, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, John has very recently removed more sources, this time mostly the Daily News (New York), which is also usually a WP:Reliable source for celebrity information and information in general. Just because a source states "gossip" does not make it unreliable. At this point, I feel that John is wrecking the article and I don't know what to do about that. Flyer22 (talk) 05:37, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Not on my watch, sorry. This is a celebrity gossip tag, not a reliable source. Check out their disclaimer: " THE WEB SITE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, ALL SERVICES, CONTENT, FUNCTIONS AND MATERIALS PROVIDED THROUGH THE WEB SITE, ARE PROVIDED "AS IS," "AS AVAILABLE," WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTY FOR INFORMATION, DATA, DATA PROCESSING SERVICES, UPTIME OR UNINTERRUPTED ACCESS, ANY WARRANTIES CONCERNING THE AVAILABILITY, PLAYABILITY, DISPLAYABILITY, ACCURACY, PRECISION, CORRECTNESS, THOROUGHNESS, COMPLETENESS, USEFULNESS, OR CONTENT OF INFORMATION, AND ANY WARRANTIES OF TITLE, NON-INFRINGEMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, AND WE HEREBY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL SUCH WARRANTIES, EXPRESS AND IMPLIED." I also removed material from the New York Daily News, The Sun and the Daily Mail. Does User:Flyer22 think that these too are appropriate sources for an article on a living person? WP:BLPSOURCES says Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources. This is a tabloid, ergo it is not suitable as a a source here. This is not, as they say, rocket science. --John (talk) 05:51, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

John, you are in the wrong, as two other editors have stated thus far. You were also in the wrong at the Ben Affleck article, as seen here and here, and no telling at how many others. That is another WP:Good article, and, to put it simply, you are wrecking articles. That you do not understand what are acceptable sources to use and what are truly unreliable celebrity "gossip rags" is deeply troubling. Stating "Not on my watch" does not make you any more right; nor will it ensure that you will get your way on this. If WP:Consensus is against you in this section, I will restore the valid content at the Brad Pitt article, the Ben Affleck article and any other article I come across where you have inappropriately removed sources. Actually listen to what others are stating to you on this matter, and start analyzing the sources better. A source being a source that mostly or only focuses on celebrity content does not make that source unreliable for biographical information. You are even removing legitimate newspaper sources, such as the New York Daily News. Hello, another source you removed from the Ben Affleck article, is another legitimate source for biographical content. As shown above, I obviously do not think that sources such as the Daily Mail and The Sun are appropriate sources to use for biographical content...while believing that the New York Daily News is appropriate for biographical content. You want to remove the Daily Mail, as you did here at a different article? Fine. The valid sources? No, not fine. Flyer22 (talk) 06:27, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with you Flyer. If John is wrecking articles, then haul him to AN/I, and you better look at my recent contributions because I'm 'wrecking' loads right now. One "Good Article" I came across recently, had the Mail, Sun, Star, Express, and NOTW as sources - some in violation of BLPCRIME. It's not the only Good Article either by any stretch.

So the fact that an article has a star or badge or whatever is often meaningless. If a BLP is to be awarded FA status, I would expect the sourcing to be impeccable. Where there are multiple sources for information I would expect the best to be chosen, and if the People is the only source for something, I wouldn't want it in the article. If there's any doubt over the quality of a source, caution should be excised, especially in a BLP. -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 06:44, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

The sources you named are generally unreliable for biographical content and often in general (though I don't know what "NOTW" stands for and whether or not that source is unreliable). People, as noted above, is generally not unreliable for biographical content (especially for sourcing text pertaining to an interview that person did with the publication). Neither is the the New York Daily News or Hello. In some cases, John seems to be removing sources simply because they mostly or only focus on celebrity content; that does not make a source unreliable. And People or other such sources being used does not mean that there are not higher quality sources covering the same information. But even if there are, it does not mean that the existing sources should be stripped away from the article and replaced with WP:Citation needed tags or left with no citation at all. So, yes, I respectfully disagree, and do consider John to be wrecking articles when acting in this way...whether the articles are WP:Good articles, WP:Featured articles, or have no special badge. And, again, WP:Featured articles go through a rigorous process of making sure that the sources are valid. People has passed as a valid source in many WP:Featured article processes for living people. And John gets to come in and say, "Not on my watch! I disagree with the community."? Give me a break. Flyer22 (talk) 06:56, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Again, just because its used in FAs doesn't make it an acceptable source.

Just look at the People website. Maybe they (and Time Inc.) had some credibility in the past. I don't think they do anymore. Similarly the NY Daily News has seen better days:

In January 2012, former News of the World and New York Post editor Colin Myler was appointed editor-in-chief of the Daily News.

As for Hello....Hello? -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 07:05, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I did not state "just because its used in FAs [makes it an acceptable source]." I stated, "WP:Featured articles go through a rigorous process of making sure that the sources are valid. People has passed as a valid source in many WP:Featured article processes for living people." That means that several or many editors thoroughly examined the sources; it was left in the article during the FA process because the community agreed that the source is acceptable. That is a completely different matter than a source that was added after the FA process. And again, People generally passes as an acceptable source for biographical content. John does not get to come in and start wiping it from articles because the source is not good enough to him. Neither does anyone else. Indeed, he will have many articles to go to purge them of that source, and will get much resistance along the way because there is nothing forbidding the use of that source in policies or guidelines. Personal opinions about that source or any source should not matter on Wikipedia. Our policies and guidelines are what should. Flyer22 (talk) 07:17, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

And policy states tabloids are unacceptable. Common sense/editorial judgement should come into play but based on what I've seen around WP, this is in rather short supply. You may not want to label it a tabloid, but the disclaimer John provides makes it quite clear that the People cannot be described as a reliable source.

The fact that BLPs get declared "GAs" or "FAs" with poor sourcing, points to flaws in the process. For example, perhaps editors are concerned with a sentence being cited for the purposes of fulfilling the review criteria, less so with the actual quality of said source. Other subjects on WP typically get reviewed by experts in the field, or by people who at least have some knowledge or have read books on the matter. The same doesn't apply with BLPs, where often comprehensive overviews and biographies don't exist, nor experts in the field. Your argument amounts to OTHERSHITEXISTS. Try searching dailymail.co.uk in WP. Over 10,000 examples, many in BLPs. -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 07:57, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Mel Sembler

I am involved in an edit war over Mel Sembler, an American businessman and former Ambassador. Sembler was involved in a controversial drug treatment program called Straight, Inc., about which there is a long history of activist, POV editing on Wikipedia. The current conflict consists of a paragraph stating that a complaint to a UN body was filed against Sembler for "crimes against humanity" due to his role with Straight, Inc.diff The content is sourced to an article at opednews.com. Opednews does not meet WP:RS, it is a platform where activists and activist organizations can post content without editorial oversight. This particular piece was published by Janet Parker, the Executive Director of an organization called Medical Whistleblower, which, according to her opednews profile: "is an organization dedicated to advocacy and emotional support for those who have bravely stepped forward to "Tell Truth to Power" to the Medical Establish." (sic) Clearly posting allegations that an individual has committed "crimes against humanity" without a reliable secondary source is a violation of WP:BLP. GabrielF (talk) 05:51, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

GabrielF has a history of deleting well sourced content(see: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mel_Sembler&diff=485842728&oldid=485840722) on the Mel Sembler page with little or no explanation as to why other than "BLP issues", and when questioned on the talk page as to why he mass deleted content he referred to only a small part of the text he deleted (the penis pump section)as being BLP (it was not, it was a major news story covered by several papers, with multiple cites) and referred to only one of the many cites (from an upstate NY paper, one of at least 5 cites for the pump section) as being WP:RS. Nuff said. Snertking (talk) 06:17, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of other issues, GabrielF has a point about opednews.com - that is clearly not a reliable source and may not be used for any contentious claims about a living person. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:21, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Let's see - a trash-picking burglar with an agenda supposedly found a penis pump in an elderly man's garbage and tried to auction it off to humiliate the man. There was a lawsuit and an injunction. Yeah, right. And Snertking is repeatedly trying to reinsert this crap into the biography? I just removed the crap section. The whole article deserves scrutiny. Personally, I have no affection for Sembler, but he shouldn't be subjected to a biased hit piece as opposed to a neutral biography. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:49, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

covered by major news sources such as the St Petersburg Times, Huffington Post, Washington Post, etc. There are like what, 7 articles about this cited? This was a major and well covered scandal. CLEARLY not a BLP issue. Snertking (talk) 07:02, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I happen to also like NorthBySouthBaranof change of the pumpgate section title, which clearly (in retrospect) WAS wp:pov (the title only, the story is not wp:npov and should not have been blanked by User:Cullen328) . The new title is more neutral and accurate.Snertking (talk) 07:18, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I now agree with NorthBySouthBaranof that opednews is not wp:rs and shall leave his edit standing. However I am sure other sources on this exist (if not simply just the UN documents themselves!) and reserve the right to add the text back if a truly wp:rs source can be found.Snertking (talk) 07:07, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

The original documents would not be acceptable as sources. See WP:PRIMARY - we do not use primary sources to support contentious claims about living people without reliable and independent secondary sources. Primary sources require interpretation. For instance, in this case, it would be inappropriate to cite a complaint alleging that a person committed "crimes against humanity" without a secondary source that establishes that the complaint is worth paying attention to. Anyone can make an accusation about another person. We don't publish these accusations unless secondary sources deem them to be significant. GabrielF (talk) 07:11, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I was referring to using the document that the UN istself sent in reply stating that although the accusation had merit, they lack jusrisdiction as the US was not signatory to the treaty in question. That would be a secondary WP:RS source referring to the original complaint. The original complaint itself of course is primary and therefore not wp:rs. Snertking (talk) 07:19, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Snertking has reinserted the penis pump junk, and dropped a vandalism template on my talk page. Is Wikipedia now a vile gossip rag? "Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives: the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:21, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

The text you blanked was not a BLP privacy issue as it was covered by several major newspapers in probably a dozen articles over 3 years. Not gossip rags either, mind you. Publications such as the washington post. Granted the title of the section was POV and needed tweaking, but blanking the whole section was uncalled for. The rational as to why the discussion of the penis pump was not BLP already existed on the talk page, yet rather than add to that discussion you took it upon yourself to ulitaterally blank the while section. and therefore it was vandalism in my eyes. Snertking (talk) 07:38, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

@Snertking - No, a letter sent in reply to a complaint by the recipient of the complaint is absolutely a primary source. It is an original document close to the event and is not acceptable as a source in this case. GabrielF (talk) 07:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Acknowledged. I will not add it back in unless I can find an article in a major reputable publication then, one that we would all agree is wp:rsSnertking (talk) 07:40, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

The content highlighting Sembler's intimate medical conditions; namely prostate cancer and erectile disfunction, simply do not belong in this BLP, in my opinion, even if mentioned once in the Washington Post. Sembler was forced into this disclosure by a long term harasser. I removed it and being accused of vandalism for doing so. Am I a vandal? Any thoughts? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:45, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing in the artickle content referring to prostate cancer or erectile dysfuntion. Not before your blanked it, and not after i restored it. Nada. However, if it makes you happy, though, I would be willing to remove the word penis and just refer to it as a pump. Or how about just a "personal item". If you are whining about the headlines of the cites, headlines of articles published by major papers, well.... can't help ya with that. The actual text of the wiki article itself is pretty discreet.(if you look at past edits and the talk page, you will see i did remove "penis" in the past, and someone with an agenda added it back)Snertking (talk) 07:54, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the section should be removed. Sembler was the victim in this incident. Bradbury rifled through Sembler's trash and then put what he claims he found on the Internet. Sembler sued him. Repeating Bradbury's claims is against the spirit of WP:BLP. Snertking has thrown around accusations of vandalism a number of times tonight[11]. I would strongly caution Snertking that legitimate discussions about content do not constitute vandalism and that he should be careful not to make personal attacks on other editors. Given that Snertking himself now acknowledges that the claim should have been removed, he should also acknowledge that accusing an editor of vandalism for removing it was inappropriate. GabrielF (talk) 07:58, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Dissussion is one thing, unilaterally taking it upon oneself to blank entire sections without discussion on the articles talk page occurring first is another thing entirely, and is vandalism. That behavior, and only that behavior, is what my accusations of vandalism were referring to. I would likewise caution GabrielF about personal attacks against myself. Especially in light of his own past behavior regarding this page. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mel_Sembler&diff=485842728&oldid=485840722) I WILL stand by my accusation of GabrielF vandalizing it in the past, as the proof is incontrovertible. There has been a history of people vandalizing the page by blanking negative content, including incontrovertible evidence of Sembler's own company doing it. (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mel_Sembler#Vandalism_from_Sembler.com_domain for details) Neutral parties can draw their own conclusion as to what is going on here.