Talk:Donald Sterling

Untitled

CAN SOMEONE REMOVE RELIGIOUS VIEW? I FEEL IT'S LIKE LISTING PEOPLE. IT'S NOT WRITTEN FOR ADAM SILVER OR DAVID JOEL STERN, FROM NBA ALSO — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alienca448 (talk • contribs) 22:49, 30 April 2014 (UTC) Donald Sterling's PR people are hitting this article to try and make him seem nicer watch out —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.189.245.38 (talk) 18:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Now, they will have to try harder. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 19:07, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Seems like there are a lot of unfiltered speculative references being utilized. Thetruthspeaker09 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 08:10, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

You are going to have to provide more details on what you are referring to.—Bagumba (talk) 08:13, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Date of racist audio recording

WRT "On April 9, 2014, TMZ Sports released an audio conversation recorded by V. Stiviano, Sterling's girlfriend" TMZ reported this on 4/26. The incident allegedly took place on 4/9 but it was reported on 4/26. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.247.50 (talk) 22:46, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Both Conservative and Liberal talking sources are all-atwitter about the tape recordings. Rush Limbaugh says it is false (and pretended) outrage because his racism has been known in Los Angeles and sports circles for a decade. There is nothing 'new' here. [1] [2] -- FYI, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 19:14, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone know where this tape came from?

California is a two-party state, which means that both (or all) parties on a call must be agree to the recording (or it may be subject to a legal exception, as on a 911 call, or one subject to a warrant), or it can be charged as a criminal offense. My guess is that if the recipient of a call picked up the phone while their message machine was running, and it taped the call, the originator of the call could not complain because they were aware that they were being taped from the start. I imagine that the girl friend taped it and released it after the arrangement faltered . Activist (talk) 19:14, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Stiviano claims that Sterling consented to the recording.[3] 70.36.142.114 (talk) 19:20, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Multiple blankings of sourced material

There have been multiple recent blankings and changes of name on Sterling's main page without giving any reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.171.25.191 (talk) 07:31, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

BLP concerns

I have raised this article on the biographies of living persons noticeboard. Thanks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Some things are just so obvious and over the top they do not fall into this category. Editing can be succinct and his racism is already noted in the article. Include the most reliable sources. -- AstroU (talk) 04:06, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

The importance of the tape is being considered in reliable media sources. Activist is right to ask the question. Other WP editors ask about the illegal taping and its motivation. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 11:37, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Article being vandalized tonight

Lock this puppy up, someone's having a field day vandalizing it in the wake of the audio tape of his girlfriend being told "don't bring black people to my games". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.126.239.232 (talk) 08:59, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I cosign the need for this page to be locked due to the current (April 2014) controversy. Musicologism (talk) 15:32, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I've placed a request here for the page to be locked. I'm not familiar with the process, so I'm not sure if there's anything else that needs to be done. Patency (talk) 15:34, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree that this article should be locked due to excessive vandalism. JGKlein 16:35, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2014

SOURCE 

(Copyright violation removed.)

99.101.139.45 (talk) 18:16, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: We can't have any copyrighted materials on Wikipedia. Please read WP:COPYVIO. (t) Josve05a (c) 20:38, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Wife or girlfriend

The personal life section says he married Shelly Stein in 1957 and they have three children. In the controversies section, it says he has a girlfriend named V. Stiviano. So, is he still married to Shelly Stein and has a girlfriend as well, or is he divorced from his wife or has his wife passed away. Someone really needs to address this confusion.173.216.248.174

This article from ESPN says that he is still married to Shelly Stein as of today (in the passage that's third from the bottom). If I had to speculate, since she will determine who takes over the Clippers when Sterling retires/passes away, it seems like a marriage only in the legal sense. Patency (talk) 23:08, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

LA Times wrote a month ago that they've been married for 50 years, and describes V. Stiviano as an "alleged mistress", although I wouldn't suggest that term in this article (I think it's used here to convey his wife Rochelle's perspective, as filer of the lawsuit; the NY Times described Stiviano more recently as Sterling's "former girlfriend", which seems like a good term). The original TMZ article said "Sterling has been separated from his wife Shelly for years", and other gossip sites seem to agree, though in established news sources don't seem to include that, and they were seen together at a game last week. (Again, according to TMZ, "she remains a key player in running the team...") Agyle (talk) 05:08, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I changed the text from "girlfriend" to "woman" seeing as how it's quite unclear as to what this lady truly is. ShawntheGod (talk) 15:50, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm changing "woman" to "girlfriend or former girlfriend". It's a meaningful omission not to acknowledge what almost all sources say was a significant personal relationship between the two. Sterling, the Clippers, and the NBA are trying to distance her by using the term "woman" in their efforts at damage control, but nobody has contradicted the characterization of girlfriend or former girlfriend. If you really think there's credible doubt over this, I'd add "alleged", to make it "alleged girlfriend or former girlfriend". I'd put more weight on The New York Times at having fact-checked their description of "former girlfriend", but gossip sites and some other newspapers are referring to her as his current girlfriend. Agyle (talk) 18:04, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Well the way I see it is that he was probably just an old man using a younger girl for sexual relations, but changing it back to "girlfriend" is fine with me. ShawntheGod (talk) 20:04, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Or perhaps, it more accurate to say: She was probably just a younger girl using an old man for real estate and cars... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.235.46 (talk) 23:06, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

For BLP and general editing purposes, note that, according to Stiviano's lawyer, Stiviano and Sterling "never had a sexual or romantic relationship and that descriptions of her as his mistress in the media and in a lawsuit filed by Sterling's wife are erroneous." Harriet Ryan, "V. Stiviano was not Donald Sterling's mistress, her lawyer says", Los Angeles Times, April 30, 2014. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:54, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Readers naturally want to know their relationship, and she has been reported by many as his mistress. For WP:NPOV, I just wrote that the lawsuit called her his mistress, which her lawyer denied.—Bagumba (talk) 22:15, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

ADL and SPLC

Where are they? If Sterling was White the first line of his WP page would say: Sterling is a white supremacist! That clearly shows the bias of Wikipedia...!--109.23.159.201 (talk) 19:06, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Based on your brief edit history, I'd say you're more than a little preoccupied with the issue of race. 209.90.140.72 (talk) 00:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

"if sterling was white"

Sterling is white though, unless you're one of those white supremacist-nationalist types who don't consider Jews to be white, then whatever. There is also a whole section devoted to his purported racism by the way. ShawntheGod (talk) 20:05, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean if Sterling was white. Do you have a RS stating that he is not white?173.216.248.174 (talk) 20:57, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Jews are not white. We are descended from the Israelites, who are Semites. Also compare Stop Islamization of America with Electronic Intifada for example of Wikipedia's anti-Jewish bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.140.31 (talk) 09:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Look I really don't care about Jews and 'whiteness', the term "white" is just an unscientific term created by racist European imperialists. It has no validity, it's entirely based upon perception, with some social connotations behind it. Some consider certain Jews to be white, some don't. Phenotypically Donald Sterling appears to be "white" and I see nothing in the article that even calls him "white" though. ShawntheGod (talk) 02:22, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Baron Davis heckling

Mention of it was removed from the controversy section. Ideally, controversy sections should be reorganzied altogether per WP:CSECTION. In the meantime, I'm noting the Davis heckling here, as I've seen it mentioned enough in sources that it is WP:DUE weight to add back somewhere and WP:PRESERVE the original text.—Bagumba (talk) 17:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

So he called a player out for not hustling and being out of shape? There is a weight concern here, and its not the players center of gravity. Two kinds of pork (talk) 18:19, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

If the media singles it out repeatedly, then its due weight. Understand your concern, and I woudnt want it added either unless the weight of sources support it. I'll see if I get to it.—Bagumba (talk) 20:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Here is coverage in 2010 when the story first broke, more in 2012, and this from recent uproar that references the Davis incident. This is more than a trivial event that was just mentioned once and forgotten about.—Bagumba (talk) 21:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok, that's better though it should be rolled into the Clippers section, somewhere in the chronological order. In fact the controversy title should go completely and have each section stand on its own, but that's only a suggestion.Two kinds of pork (talk) 22:17, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

TMZ liability for publishing illegal recording ?

i'm not sure where the tape came from, but here it looks like TMZ published a secret tape by the girl friend that might be illegal under California law. what is the responsibility of the media here? thanks.

http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/california-recording-law

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.176.108.8 (talk) 08:58, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Be careful with original research here. Lets wait for reliable sources to talk about explicitly in relation to Sterling before adding anything to the article.—Bagumba (talk) 09:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Here's what wikipedia says about the relevant law

Telephone recording laws

Twelve states currently require that all parties consent to the recording: California,

The California Supreme Court has ruled that if a caller in a one-party state records a conversation with someone in California, that one-party state caller is subject to the stricter of the laws and must have consent from all callers (Cf. Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney Inc., 39 Cal. 4th 95 (2006)

QbR54190dfcv (talk) 19:21, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

According to TMZ Sports, the woman making the recordings "told friends the Clippers owner WANTED her to record him and he knew he was being recorded ... partly because he frequently forgot what he said and the tapes refreshed his memory" at http://www.tmz.com/2014/04/28/donald-sterling-v-stiviano-settlement-conversation-book-deal-life-clippers-audio-recordings/

-- Avanu (talk) 19:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

It is important to understand what these laws say: They require consent from the speaking parties in order to allow the recording to be submitted as evidence in a court of law. They are not requirements simply in order to permit recording. Recording a conversation without satisfying these requirements is not illegal. It simply means that the recording cannot be submitted as evidence. Sean Ross207.237.89.3 (talk) 20:36, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we should go around publishing our own amateur legal analysis of those recording laws. Stiviano's claim that Sterling consented to the recording (per the TMZ page ([4] or some other link) should be cited in the article though, with inline attribution as we have no way to know whether the claim is true. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 19:26, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Jewish is not an ethnicity

Judaism IS a religion and it definitely isn't a race like some have suggested. There are Jews of ALL races the world over.

Judaism HAS distinct ethnic groups in itself, but that does not make the entire group an ethnicity. Ashkenazic (German or Eastern European), Sephardic (Spain and Portugal), Mizrahim (Middle Eastern, North African) and smaller subgroups exist.

These include: Indian Jews (Bene Israel), Romaniotes (Greece), Italian and Chinese Jews. The customs are different, so are the base languages as a whole etc..

The reason people make these distinctions is for one of two reasons 1) Antisemitism (easier to hate people who are separate from you) 2) To make claims that one can be Jewish while being a Christian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leatgrinberg (talk • contribs) 16:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

There are Jewish ethnic divisions. Donald is probably an Ashkenazi Jew, I think that the article should be more specific though. ShawntheGod (talk) 19:56, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I would vote for that field being kept blank. That he's Jewish can be put in the Religion field (assuming there's evidence he's a practicing Jew). Moncrief (talk) 04:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Jews are an ethnicity. Please don't post ignorant comments denying we are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.140.31 (talk) 09:06, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Jewish ethnicity and identity is itself a complex and often fraught subject that could fill bookshelves. In any case the article only states that Sterling is the child of "Jewish immigrants", a statement that is not in dispute. Since this article is a biographical summary or synopsis of Sterling's life and business career and not solely about his history of discrimination and recent racist comments, I would like to see this article state what country his parents immigrated from and what language was spoken in the home he grew up in. -lsiden

Why are you curious about what language was spoken in his home? (just asking) Allen Roth 207.237.89.3 (talk) 19:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Judaism is a religion, not an ethnicity. Anyone of any race can follow the Jewish religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.2.83.167 (talk) 02:47, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

One place to look for further information about the concepts of Jewish ethnicity and Jewish culture is the article on Who is a Jew?. It has a particularly pertinent section discussing Ethnic and cultural perspectives. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:21, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Related articles on race relations

Racial integration and Social integration are closely related to the current issue, and could use some work.--Pharos (talk) 18:35, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Scott Sterling

There are two paragraphs about Donald Sterling's son Scott under Personal life. This seems excessive as Scott is not notable in his own right and this is a biography of Donald. I recommend trimming it down or removing completely. Bahooka (talk) 22:53, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with trimming.Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Trimming, yes; removal, no. His son's troubles are relevant to his own bio but the current level of detail is not necessary.--Arxiloxos (talk) 05:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Made an attempt at trimming while retaining information on both the shooting and the drug overdose, just with less detail. Bahooka (talk) 05:50, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I went further. I listed the fact he was deceased over an apparent overdose. The current information was a bridge too far.Two kinds of pork (talk) 08:59, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Currently, the article does not say anything about his son Scott other than that he "died at the age of 32". No cause of death is given. I did not look into the article history to see who removed that information or what they said when doing so. I ran across an LA Times article that said his son's death was later ruled to be an accidental combination of embolism and "narcotic medication intake", involving injection of a narcotic that was formulated to be taken orally, and that diabetes and oxycodone were contributing factors. Apparently, injecting an oral medication "led to blockages in his blood system". —BarrelProof (talk) 22:43, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

From another (semi-deleted) conversation below, I believe I found the edit that removed that information. It was by Collect, saying "OD of son is not particularly relevant unless this BLP connects Sterling with drugs directly". But personally, I think I disagree with that view. I think that the highly notable death of his son (notable enough to have been the subject of several articles in major news sources), who was apparently a quite troubled person, is highly relevant to the biography of his father and should be included in the "personal life" section. The shooting at Donald Sterling's home by his son Scott also seems potentially relevant and worth including. I might think otherwise if the shooting was somewhere else, but it was at Sterling's home. On top of that, there was the phone call by Sterling to intervene in the matter, which police characterized as "an attempt at intimidation or influence peddling". —BarrelProof (talk) 01:24, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Insufficient to violate WP:BLP. The death of a son may be notable, but cause of death is rarely of encyclopedic value unless one has allegations that the father in some way caused the death. If the cause of death is improperly included, WP:BLP calls for its exclusion. The "influence peddling" inference you seem to wish to add would require extremely strong sourcing, which has not been given. Collect (talk) 06:37, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. A biography is something that describes personal life as well as business pursuits and public acts, and anyone who attempted to publish a serious biography of someone without mentioning how immediate family members died or significant incidents of violence that happened at the subject's home would be criticized heavily by their peers as providing only a dubious and partial account. As long as there are reliable sources for such information, it should be included. The notion that mentioning that something happened means that the subject caused it to happen is pretty far fetched. Significant things happen and family members are born and die in every person's life. That doesn't mean that everything bad that happens is the fault of any particular person, and readers ought to be aware of such things. —BarrelProof (talk) 14:19, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

RfC started. Collect (talk) 14:47, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Kim Hughes

The Clippers refusing to cover prostate surgery for coach Kim Hughes was deleted with explanation "There is zero evidence this decision was made by Sterling. Unless a RS makes a direct claim Sterling was involved (and the source used aint reliable) then this should remain out." First of all, the sentence says "The Clippers in 2004 declined to pay ...", and did not specifically attribute it solely to Sterling. It is not uncommon to discuss the actions of a company in conjunction with its owner. In this case, it is not WP:OR, as reliable sources discuss this decision by the team in articles about Sterling. Yahoo Sports wrote "the Clippers organization (read: Donald Sterling, noted worst person in the world) declined to cover the costs."[5] The New York Times wrote "As the N.B.A. investigates racist remarks that have been attributed to Sterling, the longtime owner of the Clippers, the story of Hughes’s surgery — which was not revealed for more than five years — helps illustrate the reign of a man who has often been described as the worst owner in professional sports."[6]—Bagumba (talk) 07:20, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The Yahoo article bases the entirety of its story on the Howard Beck article, which does not name Sterling as being involved in the decision. The purpose of this text only serves to paint Sterling as miserly. Neither the two sources provided, nor the Beck article which is the origin of the story make any direct claim to Sterling, so yes, this is OR. Furthermore, this is misleading text, as one might surmise that the surgery was covered by the insurance, but not that particular doctor. This is a contentious claim, which requires strong sourcing of which we don't have.Two kinds of pork (talk) 11:46, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The reasoning that there is no proof that Sterling makes any decisions regarding a company that he owns is a weak argument to censor actions of that company that are attributed to Sterling's ownership in multiple reliable sources. In fact, that was a actually a defense of Sterling's in a past deposition for a lawsuit with coach Bill Fitch: "Sterling a) claimed he had nothing to do with firing Fitch, b) had no role in drafting or signing players, and c) had no idea what a guaranteed contract was."[7][8] Curiously, unsourced, promotional prose like "The Clippers have signed higher-priced veteran free agents", with no demonstrated link to Sterling, are not being questioned with the same line of reasoning.—Bagumba (talk) 16:32, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Weak argument my ass. The text as (was) written easily, and perhaps intentionally, implied Sterling was involved in denying a potential life saving procedure to one of his employees. Which is contrary what the most thorough RD States Two kinds of pork (talk) 20:34, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

O

WP:BLP

Applies to Sterling and the third parties mentioned. I recognize a desire to point out the evil person as an evil person, but Wikipedia still requires some rational balance, and attacks on unrelated people are not an option. (Including the aside that his son died from drugs, etc.) Collect (talk) 14:32, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

All the recent deletions are of material that pass WP:BURDEN, and satisfies WP:BLP. The fact that now this person has become at the center of a major controversy, does not mean than the article needs to be pruned. On the contrary. Cwobeel (talk) 14:34, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Amazingly enough, you are wrong, Calling a person an "alleged prostitute" is a contentious claim. Referring to the death of his son as being from drugs is a "contentious allegation." All the material so cavalierly reverted was removed for sound reasons, and I would note that WP:BLP places the onus on the 'person adding the material. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:57, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

BTW, it seems the contrary of "pruning" is "expansion" and I suggest this BLP is already a prime example of recentism and tabloidification of Wikipedia. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:58, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Deletions

Political affiliation

This deletion: [9] described Sterling political affiliations, and contributions to political candidates. As a public figure that material is relevant and should be included. Cwobeel (talk) 15:01, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

He has never been noted for his political affiliations, and it is quite clear that none of the controversy surrounding him has anything whatsoever to do with his political affiliations or his donations. Heck, we don't even know if he has ever voted. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:25, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Scott Sterling

This deletion [10] is questioned as well. There are abundant sources related to this very unfortunate incident, which ties Donald Sterling to it. see https://www.google.com/search?q=Scott+Sterling Cwobeel (talk) 15:10, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

And I note you struck this one out upon reflection. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:25, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Castro

This deletion [11] refers to what Sterling said about Castro. It does not fail BLP as it is a comment made by the subject of the article and referred to in reliable sources. Cwobeel (talk) 15:20, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Repeating any allegation that a living person is a prostitute seems to be a contentious claim. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:27, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

General discussion on deletions

It seems there might be some misinterpretation about WP:BLP to mean nothing negative can be said about a person. On the contrary, it required that it be verifiable and is neutral by reflecting due weight of sources. IMO, multiple reliable sources discussing an aspect over many years (i.e. when it first occurred, and then years later) seems to merit a mention. I encourage editors to follow the bold, revert, discuss model of editing.—Bagumba (talk) 16:18, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Nope. What WP:BLP states is that the onus is on the person adding the contentious material. In the case at hand, WEIGHT, RS, NPOV and other factors all coincide. I suggest that there is currently quite a bit of "negative" material in the BLP at hand, and that piling Ossa upon Pelion is contrary to WP:BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:31, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

BLP mandates the deletion of contentious material that is unsupported by RS. The rules for inclusion may be derived from what is excluded.

All that is not mandated to be deleted can be included, and all that is allowed to be included should not be deleted; BLP therefore assures that there should be no deletion of contentious material with a reliable source. Edit summaries should not include contentiousness as a sole rationale. Edits should not be made on this basis alone. Discussions should not include contentiousness as a sole argument.

Also, you are at 4RR. Anarchangel (talk) 23:41, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Show me your "reliable source" allowing any statement that Castro is a prostitute. Really -- have you no sense at all about why WP:BLP exists? It is to prevent real harm to real people' and promulgating claims that a person is a prostitute has a very real likelihood of causing harm to that person. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:55, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I was reminded by someone who is a lot cleverer than I am that it is those who demean prostitution who are at fault for causing the guilt and subsequent harm of ill repute. An evil cuss arguably makes the prostitute's job harder; in this case, the old joke is reversed: they get paid AND they get to leave afterwards. However, what is really at issue is a reliable source. I disagree, I think Forbes is pretty much the best you can get. This writing just sings, too:

Sterling has great tolerance for chaos, or revels in it. Alexandra Castro, the young woman he sued in 2004 when he acknowledged paying for sex, portraying her in court as a $500-a-night prostitute, is still often a guest at Clipper games." Like Berliners Celebrating Wall Going Down, Clippers Greet New Post-Sterling Day-You know how it’s always darkest before the dawn? Suddenly, it’s morning in Clipper Nation! -Forbes.

This is perfect for citing the text in the article: "Sterling described Castro as a prostitute." Simple. To the point. Fights fire with fire. If anyone has a problem with that, I suggest that is their problem. Maybe if it gets said often enough, the intolerance will eventually cave in. And there is the ABC News article, too. I guess the Sporting News is not reliable? Imo, that does not mean we have to remove it from the article, though; it need not stand the test of verifiability, since it is not supporting statements in the article. Anarchangel (talk) 02:06, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Um -- last I looked Castro is a "living person" and may be harmed by Wikipedia repeating allegations that she is a prostitute. That is a big reason why WP:BLP exists -- the idea that random people on Wikipedia can harm a living person in that way is abhorrent to many editors. I would note that Castro appears eminently non-famous. Collect (talk) 01:26, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I heard you the first time. There is no need to lecture me on this matter again, or twice on the same page. I was aware of the dangers of gossip and innuendo long before I was a WP editor. But this is a matter of public record. And as I already said, Wikipedia protects by requiring substantial RS, and the citation given satisfies this requirement. RS allows contentious material. You have answered none of my points. Am I to take it that you concede them? Anarchangel (talk) 02:33, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, it may be a BLP problem if we say in the article that Castro is (or was) a prostitute – at least if we do that in the absence of her referring to herself as such or being convicted of prostitution. But it is not a BLP problem to report that Sterling (very publicly and repeatedly) characterized her as a prostitute. That is simply a very well documented fact that has been reported in many reliable sources. I think it is also not entirely true that Castro is non-famous. She is famous enough that her mere presence at basketball games after settlement of the lawsuit has been considered noteworthy enough to be reported in at least one reliable source that I have noticed. Her continued presence at such basketball games, after becoming the center of significant attention, also seems to be evidence that she has not been trying very hard to retain a strong sense of privacy by staying out of the spotlight. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:38, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Name change section?

Is the following of importance to this BLP?

Donald Tokowitz and his wife asked for a change of name on December 9, 1959 to a surname of Sterling according to Supreme Court of California records, citing the financial benefits of a clearer surname and the difficulty among his peers to pronounce "Tokowitz"; the petition was granted.

I fear I find it of remarkably little relevance to the person at hand - interesting as it is that he changed his nname, that fact is already in the BLP. Collect (talk) 01:22, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Considering the petition to change his name cited the financial benefits of the name change, and seeing that he became a billionaire, it seems relevant.—Bagumba (talk) 01:46, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I think it's worth including for other reasons. One is that it identifies when he changed his name (particularly that it was after he was a married adult). Relatively few people ever change their name, so I think it's worth including some detail about that in the article (since there's a reliable source that discusses it). What he told the court about why he wanted to change it was probably more a matter of what he thought the judge would consider as acceptable reasoning than evidence of his private thinking, but still seems worth including to me – although it sounds like a very plausible rationale if clients and clients seemed to find his prior name difficult to remember or pronounce. (I know someone personally who recently changed his surname for that same reason.) —BarrelProof (talk) 01:55, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

This is a biography of a high net worth individual, and as such information about a change name is relevant. Just think of the reader (I am one, and I fond that information to be pertinent.) To another point to Collect (talk · contribs): Do you know about WP:BRD? If so, after a BOLD edit and a follow up revert, it is your responsibility to engage in a discussion and not to edit war as you did. Cwobeel (talk) 03:14, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

"High met worth" does not make the fact he considered his name hard to pronounce anything much more than trivia. We already clearly mention the name change. It is like saying "Geroge Gnarph has a lot of money so it is reasonable people should be told he had a hangnail in the past." It has no encyclopedic value at all. As for the snark about BRD and the accusation of "edit war" , I find it uncalled for utterly, and should not only be redacted, but outright apologized for. Collect (talk) 10:55, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I think that most people who read that some noteworthy person's name has been changed would have a natural curiosity to learn what the circumstances were and what motivated them to do that. Was his name changed by his parents when he was 4 years old? No. Was it because he was adopted or his mother remarried to someone with a different last name? No. Was it because he was trying to become an entertainer and his talent agency recommended it? No. It was changed when he was a married adult, for reasons of his own choosing without any particular reason to choose "Sterling" other than that he liked the sound of it and thought it was easy to remember. I think it is desirable to include that information in the article to satisfy that natural curiosity. But I don't think we need to include the phrase "the petition was granted". That is obvious from the simple fact that his name then became the name he requested. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:01, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Article about claims regarding charitable activities

An article was published today that I found interesting:

Pringle, P., Mozingo, J., and Jennings, A., "Sterling foundation ads tout good works, but verifying them isn't easy", Los Angeles Times, May 3, 2014.

Would it be worth including something about that in the article? —BarrelProof (talk) 03:15, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution. I will certainly take a look at the article. A note for another time: the more specific your suggestions, the more specifically they can be answered. Anarchangel (talk) 05:03, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Implicit accusations of criminal acts has a very high bar which the claims did not meets. This has been discussed above I understand. Collect (talk) 10:56, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I wish you were right. Sterling's acts of misrepresentation as shown in the linked news story should be illegal. Anarchangel (talk) 13:54, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Now that the spotlight is shining on Sterling, and given the LA Times track record in investigative journalism, I'd expect more is going to come to the surface about the Sterling Foundation. Regardless, a section about his foundation should be part of this article. Cwobeel (talk) 13:57, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Amazingly, there is zero mention of his foundation in the article at this time. Cwobeel (talk) 13:59, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I did a quick check on Google, and it seems that there is very little about his foundation prior to the scandal. The LA Times article can and should be used to start a section on this, and include the cancellations of gifts received in the aftermath such as the $3MM cancellation from UCLA. Cwobeel (talk)

Here are a few sources:

• Sterling Foundation Awards Scholarships And Grants [12]
• How Donald Sterling Tried To Blot Out His History Of Racism By Giving To Charity [13]
• Donald Sterling: Does $5K Buy an NAACP "Lifetime Achievement" Award? [14]

Cwobeel (talk) 14:39, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2014

Under Sterling's bio's section on discrimination lawsuits, two very different cases are mistakenly conflated into one.

Please change the first paragraph to the following: "The Housing RIghts Center of Los Angeles filed the first housing discrimination case against Sterling on behalf of 18 tenants in February of 2003. The lawsuit featured several racist statements allegedly made by Sterling to employees, such as "black people smell and attract vermin" and "hispanics just smoke and hang around the building" as well as Sterling's intent to rent only to Korean tenants because "they will pay the rent and live in whatever conditions I give them." Part of the HRC case's resolution including U.S. District Judge Dale Fischer awarding the plaintiffs' attorney $4.9 million in attorneys fees. While the final terms for the plaintiffs were confidential, the same judge said the fees were justified as the settlement obtained by the plaintiffs against Sterling was one of the largest of its kind and the public benefit terms were significant and wide-ranging. The U.S. Department of Justice then sued Sterling in 2006 for housing discrimination in using race as a factor in filling some of his apartment buildings. The suit charged that Sterling refused to rent to non-Koreans in the Koreatown neighborhood and to African Americans in Beverly Hills.[56] In November 2009, ESPN reported that Sterling agreed to pay a fine of $2.7 million to settle claims brought by the Justice Department and Davin Day of Newport Beach[citation needed]that he engaged in discriminatory rental practices against Hispanics, blacks, and families with children.[57] "

76.94.199.13 (talk) 03:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

RfC Scott Sterling "cause of death"

Ought this BLP allege or imply in any way that a son (Scott Sterling) of the subject died of a "drug overdose"? 14:52, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

I suggest that such allegations are not of encyclopedic value in the first place, and also violate WP:BLP by making allegations about the son of a living person which do not have strong factual sourcing (the sources were immediately after the death and stated "possible" which is insufficient here, IMO). There is no reason to assert notability of the son whatsoever. Collect (talk) 14:52, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Survey

• Oppose use of non-notable son's death as a means of implying anything whatsoever in the BLP about the father. It is sufficient to note that the son is dead. Collect (talk) 14:52, 5 May 2014 (UTC) And the official cause of death, but limited to that information. The "abuse" rumours are still invalid here. Collect (talk) 03:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
• Include -- at least insofar as an autopsy determined that the death was a result of a drug overdose (see e.g. [15] and [16]). If there's to be a decision to keep the material out of the article, it should be a decision rooted in a proper understanding of the facts, not in an erroneous impression that the death might not have been the result of an overdose in fact. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:53, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
  • The sources provided in edits to the BLP did not include any actual results, but there is still an issue as to WEIGHT to be given in the father's biography here. Noting the death is one thing, cause of death is a distinct issue here. Collect (talk) 16:15, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
• Include – The death of an immediate family member is an important and significant event in a person's life, and the circumstances of that death are also important and relevant. Omitting that information from a biographical article about his father would be a strange omission. Sterling's son's death was highly notable and has been reported in various reliable sources. Some of the sources discuss the matter in significant detail – not just as mentions in passing but as the sole subject of several lengthy articles. The best such source that I have noticed so far is the one identified above: [17]. Citations to two other articles devoted to the topic of his death were just deleted from the article: [18], [19]. Not only were the source citations removed, but his age at death was also removed (even though there was no mention of the cause of death in the article at the time and the sources were certainly sufficient to establish the death and the time of death and age at death), and I really can't fathom why. The latter two articles were early and preliminary reports, but the other one was not. Donald Sterling's son died an accidental death in late 2012 from injecting narcotic drugs. That is a simple fact that has been well established and widely reported, and it is highly relevant to the biography of Donald Sterling. It is not a mere "allegation". —BarrelProof (talk) 17:46, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
  • The sources you initially gave were absolutely in the nature of rumour. That the actual report came out two weeks ago does not mean your earlier sources were usable at all. Meanwhile "the man had a son who died" may be relevant - "the man had a son who died of drug abuse" may well be stretching the envelope of relevancy. BLPs are not collections of "every factoid we can find about the person" - the intent is to create an actual encyclopedia article. Collect (talk) 19:21, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Your reply repeatedly refers to those as being sources that I initially gave, or as my sources. However, those sources were in the article before I came along. They are not mine. It was only by reading them that I learned any of this. The only source that I personally dug up is the more recent one, and I didn't really go looking for this stuff – I just read one of the other articles and the web site suggested that I also read the newer one. I'm pretty confident that if I went looking, I would find more. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:32, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
• Include. It is a very unfortunate incident, but it is biographical. Cwobeel (talk) 21:18, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
• Include. But no more than a sentence or two. This is a biography of Donald Sterling, not Scott.Two kinds of pork (talk) 23:38, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
• Include As part of WP:BLP, WP:PUBLICFIGURE says text is not removed merely because it is "negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." Most readers would want to know why a child died before a parent.—Bagumba (talk) 23:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
• Include The circumstances surrounding the death of a family member of a famous person is relevant.—Chris!_c/t 00:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
• Include Brief summary information (e.g., a sentence) on the subject's son's death is relevant to biographical coverage. Preliminary autopsy findings reported in January 2013 were confirmed in an intermediary April 2013 coroner's statement, prior to publication of the coroner's final report. Most detailed contemporary coverage on this topic seems to come from the LA Times and the Associated Press. Reliable sources seem to agree on the basic facts, though the LA Times and many recent sources use "accidental drug overdose", while a widely published April 2013 Associated Press article uses "drug-related accident" (I think they're using it as a polite euphemism for accidental overdose, but I could certainly be wrong). The nearly identical April 22 & 23 stories from the LA Times provide the most detailed coverage of the death. Language of "cause of death" from primary sources can be difficult for layperson interpretation, so I would go with probably go with both the LA Times and AP secondary source summaries (i.e. say that he died of an "accidental drug overdose or drug-related accident"), and skip the part about a pulminary embolism. Sources:

• Associated Press (2013-01-01). "Scott Sterling, son of Clippers owner, found dead; drug overdose suspected". Press-Telegram. The son of Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling was found dead of an apparent drug overdose at his Malibu home, authorities said Wednesday. … 'Sheriff's homicide and Los Angeles County coroner's personnel at this time believe that Sterling died of an apparent drug overdose,' the statement said.
• Associated Press (2013-01-02). "Heat rally early, rally late and then cruise through overtime". The New York Times. The son of the Los Angeles Clippers' owner, Donald Sterling, was found dead, apparently of a drug overdose, at his home in Malibu, Calif., the authorities said.
• Blankstein, Andrew; Stevens, Matt (2013-01-03). "Son of Clippers owner is found dead at home". Los Angeles Times. Scott Sterling, the son of Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling, was found dead in his Malibu home in what authorities said Wednesday appeared to be some type of drug overdose. ... Sheriff's detectives said preliminary evidence suggested Sterling died of a drug overdose but stressed a cause of death would be determined in the coming weeks by the coroner's office.
• Associated Press (2013-04-22). "Death of Sterling's son accidental". ESPN.Go.com. Coroner's investigators say the death of Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling's son was a drug-related accident. Los Angeles County Coroner's officials said in a statement Monday that Scott Ashley Sterling died from a pulmonary embolism after injecting narcotic medication meant to be taken orally.
• Blankstein, Andrew; Stevens, Matt (2013-04-22). "Death of Scott Sterling, son of Clippers owner, ruled accidental". Los Angeles Times. Scott Sterling, the 32-year-old son of Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling, died as a result of a pulmonary embolism and 'narcotic medication intake' in what Los Angeles County coroner's officials classified as an accidental death, authorities said Monday. Sterling was found dead in his apartment on Pacific Coast Highway in Malibu on New Year's night. Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department officials quickly determined his death did not involve foul play but appeared to involve some type of drug overdose.
• Blankstein, Andrew; Stevens, Matt (2013-04-23). "Death of son of Clippers owner is ruled accidental". Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department officials quickly determined that his death did not involve foul play but apparently stemmed from a drug overdose. … Dr. Michael Baden, former chief medical examiner for New York City, said that although injecting narcotics meant for oral use is common among drug addicts, doing so does not often result in death. 'Usually the person dies of an overdose of the drug,' Baden said. 'It must be extremely severe to kill the person.'
• White, Chris (2014-05-01). "Donald Sterling stripped bare: Disgraced Clippers boss is a violent bully who paraded NAKED in front of kids and their friends, calls Christians STUPID and whipped son with a belt and told him to stop eating 'like a n***er'". Mail Online. Scott turned to drugs - and died from an overdose last year age 31.
• White, Chris (2014-05-02). "Donald Sterling abused son, is responsible for his OD death, friends say". New York Daily News. Scott Sterling died of an accidental drug overdose last year at age 32, and the siblings say they believe his dad bears the responsibility for the tragic demise.
• Telander, Rick (2014-05-03). "Beloved Magic Johnson once was as reviled as Donald Sterling". Chicago Sun-Times. In case you didn't know, Scott Sterling became a drug dealer, shot his best friend 12 times in the legs as a teenager and died of a drug overdose at 31.
• Heisler, Mark (2014-05-05). "Forget racism, with child abuse allegation Sterling's accused of crimes vs. humanity". Forbes. Eyewitnesses allege that Donald abused his son, Scott, who died at 32 of what was ruled an accidental drug overdose, after a troubled life that included his arrest for wounding a friend with a shotgun.

––Agyle (talk) 02:35, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• There is little likelihood that the accusation of "abuse" etc. would pass the WP:BLP cncerns,though the official autopsy report does take the cause of death beyond rumour at least. Collect (talk) 03:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• If there was coverage by multiple reliable sources, accusations could be mentioned per WP:PUBLICFIGURE; they wouldn't automatically be dismissed merely because they are negative and/or allegations.—Bagumba (talk) 04:01, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Nope. Allegations of major crimes are not what is covered by that bit -- it covers things like divorces and affairs, alleging a person is (for example) a murderer based on allegations from unnamed sources is still verboten. And making allegations about the "crimes" of a non-notable son (the rumour of an attempted murder of a friend) is still improper as well. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:42, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• My favorite is the "shot his best friend 12 times in the legs" quote. If I recall correctly, that is a reference to 12 pellets from one shotgun blast. (I think there were two blasts, but only one that inflicted injury.) That is not what I would personally refer to as shooting someone 12 times. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• Include, briefly. -- AstroU (talk) 12:19, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
• Include WP is suppose to summarize WP:RS.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:43, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
• Only use information about the son if there are sufficient reliable sources, such as Forbes, Daily Mail, LATimes, NY Daily News, etc. From a quick look, this appears to be both significant, and well sourced. It would, in the circumstances, be inappropriate NOT to mention it. We need to be impartial. We cover the good, the bad, and the ugly if that is what the reliable sources are doing. And in this case, they are. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC)