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.

Neil deGrasse Tyson

Neil deGrasse Tyson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is an ongoing dispute about the inclusion of material regarding a quote alleged to be by George Bush that Tyson has referred to in speeches. Issues of RS and UNDUE apply, and the dispute has spilled offsite with a partisan website attacking individual editors. Neutral editors should have a look. Gamaliel (talk) 13:00, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that patheos.com is a reliable source. It looks like a blog to me. Aside from that, I don't think that it's necessary to include both of these sentences:

Hemant Mehta called the incident "the most serious example of Tyson’s alleged quotation negligence."

Tom Jackson of the Tampa Tribune called it "... a vicious, gratuitous slander."

Both quotes are essentially saying the same thing (more or less). I would recommend removing one. BTW, this content is in the section on Politics, which seems wrong. IIRC, Tyson's point was about scientific literacy. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:47, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Its pretty much indisputable it happened, there is multiple videos of it. While the larger point is about science literacy, he chose to make it political, by making up a quote and attributing it to a political person. However, I do agree on the WP:UNDUE part, until/unless this starts getting picked up by more mainstream sources, its just some non-notable opinions talking about it. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:30, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Are any admins reading this? They've been edit-warring over this for the past three days. We made need to lock it down. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:54, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

The slander is not that of Tyson but by Tyson (of Bush). It does not diminish Tyson who as a scientist can make mistakes. Many do. I don't see the huge deal in this. Limit-theorem (talk) 19:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

After spending more time thinking about this, I think I've changed my mind and now believe that it's undue weight to have this in the article. There are literally thousands of articles written on this topic, we can't put every little detail in an article. If this was truly important, more sources would have picked up on this. They haven't. If that happens, we can always reevaluate. I'm also a bit concerned that even the couple sources that do cover this don't appear to be straight news stories but are basically opinion columns. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:39, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

@CambridgeBayWeather: (or any other admin reading this) Given that this content is potentially disparaging to both George W Bush and Neil deGrasse Tyson (depending on how you want to look at it), I think that the safest thing to do is to have the disputed content temporarily removed until consensus can be achieved. The article is locked, so I cannot do this myself. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

There is an RfC ongoing at the article's talk page on this issue. It seems civil. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:48, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

@A Quest For Knowledge:, do you mean these two paragraphs that were re-added by User:Sphilbrick, themselves an admin? CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 23:15, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

@Gamaliel, A Quest For Knowledge, Gaijin42, Limit-theorem, and Capitalismojo: I see that this thread was started on the 19th. I just became aware of it because someone pinged me. The instructions say that {{BLP noticeboard}} should be placed on the artilce talk page, so that editors will know about this discussion. Why was that not done in this case? I am not a regular here, so perhaps I am misunderstanding the directions?--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:46, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• Spin-off article Neil deGrasse Tyson fabrication allegations created by Kelly. I find this article to be a BLP violation as there clearly is not enough sources/notability for a stand-alone article. I temporarily redirected it to the main article , but this has been undone. Probably most correct to nominate it for deletion, but should the article be allowed to be kept up while the ADF discussion is ongoing? My suggestion would be that it should be temporary blanked for BLP concerns. Iselilja (talk) 13:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

  Could you specify the specific unsourced BLP concern that you have? I've been careful to specify that these are simply allegations and I have used reliable sources on all controversial info so far as I can determine. Kelly ^hi! 13:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

My concern is WP:UNDUE weight to controversy by having a stand-alone article on it, as it is currently only covered in a couple of articles in Reliable sources. There exists much more coverage of other part of Tyson's life which doesn't have a stand-alone article. Only major controversies with tons of sources merit their own articles. Iselilja (talk) 13:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Certainly there is nothing preventing anyone from expanding the content on Tyson to include articles on other parts of his life. Kelly ^hi! 14:00, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Davido

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

Greetings Administrators. I need some clarification with the nationality parameter on Wikipedia. Davido was born in America but lives in Nigeria. Since he has both an American and Nigerian passport, should his Biography read: Davido is a Nigerian American recording artist .... or Davido is an American born Nigeria recording artist...? Which is correct. I need some clarification because I believe the former is right. Thanks. Versace1608 (Talk) 01:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

The second seems to be clearer. (Though make it American born Nigerian.) The first could mean that he is an American of Nigerian heritage. --GRuban (talk) 13:48, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not positive about this--and it's a minor quibble at any rate--but shouldn't it be "American-born", with a hyphen between the words? LHM^{ask me a question} 14:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Raffaella Di Marzio

Raffaella Di Marzio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Here we go again: another instance of a BLP being fluffed up. Here's the version I ran into, with much of the content having been added by Zambelo in this edit. Note how the "more than 100 articles" is sourced to the subject's own website (completely unacceptable, of course), and how the "She has been interviewed" so many times is sourced not to a secondary source saying so, but to the interviews and such. So I clean it up, reorganize it, and tag it some in a few successive edits, summaries and all, to rewrite it in agreement with how we typically do BLPs for such subjects (writers, academics, etc). Then Zambelo comes by again, adds "She is a member of the managing board" of an organization so that it's in there twice now, and complaining that I "remove[d] information on education"--I didn't, I reorganized it as prose, which is what we're supposed to do. In a subsequent edit they restore wikilinks for Italy (WP:OVERLINK), add a link for International Cultic Studies Association (so now there's two, since Cultic Studies Review redirects there), add a useless wikilink for "academic journal".

You'll note that in the current version much of the information is in there twice, and that Zambelo re-added the stuff we don't put in such articles--like a list of articles, and here also a list of "contributions" to encyclopedic books, without even the actual contributions listed. Sheer editorial laziness, and please note also that in their last grand revert they remove the only real secondary source in the article, which I added--Stevani, Milena (2011). "Rev. of Di Marzio, Nuove religioni e sette". CESNUR. Retrieved 23 September 2014..

I urge some seasoned BLP editors to have a look at these reverts, which kind of make a mockery of accepted practice and indicate that the editor does not seem to grasp what's secondary sourcing. Drmies (talk) 18:12, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Another one of these? We should give it the same treatment as the other one: reduce fluff and stubify. I'll keep an eye as well. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, another one, and it's looking more and more like the anti-Landmark movement is digging trenches--see remarks at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Voyage au pays des nouveaux gourous. Anyway, I appreciate it. Drmies (talk) 18:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

What you did was gut the article. Are there some parts of the article that are unacceptable and don't belong? Sure. But you removed over half the article, without any sort of prior discussion. "She has been interviewed" links to the articles that say in which capacity she was interviewed, referencing her various roles. I reverted your constructive edits, because you had made so many small edits that it was difficult to re-add (and discuss) any of the relevant material (even if you think it isn't). Instead of rampaging around, perhaps try discussing the content before you destroy other people's work? Zambelo; talk 12:28, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Boris Malagurski

I'm trying to figure out if this person (Boris Malagurski) is notable enough to have his own article. With the majority of sources being foreign (from Serbia), how do I determine whether or not this article should exist on the English Wikipedia. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:40, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Ha. There is no requirement that sources be in English--if most of them are in Serbian (or whatever), perhaps you can't make that determination (I couldn't either). Drmies (talk) 18:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

You can try asking some folks at the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Serbia. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:52, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 21:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

A suggestion: Some browsers allow for direct translation of the pages, Its not easy, because the translation is usually faulty, but you can probably verify if the statements are backed by the sources. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:02, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

But how would you determine if the sources are reliable? -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 21:28, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Again the wikiproject is a good place to start, but we have articles on several of the sources themselves, which would also be a good place to look Politika Nova srpska politička misao etc. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Somedifferentstuff, I came across this by accident and hope you don't mind me 'chipping in' here. There are/were ex-editors on BM pages, who were much more knowledgable than either of us about reliability of Balkan sources, sometimes, in the past it has come down to individuals as much as publications. An additional problem, is that many sources are 'feature articles', and it is probably true all over the world, that features are not fact-checked in the way that 'hard news' stories are. If the interviewee says something that sounds interesting, the feature writer will be inclined to include it (if it isn't libellous) - especially if the claim is made about something alleged to have happened half-way round the world.

The short answer to your opening question, is that within certain sub-cultures, which include FYR states and their diaspora communities, the film maker has a fairly modest fame/notoriety, outside those groups, nobody knows who he is. Whether that justifies several WP pages, is a matter I don't have an opinion on. There have in the past (I believe, as it was before 'my time') been attempts to delete some of these articles, which have usually narrowly failed. Pincrete (talk) 23:40, 24 September 2014 (UTC) … … ps however, anything that attracts the interest of neutral editors (inc. this post), can only be good for the pages .Pincrete (talk) 23:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Anca Heltne

Anca Heltne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• @Bbb23 and Pietaster:

Pietaster and I have a disagreement over usage of a source on the Anca Heltne article. The subject was suspended for doping by the governing body for athletics, the IAAF. As a citation for this, I have added the IAAF's newsletter suspension list (which is the way the body publishes such information). Bbb23 believes this contravenes WP:BLPPRIMARY, as this is a primary source, not a secondary one (meaning such material should not be published Wikipedia). I find this frankly absurd as the IAAF is the only authoritative source for people the IAAF doesn't allow to compete. This addition has been reverted several times now - should this statement be restored? SFB 19:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I can understand Pietaster's concern, based on this: if this is a significant issue, it should have been reported in secondary sources. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Looks like it's been reported in secondary sources.[1][2][3][4][5][6] --GRuban (talk) 20:09, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Then there is no problem in including. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:39, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I just have a few comments at this point. All the sources cited by GRuban are in Romanian. According to GRuban's user page, they speak Russian - don't know if they speak Romanian. There's nothing wrong with foreign sources as long as the person adding the source can state that the source supports the material. Second, because they are Romanian sources, I don't know how reliable they are. Finally, if we can all agree that these sources are reliable and support the material, I would cite both the IAAF decision and the secondary sources. There's nothing wrong with citing a primary source as long as it's coupled with a reliable secondary source.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:04, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I've reverted and added a secondary source. SFB 18:09, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

John Barrowman (BLPSOURCES vs CONTEXTMATTERS)

John Barrowman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A situation has arisen where there is a conflict between WP:BLPSOURCES, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, and a BLP's own words. The BLP conducted an interview at Daily Mail. There are two points to consider:

• Daily Mail is a tabloid journal and is therefore an undesirable or otherwise unreliable source per BLPSOURCES.
• The BLP was interviewed by this paper, which is uncontested (not under dispute for fabrication, libel, etc.)

In this instance, tabloid journalism should not be considered. As this was a planned interview by both parties (BLP and source), unless there are accusations of misquoting, fabrication of idea, libelous comments or other forms of created journalism, then the interview should stand as a legitimate source. The BLP makes a statement and the Source prints it, entering into "the record". I cannot see how a BLP's own words cannot be used just because they come from an otherwise non-WP:RS.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 02:03, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

This was already discussed here in February, and John's unusual interpretation of BLP was not supported.[7] The reliability of this source has also been discussed many times previously.[8] At no time has the community ever blacklisted the source. However, John has taken it upon himself to blacklist it against consensus, and he has previously done this with other sources, such as People.[9] The community again admonished John for his misunderstanding of RS and BLP.[10] As you can see from that discussion, John's perspective isn't supported. BLP does not and never has trumped WP:V. Because there is nothing controversial nor disputed about the source content here, BLPSOURCES does not come into play. The interviewer is notable and has been recognized for her work by the Society of Editors National Press Awards[11] among other accolades, and the interview itself took place in the manager's office of the subject himself. Per V, we can cite this source, and we can evaluate it as reliable in this context. Viriditas (talk) 03:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• The Daily Mail, like the Sun or the Daily Mirror is a tabloid (actually the Mail is currently the worst of the bunch) and cannot be used to support material concerning living people. BLP provides for using a higher standard of sourcing for articles about living people. BLPSOURCES is not framed in terms of "misquoting, fabrication of idea, libelous comments or other forms of created journalism"; instead it mandates that we avoid using sources with a generally poor reputation for fact-checking to support material on living people. I have emboldened the clause in policy which makes this clear, while quoting BLPSOURCES in its entirety.

Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. 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.

• Any editor editing or planning to edit in this area needs to read and understand this clause of BLP. To fail to do so is to run a risk of being blocked. It is important to note that there is no exemption for quotes or for interviews, contrary to what some editors seem to think. It disturbs me to hear editors editing in this sensitive area talk about "libel"; Wikipedia should use sources that do not leave us open to legal action for defamation, for sure, but like on image use policy, the test of whether we can use material is not and cannot be "is it likely that the subject will sue?" We aim higher than that and this excludes the possibility of using tabloids on BLPs in any but the most exceptional cases. These two quotes sourced to the Daily Mail do not constitute such an exception. --John (talk) 06:10, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • John, you just refuted your own argument. BLPSOURCES refers to "contentious material...that is unsourced or poorly sourced". We are not dealing with contentious material, so your continued appeal to BLPSOURCES is disproved. You've been told this many times by a great number of editors. We are dealing with a mundane interview conducted by a notable interviewer in the manager's office with the BLP. The community has consistently told you that there is nothing wrong with this source, so your continued appeal to "contentious" material when there's nothing contentious is simply a case of IDHT. There is no blacklist on using the Daily Mail as a source, and unless you can get one, you'll need to stop removing it from Wikipedia without the necessary evaluation in context. Viriditas (talk) 07:36, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Viriditas, you've just refuted your own argument. Contentious means "likely to cause people to argue or disagree".[12] The fact that we are arguing and disagreeing about it should act as a major clue in figuring out that this falls into our BLPSOURCES policy. I don't need a blacklist to disbar it; you would need a whitelist to allow it. If you wish to try to establish such a whitelist to allow the use of tabloids on BLPs, have at it. Until then I intend to enforce policy as it is written, not as you would like it to be written. --John (talk) 08:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Anyone can invent contentiousness just by being contentious. Whether the argumentativeness or disagreement is reasonable is another matter. There's a clue available in the history of this discussion. I hate the Daily Mail as much as any other grunt -- but disallowing it in this instance is difficult impossible to justify. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:57, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• John, I would like to take a moment to correct your misunderstanding of the word "contentious" in the context of the BLP policy, and how it relates to Verifiability. When I'm done, I hope you will admit the errors of your ways. "Contentious", in the context of the BLP policy, refers only to the content of the source, not to editors arguing about whether a source is reliable. You would know this if you truly understand the policy. For example, when the BLP policy refers to the word "contentious" in the above, it alludes to the Verifiability policy, namely "quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged". That's what contentious material means. When BLP says that "this policy extends that principle", it refers to "contentious material about living persons", not to "disputes between editors". The fact that we are arguing about your removal of the source from an article has nothing to do with how the word "contentious" is used in the BLP policy, or how it is originally used in the Verifiability policy to refer, in both instances, to controversial content. The key to understanding this concept is this: we are not arguing, nor have we ever argued about problematic content. We have only argued about your continued removal of the source without regard to content, in contravention of consensus. Is your error clear now John, or does it need to be explained to you yet again? Based on this very simple explanation of how the word "contentious" is used in the BLP policy, it should be clear to you now that your understanding of the word is in error and has now been corrected. Viriditas (talk) 09:05, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• I don't accept your interpretation of this fundamental policy. You may contend that this material is uncontroversial, but I consider it contentious. An example of the sort of exception I would allow would be where a BLP has written a column for a tabloid, then we could perhaps use the tabloid column as a reference for its own existence, though it would be preferable also to have a more reliable source to back it up. The two key principles which you need to properly internalise are:

1. BLP is about avoiding even the slim chance of harm to the living subjects of our articles. If there is doubt, we err on the side of not including suspect material.
2. Tabloids which regularly print lies about living people and then invite them to sue if they wish to challenge the lies, can never be considered as reliable sources for anything but their own opinions. They should never be used to source BLPs, and this is why the policy is framed the way it is.

• If you don't understand these two principles, it would be better to stay well away from BLPs until you do. --John (talk) 09:15, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • John, I quite clearly have an understanding of how BLPs work. Unfortunately, you do not, and your continued, ongoing battles with the community over BLP prove my point. If you won't concede the point, then in addition to asking arbcom to desysop you for abusing the tools, I will also ask them to ban you from all BLP articles. But let's stay on topic for now: just now, you've claimed the material is contentious. That's a new one on me, as you haven't ever claimed this material was contentious before, but I think anyone paying the slightest bit of attention will interpret your newfound faith in "contentious material" as furious backpedaling, which is fine by me, as you seem to be warming up to admitting your error. I'll take what I can get, so now that you have formally admitted your error in understanding the BLP policy, what pray tell is contentious about the source? Note, you said, and I quote, "I consider [the material] contentious". If you can't substantiate that statement, then you must concede the argument and admit that the source meets V and BLP, and your misunderstanding of BLP is to blame for your continued involvement in BLP disputes on Wikipedia. Viriditas (talk) 09:22, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

@John: Can you please explain how this relates to tabloid journalism (i.e. sensationalist crime stories, astrology, gossip columns, or junk food news)? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:05, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm willing to admit that I'm just about as much of a BLP stickler as they come, but I don't see the problem with this source in this context; I agree that The Daily Mail has to be used with caution, but what we apparently have here is an uncontested interview with the biographical subject used to source basically-uncontroversial facts and statements about his own life. There's nothing about the statements which could be construed as negative or have negative implications toward another living person. If nothing else, this could be said to fall under the exemption for self-published/otherwise-unreliably-sourced statements by a biographical subject about themselves. John, I appreciate your zeal to defend BLP policy issues but I think this is a non-issue. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 12:13, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

John and I disagree. I find the DM is a generally weak source for contentious claims about individuals (as are essentially all "celebrity articles" found in any newspapers including the Guardian, NYT etc.) but it meets WP:RS. The desire to blacklist any newspaper I find to be unfounded in WP:BLP or any other policy. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Finding something that you and I agree on is a pretty rare feat, I must say. Might be the first time, hopefully not the last. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 12:19, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• To clarify what I understand is our practice: No source is either totally reliable for all purposes or totally unreliable for all purposes. The Daily Mail and Sun are so unreliable in the way they deal with living people that there is good reason for a general rule that they should be avoided if possible in this area, and I think this is generally accepted. Even for non-contentious material, if a better source is available, it should be used. The question here is what about totally non-contentious material about living people for which it is the only source, such as an exclusive interview. The question here is whether they can be trusted to report the interview properly, and present the material in context. I'm not sure they can, but we need some discussion focussed around this particular point. DGG ( talk ) 12:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • To clarify: "Exclusive interviews" tend not to appear in multiple sources. In this case, the DM is the single and best (only) source for the interview, and interviews tend to reflect what the interviewee says, thus not in the category of being "sensational anonymous allegations" or the like. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:47, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm with DGG and Collect, on the whole. Such sources are to be handled with care, and in this case I personally don't have much of a problem with this source for that factoid. Still, the question of whether this needs a larger (and somewhat formalized) discussion is valid: if there isn't a blacklist, that's a start already. Much of this could have been avoided if a. that discussion on the talk page had been formally concluded by an admin (or if it had been a real RfC, which is what I proposed on the talk page) and b. if Lithistman hadn't jumped the gun (in my opinion), citing a clear consensus when, to me, there was no clear consensus yet. BLP requires a bit more than a couple of editors suggesting that for this particular edit this source is fine. Anyway, if you care, you can read my lengthy comment on the talk page, explaining a. my revert (one single one) and b. my protection. And all of that is really standard fare, in the absence of a clearly established consensus. I see that Floquenbeam has just commented on that talk page and that's where I'm headed. Drmies (talk) 18:29, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
• So the quibble here is in regards to a source that is generally regarded as rubbish being used as a citation for a quote by the subject on his upbringing? We're not robots, we can think & reason when there may be exceptions to the project's best practices (i.e. "don't use tabloids in BLPs"). There shouldn't be a problem with using the DM in this instance. Tarc (talk) 13:10, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• • When it's a quote from a source that is generally regarded as rubbish, how do we know the quote is an accurate one? What difference would it make that it purports to be a quote from an "exclusive interview"? If anything, I think quotes need a higher standard of verifiability than non-quoted material. --John (talk) 16:50, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

    Because a source "that is generally regarded as rubbish", is not the same thing as a source that is always regarded as rubbish. Please have a look at WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, as it deals with this very issue. LHM^{ask me a question} 19:33, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

And, conversely, sources that generally are regarded as reliable can sometimes contain falsehoods. We have a substantial article on Criticism of the BBC, yet I find BBC News is generally accepted as a source. And see the discussion on Talk:Nic Potter for an occasion where a usually reliable source turned out not to be. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:07, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Ritchie333, I think you might be surprised to find that the reliability of sources like the BBC, the New York Times, and the Wall Street Journal aren't so far from the Daily Mail. For example, just this week, the BBC was taken to task for creating, what appears to most neutral observers, to be a complete and total falsehood about the environmental group Friends of the Earth.[13] Luckily, the Daily Mail was there to accurately cover the dispute.[14] Viriditas (talk) 00:05, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

So in your opinion, all sources are of equal quality? --John (talk) 05:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd like someone to produce an article on BBC News that has the same tenacity as claiming that using Facebook causes cancer. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:05, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Admin misconduct

Lets stick to the issue at hand shall we? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spartaz (talk • contribs)

Please note that this has been discussed extensively on the article talk pages and the overwhelming consensus (if not unanimity) of editors is that this source is a reliable source in this context. Please see the following diff.[15] Despite this consensus, admins have gone insane and are actually blocking editors over this. First, Viriditas was blocked by WP:INVOLVED admin John[16] which was thankfully overturned by PhilKnight. But now Lithistman has been blocked by HJ Mitchell.[17] I've reached out to HJ Mitchell[18] but no response so far. We cannot have admins blocking editors for correctly following policy. This is insane and it needs to stop. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:50, 24 September 2014 (UTC) Nope. It is proper to require a positive consensus for inclusion of material - and unless and until such a consensus is demonstrated, it is reasonable for an admin to enforce that rule. Do I think John's block was wise? Not the issue. Was it "misconduct" per se? No. There is no "deadline" on Wikipedia, and so the proper course is to determine consensus on the article talk page (noting that consensus can not override policy and anyone closing an RfC or the like can weigh those arguments.) Collect (talk) 13:12, 24 September 2014 (UTC) A positive consensus for inclusion of material was established. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC) It sure looks that way, yeah. That said, obviously Lithistman should have waited for this discussion to wind down, if only to have a firmer consensus to back his edits. But the block is troubling nonetheless. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC) By the time this thread was started, Drmies had already successfully gotten me blocked with that... "odd" RFPP request. (Note: I don't blame HJ Mitchell for blocking, as the situation is fairly complex and not obvious at first blush. I do wish he'd have given me a chance to explain what was happening before blocking me, but that's a minor quibble, relatively speaking, with Drmies behavior, both as an admin and an editor. LHMask me a question 15:28, 24 September 2014 (UTC) You were correctly blocked for edit warring, which is what you did--three times you reverted. You didn't need me to do it, and given that you said that there was "clear" consensus on the material, that you say "the situation is fairly complex" is in blatant contradiction. Besides, I don't agree with your suggestion that HJ Mitchell is too simple-minded to see through complex things. But hey, you got to yell "admin abuse", so good for you. And the request wasn't very odd, was it. Article needs protection, RFPP is notified, the fact that one editor invokes BLP was correctly represented. Nothing odd about that. So I don't really see the problem here--and you won't explain on ANI, so we should let this rest, I suppose, and I graciously accept your apology for your unsubstantiated accusations. Drmies (talk) 00:58, 25 September 2014 (UTC) Drmies, you've edit warred against me and Lithistman in the last month, and yet you were not "correctly blocked", even after a 3RR was appropriately filed.[19][20] Care to explain the disconnect? Viriditas (talk) 02:25, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The material is undue in a BLP regardless of sourcing

Reviewing this big mess, the actual material seems to be based on the actor making a funny claim about themselves. If a celebrity said in an interview "I'm a wild man", then there would be no rational argument that we should include something like "The subject eschews all civilisation, not unlike our earliest ancestors." or any mention at all, really. This is giving more weight to a throwaway comment by the actor than better reliable sources give it. The arguments about reliability are beside the point; we don't include all material that we can verify. __ E L A Q U E A T E 17:29, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are entirely mistaken, and as such, your argument is invalid. The actual material being used is neither funny nor trivial, and supports important and relevant information in the article. I'm afraid you've either reviewed the wrong source or you are responding to the wrong noticeboard thread. Viriditas (talk) 00:14, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Gosh -- the material I read was quite tame indeed. I am a tad strict about BLPs and I find no such "funny claim" in the edit at issue ([21] does not seem problematic in any way at all). Collect (talk) 18:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Collect here. What exactly about the sourced material qualifies as "the actor making a funny claim about themselves"? Genuinely curious about this. LHM^{ask me a question} 19:30, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Have you read the source and the quotes that are the subject of this quest? Elaqueate is right; as well as coming from a truly awful source, these quotes are the veriest fluff. --John (talk) 20:19, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

The only "quest" I see is your own. LHM^{ask me a question} 20:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah. I'll take that as a "no". That would explain why you were getting the name of the source wrong. Read it, and then tell me why you are so sure these quotes are a) reliably sourced and b) enhance the article. --John (talk) 20:31, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

You can "take that" however the hell you want. I don't comment on BLP issues in which I haven't read the sources in question. LHM^{ask me a question} 20:38, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. Care to answer the question then? --John (talk) 21:10, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I did. You chose to ignore my answer. LHM^{ask me a question} 21:31, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

John, Elaqueate hasn't given us anything to go on, and since you have personally taken up his argument against the content (which I'm glad to see as it gives us something to actually discuss) then I hope you will point out directly how the article on John Barrowman uses this source to support "quotes [that are the] veriest fluff". I should note, however, that if this is your only contention, then you should be reminded that a dispute about the usage of material, in terms of whether it is trivial or not, is completely independent from the reliability of a source. Nevertheless, you are attempting to argue that there is a connection, but you haven't yet made that case. So I must ask you to prove your case: what are these exact quotes that are currently being used as trivia from this source? Please highlight them here, otherwise you must forfeit your argument in favor of Elaqueate's position. Viriditas (talk) 23:57, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Elaqueate about this, but deliberately didn't include it in my response above to avoid confusing multiple issues. I think that quotations from interviews and the like, about their childhood motivations or otherwise undocumented aspects of their upbringing, are both trivial and self-promotional. The only possible source in most cases can be the person themselves saying whatever they please--or whatever their press agent has suggested that they say. Even when said with the best intentions, the factual reliability of such anecdotes and memories is notorious. If they are used at all, as they might be in the case of famous people where the accounts are repeated by true third party unaffiliated sources,they need to be prefaced by a phrase like "according to themselves" for things such as their first commercial or artistic endeavor, or their family environment, or the inspiration & support given to them by their parents. It's not irrelevant in understanding artists and to some extent other people, but the nature of the information is usually dubious. DGG ( talk ) 06:21, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

@DGG: could you please address the specific source under discussion and demonstrate how it is being used to highlight what you describe as "trivial" and "self-promotional" content? I am unable to confirm your claim, and since you are speaking theoreticallly, your comments aren't helpful towards resolving the current discussion. You've attempted to argue that there could be a problem with the cited content, and that their might be an issue, but you haven't actually addressed the source under discussion and shown us a problem. This kind of unsubstantiated speculation really has no place here. I would also like to address your unusual claim about quotations from interviews about the early life a of subject. As it turns out, the use of such interviews to fill out biographical details is mundane and quite common, not just on Wikipedia, but in the best secondary sources. So I must take serious issue with your comments, and I must note that your 1) speculation about the source is irrelevant, as you must directly address the source under discussion, and 2) your personal opinion about how quotations from interviews are used in highly irregular, and diverges from both common practice on Wikipedia and in the biographical literature in general. Therefore, we must dismiss your entire argument as a whole. Viriditas (talk) 23:52, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Viriditas, a reliable secondary source can evaluate, and do original research , to establish the veracity of material. We cannot. Therefore, we must not make general claims without sources that actually support them. Quotes from an interview with a person, obviously, represent what he wants to say, and are not a truly independently source, no matter where they are published. If someone is, for example, asked if his family was happy and says yes, does it mean that it was, or even that he really thinks so? (Or in a different situation not involving this article, if someone says he has been influenced by a particular artist or philosopher, all it means is that he wants to say he has been. The only people who can validly say he actually has been, are sources qualified to do original research and make judgements. We can use what somebody says about themselves for the plain facts about his life--and only if uncontested and noncontroversial, not the interpretations of it. As for common practice at WP, I'd estimate that at least half of our biographical articles have content that would not meet current standards. As for the general usefulness of the Mail in any subject, see the various comments below. (But if you'll check my comments on the article in question, I've supported the use of the Mail in this particular case DGG ( talk ) 04:29, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• "Coterie"? That isn't very nice. I note here that as Viriditas apparently thinks that all sources are of roughly equivalent reliablility, we should take his views on this subject with a pinch of salt. Most of us aspire to be more discriminating than that; some sources are definitely better than others. --John (talk) 09:10, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I arrive as the result of a certain morbid fascination: Just what is all the fuss surrounding this article about? (I've not heard of the biographee other than in this article and the talk around it -- only a small percentage of which I've read.) The Mail is dreadful, and infamously open to passing off mere fiction as fact (see the article Daily Mail); but I get the impression that celebs are its specialty. The stream of celeb titillation down the right hand side of the page is unlike (say) the Guardian, the percentage of short paragraphs is higher, and the number of photos higher; otherwise it doesn't seem so different from the cheesiest sections of the Guardian. If the celeb isn't known to have complained, can't we take ostensible accounts of what he said as accounts of what he said? Assuming for a moment that he did indeed say it, DGG is right to point out (i) that we don't know whether he believes what he says; and (ii) that even if he does believe what he says there's no particular reason to believe that it's correct. But I see three general assertions within the edit pointed to above; all three are humdrum (by which I don't mean that they're necessarily credible), and for two of the three the reader doesn't have to look in the reference in order to see that this is what Barrowman recalls/concludes. Yes, it's all pretty worthless, but it's the kind of thing that's routinely worked into third-person accounts (in hack journalism as well as Wikipedia), and it does indicate how Barrowman likes to present himself. If it should be removed, then a vast quantity of similar stuff should be removed as well. (Not a removal that I'd vehemently oppose.)

In general, I'm inclined to take the Guardian seriously (if sceptically) and the Mail not at all. If (or in so far as) the credibility of the Mail is the issue here, then I note that this piece in the Guardian has the man saying the same thing about his eight years in Glasgow. (My own hunch is that this particular bit of the Guardian shouldn't be taken any more seriously than that particular bit of the Mail.) Considering that it only took me seconds to find this (googling "john barrowman" glasgow site:theguardian.com), I guess that the other nuggets people want (if worthwhile at all) can be sourced elsewhere too. -- Hoary (talk) 07:10, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

If The Mail is factually correct, which in this case it is, then why should another source be used. There is nothing contentious about the statement.Blethering Scot 20:02, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

This question has been asked again and again since February 2014, and not once have we received a reasonable reply. Instead we are told, "It doesn't matter if it is correct, the Daily Mail can't be used as a reliable source". The only problem is, this opinion is 100% incorrect, and our best policies and guidelines don't support it. This opinion belongs to Johh, and his small coterie of admirers who believe they can create a blacklist of sources they dislike without community consensus. Viriditas (talk) 00:00, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

This is nonsense, I'm afraid. There is reliable and multiple sourcing that the Mail is not a reliable source - one only has to look at the number of times they've been forced to retract and apologise. Any swift persual of relevant sources will prove that. This does not, of course, mean that everything - or even a majority of its output - that is printed in the Mail is lies - if it was, the paper would have not lasted as long as it has. But where BLPs are involved, we should not be using it - that is simple logic. Black Kite (talk) 00:12, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Nothing I've said is nonsense, and it looks like you misread what I said. We don't have a blacklist against the Daily Mail or Fox News for the same reasons, even though both sources have retracted and apologized in equal amounts. Fox News even went to court to get permission to lie, which they are now allowed to do in the United States by law. If you aren't familiar with that case, then you should be, because that would mean every Fox News source should be removed from Wikipedia; however, that's not going to happen. Sources make mistakes, sources lies, whether for political or some other reason. If you are the least bit familiar with journalism, then I'm not telling you anything you don't already know. However, John is waging his own personal one-man campaign against the Daily Mail and against not just our policies, but also against consensus, and this isn't the first time he's done this. He tried the same exact thing against People magazine and failed miserably when dozens of Wikipedians showed up and told him to stop. And now, he's doing it again, this time with the Daily Mail. Again, unless you can find something wrong with the source we are talking about, then there is nothing stopping us from using it. I've already demonstrated that the interviewer has won accolades for her writing, and she's considered a trusted source. I've also noted that the interview is not disputed. Only one objection has been presented so far, and it consists of an editor claiming that the material is "funny", "trivial", and "fluff", all of which is untrue. The material is serious, relevant, and important to the biography. This discussion does not reveal a single objection to the use of this specific source rooted in policy or in some kind of substantial, tangible issue with the content. What we have is one long IDONTLIKEIT argument, that originated with John and memetically spread to his small band of supporters. That argument could be made about any source, from the New York Times (An entire publication called "Lies of Our Times" exists to point out its daily, glaring inaccuracies) to the BBC (who was taken to task for making erroneous claims about Friends of the Earth just this week) to Fox News (of which entire films, books and doctoral theses have been written highlighting its penchant for lies). None of those sources, however, are blacklisted, and there isn't a single policy or guideline that disallows the use of the Daily Mail in this particular case. Creating straw men, distracting the topic by attacking other editors, or cherry picking selective problems with other articles from the same source doesn't disqualify the source. In short, there is no good argument in this discussion that addresses problems with the content nor with this particular usage, and therefore, no good argument to remove it. Viriditas (talk) 00:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

AS you'll see from my previous comment on this (which I think is below, I've lost track now), I'm not raising an issue with this particular story, I'm just pointing out the more general issues with using the Mail in BLPs - and thus pointing out that using an alternative source is immensely preferable. Black Kite (talk) 00:42, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and I've taken issue with that argument, noting that 1) we evaluate sources on a case by case basis, we don't disallow a major source automatically, and 2) the source in question needs to be discussed specifically, not generalized as to what might be wrong with it or what could be wrong with it. Several editors here have speculated about whether it could be "funny", "trivial" or "fluff", but have yet to actually demonstrate these odd claims, and furthermore, 3) the interviewer has a reputation for reliability, and there does not appear to be anything controversial about the content, and 4) alternative sources are not necessarily preferable or necessary when there is nothing wrong with the source under discussion. Finally, the problem isn't that other, better sources might exist, the problem is that this source is being dismissed out of hand, which no policy supports. In order to dismiss this source and end this discussion in favor of removal, someone has to raise an issue with this particular story. The problem, of course, is that since this issue was first raised in February 2014, nobody has been able to find anything wrong with it. Viriditas (talk) 00:49, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I noticed I was pinged on Barrowman's talk page about supporting the Daily Mail as a reliable source. Just to put this into context, my view is that calling anything a "reliable source" by a binary yes / no is naive. My view of the Daily Mail is similar to Hoary's - I avoid using it at a source, as it is well known for having a right wing POV in many of its articles. However, it is also the best selling British daily newspaper and hence something people will aspire to be in, and therefore in certain circumstances, pop culture celebrities do "exclusive" interviews in it. In those circumstances it can be used as a source to clarify additional details of a professional career with care. It should never be used as the dominant source in a BLP, I probably would take a hardline view of not using it for political BLPs except when stating the view of itself, and it should be avoided if a better source becomes available, but some of the pop culture articles are not particularly different to, say, BBC News Magazine. With that in mind, I examined this diff. Are we disagreeing or challenging Barrowman spending the first eight years of his life in Glasgow, or simply disputing that the Mail is a "tabloid", a contentious remark in itself?

Personally I would keep the claim for the length of time in Glasgow (using the Guardian source), but delete the other challenged claim about the views on his family, since that is not an integral part of his career and doesn't invalidate the "broad in coverage" criteria that a GA requires. That would then render any tags moot. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

We do not have anything in any policy whatsoever which says "right wing sources should not be used" and, in the case at hand, there is no political connection in the article, making that a silly cavil. The source is an "exclusive interview" and is not "celebrity gossip" for which even the Guardian is not a good source. I tend to not like "gossip" no matter the source, and this is not in that category. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The problem with the Mail is not that it is "right-wing" (in which case one could equally discard the Guardian for being "left-wing") but simply that it has a very long track record of simply making stories up (the famous flood of Romanian immigration, George Clooney's mother-in-law, and this made up trial account this year alone) and then burying a retraction in the corner of Page 29 when they get found out. You'd have to consider whether the Mail actually made that quote up. I doubt they did, even the Mail is unlikely to fabricate direct interviews, but it is certainly better to cite it with another source if the section is necessary. Black Kite (talk) 12:42, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

An interesting claim-- but I found no examples of the DM "making up" exclusive interviews by well-known interviewers. Might you provide such an example, as the ones you provide are not at all remotely near the case at hand. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:10, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that's what Black Kite said, though, as he said, "even the Mail is unlikely to fabricate direct interviews" (they could be sued for libel). In general, I would say all news sources should be approached carefully, paying attention to context, and ideally replaced in the long term by book sources that can comment on situations in a partisan view from an arm's length. Nevertheless, I would maintain that the Mail is a step up from The Sun, whose track record for lying is in a whole different league. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:CONTEXTMATTERS has been part & parcel of my argument in favor of including the Mail as a source in this particular instance, for this particular interview from the start. I've asked (but not receieved any answer) John how he thought BLPSOURCES interacted with CONTEXTMATTERS in this case. Since I've receieved no response there, I'd be interested in getting views from some of you. The way I see it, CONTEXTMATTERS was written for cases like this, wherein a generally unreliable source publishes something that, in context, is reliable. LHM^{ask me a question} 13:24, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I can't speak for John, but just now I spotted a cite to the Daily Mail for Max Clifford's recent divorce and swapped it for the Daily Telegraph. It took about 30 seconds, and avoids the recent kerfuffle we've had over this. That's something seriously worth considering. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

My question, though, was how CONTEXTMATTERS interacts with BLPSOURCES. If an exclusive interview done by the Mail doesn't qualify under CONTEXTMATTERS, what ever would? And if nothing from the Mail ever qualifies, then it should be blacklisted and we could have done with it. LHM^{ask me a question} 15:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

If you improved the article in the way I just described, then it renders your question completely moot and avoids drama. Everybody wins. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:58, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, sure. But the question I have is policy-related. Is there ever a situation in which you envision the Mail being an acceptable source, given CONTEXTMATTERS? If not, why not just blacklist it and be done? LHM^{ask me a question} 16:13, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Context matters, of course. But CONTEXTMATTERS is a section of Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources which is a guideline, whereas BLPSOURCES is a policy. Policy trumps guideline, in bureaucratic terms. On common sense grounds we cannot use material from sources that are generally unreliable on articles about living people. In that sense, the existing wording of BLPSOURCES already acts as a blacklist of this type of source for BLPs. There might be particular cases where we could use extremely uncontroversial material, but why bother? Certainly in this case the sources are non-compliant with our existent policy. And as nearly everybody here has said, this material is highly trivial and does not improve the article. Source it properly or remove the badly-sourced fluff from the article. I think at this point we have a consensus to exclude this material, but let's wait until everybody who wishes to contribute has done so. --John (talk) 16:55, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

That's complete nonsense. First, nobody has shown how any "fluff" is being used from the source. This was an unsubstantiated claim made up above that was never supported. In other words, nobody has shown there is any "badly-sourced fluff" being used. This is just a straw man. You'll need to actually show that trivial content is being used to make this a valid argument. I should also like to point out that there has never been a blacklist of the Daily Mail. The reason it is rarely used on Wikipedia is because within the last year or so, John has unilaterally removed the sources without consensus from every article. Viriditas (talk) 00:10, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with John here. For an illuminating / horrifying account by a Mail interviewee involving serious misquotation amounting to downright lies, try this rather lengthy piece -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 17:47, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The BBC recently did the exact same thing you accused the Mail of doing, and it involved what you describe as "serious misquotation amounting to downright lies"'.[22] According to the Ecologist, the BBC source "is replete with other outrageous twists. There is something alarming when any journalist writes an article like this. It is more alarming that the BBC environment analyst is doing this. Perhaps it is not surprising given that two BBC Trust figureheads of this world-respected media organisation are paid advisers to EdF..it is remakable that BBC Trust members can receive money from such corporate interests - and even advise them on how to use the UK media to clinch one of the biggest multi-billion pound deals in British history."[23] Using your argument, should we now blacklist all BBC articles? Of course not, and this is why your argument fails. Viriditas (talk) 00:38, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

In your example Harrabin provided an interpretation of the spokesperson's remarks which could be described as misleading.

The subject in my example had their actual quotes refactored wholesale and was given leave to proceed to a full defamation trial with jury (later settled out of court). Spot the difference. -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 17:42, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid you missed the point by a parsec. To summarize, the organization Friends of the Earth never once changed their position on nuclear power. However, the BBC and Roger Harrabin both claimed that the group did, and they did so by cherry picking comments they made out of context. Neil Crumpton, arguing in The Ecologist, claims that the BBC may have deliberately done this because of their connection to the nuclear energy industry. This goes way beyond "misleading" and into the realm of government/corporate propaganda. Is the BBC still reliable? Viriditas (talk) 03:21, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

There is obviously clearly factual matter on which the Mail would be reliable. But for those, it is unlikely that it would be the only source, and could thus be replaced. I wouldn't use the Mail for anything remotely related to a BLP, ever. Black Kite (talk) 17:17, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 17:47, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think this discussion has served a useful purpose because it helped to further analyse tabloid material and its potential for inclusion in a BLP. I think that the majority of the material originating from tabloids is probably fluff. But fluff, even from reliable sources, should be excluded from articles. Ergo, fluff from tabloids should be avoided. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

So, not even an exclusive interview, granted only to the Mail, would qualify the Mail as a reliable source, then? That seems overly-cautious. Also, although John claims consensus for removal above, I see nothing of the sort. I see useful discussion, but nothing resembling a consensus that an exclusive interview granted only to the Mail wouldn't qualify as a reliable source for a BLP. LHM^{ask me a question} 18:54, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

At least you have the name of the publication right now! In a week or so we will get a neutral admin to close this and it will be up to them how they do so. Meantime, if you have any good arguments or rationales for why you think it is ok to use a rag from the gutter with a reputation for printing lies to support material on a living person on a project that has BLPSOURCES as a policy, why not state them here? It would be more helpful than trying to second-guess what the consensus will be judged as. --John (talk) 19:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

You need to stop with the BS about the name thing. It's unhelpful, and you know damn well that both the Mirror and the Mail were being discussed. I even explained it to you. And given your behavior at that talkpage, and in this message, I have no further interest in interacting with you. Any further responses by you to me will go ignored. LHM^{ask me a question} 20:07, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

LHM, they are intentionally baiting you. Just ignore it and address the underlying problem. If you look closely, you'll find they are relying on fallacies and evasions to make their case, which will make it easy to address their arguments. I will begin to do so up above. Viriditas (talk) 23:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Of fluff and Barrowman

I have no interest (in any sense of the word) in John Barrowman. But I'm a bit surprised to read (or misread) that a statement (which as I've pointed out can easily be sourced to the Guardian) that he spent 8 years in Glasgow is "fluff". And further, that WP shouldn't include "fluff".

I have no more interest in Mariah Carey than I do in Barrowman. But at least I'd heard of Carey before coming across her in WP. I think it's safe to assume that her article here is much examined. Here (after markup stripping) is a not atypical sample of what has survived such examination:

On July 19, 2001, Carey made a surprise appearance on the MTV program Total Request Live (TRL). As the show's host Carson Daly began taping following a commercial break, Carey came out pushing an ice cream cart while wearing a large men's shirt, and began a striptease, in which she shed her shirt to reveal a tight yellow and green ensemble. While she later revealed that Daly was aware of her presence in the building prior to her appearance, Carey's appearance on TRL garnered strong media attention. Only days later, Carey began posting irregular voice notes and messages on her official website: "I'm trying to understand things in life right now and so I really don't feel that I should be doing music right now. What I'd like to do is just a take a little break or at least get one night of sleep without someone popping up about a video. All I really want is [to] just be me and that's what I should have done in the first place ... I don't say this much but guess what, I don't take care of myself."

It's not obvious to me that the article on Barrowman has an unusually high amount or percentage of fluff. I'd read any plea to strip WP of fluff with interest and some sympathy, but suggest that (i) what you or I regard as mere fluff about a given subject is often thought of great interest by those with enough interest in that subject to want to write it up; (ii) a plea to strip it all is better left for another day. -- Hoary (talk) 08:20, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't have "an unusually high amount" of fluff. It just happens to have used a source for an exclusive interview that some here seem to want to see blacklisted. LHM^{ask me a question} 11:12, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

That's an awful quote. Before I go over to that article to clean it up, here is one of the two nuggets we are discussing having on a BLP, sourced to the worst of sources: "Barrowman recalls his family as loving, but strict and mindful of etiquette: always polite and respectful towards others." On a fluff scale of 1 to 10, where would you place it? --John (talk) 09:04, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Hard to say. I'd have to be told something like "Given that [quote 1] is 3 and [quote 2] is 8 on a fluff scale of 1 to 10,...". It's pretty bad, but the amount of hot air expended over it seems out of proportion to its badness. -- Hoary (talk) 13:46, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Fair point. I think it is pretty fluffy and does not enhance the article. As regards hot air, I am a great believer in Winston Churchill's dictum that "jaw jaw is better than war war" and I believe we have made some progress here in regard to whether tabloids can be used to support fluffy quotes on BLPs. Don't you think so? --John (talk) 18:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Martin Leach-Cross Feldman

Article is Martin Leach-Cross Feldman. The problem is not specifically an edit, but rather a grossly insulting edit description for the edit. The diff is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Martin_Leach-Cross_Feldman&oldid=624081130 The user was Special:Contributions/107.35.133.183 and was the one and only edit by that IP. The edit occurred back on September 3, 2014. Safiel (talk) 05:57, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• I have deleted the edit summary. Thanks for your vigilance! --Randykitty (talk) 10:02, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Chino Rodriguez

Chino Rodriguez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Some one has delete many items from the Chino Rodriguez profile on Wikipedia Chino Rodriguez, profile was posted years ago. It remained untouched until this year 2014. The entire profile had all notifications and certifications in place and linked for verification the entire item has been vandalized and no one at Wikipedia has returned the deletions back as it was - everything was correct and verified... is this how the editors at Wikipedia control the information that was posted years ago and information that was verified, certified and had links proving the validity of the living profile ??? ... editors should review what was posted years ago and remained until it was vandalized recently. The person or persons which delete the information is trying to re-write history and eliminate the truth, this is not right and not fair to the public interested in preserving the truth and history of Latin Music events. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.231.58.20 (talk) 06:24, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

On the contrary, the biography was previously filled with material which was improperly sourced, or not sourced at all, along with vast swathes of material on subjects which had nothing to do with Rodriguez's notability as a musician. We do not use unpublished anonymous and unverifiable 'interviews' and the like as sources, and nor are we interested in every minor detail of Rodriguez's career in IT and so on. The article was not 'vandalised', it was edited to conform to appropriate encyclopaedic standards, as laid out in Wikipedia policies in guidelines. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Klaus Iohannis

Klaus Iohannis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article refers to Klaus Iohannis, the mayor of Sibiu, Romania and a presidential candidate in the upcoming Romanian election. Someone has tampered with his name for what appear to be political reasons, adding "6 Houses" to it, a reference to political accusations that he owns 6 houses and would thus be "abnormally wealthy".

Y Corrected. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:40, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Alessandra Stanley

Alessandra Stanley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A new controversy this week involving this individual is now 72% of the article text. My attempt to invoke WP:UNDUE has been met with the response "I'm going to file a formal complaint against you". I have a project deadline today and don't have time to get into protracted discussion about an obvious policy violation, so if some other editors could intervene please, I would appreciate that. Otherwise, I'll just invoke BLP protect the article. Gamaliel (talk) 17:07, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

And I'm the person who made that response. Gamaliel is the one in violation, by not discussing things and, instead, acting unilaterally. Please see item 10 on the article's TALK page; note that I am simply insisting that we figure it out, together, before Gamaliel just unilaterally effectively vandalizes the article. Please read what I have written in item item 10 of the article's TALK page. I, too, am busy. I'll see Gamaliel's project, and point-out that I was just diagnosed with esophageal cancer, with a 20% chance of five year survival; and am spending most of my time, today, making sure that I get into the clinical trial at University of California San Francisco, into which I was invited, so that I might actually live. I don't have time to keep reversing Gamaliel's actions -- his/her effective vandalisms -- which s/he keeps doing instead of just talking it out, first; and allowing others to chime-in. S/he is an example of what happens when an editor becomes too self-important, and officious, and has forgotten how this place works!

Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) (talk) 17:20, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

This place works by adhering to policies like WP:UNDUE. I don't care at all what that the article says about this issue, write it however you want, but policy dictates that it cannot take up 72% of the article. Neither one of us has the time to devote to this today, so why don't we both drop it? There will be plenty of time to get a mutually agreed version in place later. I wish you well in your fight against cancer. Gamaliel (talk) 17:47, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Chimed in on article talk page. Best of luck in fighting cancer. --GRuban (talk) 01:07, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Gun control activist's Joseph Goebbels comment

• Moms Demand Action (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Matthew Yglesias (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An IP editor has repeatedly inserted text into this article about a twitter comment made by a regional leader of this organization agreeing with a quote from Joseph Goebbels.[24] The material is sourced to a blog, which does not meet WP:RS. The text of the comment is inflammatory, stating that the activist "posted support for" Goebbels, when the activist agreed with a quote from Goebbels. The notability of this incident has not been established by reliable secondary sources (nor has anything else).

The same editor has also added text about Matthew Yglesias receiving the "Dumbest Blogger on the Internet" award. No source was provided, nor is there any evidence that the award is notable.[25]GabrielF (talk) 02:37, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The Moms Demand Action edit was a clear and unambiguous WP:BLP violation - I've removed it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:47, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Likewise the Matthew Yglesias edit - though I see it has already been reverted. Given the edit-warring at Moms Demand Action (3RR violation) along with the BLP issues, I think a block is a certainty - I'll ask at WP:ANI. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:52, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

theron smith

Theron Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello I am this Theron Smith and when my name is searched it says I died in 2010 can this please be changed? Thank you for your time 1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.76.153.92 (talk) 03:55, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Our article says nothing about this - are you sure you were looking at Wikipedia? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:03, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

That's Google that's giving that information; while Google gets some of their biographical information from Wikipedia, they mark Wikipedia as the source when they do. That's not what's happening in this case. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:28, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I have dropped a note in the appropriate place to Google; no idea how long it will take them to address it, if they will. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:38, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

In the past, when (for instance) Google was pulling the wrong image for a person, they fixed it within a matter of a couple days once notified. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:13, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

As of tonight, Mr. Smith is no longer dead in Google's eyes. May he live a long time! --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:37, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Shaun Foist

As management for Shaun Foist, a Wikipedia page was created for him with the required criteria for a public figure, and is currently under review by Wikipedia. However, this poorly written page somehow became live on Wikipedia as we await this approval. I would like to request that this page be removed and the one created by myself, which meets the threshold for verifiable links and information, replace it. Your kind consideration is greatly appreciated.

I realize that simply replacing information on the existing page is something that can be done, but I have spent hours creating the page which is currently under review and do not wish to duplicate the effort, if at all possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiTruthTime (talk • contribs) 15:07, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I have declined the draft submission, though really what I want to do is a selective merge from the draft to the mainspace version. Both versions have their own problems, as good writing isn't enough - BLPs need to be verifiable to high quality sources. For example, you can't say "Shaun received rave reviews ...." and then cite a single review piece. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:26, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Based on the references in both versions of the article, I'm dubious that even merging would give us an article that would pass muster on notability concerns. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I think there's enough to pass WP:NMUSIC #6, though Picture Me Broken looks like a potential AfD. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd question whether his current "ensemble" qualifies either for granting him notability; it seems not yet clear that the new formation under that band name is notable in itself. It doesn't seem too broad a reading that it is meant to include performers who are part of the notability of said band, rather than people who come on board legacy acts. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:41, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

My next question would be - how did the original EVEN go live, with less than stellar content? At the very least, I did the submission via Wiki protocol. How did the one currently live even GET live??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiTruthTime (talk • contribs) 17:08, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

While we strongly encourage individuals with a conflict of interest (such as a performer's management) to go through the Articles For Creation process, that is not our default method of creating new articles. Most articles are created "live". --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:45, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Gregory D. Hague Terry Thorgaard (talk) 17:05, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

This article appears to be nothing more than one attorney's attempt to advertise. I don't know if it is a proper subject for a Wikipedia article.

If it is, perhaps I should create a similar one about myself.

Michael H. Prosser

Please let us know why you delete the list of his books whereas I see other living people have included it and they have not been removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mansoureh Sharifzadeh (talk • contribs) 17:52, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

User Stuartyeates removed the overwhelming list of books stating "this is not a cv". Meatsgains (talk) 05:15, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Neil deGrasse Tyson fabrication allegations

Neil deGrasse Tyson fabrication allegations

Basically an attack-job citing non-RS blog posts, tweets, and other self-published sources. Article will probably be deleted soon, but while it's up at least it should respect BLP conventions. Attempts to scrub BLP violations and rename to NPOV title repeatedly reverted by original author. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 19:35, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Are there any uninvolved admins/experienced editors reading this? The AfD can be safely closed now as a snow delete. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Has anyone actually looked at the sources on the article? And what is the specific BLP violation being alleged? Kelly ^hi! 19:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Closed. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:56, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

This seems relevant. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:41, September 25, 2014 (UTC)

Well that's not surprising considering the number of times that blog appeared in the references section of the article. In fact almost the entire thing was sourced to them. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:01, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed more once I looked into it. Just ran into that link on a different matter, and then saw the same words on my Watchlist. Serendipity of sorts. Wasn't trying to be Captain Obvious. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:32, September 25, 2014 (UTC)

In regards to sourcing - no, not really. The main sources were The Washington Post, The Week, Physics Today, The Daily Beast, The Tampa Tribune, and others. Kelly ^hi! 06:28, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• Notice that Kelly appears to be trying to force the dodgy sources into List_of_Wikipedia_controversies also, Second Quantization (talk) 12:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

  Force? National Review and The Weekly Standard are reliable sources according to the archives of this very the reliable sources noticeboard. Kelly ^hi! 12:34, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Sign. I have already rebutted this argument several times, but you conveniently forgot that once again, Second Quantization (talk) 00:18, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I mean, really? So, the owners of a website get all worked up because we are going through an AFD? That is a controversy, only for those that want to make it one. A great example of a storm in a teapot...- Cwobeel (talk) 00:26, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Gonzalo Lira - Fan "ownership" resulting in Lack of NPOV

Gonzalo Lira (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Fan of Lira authoring a bio religiously since 2006, will not allow article to be adjusted to NPOV Even minor edits to fact are not possible. Talk:Gonzalo_Lira

--Did not realize there is another Notice on same issue

-- User_talk:MILH <will block all edits, minor, factual, major - "as owner" — Preceding

Talk illustrates why a minor changes needed to be made with NPOV examples illustrated from other biographies. Immediate reversion of any change confirms ownership problem. Talk versus the edit history prove bad faith

Lfrankbalm (talk) 13:15, 26 September 2014 (UTC)lfrankbalmLfrankbalm (talk) 13:15, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

User Lfrankbalm has been trolling this entry under anonymous IP addresses 173.68.144.130 (talk) (which eventually led to his being banned), and IP address 200.73.224.212.

User Lfrankbalm has a clear personal animus towards the subject. Hence I've been patrolling his edits, which he has made under the guise of NPOV.

—MILH (talk) 14:31, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

-Blog owner MILH deleting calls to the community to examine NPOV and content quality of Lira Biography

-No changes to biography made awaiting community input

-Serious problem whereby a single owner has dominated a Wikipedia entry since 2006 — Preceding

Made small changes to improve NPOV asked persistent-owner MILH of Lira entry to bring this issue to closure. Talk describing in detail why changes where made. (inordinate effort for minor changes)

Lfrankbalm (talk) 18:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)lfrankbalmLfrankbalm (talk) 18:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Confirmed troll with personal animus towards the subject of the entry. Has used multiple anonymous IP sock puppets to vandalize entry. Am undoing his/her edits. —MILH (talk) 21:06, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Dave Stewart (baseball)

Please remove personal life section of Dave_Stewart_(baseball). The sourced content is from 1985 and is inaccurate. As I have repeatedly tried to remove said content I am now accused of warring. Unfortunately, your users will not source articles from today that clearly state he is not married and has 4 children. They also insist upon adding the word transsexual to the lewd conduct information. I will take legal action against Wikipedia and all sources if this personal section is not removed. As it is not accurate and highly contentious. User: Alst17 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alst17 (talk • contribs) 15:28, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

While I do sympathise with this situation, I cannot accept edit-warring or legal threats. There are avenues open to you which have been mentioned at your user talk. The block can be undone if and when your legal threat is withdrawn. --John (talk) 16:51, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• It is accurate, though, Alst17. I read each of the sources, and there's nothing inaccurate about it, though I did clean up the prose a bit, and explain the plea deal he reached. And as noted above, legal threats will not be productive for you. LHM^{ask me a question} 17:28, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

LaTanya Richardson

Her middle name is not or ever was Estelle. We are her representatives for acting and we please ask for you to edit this on her page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfargoasst (talk • contribs) 21:09, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Looks like you removed it, that's fine if it's not sourced. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• I have stubified this article, as it has been tagged as a poorly-sourced BLP for 18 months now. I didn't remove the filmography, etc., though I thought about it. LHM^{ask me a question} 02:00, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

José Areas article -- child molestation matter

At José Areas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), there are repeated removals of a child molestation matter involving José Areas. I have reverted the removals, but, taking a closer look, I removed one source as WP:Self-published. Regarding the San Francisco Chronicle material, should we leave that in since he apparently "[admitted] to some acts of child molesting"? Flyer22 (talk) 23:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Removed. Per WP:BLPCRIME there must be either substantial coverage or a widely-reported legal outcome. That just reads like hearsay at best, so it's better to leave it out for now. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the assistance, FreeRangeFrog. Flyer22 (talk) 00:45, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Also, even if the bit I removed had been well-sourced, it's one person's account of another living person's alleged abhorrent behavior; therefore, it shouldn't have been in the article either way, and I should not have restored it. I should have paid better attention to all of what I was restoring, not simply the initial part regarding the San Francisco Chronicle. Flyer22 (talk) 04:51, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Grigory Sokolov

Sokolov did not entered the Leningrad Conservatory aged seven (and could not do it). He entered the specialised music school (primary/secondary/high school) affiliated to the Leningrad Conservatory. As to the Leningrad Conservatory, he entered it after having graduated that school. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.179.65.216 (talk) 03:22, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Added the clarification and a reference to support it.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:02, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Jeffrey Elman

Some of that did seem to be poorly-sourced and WP:UNDUE, so I cleaned it up a bit. However, reading the one source, I think what I did leave needs to stay in the article. (For those who weren't on the BLPN when it hit, a thread about the above article was rev/del'd.) LHM^{ask me a question} 05:25, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I removed the thread (actually, a single message and an automated addition of signature) from here because, polite though it was, it incidentally broke a rule hereabouts. I tentatively agree with your judgment here. (I went a little further in deletion, though, when I realized that one of the specified sources for what remains doesn't actually name the biographee.) I invite experienced editors with no axe to grind to put this article on their watchlists. -- Hoary (talk) 05:44, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate, do you think, to summarize what Mr. Elman (if we take that user at his word) mentioned as his major concerns regarding his article? LHM^{ask me a question} 05:52, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• Also, I thought I removed that one source that didn't even mention Elman by name. There must have been another instance of it, or perhaps I didn't remove it when I thought I did. LHM^{ask me a question} 05:53, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Below is the message that was posted here:

I am the subject of this page Jeffrey Elman. Several years ago, material was added by an individual [...] [who] is using my Wikipedia entry as an adversarial tool. I corresponded with a Wikipedia editor [...] in late 2011 to request that this material be removed. At that time, the offensive material was deleted. Volokh restored after that time, in late 2013, and my attempts to remove it again were challenged by another editor.

In fact, the material draws on poorly sourced information that incorrectly reports an event that occurred several years ago. The material alleges that as Dean, I infringed on the academic freedom of a faculty member. In fact, this was not the case and the faculty member who initially claimed this subsequently retracted the claim. Following that, another incident was reported, quoting material out of context and implying that I resigned as Dean because of these incidents.

The material is contentious, defamatory, and incorrect. I see only three possibilities for resolving the problem. The first is to refute it by adding additional material in the Wiki entry. I have no doubt that the individual who posted this would respond argumentatively. Because my major academic contributions are as a scientist, this would distort my Wiki entry and turn it into a public debate about a matter long past. (I am no longer Dean, and so this part of my career has ended.) The second alternative is to remove the material [...]. The third is for me to delete my entry in its entirety. The first alternative is undesirable. I would prefer the second, But if that is not possible, that I will ask for the third.

(Ellipses "[...]" above are of course mine.)

I have since removed an unsatisfactory reference and clarified another reference. I do not claim to have thought about the matter adequately. (For one thing, I have other, non-Wikipedia preoccupations today.) Don't infer from the quick end to my own edits that I'm happy with the result. -- Hoary (talk) 06:54, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

In view of this exchange, I hope that ErrantX [ping!] drops by. But he seems to be a rare visitor to WP these days. -- Hoary (talk) 07:05, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Given EugeneV's blatant COI on this, I think he should likely be topic-banned from editing any article related to Elman, should he ever again choose to do so. It's really quite shameful how bad that section of the Elman bio was with regards to our BLP policy, and it seems to have happened in large part due to EugeneV's persistence, as well as the article's relatively low-profile. LHM^{ask me a question} 14:44, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

From Elman: Thank you. I appreciate the careful additional research and attention. I believe the current version (as of this writing, reflecting edits by Hoary and LHM) is appropriate. I also concur with the suggestion that EugeveV does indeed have a COI ("blatant" is Hoary's characterization :-)...but I must agree), and request that he be topic-banned from editing any article relating to me. kk1892 15:49, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Additional source

I restored part of this material today, having noticed that it was treated in the current issue of Contemporary Sociology. Lithistman has now reverted it, noting simply that the matter is under discussion here (i.e., without giving a substantive objection to it). Since there won't be an objection to that source (nor to the San Diego Tribune), I'll be curious to see what the objection is. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:27, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

• I have no issue with a brief mention being made of what happened. However, as the subject of the BLP has raised concerns with the article, we should wait until some consensus has been formed before deciding exactly what that should look like. And as no findings of "guilt" in this "case" were ever entered, I think WP:BLPCRIME might also be worth considering, given that such accusations can affect an academic's career in fairly sigfnificant ways. LHM^{ask me a question} 16:39, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
• Elman here:Here is what I am not happy about, and what complicates these references: The Contemporary Sociology information was provided to the author by the aggrieved faculty member and based solely on his claims. The context, details, and explanation for the incident are omitted, with the result that a reasonable inference is that I was guilty of infringing the faculty member's rights. In fact, when an investigation and hearing was conducted last year by the Academic Senate regarding one of those grievances, the Senate found no grounds for the complaint and dismissed it. The second grievance was subsequently withdrawn by the faculty member and the case is now closed. The SD U-T article is problematic for similar reasons: It reports a charge but not the outcome. Furthermore, that article contains some factual errors, and I was not given an opportunity to clarify those with the reporter. I appreciate LHM's awareness that such issues are often quite consequential and indeed, the accusations themselves have had significant consequences for my career. Regarding the source for my resignation, a purely factual and publically availabl source is the University's own announcement, available as http://adminrecords.ucsd.edu/Notices/2013/2013-12-2-1.html kk1892 23:19 28 September 2014 (UTC).

The Contemporary Sociology source is entirely legitimate, easily meeting WP:RS. I can't imagine how you know whether or not Dylan Riley got his information from Richard Biernacki -- but it hardly matters, and anyway it's apparent to me that even you accept that the information is true (Elman instructed a UCSD sociologist not to publish a manuscript and threatened him with censure, salary reduction or dismissal etc.). No-where are you asserting otherwise; instead it's a matter of "context" and "details". If the complaint was dismissed -- and that fact can be verified via reliable sources -- then those elements of the story should of course be included as well. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Dread Pirate Roberts (Silk Road)

This article is about Ross William Ulbricht, who is accused of being the operator of the (now defunct) Silk Road website. The article should therefore be called Ross William Ulbricht or Ross Ulbricht (or just deleted) - however, both of these currently redirect to Dread Pirate Roberts (Silk Road), so I am unable to make the name-change. At the moment the title of the page constitutes a massive BLP violation (if I understand the situation correctly). zzz (talk) 08:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

("Dread Pirate Roberts" is what the operator and founder of the website was known as). zzz (talk) 08:34, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

"Silk Road 2.0" is also run by "Dread Pirate Roberts" (I believe) ie not Ross William Ulbricht, who is currently under arrest (I believe). zzz (talk) 08:38, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I see from reading through this page that there is a specific policy WP:BLPCRIME which states "A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured." I would agree with this - the article should be deleted entirely. It is unbelievable that anyone thought this was a valid article. zzz (talk) 09:23, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Or at the very least, put the guy's name at the top of the article, not who he is accused of being! It is a complete mockery. zzz (talk) 09:42, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I have been bold. But perhaps not bold enough. -- Hoary (talk) 11:50, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd be happy to see the article deleted. It's never said anything of interest about "Dread Pirate Roberts"; even now it says too much about allegations of crimes by somebody who hasn't been found guilty of any. -- Hoary (talk) 12:19, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes. There's absolutely no need for it. The Silk Road article already appears to cover the arrest, etc. zzz (talk) 12:38, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with zzz, having an article explicitly for a person charged but not convicted of a crime is a BLP violation, especially since I don't think it will stand up to WP:BLPNOTE. Everything of note with this guy was that he was arrested, and there doesn't seem to be any sustained coverage otherwise. All of that can be covered in the Silk Road (marketplace) article. If someone wants to nominate it for deletion, I would support that. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 19:47, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Since there is clear support, I suppose that a WP:FMERGE to Silk Road would do the trick. zzz (talk) 21:03, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Done! zzz (talk) 21:35, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Jameis Winston

So Jameis Winston (quarterback at FSU) apparently yelled "fuck her right in the pussy", and that's what got him suspended for one game. Should that exact quote be in his article, or is "suspended for making an obscene statement" good enough, with of course a link to the reliable source that does quote it? Bender235, Muboshgu, and Nomoskedasticity seem to think this is of the greatest importance in informing our readers? (And is the sourcing up to snuff?) Everyone is yelling "Wikipedia is not censored" but that we're not censored doesn't mean we have to stick everything in there, certainly not if it's a BLP, and this is a bit too much like naming and shaming. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 18:49, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

"Of the greatest importance"? Please don't misconstrue my comment. Someone asked if the exact phrase should be included, and all I said was "perhaps". – Muboshgu (talk) 18:53, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I repeatedly pointed out to Drmies that a statement like "Winston yelled an obscenity" unneccesarily introduces ambiguity into this article. "An obscenity" could be anything. What obscenity did he yell? Well, we know what he yelled, because it has been in the media everywhere. And it happened to be a meme. So why not stick to the facts? Sure, "fuck" and "pussy" might not be words you want to teach your kids, but then again Wikipedia is not censored. If we delete the factual statement here just because someone feels embarassed by it, why not also erase other historical facts: we could remove "Nigger" from Johnny Bright Incident and just state "some people made some racist statements", right? That's absurd. --bender235 (talk) 19:02, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be suffering from ifitsverifieditshouldbeincludeditis. Your comparison is more than a bit lame: you're comparing an "incident" that's so notable that it has its own article with a one-week "controversy". (It's not a matter of censorship, but of editorial judgment.) Maybe you should change the vague "Obscenity" in that section title to something more truthful and precise. Drmies (talk) 01:18, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

If I "suffer" from anything it's the urge to keep (unneccessary) ambiguity out of Wikipedia. We don't write "running back Smith injured his leg" when we can specify the injury. We don't write "a plan crashed" when we can identify the type of airplane. The same applies here. And there's a second level to it you fail to recognize: labelling a statement "obscene" is a normative statement we should avoid, because what's "obscene" to you might not be to me, or somebody else. It's the same reason why we don't describe movies as "great", cars as "innovative", or wars as "devastating". Because those are value-laden labels. So what do we do? We simply state the facts and let the reader decide whether he finds it "obscene" or not. --bender235 (talk) 04:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. When a comment leads to a significant event like a suspension (even only a game), it seems proper to relay what that comment was. Obscenity is a vague thing, and "obscene statement" will mean different things to different people, until they go out of their way to see the citation for the fact we omitted. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:06, September 27, 2014 (UTC)

Also agreed. No reason not to use the actual quote as long as we can properly source it. Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 19:12, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

By "properly source[d]" you mean Deadspin and knowyourmeme.com, right? Because the NYT and ESPN do not report the phrase--are you (and Bender, etc.) willing to say that NYT and ESPN, generally deemed a hell of a lot more reliable than the other two, are "censored"? The NYT has "obscene comment". Now, can we see some evidence that this is actually a noteworthy meme, as reported on in reliable sources? And please add that to this biography of a living person. Drmies (talk) 01:26, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Well the Guardian definitely counts. And these ones too [26] [27] [28]. Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 03:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

andrew lamothe

Violates Notability requirement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.19.155.67 (talk) 21:53, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Disappearance of Hannah Graham

Disappearance of Hannah Graham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An IP has been adding the name of the "person of interest" to Disappearance of Hannah Graham despite consensus on the talk page not to do so until and unless he is convicted. I want to make sure that I (as well as User:VQuakr) am in the right in reverting this addition (which I did a few seconds ago, and which VQuakr did a few days ago). The policy at issue is WP:BLPCRIME, which states that "For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured." Jinkinson talk to me 22:04, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Removed name per BLPCRIME, and watchlisted. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:00, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Misogyny Speech‎

Misogyny Speech‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is a dispute on this page regarding how to characterize the subject of the speech. There are two versions of the lede revolving through the turnstyle:

The Misogyny Speech was delivered by then Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard on 9 October 2012 in reaction to perceived sexism from opposition leader Tony Abbott.

and

The Misogyny Speech was delivered by then Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard on 9 October 2012 in reaction to opposition leader Tony Abbott's record of sexism.

The key distinction between the two revolves around characterizing Tony Abbott's record. In the second case, the wording is based on a news article from The Sydney Morning Herald" which writes "Prime Minister Julia Gillard has lashed out at Opposition Leader Tony Abbott's record on sexism as the Coalition made a failed attempt to have Peter Slipper removed as Speaker by parliamentary vote." In the first case, the word "perceived" does not appear to be supported by any sourcing.

Please advise. aprock (talk) 03:14, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The second one isn't supported by the sourcing you give here either. "Record of x" and "record on x" is very different. A judge may have a "record on murder" of having given seven murderers life sentences... but she wouldn't have a "record of murder" unless she killed someone. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:27, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Good catch. Is the phrasing "record on sexism" a reasonable characterization, and within WP:BLP guidelines? Is "perceived sexism" supportable? aprock (talk) 03:30, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The first choice is the best as it does not assert as perfectly true that Abbott has a record of sexism. Instead, Abbott's record will have various observers calling it various things, with some siding with the Herald and some not. Binksternet (talk) 03:34, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Many sources do not characterize it one way or the other. Several sources clearly characterize it as sexism while discarding misogyny. No sources that I've found outside of opinion pieces suggest that his statements were not sexist. aprock (talk) 03:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

But if Gillard was talking about Abbott's record on sexism, we cannot assume that he was talking about Abbott's sexism, perceived of otherwise. That's a different topic. Talking about Obama's record on terrorism cannot be referred to as "Obama's terrorism" or even "Obama's perceived terrorism". And if "perceived" goes in there in any way, it would be "perceived record on sexism", not "record on perceived sexism"... but that's probably not appropriate, as talking about someone's record does not mean necessarily talking about someone's record accurately. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:12, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I think it's clear that Gillard thought Abbott had a record of being sexist - in the speech, she says "Misogyny, sexism, every day from this Leader of the Opposition." StAnselm (talk) 05:37, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Certainly, but characterizing her views without any sort of source is editor synthesis. aprock (talk) 17:32, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

BLP enforced anymore?

I tried removing such negative content from Techno Viking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) a guy who took legal action because of unwanted publicity, and Jameis Winston (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), quoting an incident that got him suspended. Both sourced to a user-editable site which many users have already said is unreliable (1, 2, 3).--Otterathome (talk) 09:08, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

• I've fixed the latter by replacing the source with a reliable one with both states Winston's comments and notes the website from which the meme came [29]. I'm going out now but will have a look at the other one later. Black Kite (talk) 10:42, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Template:Opposition to NRMs

One or more editors are adding (and re-adding) lists of names (both unlinked and redlinked) to the Navbox Template:Opposition to NRMs. In doing so they are associating those names with (sometimes controversial) groups, and propagating that unsourced and unverifiable association across a number of articles (86 transclusions found) that use the template - many of those transclusions themselves being controversial articles.

It is the opinion of myself and at least a couple other editors (KoshVorlon and FreeRangeFrog both also removed the names) at that template that these links do not aid navigation and in fact present a significant BLP issue. The input of this noticeboard is requested. Thank you, Tgeairn (talk) 11:55, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

If it is an unsourced and unvarifable association in the subjects article, the name should be removed from the box. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:53, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The names have been removed by myself and FreeRangeFrog, however they are added back in (usually after about three days or so by Zambello who seems to think that it's okay to re-add them. This issue has been addressed with him not once but at least two times once by FreeRangeFrog and once by myself. He seems to not understand that if you want to make a claim about a BLP, especially if it's controversial, it needs to be referenced.

This is now past the time of just talking. Now we need mops and possibly either a TBAN or something along those lines. KoshVorlon Angeli i demoni kruzhyli nado mnoj 16:25, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Given Zambelo's current intransigence, I would support a TBAN. I don't think he'll stop doing it otherwise. LHM^{ask me a question} 05:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Watchlisted. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:25, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Tgeairn (and co.) has been on a vendetta against any anti-cult related article - there appears to be some sort of conflict of interest here. As I have explained earlier, the names mentioned are part of anti-cult groups, forming the anti-cult movement. As such, they are mentioned within said articles, in the references. There is therefore no BLP issue. The issue has not "been addressed", as KoshVorlon seems to think: deleting content without adequate information or discussion does not constitute "addressing the issue", it's pretty much just vandalism. Zambelo; talk 04:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• I looked into this and concur with Tgeairn, FreeRangeFrog, and KoshVorlon above. It appears that Zambelo misunderstands what templates are for: aiding people in navigating the project, as he makes the claim that they are to help people understand the structure of the anti-cult movement, which is why he keeps insisting on including unlinked or redlinked names. LHM^{ask me a question} 05:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes for navigation - by adding the names, one can both navigate the project, and see how the various parts of it interact. Is there any specific guideline/rule that prohibits this? Zambelo; talk 05:36, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Profile from Thinkprogress

I think this profile [30] is fine for uncontrovertial background, etc. OK? Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:12, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, that interview is fine for standard biographical details, but should not be used to describe the results or significance of her research on black carbon. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:49, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Rebecca Brown (Christian author)

Rebecca Brown (Christian author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Article Rebecca Brown (Christian author) has claims (full article) from a total of 9 sources. They looks like one primary, a few personal sites, and a couple others I cannot categorize. I believe person is still living. Basileias (talk) 13:50, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

At least one of the sources is a USENET posting. This article is a tragic mess (another citation is a comic strip - no, really). I'd recommend a thorough pruning, particularly given the number of names and places listed with no real sourcing at all, but an (admittedly quick) search isn't finding anything to indicate notability at all anyway. AfD is likely the way out of that mess. Tgeairn (talk) 14:48, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

It is now in AFD, and likely deleted. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:23, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Ben Padnos

Ben Padnos - the article is written by himself. - it exsists since 2008 (how could that happend?) - the companies he founded are not real companies (just websites) - the Article is a stub. - this is just an advertisement for himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.230.211.190 (talk) 00:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I've done some slight cleaning up of the article, but haven't done the research to see if it should be deleted. If you feel it should, I encourage you to take it through the articles for deletion process. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Chelsea Clinton

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

An editor has put a blanket veto on placing the name of Chelsea Clinton's baby in the article, even though the name of the baby is in the title of a Washington Post article and the name has been publicized by the family. The editor is also edit warring over this issue [31] [32] [33]. Is this editor's behavior in line? How hot is the sun? (talk) 06:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

There is an ongoing dispute about the inclusion of material regarding the name of the new Chelsea Clinton baby (on on the talk page for Chelsea Clinton). Today many articles from trusted news sources released the baby annoucement, and in fact it was a high trending news item of the day. Various politicians or poltical figures have their childrens names (and in many cases date of birth) in their Wikipedia articles from cited sources. I understand in the situation of certain celebrity children, privacy is an issue, however this was publically announced by the family and can be cited. This baby is notable for reasons beyond being born, including the lineage of a political family. Information about the child is being removed from this article by Winkelvi and the user has removed other political childrens names, with what appears to be a misinterpretation of BLPNAME. Can we please make a decision on how the BLPNAME policy effects this article? Thank you. Jooojay (talk) 06:11, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

No, this baby isn't "notable for reasons beyond being born" - she isn't notable (in the sense that Wikipedia uses the term) at all. Notability isn't inherited. And as for this being 'a high trending news item of the day', firstly this encyclopaedia is an international project, and I very much doubt that it is 'high trending' everywhere, and secondly this is not a newspaper, and we are under no obligation to slavishly copy the ephemeral concerns of the media. If the child's name needs mentioning at all, it needs to be justified on proper encyclopaedic grounds, rather than because the local media have run out of more interesting topics on a dull news day. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Andy is right. The child is not notable in its own right. It's not like a child in a royal family, with a position in the line of descent. The child's name would add nothing to the article. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and does not have fill column inches with trash every day. HiLo48 (talk) 06:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I can't for the life of me see any convincing reason not to name a child within an article—notable or not—when reliably sourced. Winkelvi has indeed oversimplified (and likely misinterpreted) policy- omission is NOT a requirement simply because a person isn't notable. Giving nameless children is vague, ambiguous, and unhelpful to readers. It also certainly is NOT PRIVATE when publicly announced by the child's family AND many reliable secondary sources. Inclusion is valid as long as it is reliably sourced, simple as that. Jooojay and Tvoz are absolutely correct that it is valid to include. Snuggums (talk / edits) 07:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

HiLo48 a child's name is trash news? That is offensive on many levels. Jooojay (talk) 07:21, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Snuggums (talk / edits) 07:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll ignore that silliness. Being sourced is a necessary but never sufficient reason to include something in Wikipedia. The default position in Wikipedia is obviously to exclude children's names. See most other biographical articles for evidence. This child would need some special notability to be named here. This child has no notability. HiLo48 (talk) 08:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't go so far as to say exclusion is "default"- there's a fuckload of articles which include names of all one's children, age and notability not withstanding. Charolette (or any other celebrity children) not having independent notability is not at all a convincing reason to leave out names. Snuggums (talk / edits) 08:21, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah, fuckload. I see the level of conversation we're working with now. HiLo48 (talk) 08:28, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLPNAME gives us guidance here. The relevant part seems to be: "The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons. The names of any immediate, ex, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject." So, convince that including the kid's name "is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject". She had a baby. That can be news. What she called it makes no difference to my understanding of that fact. HiLo48 (talk) 08:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The name of the granddaughter of Bill & Hillary Clinton certainly belongs in Chelsea Clinton's BLP. IAR and all that. This is as close to American Royalty as we can get. I see zippy harm to the baby or the Clintons by including this name which is sourced in every major RS newspaper on the planet. This is taking BLP policy to an absurd level. ABSURD!Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 08:53, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Snort! Chuckle....royalty? Blah...who gives a crap what Princess Chelsea named it. But....the way the name was publically stated and the fact that the name can be reliably sourced means there is no policy that prohibits mentioning the child's name here.--MONGO 09:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Not a notable baby, but having a baby is a significant event in this notable person's bio. Relaying her name isn't vital, but you'd have a slightly more complete understanding of Chelsea if you knew what she chose. No harm done, like when associating someone's name in Google results with their notorious murderer uncle (or aunt). InedibleHulk (talk) 10:16, September 29, 2014 (UTC)

Publically released in a statement from the family? Carried in reliable news sources? There is absolutely nothing in policy or guidelines that bars us from including it. Whether we want to or not is another matter, but I can see no harm in one mention of the name in connection with the birth. We have stacks of articles (including BLPs) where an infobox lists all the children, whether they are notable or not. I see nothing here that makes the inclusion of the name a problem. - SchroCat (talk) 10:19, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Keep in mind, Marc Mevinzky is also not notable, and the article doesn't mention him doing anything independent of "the couple". If this sort of thing is harmful, we should help him, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:32, September 29, 2014 (UTC)

Will you folk please have a think about why you're thinking this way? What earthy difference does the kid's name make to you? And to our readers? It's trivia. It's effectively voyeurism. Chelsea is of no real importance herself. Her kid even less so. The kid's name? LOL. HiLo48 (talk) 10:40, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

But her gluten-free wedding cake, that's important. And her "more sophisticated look" from Donatella Versace. #5 Girl in a 2002 Tatler magazine list? Damn important, whatever it means. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:49, September 29, 2014 (UTC)

Poor Chels and Mezza. The name is obviously irrelevant. The child deserves her own article! Martinevans123 (talk) 10:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

"It's effectively voyeurism"? No, having one mention of the name is nothing like voyeurism, effectively or ineffectively. - SchroCat (talk) 12:07, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Then answer the question. What earthy difference does the kid's name make to you? Or any of our readers? HiLo48 (talk) 12:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

This is not our call whatsoever. We pass that kind of question off to WP:RS. If they, for whatever reasons they deem applicable, widely report the name, then the name crosses all sorts of threshholds for inclusion. (Unless some intentional suppression has been requested by the family or courts or government, as per WP:BLPNAME.) Whether their reasons were "effectively voyeurism" or something else is completely irrelevant to us, and as such, you are not making an argument for exclusion. Choor monster (talk) 13:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

FYI, this tabloid-ish nonsense is infesting Bill Clinton's article as well. IMO WP:BLPNAME is enough of a rationale to leave a baby's name out of infoboxes and such for the time being. Tarc (talk) 13:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comments +policy: The child is not notable by Wikipedia standards; notability is not established by one event. In this case, the "one event" is the child being born. Including the child's name does not help the reader better understand the article subject. The child's name in an encyclopedia article is tabloid trivia worthy of People Magazine, it's not encyclopedic content.

• Guidelines found in WP:BLPNAME are clear on this: "Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event...When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories. Consider whether the inclusion of names of living private individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value."

• WP:LOWPROFILE applies: "A low-profile individual is someone who has been covered in reliable sources without seeking such attention, often as part of their connection with a single event."

• WP:BLP1E applies as well: "Wikipedia is not news, or an indiscriminate collection of information. Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. We should generally avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met: If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article."

I have seen this argument discussed many times over the last couple of years I've been here. Each time it comes down to what I posted above with the conclusion being: the names and all identifying information of non-notable minor children are to be left out of Wikipedia articles. In the case of Chelsea Clinton's baby, saying the birth occurred and in the month/year it occurred is sufficient. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 15:18, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Nobody ever said notability came from a singular event or whether a separate article is automatically warranted. Names are NOT TRIVIAL, and I'm sure anybody would be highly offended to hear that said about their child, and would highly disagree about it being "tabloidish" or "tabloid trivia" or "not encyclopedic". It is NOT indiscriminate, and when prominent political figures like the Clintons become grandparents, society views that as a pretty big deal, regardless of whether or not the grandchild becomes independently notable. There's nothing unencyclopedic with including an important part of a person's life. There is no hard-and-fast rule prohibiting inclusion. If a reader comes across text saying "_____ has a child", he or she will likely ask "what is the child's name?", and it would help readers to simply give answers when and where they want them. Being "non-notable"/"low-profile" isn't by itself a convincing reason to leave out names. If Chelsea on the other hand specifically mentioned she did not want her child's name known/revealed, that would be a different story. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:45, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

SNUGGUMS wrote: "I'm sure anybody would be highly offended to hear that said about their child". I'm sure the Clintons couldn't care less about what Wikipedia editors are saying about them in a Wikipedia talk page or noticeboard. No feelings of the article subject and associated relatives will be hurt during the course of this discussion. Such emotional commentary is neither germane to the conversation nor is it helpful. You further state, "Being "non-notable"/"low-profile" isn't by itself a convincing reason to leave out names". Policy disagrees with your personal, emotional opinion. You're free to take this up with Wikipedia policy-makers, I suppose, but in the meantime, the policy is what it is. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 16:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

No no- policy doesn't explicitly state it absolutely should/shouldn't be left out simply due to lack of notability. Also, I was saying Chelsea would highly disagree that info on her daughter is "trivial", especially seeing to it that she publicly gave it out. Calling Charlotte's identity "tabloidish" would likely offend the family. As long as the information is reliably sourced it IS VALID to include. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:10, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

(e/c, responding to Winkelvi above, agreeing strongly with SNUGGUMS) You have badly misunderstood all the policy that you have been quoting. WP:BLP1E and WP:LOWPROFILE, for example, are about whether someone should have a separate standalone article or be part of some larger article. The standards for simply appearing in an article are much much lower than having a standalone article. And they say nothing against including the name. In fact, the policy you quote explicitly recommends that such a low-profile name be an explicitly named redirect to the more general article. This is what is done, for example, with Obama's children, who have done nothing notable. (Although the instant they do something as minor as Chelsea or the Bush twins have done, or even HRC's mother, they will doubtless become so.) Contrast this with potentially being fourth in line to the English throne: that in itself counts as so notable that one doesn't even need a name, let alone a birth, to have a standalone article. Here, no one is suggesting a standalone article, so quoting reasons why we can't have one is simply wasting everyone's time.

As for WP:BLPNAME, I cannot see how anyone can read it as applying to this situation. The purpose is to protect privacy, which simply does not exist in this situation. As for newborns, names, genders, and dates are certainly considered routine information, told to everyone. As for "reader's complete understanding", well yes, the name is necessary: forcing our readers to click on the NYT link (and apparently we can't reference the WashPost article because the title has the name?) or Google for that one last bit of information is ludicrous. At worst, consensus must be achieved, and misapplying policy isn't contributing to consensus. Choor monster (talk) 16:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)No, I haven't badly misunderstood policy on this. In response to your comment, "As for newborns, names, genders, and dates are certainly considered routine information, told to everyone." Not in an encyclopedia. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 16:24, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• Regarding policy, you have opted for WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Not very encouraging. Yes, I typically find children's names of people with in encyclopedia articles, both WP and in-print. Choor monster (talk) 16:35, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• It is rather silly not to include this reliable information in the Chelsea Clinton biography (perhaps someone else's biography, it would be different but this is not someone else's biography). Sure, we do not have to, but per policy, we apply common sense to such things, and a widely publicized child name is just a standard part of reasonably complete biography for a mother. There is certainly no privacy concern, so all of those objections are without foundation. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:21, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• Are we really having a discussion about this? Most bios include names of the person's children, and I don't see why this would be any different. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
• I would support inclusion. This isn't "trash news" as others have claimed. The birth announcement was covered widely here in America. While I understand the privacy concern, we shouldn't substitute our judgment for that of the child's own parents. Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 17:02, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not the child's parents whose privacy we are concerned about. The name belongs to the kid, not the parents, and it hasn't given permission. It may grow up not wanting to be routinely and automatically connected with its philandering grandfather. It IS trash news. It's trivia. Chelsea herself isn't really independently important. The kid is definitely not. It may grow up NOT wanting to known as Bill Clinton's grand kid. We must leave it with that choice. And Cwobeel, you need to provide evidence that "Most (Wikipedia) bios include names of the person's children". I also say again, what the media says doesn't change our policies, which clearly discourage naming the child, no matter how incapable some here are at reading WP:BLPNAME. And to those saying it's well sourced, that is never enough. HiLo48 (talk) 17:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The notability of Baby Clinton is not being discussed. What Baby Clinton might want or not want regarding its grandparents is outside our control or concern: the attachment is there and will always be made. Media does not make our policy, for sure, but our policy relies on the media. In particular, the choices that the media make are given great weight. The name is not trash news. That is a rather rude, obnoxious and insulting statement for anyone to make regarding something that most of the media have apparently decided is of interest to their readers. And I'd say you've blatantly misread WP:BLPNAME. It asserts the name should be clearly left out in certain narrowly defined circumstances, and leaves it to editorial discretion in other cases. This is not one of those narrowly defined circumstances, ergo, you cannot raise an objection based on WP:BLPNAME. Choor monster (talk) 17:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I can, and have. You cannot dismiss it that easily. HiLo48 (talk) 18:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

You've missed my point. Charlotte's parents are the ones who get to make the call on her privacy concerns. Not us. I'd also suggest you step away from this discussion if you really don't feel Chelsea isn't notable enough and if you continue to insist the name is trash. Of course, you also wanted ISIS' beheading videos on Wikipedia, so I'm not sure anyone should listen to what you have to say. Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 18:02, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

That's a stupid and pathetic debating strategy. Please stay on topic. HiLo48 (talk) 18:12, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree: Calidum, stick to the topic.

Meanwhile, you have not actually raised on objection based on WP:BLPNAME. You have taken some words from it, and thrown them up in the air, claiming they apply here. They do not.

To be precise. The first paragraph of the policy addresses people known for one event. Baby Clinton is not known for any events, although some people are saying she is notable for "being born", which is ridiculous. (Unlike Louise Brown, whose only claim to notability was being born.) The baby is known and newsworthy today, and will remain known and newsworthy for quite some time, precisely because of Grandfather and Grandmother Clinton. (Just wait for her first play date with Prince George.) And that will never be something she can erase, so all your talk about WP ought to take some moral high ground and respectfully back off makes absolutely no sense. Like you said, please stay on topic, OK?

As for the second paragraph of WP:BLPNAME, the "presumption in favor of privacy" is null and void here. So long as we have WP:RS identifying the names for us, it's explicitly no longer a WP:BLPNAME leave-it-out concern, but a consensus-based editorial issue here, as the paragraph explains. Choor monster (talk) 18:36, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• The names of notable people's children regularly appear in the articles of those notable people. This in now way violates BLP1E, NOTINHERITED, or any other BLP policy, as those policies refer to whether or not an actual ARTICLE on the child should exist. If THAT were the debate, I would NOT support including an article on Chelsea Clinton's child. But it's not. So, I support including the name. LHM^{ask me a question} 17:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Notability is not a criteria for inclusion of content in a Wikipedia article. Notability is the criteria for a subject or topic to have a Wikipedia article. Is a baby and its name significant to an article on Chelsea Clinton or to any mother /father/parent. Apparently so since its included in most WP BLPs where that information is available. Is the baby and its name included in multiple mainstream sources. Yes, and further attests to the perceived significance of this content. We should not confuse notability with significance.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:42, 29 September 2014 (UTC))

Editors here keep saying things like "...its included in most WP BLPs where that information is available". I have asked several times, and will ask again. Prove it. Too much of this discussion is of the form "I declare this, so it's true". HiLo48 (talk)

You can't seriously be arguing that the names of children of BLP aren't included in the articles of the BLP, can you? This is a serious case of WP:IDHT. Here's one on Jeb Bush, for example. There are literally thousands of others. 18:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I asked you to prove it. Jeb Bush isn't "most". And put-downs like "You can't seriously be arguing..." never help. Of course I'm serious. Let's keep some quality in this discussion. HiLo48 (talk) 18:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jenna Bush Hager

A very similar issue to Chelsea Clinton's baby being deleted from the Chelsea Clinton article, is now happening to the Jenna Bush Hager article with user Winkelvi taking a stand that the discussion here did not reach a consensus or decision noted about the inclusion of baby names. This behavior seems unproductive at this point and he is not seeking community feedback. Jooojay (talk) 20:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

In fact, he's now edit-warring on Chelsea Clinton, just saying BLP over and over again. Choor monster (talk) 20:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I hate to say this, but such actions are now bordering on WP:POINT. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:24, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Mary-Dulany James

In the section titled: "2014 Maryland State Senate Candidacy," the article on James states: "James is to now face Bob Cassilly, former County Council Member and son of long time Harford County State's Attorney Joseph I. Cassilly, in the General Election in November. [6]" This is incorrect. Bob Cassilly is the brother, not son, of State's Attorney Joseph Cassilly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.3.159.31 (talk) 20:20, 29 September 2014 (UTC)