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.

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)

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.[1] The reliability of this source has also been discussed many times previously.[2] 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.[3] The community again admonished John for his misunderstanding of RS and BLP.[4] 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[5] 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".[6] 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.[7] Luckily, the Daily Mail was there to accurately cover the dispute.[8] 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.[9] Despite this consensus, admins have gone insane and are actually blocking editors over this. First, Viriditas was blocked by WP:INVOLVED admin John[10] which was thankfully overturned by PhilKnight. But now Lithistman has been blocked by HJ Mitchell.[11] I've reached out to HJ Mitchell[12] 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.[13][14] 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 ([15] 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"'.[16] 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."[17] 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)

Note to closing admin

This has been open almost a week and has not been active for a few days. I will post at AN soon asking for a closer. Can I ask whoever closes this to give an opinion, based on this discussion and the archived one from February, on:

1. Whether the specific quotes from the article can be sourced from a tabloid
2. Whether BLPSOURCES should be amenable to exceptions based on individual talk-page discussions and
3. Whether we as a project should formally blacklist the Daily Mail for BLPs.

I'll hold this space for the close, but of course it would be fine if anyone else wants to comment, or if previous commenters think of things they didn't say previously. --John (talk) 22:42, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• Only one further comment: If we choose to blacklist the Daily Mail (or any other such source that sometimes gives us reliable souring, but usually doesn't) we should probably just delete WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, as such a decision would basically strip it of any practical purpose. LHM^{ask me a question} 18:03, 1 October 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)

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)

Not agreed: see extensive description of the proposed minor-changes with justifications; (claims of vandalism, trolling, deletion of any edit, deletion of this entry, and other calls for comment on NPOV are deleted in response)

Lfrankbalm (talk) 03:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)LfrankbalmLfrankbalm (talk) 03:15, 30 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)

To be fair to Elman, he likely believes that Riley got his info from Biernacki because--in his view--the article presented only Biernacki's side of the story. As for CS, very few sources are always reliable or always unreliable. We have to be very careful here. LHM^{ask me a question} 18:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

• If no-one comes up with a policy-relevant objection to this material, I'll go ahead and re-add it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:34, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

  In my opinion, the university press release would be an acceptable use of a primary source, to add context to the incident, given the objections raised by the BLP to the way the material is currently being presented. LHM^{ask me a question} 18:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

  I don't necessarily object to the use of that press release. But I'm not sure it pertains to the edit I have in mind, the issue of instructing someone not to publish a manuscript, etc. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

  True. I would only say this: how likely is it that a university writes a press release that positive for someone who acted the way the CS claims Elman acted? I realize that is WP:SYNTH, but it is, in my opinion at least, food for thought on how accurately the CS presents the full context of what happened there. It makes me wonder if Elman's claims of the CS story being sourced only to Biernacki might be true. LHM^{ask me a question} 19:35, 1 October 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)

No, we state the facts as they are reported in reliable sources. You can have your pussy, and I can have my "obscene phrase". Which one gets picked is therefore not a matter of censorship: since we rely on secondary sources, the issue of censoring the primary event is not an issue at all. Only if all, or a large preponderance of the secondary sources have the quote can our not printing the source be construed, possibly, as censorship. Don't forget that "our" censorship can only be a censoring of the secondary sourcing, and as long as I have a whole bunch that have already excluded the phrase there is no way in which I could be censoring anything. You could argue I favor some sources over others, but that goes for your side too. Judgment, please, not witchtrials and accusations of censorship. Drmies (talk) 19:46, 1 October 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 [18] [19] [20]. Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 03:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

That's great. Does that mean that the NYT is censored? I doubt anyone would want to say that, if they are not censored for not printing the phrase, by the same token Wikipedia isn't necessarily censored for not printing it. Editorial discretion means that not everything that can be sourced ought to be printed. Moreover, that such lousy sources were thrown in there suggests that whoever did that had no editorial discretion whatsoever. (Besides, of course, the obvious lack of editorial discretion on the part of the subject of this BLP...) Drmies (talk) 19:33, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

• Ought Wikipedia include the actual obscenity uttered? [21]. I suggest that using the F-word in big red letters could be done in thousands of articles, but that Wikipedia has made a choice not to be sensationalist in BLPs - thus we can properly refer to "obscenity" without becoming the National Enquirer. More views would be good. Collect (talk) 17:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Does the National Enquirer print phrases like "fuck her right in the pussy"?? I'd be very surprised… Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

It would if some Wikipedians edited it. But that does not remotely mean that the use of FUCK as many times as possible on Wikipedia is proper. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• Winston' instructional guide for cotius conforms to the standard proscribed method. Vulgar yes, obscene, no.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 20:17, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Proscribed? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:39, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

andrew lamothe

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

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

Doesn't seem to be an article under that name. Did you mean another article?--Auric talk 22:00, 29 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 [22]. 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 [23] 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)

I doubt it will survive AFD myself. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:37, 1 October 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)

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)

I have removed that claim; it was not sourced, and even if it was, it was of dubious relevance. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:07, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

George Roberts (trombonist)

Several edits have been made to this BLP to announce his death, I believe these edits were made with good faith owing to their preciseness, but I cannot find any third party published references to his death. [24] Gareth E Kegg (talk) 22:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• Yeah, I can't find verification either, and felt forced to remove it in the meantime. Let's check again tomorrow. Drmies (talk) 01:20, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Bones West, the choir group founded by George Roberts, announced his death on their facebook page - [25]. Let me see if I can find any third party sources.  NQ  talk 01:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Drmies (talk) 03:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done - Added citation from the International Trombone Association [26].  NQ  talk 16:29, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Children names in BLPs

Chelsea Clinton

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 [27] [28] [29]. 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 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)

• I have unclosed this discussion: it was not signed, no outcome was provided (whose stick? which stick?), and there is certainly no consensus on anything. I see at least three editors who are providing arguments for not including the material, and plenty of editors on the other side. This is not ready for closure. Drmies (talk) 23:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• In this case the name should be included in Chelsea's article. It is true that we often elect to omit the names of non-notable minor children from bio articles. However, the reasons for doing so are obviated when the family itself releases the name, and it is the subject of extensive coverage in major media. The denigration of the coverage here as "tabloid" is inappropriate given that the sources include all the major American newspapers. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, of course that name is in the media (tabloid and otherwise); mom is famous, and of course the family released it. But the way I read the policy, we should leave the names of clearly non-notable people out of these articles. They are included in such articles all over the place, but by the same token they are also frequently removed from such articles, and with better grounds. Drmies (talk) 01:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

It's tabloid. Even the major newspapers have lowered their standards in recent times to retain/attract audience in a dwindling market. It's the child's privacy that matters here. We have policies. We don't have to lower them just because others lower theirs. HiLo48 (talk) 01:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Tabloid!? HiLo, you know as well as everyone else that major newspapers are quite different from tabloid journalism AND have much higher integrity. The idea of privacy is entirely moot when the family publicly announced it, so that argument is pretty much nullified. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:52, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Have you noticed that the Clintons happen to be a particularly publicity seeking family? They seek all the publicity they can get, for obvious political reasons. We don't have to play that game. Our policies say we should give the kid privacy. I have made my point about newspapers. HiLo48 (talk) 01:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and BTW, the ONLY reason I know that Chelsea even had a kid is because of Wikipedia. It isn't news outside the USA. (Well, not in the outlets I see regularly.) The kid's privacy is safe there. Well, it was,, until some excited Wikipedians chose a global encyclopaedia to announce the kid's birth AND name. HiLo48 (talk) 02:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Policies do not explicitly say it is a requirement per se to "give the kid privacy". In short, such information is NOT private at all when widely known to the public. If it was private, then society likely wouldn't have even known about her existence. As long as the information is reliably sourced, inclusion IS valid. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:07, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Bottom line: if the child/grandchild is non-notable and a minor, WP:BLPNAME is clear: naming them doesn't enhance the reader's understanding of the article subject, we aren't writing a tabloid or newspaper/magazine article, therefore, privacy for minor children is preferred for encyclopedic content. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 02:20, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

It is not an absolute requirement, though. In fact, given how one's child(ren) make up an important part of his/her life, leaving it out wouldn't really help viewers. If a viewer reads "_____ has a child", he or she will likely seek to know the child's name. For the reader's convenience, it is much simpler for them to provide the answer right then and there. No, policies DO NOT EXPLICITLY give a preference. And it is NOT PRIVATE AT ALL when known to the public AND publicly announced by family AND is reported in reliable sources. Adding such detail doesn't by itself constitute a tabloid, magazine, or newspaper. It IS encyclopedic to include as long as it is reliably sourced. The idea of privacy is oxymoronic when the public already knows about such detail. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:29, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

You really don't need to shout. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 02:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• non notable minor, no value to article or reader. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • On the contrary, it IS of value. Stating someone has a child and not giving any further detail is unhelpful and vague to readers. One's children are quite important to a person's life, unless said person simply doesn't care about his/her children. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

that some people dont feel satisfied until they have all the personal details about everything is why tabloids exist. As an encyclopedia, we serve a different function.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

SNUGGUMS wrote: "One's children are quite important to a person's life," Oh my gawd. How many times do you have to be reminded that this is an encyclopedia and touch-feely thoughts of "I may hurt someone's feelings by leaving their child's name out of an article" don't apply here? -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 02:42, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't so much a "hurt someone's feelings" as it is A: children are a major detail about the person, especially when aiming for a comprehensive article (with Wikipedia's definition of "comprehensive" meaning "it neglects no major facts or details") B: said person would disagree that it is "trivial" or "not important". There's absolutely nothing un-encyclopedic about including a major aspect unless it is unsourced/poorly sourced. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• Good grief. This entire thread is basically one small group of editors applying a draconian (and wrong) view of WP:BLPNAME in an attempt to (for whatever reason) keep the names of a BLP's children out of an article, when the BLP herself has released the name of the child. I could list hundreds of BLPs where names of non-notable children are included in the BLP's article. And if you look at the talkpage, the ENTIRE argument from BLPNAME has just been completely blown out of the water. There's no reason not to include the well-sourced name of Chelsea Clinton's child--or Jenna Bush's, for that matter, as one of the editors above is trying to make some kind of WP:POINT by going to THAT article and removing her child's name. This really needs to stop. LHM^{ask me a question} 03:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

To say that there's no reason is insulting to those who have presented some reasons. You may not those reasons are important enough, but they exist. Please think of using manners here. And stop using such shallow argument. HiLo48 (talk) 03:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Your reasoning has been shot all to hell at both the talkpage and here. Completely taken apart as without merit. But you didn't hear that, so you keep accusing others of bad manners and such, in lieu of explaining how including the well-sourced name of Chelsea Clinton's child in her article violates BLPNAME. LHM^{ask me a question} 03:42, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

HiLo, you've been dismissive yourself towards others' rationales on multiple instances here, so there's hypocrisy on your part. Just saying. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I will dismiss particularly foolish and dishonest editing. HiLo48 (talk) 04:39, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Wow. I'd much rather deal with someone who swears like a sailor than someone who begins hurling around insults once their arguments are put to bed. LHM^{ask me a question} 05:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Me too. HiLo48 (talk) 06:00, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• Mention by name Quite properly, we have biographical articles about the three grandchildren of Abraham Lincoln, including the boy named after him Abraham Lincoln II who died at age 16. We have a biography of a JFK child who died shortly after birth. None of them accomplished all that much, but are notable as descendents of a great president. We have articles about many parents and grandparents of U.S. presidents. I am not arguing for an article about Charlotte at this time, nor Sasha Obama nor Malia Obama. But refusing to mention these presidential offspring and grandchildren, discussed widely in reliable sources, and mention of which is entirely approved by their parents, is excessively pedantic and unsupported, in my view, by policy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

That's just more WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and I can't imagine why most of those articles exist. Might look at nominating some for deletion. HiLo48 (talk) 08:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Given your behavior in this discussion, such a WP:POINTy display from you would not surprise me in the least. (And if you're going to keep citing OTHERSTUFF, you should really read it. It doesn't say what you think it says.) LHM^{ask me a question} 08:04, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Can you get me mind reading lessons too? HiLo48 (talk) 08:10, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• Yes to the baby's name since the parents of the baby prominently published the name. Not only do we have strong arguments for inclusion of the name, based on very high quality sources, and many positive precedents, but HiLo48 let slip the true nature of the opposition with the offhand comment "Chelsea is of no real importance herself." That shows an ideological opposition rather than a logical one. Binksternet (talk) 08:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Really? I, for one, have no idea what you're talking about. Care to elaborate? Which ideology? HiLo48 (talk) 08:29, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The comment "Chelsea is of no real importance herself" shows you shifting into an emotional position, the abandonment of logic for a snide slam against the bio subject. If you really thought Chelsea was not important you would nominate her biography for deletion, which would never fly, and I'm sure you know that. So you've hurt your otherwise logical arguments, saddling them with emotional baggage. Binksternet (talk) 15:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

In what way is Chelsea Clinton important? And again, how is my position ideological? HiLo48 (talk) 21:04, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

You have a better vantage point than I do to judge how your position might be more ideological or emotional than logical. Regarding Chelsea's importance to the world, she is commonly considered future presidential material in the U.S., for instance by these sources:[30][31][32][33][34][35] In the interim, she is stepping up to take over the titular leadership of the Clinton Global Initiative so that Bill and Hillary can be freed from the constraints of being so closely associated with that fairly powerful NGO while simultaneously promoting Hillary as a presidential candidate. Binksternet (talk) 21:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

So we include the kid's name because its mother might be important one day? No. HiLo48 (talk) 21:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

And this ideology thing. It's you who said my position was ideological, not me, so it's you who must explain that statement. How is my position ideological? HiLo48 (talk) 21:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• There simply is no basis to keep this information out. As already noted, privacy is no issue where the fact is repeatedly well sourced. Moreover, the argument that it is not encyclopedic has no legs, as that does not accord with the meaning of encyclopedic. As for unnamed "good reason", none has been brought forward -- it is informationally part of her biography (see, eg. [36]). Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Many reasons have been given. You are free to disagree with them. But obviously many disagree with you. That contradicts "There simply is no basis to keep this information out." Privacy IS an issue. Wikipedia is long term and global. The current media frenzy in the USA is neither. Nobody has asked the child if it wants its name in a long term, global encyclopaedia. HiLo48 (talk) 21:04, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

No, disagreement alone does not form a basis in reason. It is unreasonable say that a newborn should be asked anything. Privacy is not an issue when the matter is already well published. Indeed, I already linked to a long term and globally published biography of Chelsea Clinton that has this well documented fact in it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:19, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Care to post that link again please? (There's a lot of crap been posted here, and I missed that.) 22:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

It is linked in my comment of 12:46 that you responded to. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support inclusion of name, as (i)being extremly well published and as such any privacy concerns are de facto moot (ii)of encyclopedic value, since last time I checked names, just as dates and locations, are encyclopedic information. We don't talk of "that President of the United States", we talk of George Washington or Richard Nixon. Names are the essential identifiers we use to look for something. In some cases we can avoid naming people due to privacy concerns, thus failing our encyclopedic mission in the name of some greater good, perhaps, but in this case -again- those concerns do not exist. Finally, given that BLP concerns are out of the question, then (iii) we do not go around deciding to remove sourced and germane information because "it is trash", since we are not censored.--cyclopia^speak! 13:15, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

You are ignoring all that has been properly said about the privacy concerns.The Washington/Nixon analogy is about as irrelevant as it could possibly be. Nobody is censoring anything. HiLo48 (talk) 17:10, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Nothing has been "properly said" about actual "privacy concerns." You've just jumped from blue link to blue link, trying to find any rationale you might be able to twist unrecognizable to support your campaign against inclusion of Chelsea Clinton's baby's name. There are no "privacy concerns" in this case, as the parents have made the name widely known, and various reliable sources have published it. LHMask me a question 18:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Jenna Bush Hager

Jenna Bush Hager (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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)

I absolutely agree. The only arguments put forward are a blatant misinterpretation of BLPNAME, that has been roundly refuted above, and the sticking of one's fingers in the ears after that argument has been refuted. LHM^{ask me a question} 21:47, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I neither know nor care who Jenna Bush Hager is, but I just saw that claim of "roundly refuted above". That is simply wrong. HiLo48 (talk) 23:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Jenna Bush is one of the daughters of George W Bush. I assume that the article is being offered for purposes of comparing what our general practice is. I suspect you would be hard pressed to find a recent President whose grandchildren are not named. Jack Carter (politician) names Jimmy Carter's grandchildren. Jason Carter (politician) names the great grandchildren of Jimmy Carter. Michael Reagan names President Reagan's grandchildren. Jeb Bush names grandchildren of George H W Bush. --B (talk) 02:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Very true. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The issue is in regard to non-notable minor children and grandchildren. Not all children and grandchildren.

Bottom line: if they are non-notable and minors, WP:BLPNAME is clear: naming them doesn't enhance the reader's understanding of the article subject, we aren't writing a tabloid or newspaper/magazine article, therefore, privacy for minor children is preferred for encyclopedic content. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 02:18, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Bottom line, you are wrong, you don't listen, and this is becoming tendentious, and pointy - Cwobeel (talk) 02:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

You're very needlessly rude. In fact, an admin at the 3RR noticeboard has pointed this out. I guess you missed it. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 02:25, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

No, it says nothing like that. "When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed" (none of that stuff is the case here) "... it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context." You're trying to pretend that only the second part of that sentence is in there without the first part. I'm about as pro-BLP as they come, but not including names of a President's grandchildren is silly. You don't have a more public family (at least in the US) than a President's family. --B (talk) 02:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, B. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:59, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

(Insert scoffing here) Not including names of a President's grandchildren is silly? What possible value could including the names of someone's grandchildren bring to an encyclopedia article (unless we're talking ancestral line importance)? The answer: No value whatsoever. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 03:07, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

While it might not necessarily belong in the President's own article, it most certainly DOES belong in the article on the President's child. This is what I believe B meant. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:12, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Unless they have done something significant in their own right, I cannot see why a President's child is notable, let along that person's children. Having a famous parent does not make one notable. The fact that it's done in some other articles doesn't convince me I'm wrong. HiLo48 (talk) 03:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Nobody ever said the child was independently notable, only that articles should contain details on their children. It doesn't have to be extensive, but there should at least be something (i.e. name and birthdate). Otherwise, the article is incomplete. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:53, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry, but that makes no sense. An article on subject A is incomplete without the name and birthdate of non-subject B? The operative phrase in BLPNAME is "editorial discretion", and really, this is where I, and apparently a whole bunch of others, draw the line. You can't simply dismiss that as "oh those idiots didn't hear that/had their fingers in their ears/justdon'tlikeit" or some other cute bluelinked phrase. What on earth could the birthdate (and name) add for the reader of this or other articles, unless we're just another TMZ? Drmies (talk) 04:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• Don't worry- I wasn't being dismissive. What it would add is a significant time and event of the person's life (unless subject does not hold parenthood in high regard). Including it in no way makes Wikipedia like TMZ unless it was unsourced/poorly sourced. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• User:SNUGGUMS, my children are very important to me. To me. And at some point I aim to be notable (via PROF, hopefully, not via GNG), and at that time you better leave my kids out of it. Those events are of enormous importance to me and, I would assume, to Chelsea Clinton. But that doesn't make them important to the reader, and it doesn't take away from the injunction we have for editorial discretion, including such things as full names and birthdates. That such can be found in other ways by those who care is irrelevant: we have removed, even rev-deleted material on living people that was all over the internet for BLP concerns. Note that (for me) the sourcing, as I said above, is not the problem--rather, my TMZ reference refers to readership and what we want ourselves to be. There are lots of things that are well-referenced that we don't report either; it's a matter of taste (in K-pop, performers have designated colors, and apparently their bloodtypes are important to the fans). You and I (and others) can disagree on what is in "good taste" or not, but you cannot simply say "oh that's your opinion" because that applies to yours as well: there is no iron-clad reason why we should include that information. After all, she's not notable because she had a baby. Hell, my wife had three, all of which mine (she says), and neither that, nor the fact that those events were momentous for us, rise to the level of notability. Also, my babies were better-looking than hers. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 05:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• Whether such information should be included depends on how much said person wants to reveal. In instances were one intentionally keeps information on family secret from the public, it wouldn't be included. I wasn't saying to have things like bloodtypes in articles, only that including simple detail like who the child is and when he/she was born isn't a harmful idea unless parent specifically objects to society knowing about it. The only ABSOLUTE REQUIREMENT is that details need reliable sourcing. Aside from that, there are no hard-and-fast requirements for inclusion of detail. Also, it's not like I would post someone's home address or email or anything. Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

SNUGGUMS wrote: "Nobody ever said the child was independently notable". Which, on its own, is the very crux of this whole matter. If the child is not notable, we have no reason or need to name them. Just because their name appears in reliable sources doesn't give a reason to include them in an encyclopedia article about someone else. Both of these points have been mentioned several times in this noticeboard discussion as well as all the others with the same theme. The child is a minor and non-notable. Their name and other identifying information is not of any import in an encyclopedia article. That's exactly what WP:BLPNAME already tells us. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 03:58, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

What do you believe the purpose of the rule is? The purpose of the rule is to have a respect for privacy - not anything having to do with notability. We don't give family and personal details of marginally notable people out of a respect for their privacy. We don't want someone who doesn't like their local weatherman's forecast to come here and find out where he lives, what his kids' names are, and where they go to school. Privacy is not an issue in this case, though, because the names are widely known and publicized. --B (talk) 04:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

But the kid is still no more than marginally notable, so there is no point including it. HiLo48 (talk) 04:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Not a convincing reason to leave such detail out- omission would make the article incomplete. Also, it is not private when publicly known within society. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:21, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

B wrote: "The purpose of the rule is to have a respect for privacy - not anything having to do with notability." First of all it's not a "rule", it's policy. In answer to your question, the purpose is not just "privacy" but keeping out non-notable and non-important trivia found in publications with little to no editorial discretion out of an encyclopedia article. It's become clear to me today that (a) people editing Wikipedia have no concept that it's supposed to be an encyclopedia they are writing, and (b) there are still a number of people editing who have serious reading comprehension problems when it comes to policy - in part because they don't realize they are editing an encyclopedia, not a newspaper/tabloid/magazine article. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 04:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

No, BLPNAME actually does not explicitly say such detail has to be excluded simply due to being a non-notable minor. That's a very dogmatic oversimplification. It IS of import because it is an important part of the parent's life. What it actually says that such detail, if included, must be reliably sourced. It doesn't help readers to just give vague detail. So far, I haven't seen any convincing reason not to include it. Given how Wikipedia's best content is to be comprehensive, omission would prevent this from being top-notch as it is a major fact/detail. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I think you're arguing against something nobody has actually said there. HiLo48 (talk) 04:18, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

He is arguing against those of you who are oddly claiming that a widely-known name of a BLP's baby shouldn't be included in that BLP's article, even though that goes against how we do things on BLPs where children's names are widely-known. What hes actually doing is arguing against something you all have been claiming throughout the article: that the article shouldn't disclose the name of a child that has been covered in many major secondary sources. As the specious WP:BLPNAME claims have been completely refuted, the argument against inclusion is left with little more than, "well, I don't think it should be included, and so I'm going to take it out anyway. LHM^{ask me a question} 04:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The WP:BLPNAME claims have NOT been completely refuted. And unfortunately, you chose to lie about the thread above as part of your evidence. I suggest that you should 1. apologise for your lie, and 2. just keep quiet for now because of the embarrassment you have caused on your side of this debate. HiLo48 (talk) 04:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, they have. Just because you have your fingers in your ears doesn't mean people haven't torn those claims to shreds. And I have not "lied" at any point--I find it quite hypocritical that someone who was complaining about someone using the term "fuckloads" above is now accusing me of "lying", demanding apologies, and telling me to "just keep quiet." LHM^{ask me a question} 05:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you lied and are still doing it. Maybe it was unintentional, in which case, one can only wonder why? HiLo48 (talk) 05:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

One can not unintentionally "lie." A "lie" requires knowing X to be false, and still claiming it to be true--an act of will against the truth, once one knows what the truth is. That's why, even as you dig your heals in regardless of the evidence, I don't think you're "lying", as much as you're just being willfully obtuse, which is different. But it's just sort of sad to watch you insist that I am lying, when I've posted swaths of examples showing that what I claim to be true actually is true. LHM^{ask me a question} 12:29, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

You said, right near the start of this thread, that the argument around BLPNAME "been roundly refuted above". That was a lie. HiLo48 (talk) 21:21, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• I've seen the argument put forward above, "well the kid isn't notable." Certainly not, and no one's claiming she is. But her existence and her name are notable in relation to her mother's article. And the names of many non-notable people appear in the articles of BLPs. We nearly always list the names of a BLP's non-notable parents, for example. A person doesn't need to be notable in their own right for their name to appear on Wikipedia, particularly when they are part of a notable person's immediate family. (Note: I'm not arguing for ARTICLES on those people, just noting that they are nearly always MENTIONED in the articles of the people to whom they are closely related, or to events in which they participated. LHM^{ask me a question} 04:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

A BLP's non-notable parents are never minors. HiLo48 (talk) 04:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

So? They're not notable, yet their names appear in the articles. "The kid isn't notable" was an argument put forward above. LHM^{ask me a question} 05:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. You misunderstood my post. The bit about minors was the important bit. HiLo48 (talk) 05:59, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

It was? Where is that in policy? At the moment, it appears to be your personal bugaboo. Choor monster (talk) 13:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

You are failing to comprehend. There is no point me wasting more time on you. HiLo48 (talk) 21:10, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing to be comprehended. You have not made an argument based on policy. You have made an argument based on your personal wishes. If there is some aspect of policy which singles out "minor children" in this situation, while permits "adult parents", you have not identified it, and now you are just running away, unable and unwilling to admit you are the one wasting everyone's time. Choor monster (talk) 11:44, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I have made considerable argument based on policy. There is no point me wasting more time on you. HiLo48 (talk) 17:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the inclusion of the names of BLP's children in the article of a BLP

Here is a partial list, on just a few of the articles that sprung immediately to mind: Angelina Jolie, Lisa Kudrow, Jeb Bush, Katie Holmes, Barack Obama, Tom Cruise, Michelle Obama, Kanye West, Kim Kardashian, and the list could go on and on. In addition to WP:BLPNAME being utterly shredded as a means for deleting the names of a BLP's children at the talkpage of one of the articles, as well as above, precedent shows that we don't have a problem including such information when it is well-sourced. LHM^{ask me a question} 05:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Much agreed. The key is reliability of sources. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

No. Sourcing is never enough. And WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS negates the first post above. HiLo48 (talk) 05:42, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Have you read OTHERSTUFF all they way through? It is specifically NOT an argument against using precedent, as you seem to believe. Given how insulting your posts have become above, it may be time for you to step away from the discussion for a bit. LHM^{ask me a question} 05:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh come on, that's not even original. HiLo48 (talk) 05:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

In the future, I'd suggest reading the essays you cite, to at least make sure they support the point you think you're trying to make. OTHERSTUFF actually makes the case that precedent DOES matter, in some cases. LHM^{ask me a question} 07:29, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• Exactly. For a prime example, see Ted Cruz. The names of his children can not be well-sourced, and thus are properly excluded from the article. LHM^{ask me a question} 05:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)LHM, I refer you to the following (also only a partial list of more examples of the same): [37]; [38].

Your understanding of WP:BLPNAME is incorrect. Moreover, saying that we've done it before isn't a valuable or valid argument. Plenty of people run stop signs everyday, too. That doesn't make it an acceptable or wise practice or erase the "policy" regarding such an act. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 05:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

You keep repeating WP:BLPNAME over and over, even though it's been utterly refuted as an argument against inclusion at the talkpage. I mean literally, it's been point-by-point debunked as applying in this case. BLPNAME does not mean what you think it means. LHM^{ask me a question} 05:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

It hasn't been "refuted". (Hardly the right verb, but if you like it, I'll go along with it.) HiLo48 (talk) 05:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

You must not know what the word "refuted" means, either. The use of BLPNAME to try to remove all names of children from BLP articles HAS been refuted. (Note: I'm not saying the that BLPNAME has been refuted, just that the bastardized way you guys are trying to USE it has.) LHM^{ask me a question} 07:33, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• And you want this to be a clear-cut "run the stop sign" type of case, but it's not. Inclusion of the names of a BLP's children is acceptable in some articles, but not in others. It all depends upon the sourcing available. And no matter how many times you repeat it, BLPNAME does NOT refute that. LHM^{ask me a question} 05:53, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

No, it hasn't been refuted. There are a few who (like yourself) have claimed it's been refuted. Saying it's so over and over again doesn't make it true. I keep repeating policy because it is what it is and it is real and right. How anyone can believe policy can be "refuted" is beyond my understanding (unless one's thought process goes into the realm of bad faith, that is). -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 06:00, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

It is NOT what BLPNAME says. You are willfully misinterpreting it. Well-sourced, made public by the parents, cited all over the world, is in no way defamatory and in no way in violation of BLP policies. And to add to LHM's list above - and this could go on for days - of particular relevance to Presidential daughter Chelsea Clinton would be Jenna Bush Hager, Caroline Kennedy, Lynda Bird Johnson Robb, Amy Carter, Susan Ford, Julie Nixon Eisenhower, Luci Baines Johnson, Margaret Truman and more - and let's expand that list to the daughter of someone who actually was elected President - Karenna Gore, and what the hell, how about some Presidential sons' BLPs like Jack Carter (oh my, even names his step-children), a Presidential grandson Jason Carter, and some wannabe Presidential children like Tagg Romney and Vanessa Kerry. Shall I go on? This is idiotic, incorrect, and a tendentious waste of our time. It has NOTHING to do with BLPNAME. Stop this disruption. Tvoz/talk 06:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't go so far as to call this "idiotic", Tvoz, but yes policies don't explicitly prohibit including such detail. Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• More precedents: Denzel Washington, Tom Hanks, David Letterman, Craig Ferguson, Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins, and the list could go on and on and on... Precedent should never be simply ignored like a few editors above are recommending. LHM^{ask me a question} 07:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia could finally decide to follow policy, and not write so much about non-notable people, rather then be swayed by the whims of excitable and excited editors. HiLo48 (talk) 08:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Or, alternatively, you could realize perhaps you don't understand policy in this matter, and that it could possibly be that a decade plus of WP practice is right and you are wrong. LHM^{ask me a question} 08:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Policy does not forbid or even discourage writing about non-notable people. It forbids having articles about them. Anyone mentioning a need for "notability" here as grounds for exclusion of the name does not have a clue about policy. Choor monster (talk) 12:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Our fundamental goal here is to create a quality encyclopaedia. Personal details of non-notable people, like me, and you, and this baby, aren't part of that. HiLo48 (talk) 21:25, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:DROPTHESTICK already, please. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I see no stick. And anyway, I'm having too much fun. HiLo48 (talk) 22:24, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, at least now we know that WP:POINT without a doubt applies to you, and that we should stop giving you the attention you crave. This is my last reply to your nonsense. LHM^{ask me a question} 22:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

We really are working at different levels here. That was my poor attempt at a joke. You didn't get it. Not your fault. But that it led to further insults from you was unfortunate. HiLo48 (talk) 23:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• HiLo48: you responded to my statement about policy with your personal opinion about what really belongs in a "quality encylopaedia". Essentially no one here shares your opinion. Meanwhile, you did not address my statement about policy. Again, rather than admit that yes, you have misunderstood policy, you are pointlessly running off in some irrelevant direction, merely wasting everyone's time. You're posting here because it's fun to share your contrarian opinions? You're a self-admitted troll. Choor monster (talk) 12:30, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

When did you last read the pages of a quality encyclopaedia apart from Wikipedia. (Which is sadly becoming more tabloid every day itself.) Maybe Britannica? The print version, of course.HiLo48 (talk) 17:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Complete non sequitur, as it is utterly irrelevant to this discussion what makes you sad, what you think about Brittanica (whose online version is not great at all), or whether you prefer print encyclopedias to online ones. LHM^{ask me a question} 18:08, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I love it when you effectively repeat what I've said as a way of arguing against me. (Agreeing about the print version of Brittanica, for example.) I am interested in making Wikipedia a quality encyclopaedia, not a collection of trivia. This is a fundamental goal of the project. HiLo48 (talk) 18:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Adding detail on one's immediate family is NOT trivia. You know that, and please do not condescend this website or its editors. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLPNAME does not apply to Chelsea Clinton's daughter, line by line

I posted the following on Talk:Chelsea Clinton while the above was closed.

---

Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event.

• Actually, CCM is not being "discussed" at all, let alone in terms of a single event. She is mentioned, being a highly relevant bit of her mother's bio. I believe this is different enough to matter, but if not, note that it merely says "Caution should be applied". Not, do not name.

When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context.

• Totally irrelevant here. Even so, in such an extreme case, policy is merely "it is often preferable to omit it", not obligatory policy.

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.

• This is just a weight issue, but apply WP:SNOW: her name will get more than a "brief appearance" over time. It will appear again and again.

Consider whether the inclusion of names of living private individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value.

• The daughter is of course directly involved in the article's topic.

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.

• A presumption is something to apply when you otherwise do not know what the situation is. In this case, we absolutely know what the situation is regarding privacy of the name: it does not exist whatsover. The parents and grandparents have made their decision, and this decision has been very widely reported. Had there been no reports, or just one or two minor reports, we'd be obligated to make the presumption in favor of privacy. But as I mentioned, this does not apply in this situation.

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.

• That's right, the name may certainly appear. It boils down, once all the BLP concerns are properly satisfied, to editorial discretion. If you are claiming this sentence from policy is relevant, you are agreeing that there are no BLP issues.

However, names of family members who are not also notable public figures must be removed from an article if they are not properly sourced.

• They are properly sourced.

---

Choor monster (talk) 12:17, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Here we go again. What caution are you applying? HiLo48 (talk) 12:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Again??? There is no "again", as there was no discussion over there, just you claiming you're right, without giving anyone a clue how that could possibly be.

As it is, the "caution" in this case is to see if some closely involved family member is trying to maintain privacy regarding the name. Or if most of the mainstream media is deliberately avoiding the name. Or if some court or other government actor has issued a gag order. And to make sure WP:RS have indeed named the name. Choor monster (talk) 12:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The media you refer to is in one country and the content is pure recentism. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Wikipedia IS global and long term. The child's opinion cannot be obtained. I see no evidence that you are applying any caution. Caution would guide us to leave out the kid's name. HiLo48 (talk) 21:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Now it seems you're just flinging completely unrelated blue links at the proverbial wall, hoping one sticks. This isn't "recentism", it's not overly newsy, and it doesn't matter that the baby's "opinion can not be obtained." Please drop the stick. LHM^{ask me a question} 22:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Of course it's recentism, of the most obvious kind. HiLo48 (talk) 23:13, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

If we devoted a section to the birth, sure. But that kid will be Chelsea's kid her whole life, and even after, she'll have a particular name on her tombstone. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:58, September 30, 2014 (UTC)

What we see here is HiLo48 has completely conceded he has absolutely no objection based on WP:BLPNAME. He made one lame objection (what "caution"?) and was told what "caution": the cautions explicitly asked for in the policy, and all obviously not relevant. Rather than face up to this, he runs off and comes up with another imaginary objection, based on zero comprehension of policy. First off, there's WP:RECENTISMISNOTPOLICYOREVENAGUIDELINE. That's right, it's just an essay, offering some intelligent warnings. Even worse, WP:RECENTISM clearly supports the inclusion of the name. It begins by defining recentism:

Recentism is writing or editing without a long-term, historical view, thereby inflating the importance of a topic that has received recent public attention [...]

Got it? Somehow mentioning the birth of a daughter, without the name, this shows respect for the "long-term, historical view", but including the name doesn't? I, for one, don't see how. Anyway, even if this is recentism, the essay continues with the possible dangers:

[...] possibly resulting in:

• Articles overburdened with documenting controversy as it happens.
• Articles created on flimsy, transient merits.
• The muddling or diffusion of the timeless facets of a subject, previously recognized by Wikipedia consensus.

So let's see. Are there any articles now overburdened with documenting a controversy as it happens, thanks to the name? No. Have any articles been created on flimsy, transient merits, thanks to the name? No. Have the timeless facets of Chelsea Clinton now become muddled or diffused? No. So the good news (except for editors who can't bother to read, let alone comprehend, policy, guidelines, essays) is that "recentism" is not a problem here. In fact, the essay goes on to say:

Recentism is a symptom of Wikipedia's dynamic and immediate editorial process, and has positive aspects as well—up-to-date information on breaking news events, vetted and counter-vetted by enthusiastic volunteer editors, is something that no other encyclopedia can offer.

That's right. We are encouraged by this essay to include breaking news, so long as it is properly "vetted and counter-vetted". The essay goes on to explain examples of where recentism was a problem, and how it was solved. For example, the effects of Hurricane Katrina were overwhelming New Orleans related articles. The solution (not deletion, by the way) but the creation of a separate article.

So, what's your next non-BLP complaint? WP:BIAS? By mentioning the name we are not giving a proper world perspective on the issue of the baby? Really, you're that ridiculous. Choor monster (talk) 12:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I have not conceded that I have absolutely no objection based on WP:BLPNAME. HiLo48 (talk) 17:19, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

---

Here's a Canadian one, with the name in the subheadline. Here's a British one, with the name in the headline. Here's an Australian one, with the name in the lead sentence and photo caption. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:32, September 30, 2014 (UTC)

Here's a South African one about her campaign to stop diarrhea in Nigeria. No mention of what's-her-name on that site. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:38, September 30, 2014 (UTC)

Here's India Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes. That Australian one is classic Murdoch tabloid style. (He virtually controls the tabloid press in Australia. It's no doubt why I didn't see this news. I avoid his publications.) The CBC and BBC ones less so, but I will observe again that even those outlets are today far less formal than they used to be. I still wonder how we should deal with the particular obsession in one country for its elected public figures' families. There is no way the grandchild of an ex-Australian Prime Minister would crack a mention like this. (John Howard's kids don't even have articles of their own.) Doubt if it would happen in the UK for its PM. I suspect we're seeing more coverage from the BBC of this American "royal baby" than they would ever give to the grandchild of an ex-PM of their own. HiLo48 (talk) 23:13, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Sure, maybe the newspapers have gone to shit/leaned toward America. How should we deal with it? Dismantle the Murdoch and AP empires and build our own. Until then, we'll just have to reflect the way the English world media currently works. Trying to keep one baby nameless in one sentence in one article won't do anything to turn the tide. I don't say this often, but resistance is futile. The Australian one is from AP, by the way. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:50, September 30, 2014 (UTC)

And Sydney MH and The Age and ... Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:27, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

We still need the newspapers, I agree, but we, the editors, have editorial control here. We don't have the same demands as the daily papers. We choose whether something is due. I'm still thinking out loud (well, in text really) about this cultural difference between the USA and the rest of the world. It does seem that the whole world is more excited right now about an ex-US President's grandkid than they ever would be about a similar birth in their own countries. Bet you no-one will ever post anything about John Howard's grandchildren. He was Australia's PM for eleven years, so pretty significant historically. And yes, he has grandchildren. But not even his kids have articles. We're obviously talking about a different standard for writing about the descendants of elected officials in one country when compared with others. Maybe it's valid. It doesn't feel right to me. And all the irrational shouting up above about how obvious it is actually pushed me away from that view. HiLo48 (talk) 00:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The community has already decided how to deal with this issue. I've posted many examples of the precedents that prove that long-established community consensus is that if there is reliable sourcing for the names of a BLP's children, those names are included. And it's quite rich that you accuse others of "irrational shouting." Quite rich, indeed. LHM^{ask me a question} 00:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't say many people (let alone the world) are "excited" about this kid. Maybe a bit, four days ago. Pretty much the only reason we're talking about her on Wikipedia now is you. Compared to Prince George and his unborn sibling, this one's a fart in a windstorm. If you feel like adding Howard's (grand)children's names with an RS, that'd probably be fine. But if nobody wants to, nobody wants to. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:57, October 1, 2014 (UTC)

Mentioning an opinionated accusation towards a group of people

For Gamergate controversy (already a BLP issue to start with), there's a point that has come up. We have already established that one part of the issue is the claims towards the ethics of gaming journalists. One issue that has come up in reliable sources (not strong ones but otherwise reliable normally) is this: there is a mailing list that many game journalists (roughly 150 members, the identities of these people are known, they are not anon) are on; one of the journalists sympathetic with the gamer side of the argument released a number of emails that pointed out that other journalists on the list were talking about not giving too much coverage to the Gamergate issue and patrolling forums more aggressively. (This is factual so itself not BLP). The claim made by gamers and other sources is that this shows that journalists were purposely colluding to censor Gamergate coverage (and later to other "control" of the gaming press), furthering the issues of the ethics already raised. These claims are discussed in similarly reliable sources (not the best ones, but reliable for other purposes), but they remain only claims.

The question I have if is this is a BLP issue as to not include this facet (there are other reasons being thrown around to not include but the BLP issue is one I'm worried about). To me it is not, in the sense that while the identities of people are known, it is a large group of people with no specific person identified as the sole "ringmaster" here; further, it is only a claim that is being used to describe the issues that one side of the controversy has, and the language selected for WP is careful to say if they are right or wrong, and that it is only a claim. I would also add that one of the persons on this list has come out to clear his role in the matter (as he recongized he spoke out emotionally about this to the list and realized after the matter it could be taken in the wrong way) [39]. As such, while being aware that the line between this and a true BLP violation is very thin, I don't think stating that the accusation exists to support one side's arguments when the accusation is aimed as a broad statement about a broad group of people instead of a very narrow claim aimed at a few individuals. --MASEM (t) 18:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• Before commenting in more detail after I have read some more and thought about it some more, I would iterate what I understand the spirit of Wikipedia's BLP policy to be; that we do not deal in smoke and mirrors, that we err on the side of caution before adding anything, especially anything negative, and that in our tone we avoid lending credibility to anything that has a whiff of rumour about it, even well-attested rumour. That is all for now but I will be back tomorrow. --John (talk) 22:33, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• • To be clear it is factual that on this list there was discussion of not reporting so much on the Gamergate issue, and this was affirmed by the link above. What is where there might be BLP are those that build on that evidence to claim this was purposely collusion, in light of the fact that the entire situation has been highlighted to put the journalism ethics of video game media under a microscope. --MASEM (t) 02:04, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

• • • The more I think about it the more I think my instincts were right that this should not be included. Is there a diff of where this was added or removed from the article, or raised in talk, so that I can look at the material in more detail? --John (talk) 18:30, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Vijayalakshmy K. Gupta

Needs citations. Bearian (talk) 21:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Bianca Balti

An user keeps reinserting facts with dubious sources. As stated in the talk page of the article, the info about Bianca Balti's mother being Azerbaijani was inserted for the first time in 2008, and at that time it did not have any source. The sources cited now have all been written after 2008, and most probably got their info from Wikipedia. Furthermore, in all the sites linked it is the writer that states that Bianca Balti's mother is Azerbaijani, there is no source in which the model herself says anything about her heritage. I removed the section but an user keeps reinserting it ignoring the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.7.154.104 (talk) 16:45, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Reverted the addition and asked the other editor to join the discussion on the talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. --87.7.154.104 (talk) 22:16, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Simon Garber

Article is being whitewashed by a user called RosnerPR and a Google search for "rosner public relations" reveals fairly consistent results. I personally suspect paid advocacy. Not sure how to proceed. Help is appreciated. --Richard Yin (talk) 17:18, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The PR rep has been blocked but I do have concerns about that BLP which I've expressed on the talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:25, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Neil deGrasse Tyson fabrication allegations COATRACKed?

Following the discussion above (#Neil deGrasse Tyson fabrication allegations) I've noticed that the allegations seem to have migrated to the article Thefederalist.com - they are no longer in Neil deGrasse Tyson. As it stands, the article on Thefederalist.com appears to be operating as a WP:COATRACK. If the allegations aren't notable enough for inclusion in the NdGT article, I can't see how they could be notable enough to be forked off to another article. I'm concerned that we may have a situation where partisans are using Thefederalist.com as a home for claims that have been removed from the parent article - effectively a WP:POVFORK situation. I think it'd be a good idea for BLPN regulars to have a look to see whether this may be the case. Prioryman (talk) 19:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Is it your opinion that the reliably sourced claims (including opinions, and NdGT's statement that he intends to apologize) ought be excised from this article only, or from all articles? Collect (talk) 20:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)