Talk:Elton John: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 04:16, 10 June 2016

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Elton John article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Template:Vital article

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Musicians C‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as Top-importance).

LGBT studies: Person C‑class

	LGBT portal This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the LGBT Person task force.

Musical Theatre C‑class

	Elton John is part of WikiProject Musical Theatre, organized to improve and complete musical theatre articles and coverage on Wikipedia. You can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Musical TheatreWikipedia:WikiProject Musical TheatreTemplate:WikiProject Musical TheatreMusical Theatre articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Pop music C‑class High‑importance

	Pop music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Rock music C‑class Top‑importance

	Rock music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

London C‑class Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

England C‑class Top‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Elton John is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
September 3, 2005	Featured article candidate	Not promoted

Template:Findnotice

Song of the year Grammy nominations

Call me crazy, but weren't both circle of life and can you feel the love tonight nominated for song of the year in 1995, but beaten out by Streets of Philadelphia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.84.45.140 (talk) 05:23, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're Crazy (with a capital C). But you're also right: Grammy Award for Song of the Year. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:48, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Filmography

He did NOT act in Kingsman - please correct that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.81.56.81 (talk) 22:32, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Net worth

fourth richest musician in Britain and Irland (2015)
4 - Sir Elton John - £270m

http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/whats-on/music-nightlife-news/sunday-times-rich-list-who-9126070

Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2015

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

‹ The template Edit semi-protected is being considered for merging. ›

The Namaste Lounge is in Northwood, Middlesex and NOT Watford which is in Hertfordshire. The full address of The Namaste Lounge is 66, Joel St, Northwood, Middlesex HA6 1LL Excav8tor (talk) 20:41, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 20:52, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2010-present minor error

"In October 2015, it was announced Elton John would release his thirty-third studio album, Wonderful Crazy Night, on 5 February 2016...", I believe it's his thirty-second studio album, not thirty third, unless im missing something

Done. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Elton John. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

https://web.archive.org/20100715143032/http://www.eltonjohn.com:80/about/bio.jsp https://web.archive.org/20080209035244/http://abclocal.go.com:80/wpvi/story?section=entertainment&id=4498224

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

https://web.archive.org/20140421051407/http://www.brits.co.uk/britstv/1991-best-british-male-elton-john - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 07:08, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:07, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 10 external links on Elton John. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:32, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Costumes

Would it be possible to add a section, albeit small about Elton's wardrobe choices? Throughout his career from glam rock to a toned down but still tailor-made present, his dress choices have always been extraordinary. His donations of all concert clothing after wearing it once, for auction to charities would also belong in that section. I can get photos (my personal specialty on the wikipedia(s)) of more examples showing his flair and variety if needed.. leave that request on my talk page if need exists. Just an idea..

In addition, might I suggest there be a couple of music clips showing his versatility, and perhaps the vocal change after surgery? I recall an interview I read some years back where he mentioned an improvement in the keys he could reach because of that. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 13:29, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Elton John. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool. http://web.archive.org/web/20130226005314/http://img827.imageshack.us:80/img827/4387/guinness2009.pdf

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool. http://web.archive.org/web/20111012103423/http://www.rollingstone.com/music/artists/elton-john/news/artists/8828/56076/56108

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:05, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Occupation

The list of Elton's occupations has undergone an odyssey of modifications over the years (in the first sentence of the lead paragraph, as well as in the infobox). Here is a partial history of edits (edits to the first sentence only; infobox edits not tracked):

For a considerable time up until 26 April 2011:
- an English singer-songwriter, composer and pianist.
As of 03:38, 26 April 2011‎ (Tableclothes):
- an English singer, composer and pianist.
As of 20:52, 18 August 2011‎ (Yoda956):
- an English singer, composer, pianist and occasional actor.
As of 13:53, 26 August 2011‎ (Lastfame):
- an English singer-songwriter, composer, pianist and occasional actor.
As of 13:49, 22 October 2011‎ (Lastfame):
- an English rock singer-songwriter, composer, pianist and occasional actor.
As of 10:03, 17 September 2013‎ (MJ1982):
- an English singer-songwriter, composer, pianist and occasional actor.
As of 00:47, 8 December 2013‎ (Batman194):
- an English singer-songwriter, composer, pianist, record producer, and occasional actor.
As of 05:36, 20 August 2014‎ (Binksternet):
- an English singer, songwriter, composer, pianist, record producer, and occasional actor.
As of 14:55, 28 June 2015‎ (SilkTork):
- an English songwriter and singer, who accompanies himself on the piano.
As of 23:08, 25 August 2015‎ (Zabboo):
- an English composer and singer, who accompanies himself on the piano.
As of 20:06, 15 November 2015‎ (HLachman (me)):
- an English singer-songwriter, composer and pianist.
As of 07:43, 13 February 2016‎ (HughMorris15):
- an English singer, songwriter, and composer.
As of 05:05, 31 March 2016‎ (Zabboo):
- an English singer and composer.

So, what shall we put in as Elton's occupation? And can we stop thrashing it about?

Let's start with WP:V (Verifiability) which is a Wikipedia core content policy. It emphasizes that Wikipedia content should reflect what reliable sources have to say, not what the editors believe is true. Here are some sources that may be worth looking at (along with some quotes from those sources):

AllMusic.com ("singer", "singer/songwriter", "John and Taupin were hired... to become staff songwriters"; also features Elton on their Singer/Songwriter page)
Biography.com ("singer, pianist and composer", "Singer, songwriter, composer")
RockHall.com ("ballad-oriented singer/songwriter", "first-rate musician")
SongwritersHallOfFame.org ("fits the classification of 'singer/songwriter' like few others")
Telegraph.co.uk ("a genuinely idiosyncratic and original singer-songwriter")
EltonJohn.com ("Singer, songwriter, musician", "Composer")

Using the information from the above sources as a guide, and also considering the example of the Billy Joel page (which apparently is not undergoing such thrashing, so, please, don't go changing it...), I'm editing the occupation information to appear as follows (and I'm not too concerned about "singer-songwriter" vs. "singer, songwriter", since we see it both ways in the various sources, and the Eric Clapton page uses the other way, but let's try this):

in the first sentence:
- an English pianist, singer-songwriter and composer.
in the infobox:
- Musician • singer-songwriter • composer

If anyone disagrees with this edit or feels it needs to change again, please discuss your proposal and reasons here, along with references to appropriate reliable sources. Thank you. -- HLachman (talk) 23:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

National Enquirer 9 April 2016

Wikipedia is not a tabloid. Inclusion would breach WP:BLP. Strong consensus at WP:BLPN & WP:RSN that National Enquirer is not reliable for claims about living persons. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 06:20, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

There's no information that I can find online, but according to various users on Twitter, the cover story of today's National Enquirer makes a pretty serious accusation. Is it a hoax? If not, it's very odd that there's no reference to it in the British media ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 19:03, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I need say that the National Enquirer is a million miles from a reliable source. And Wikipedia is not a tabloid or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 19:14, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think we know why there isn't a reference to it in the UK media. However, even if the material in the National Enquirer is true, it is not something that the Wikipedia article needs to be shouting from the rooftops. This is classic tabloid scandal mongering and it would take more than a supermarket tabloid to establish notability. See also WP:BLPSOURCES.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:07, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Superinjunction

I am not a hardcore Wikipedia editor, so I defer to others. However, when (Redacted). There are stories all over the British press about unnamed celebrities obtaining injunctions to prevent English and Welsh papers from publishing the details. Is Wikipedia subject to such injunctions? I doubt it. Huckfinne (talk) 23:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Huckfinne, Please review our policies on including information about living persons WP:BLP and verifiability WP:V, original research WP:NOR and reliable sourcing WP:RS. I have redacted the unsourced claim in your comment above, under WP:BLP; if you wish to discuss it, please provide reliable sources which make that claim. Feel free to contact me at my Talk page if you have any questions. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 23:52, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is a superinjunction if its existence cannot be mentioned at all, such as Trafigura. Recently the British tabloids have been in a tizzy over a "celebrity" who has claimed that his right to privacy has been violated. It is possible to report the existence of this injunction which led to a gagging order on the press, but not to say who the celebrity is. Wikimedia content is hosted under United States law and is not forced to comply with gagging orders of this kind. In 2011, Wikipedia eventually broke the CTB v News Group Newspapers Ltd injunction because the person involved had been reliably named in the foreign media. In this latest incident, the real problem is WP:BLP. Even if all of it has actually happened, it is not suitable for the article on the basis of supermarket tabloid sourcing. The sourcing is also not strong enough to say which "celebrity" has obtained the injunction in the UK courts, so it should not be added to the article. --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 03:45, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Surely mentioned a super injunction at all on the talkpage of Elton John is giving too strong a hint as to the celebrity involved in the super injunction and we are mentioning its existence by saying we can't mention it??--Egghead06 (talk) 04:41, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked WP:OVERSIGHT about this and they pointed out that Wikimedia content is hosted under United States law. There is a clear mismatch between the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights over this type of issue. It was inevitable that some people would ask about this on the talk page and WP:OVERSIGHT is unlikely to get out the scrubbing brush and redact edits that have been made in good faith. A superinjunction cannot be mentioned, the current "celebrity" one can. It was inevitable that this would set off guessing games about the person involved. In the 2011 British privacy injunctions controversy, people on Twitter guessed right about some of the identities of the people involved, and got it wrong about others. Whatever, nothing goes into a Wikipedia article without reliable sourcing.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:02, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out (in case any UK editors are thinking about discussing this), that for editors in the UK, regardless of where information is stored on Wikimedia's servers, UK editors *are* subject to UK court orders, people have been prosecuted successfully for breaking them in the past on social media/forums etc. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:50, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, so be careful if you are in the UK (but perhaps not Scotland).--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:05, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've created an article for PJS v News Group Newspapers here. I've not named anyone as I don't wish to be engaged in any legal action. Also sometimes these stories turn out to be false. DanielJCooper (talk) 17:12, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically, PJS v News Group Newspapers has now reached WP:GNG which it would never have done without legal action.[1]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:17, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps PJS v News Group Newspapers should get some kind of protection to prevent vandalism? DanielJCooper (talk) 17:27, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is now enough reliable coverage from the Scottish, US and Canadian media to name whoever PJS and YMA might be. As far as WP:OVERSIGHT is concerned, only violations of WP:BLP are a problem.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:32, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think I’ll leave that for someone else. I’m editing from a English location so I think I would be in contempt of court. Personally I find this area of law rather confusing particularly the argument in Spycatcher that Scottish publications can be breach of ‘English’ injunctions?! [2] DanielJCooper (talk) 17:45, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As far as Scottish media lawyers are concerned, this type of injunction does not apply in Scotland if an interdict has not been obtained in a Scottish court. The wee Bravehearts already know who PJS and YMA are, but are not allowed to tell the Sassenachs. It is all rather stupid, as Joshua Rozenberg pointed out.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:53, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Am still a little confused. So, any editor who is editing in Scotland, or anywhere else apart from England and Wales, is legally entitled to name the parties involved in this article, yes? All this about the Wikipedia computer servers being based in USA is just irrelevant? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:25, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would advise any person in the UK not to name PJS or YMA due to the enthusiasm of Carter-Ruck. This law firm has taken action against "an Irish blogger" who I also seem to be unable to name.[3] It's getting sillier by the minute but lawyers must have their fees.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little surprised that there aren't one or two of our friends across the pond who'd like to raise the glorious banner of freedom of the press on this lowly and oppressed singer's article. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:04, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of Basil Fawlty saying "Don't mention the war!", it is people in Scotland being told "Don't mention the injunction!" The opera isn't over until the fat lady sings. Joshua Rozenberg is neither fat nor a lady, but when he sings the audience listens.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:20, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One might expect a world-wide encyclopedia to furnish one with the facts, mightn't one? But I thought that classic thriller was set in the sewers of Vienna, not Germany?? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:36, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have some legal and BLP concerns here. According to the High Court, when British readers access a website the content is deemed "published" in the United Kingdom. Cameron Diaz successfully sued the National Enquirer for libel in England and Wales because 279 readers accessed the site. Therefore, I think this section should be redacted as it clearly links Elton John to the injunction. Regarding WP:BLP this section makes unsourced claims and spreads rumours and innuendo about a living person. @Martinevans123: (who I think is based in the UK) has almost certainly breached the injunction above. In 2013 the High Court stated an injunction preventing the publication of supposed images of Jon Venables and Robert Thompson applies worldwide and equally to the internet. This injunction is no different as far as I can see. See also the Funding evil case where an American author lost a legal battle because the plaintiff ordered books to be sent to the UK and then sued there. What is to prevent Carter-Ruck from suing the Wikimedia Foundation in England and Wales over this section and naming of the plaintiff at the article PJS v News Group Newspapers? AusLondonder (talk) 03:44, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Rozenberg is right. None of this would ever have been interesting or important without the injunction. People in various countries now know the identities of the people involved, but people in England and Wales are not allowed to know. Nothing has been learned since the days of Spycatcher.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:02, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to heartily thank m'learned friend for that robust confirmation of identity. It was, of course, a complete mystery to me who the judges meant when they said this person had "presented an image of commitment rather than monogamy". Or indeed why Huckfinne should open this thread on this particular Talk Page to start with. I'd also like to thank Mr Wales, in advance, for paying the trillion dollar fine, plus costs, on my behalf. I also admit that, yes, I was the third man - I was just desperate for that signed photo. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:53, 14 April 2016 (UTC) [reply]

If there are legal concerns the talk page of PJS v News Group Newspapers and edit history of the article PJS v News Group Newspapers name an individual and also therefore breach the injunction . It is far too easy for an anon IP to edit at the moment and I would suggest some kind of protection DanielJCooper (talk) 09:27, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of countries have backwards censorship laws, and lack the freedom of speech that our servers enjoy. We should only be concerned with our own standards of publication and not be concerned with some edict by a foreign country. We hardly respect the Chinese ban on talking about Tiananmen Square, and I don't think we should respect the "amazinginjection" any more.

If you happen to live in such a country then you may want to take such concerns seriously, but the rest of use should carry on with our own standards and follow only the outside laws that actually limit us. The only questions we should be asking is "Is it relevant to the article" and "Can it be verified". I would say the answer to both is yes, even if it is only a short mention. I have seen more than one reliable source and if we attribute the claims to them then we are no committing libel or violating our BLP policy. HighInBC 15:18, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If we are interested in the court case as a court case, and not for the tabloid inferences it invites about the intimate details of individuals' private lives, I think the answer to the first question is no. This article's subject apparently submitted a witness statement in the case, but that's all. He was not the claimant.--Trystan (talk) 18:22, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for telling us where this whole discussion should (or should not) be taking place, possibly, legal matters permitting, as the case may be (allegedly). Martinevans123 (talk) 18:27, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It might be worth pointing out that The Sun is off to court tomorrow (Friday) to try and overturn this. [4] A decision is expected in the afternoon. Personally I suggest waiting till then, and if no-one else is brave enough I may just get out my tor browser kit and add it in myself. assuming oversight haven't got cold feet about it. I would appropriate referencing of course. On the other hand I may not be brave enough. --wintonian ^talk 23:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, there will be nothing to stop legal action being taken against the Wikimedia Foundation in England and Wales. As I stated, according to the High Court, when British readers access a website the content is deemed "published" in the United Kingdom. Cameron Diaz successfully sued the National Enquirer for libel in England and Wales because 279 readers accessed the site. Furthermore, in 2013 the High Court stated an injunction preventing the publication of supposed images of Jon Venables and Robert Thompson applies worldwide and equally to the internet. This injunction is absolutely no different as far as I can see. Lastly, Wikipedia is WP:NOTATABLOID. I would strongly oppose inclusion, at least until covered in depth by quality publications. AusLondonder (talk) 23:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes I would look for them first, but I got the impression from this thread (Scottish and Canadian press were mention I believe) that we had now passed the bar in that respect. --wintonian ^talk 23:19, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of an after thought but would PJS v News Group Newspapers be subject to WP:BLP. I must admit it's a while since I have read it.--wintonian ^talk 23:19, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those mentions are in print, not online. Apart from that, they tend to be in low-quality tabloids or blogs anyway. Tabloids are not acceptable for controversial information on a BLP. Per WP:BLP "BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, categories, lists, article titles and drafts" AusLondonder (talk) 23:23, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The case is going back to court today (Friday) with an attempt to get the injunction overturned.[5] Regardless of what happens, I still think it has some WP:BLP and WP:DUE issues at the moment. WP:RECENTISM is also a problem. This needs a few weeks to settle down so that a more long term view can be taken.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:36, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On an unrelated note I'd welcome some help over at List of known legal cases involving super-injunctions if anyone has any expertise. Many anonymised privacy injunctions are incorrectly called super-injunctions. I find cases on anonymised injunctions often end up at AfD on the basis that so little is known about a case they are not notable...it can be a difficult and frustrating area of Wikipedia to work on DanielJCooper (talk) 09:45, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that "ending up at AfD" is exactly the outcome that the applicants for those injunctions would wish to see, haha. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:02, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PJS v News Group Newspapers already meets WP:GNG because it has set off more hoo-ha than any case of its kind since CTB v News Group Newspapers Ltd. Interestingly, both cases involve Hugh Tomlinson acting for the Claimant. Quote of the day from Hugh Tomlinson: "I advise my clients that an injunction will not be effective. There have been too many examples of people breaking injunctions, getting round them by releasing material on to the Internet." (Sunday Times, 29 May 2011). Er, yes.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:22, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify on super-injunctions in general from my above comment: Super-injunctions under English law apply to everyone currently residing in, or are a citizen of England or Wales - they do not cover the entirety of the UK - Scotland and N.Ireland have their own legal codes (while Scotland definately is not covered, I am unsure on N.Ireland but given the devolved legal system, suspect it has the same protection). Scottish people in Scotland can comment freely. Scottish people currently in England cant. English and Welsh citizens cannot comment *wherever they currently reside* as English law (and most other countries including the US) considers itself applicable wherever its citizens go. This is generally difficult to prosecute in individuals however where an English person takes an action overseas that is legel there, but illegal here, and is generally applied to corporations and other organisations. Scottish print news can comment freely - as they are published in Scotland. The same Scottish papers cannot print the same thing online (without protections) due to it being considered 'published' in the UK. See the previously mentioned case regarding Cameron Diaz and the National Enquirer. There are ways to reduce the liability - anyone who has encountered a geographical copyright protection on streamed media will understand the basics of this - a website can implement IP-based blockers to mitigate the 'published in X region' issue. As to how this affects Wikipedia? Wikipedia does not operate any blocking software so anything published here is considered published for the UK laws purposes. The WMF in order to keep itself at arms length from liability as a publisher and its protection under US law, will point to the editors for any problematic content if someone actually decides to throw a lawsuit around. So if there are any UK editors, the WMF will hand over details on request from an appropriate authority. So in short - if you are in England or Wales *stay the hell away from this topic until any alleged superinjunction is lifted.* Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PJS v News Group Newspapers is technically an "anonymised privacy injunction". Its existence is not a secret and the case is available on the Bailii website.[6] It doesn't give any detail about the identities of the people involved. Super-injunctions in English law explains this. The existence of a devolved parliament and separate legal system in Scotland has made this type of injunction almost worthless from the word go. The Scottish media does not consider itself to be bound by this type of injunction and will tear it up at will (which is precisely what happened with PJS v News Group Newspapers).--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:57, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm collecting a list of these cases over atList of anonymised privacy injunction cases in English law. It is an alpabet soup and one stub I created for a case has already been deleted. Perhaps Carter Ruck have Wikipedia editors?! DanielJCooper (talk) 20:48, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You must be crackers. You'll get yourself bard. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:10, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete.

Oh you did, thanks. "This may make an interesting addition to ~~the~~ one of the 5,131,053 wikipedia articles on Thursday." Martinevans123 (talk) 21:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re this edit: Since even Rupert Jackson now accepts that anyone who is interested now knows who PJS and YMA are, there is little point in continuing with the pretence that it is a secret. However, I reverted this material on BLP grounds because under normal circumstances a claim sourced to the National Enquirer would not go within a mile of a WP:BLP article. It is only the legal action that has made all of this notable, and the wording in the article should reflect this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:26, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Straits Times is reporting it [7].--Egghead06 (talk) 06:30, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Technically the injunction is still in force pending a decision by Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. What really matters is how much of this is interesting and relevant for a BLP article. Without the legal action, none of this would have been notable or well sourced enough for a mention per WP:BLPSOURCES. Legal commentators have seen this case as sounding the death knell of the privacy injunction in the UK. This is the lasting source of notability for PJS v News Group Newspapers, not lurid tabloid claims which on their own would have failed BLP guidelines.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:40, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I find it appalling that coming to Wikipedia yielded no information about what is an obviously important an on-going civil case of world-wide importance. That one country with backwards censorship laws is able to silence Wikipedia - with the apparent consent of the editors - demeans the organization and vastly harms the quality of the content. Geofferic ^T•_C✡ 20:49, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As you may have seen in the news yesterday, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom ruled on PJS v News Group Newspapers and upheld the injunction by a 4-1 margin, with only Lord Toulson dissenting. Needless to say, the UK tabloids were not very pleased. The judgement in full is here and notes: "Unlike Canute, the courts can take steps to enforce its injunction pending trial." There have also been reports of users on Twitter receiving requests to remove tweets allegedly naming PJS and YMA.[8] This has now turned into Spycatcher Mark 2 because anyone who is remotely interested found out who PJS and YMA are a long time ago. As far as writing for a Wikipedia article is concerned, there are still WP:BLP issues due to the mainly tabloid sourcing naming PJS and YMA. The allegations about whoever it might be would fail WP:BLP due to their lurid nature and no obvious need to mention them. As with previous injunctions, it is only the legal action that has made things more important and notable than they actually are.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:21, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I guess Elton's now reconsiderd that celebrity endorsement for Bertolli. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:34, 20 May 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Is he named "Blanket"?

Hello - I noticed under "Personal", the article is specific to share details of his eldest son and through what "method", but no further mention of the 2nd son. "They have two sons. Their oldest, Zachary Jackson Levon Furnish-John, was born to a surrogate mother on 25 December 2010 in California. He also has ten godchildren..." Seems odd why one son is mentioned, but not the other. Thanks - SP 06.09.16