Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

Hi! Sorry I am new to wikipedia and I really do not understand how to do all this special editing you guys are doing. But here is the thing, there is an actress here that has a page called Julianna Mauriello. I was on film crew with her for 4 days. She is openly gay and I met her and her wife. I witnessed kissing, Hugging, very open affection. Her imdb.com lists her as being openly gay and typing into google.com Julianna Mauriello gay or Julianna Mauriello lesbian will give you thousands of answers. Her officially recognized MySpace page (listed in the celebrity pages on myspace) lists her as being married and has pictures of her and her wife on it.

I noticed when it was added to her page that she was gay, it was instantly removed and called vandalism and several of your administrator guys said it was libel to say she was gay. Is there just a feeling that anyone on wikipedia that is gay is somehow wrong? I dont understand this, I figured this was to be a truthful rendition of people places and things. Yet, it doesn't appear to be that at all. I'd like someone who actually cares to go over there and do something please?

Sorry if I messed up your board.

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.

Please edit the main page of the noticeboard.

This discussion has been archived. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate. Please do not modify it.
Ongoing WP:BLP-related concerns The following subsections may apply to any or all Biographies of living persons. Unreferenced BLPs There are over 8300 articles on living people that have the {{unreferenced}} tag. This is a list of them. (warning: pretty big page) —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 00:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC) Oh shit, that's worse than I thought.--Docg 00:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC) Just looking through a few of them, they have the unreferenced tag at the top but with no indication in the text what the problematic unreferenced material is. It would be good if people could be encouraged not to use the general unreferenced tag, but to add the fact/citation-needed tag to the contentious issues. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC) Actually, {{fact}} should NEVER be used on contentious issues on BLPs. Uncited contentious material should simply be removed.--Docg 02:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC) Aye, and originally the list was going to include {{fact}}-transcluders AND {{unreferenced}}-transcluders but the latter is a bigger priority, so let's do that first. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 11:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC) For now, I have completed my search. The result: 17 lists of articles (16 of which contain around 1000 articles) on living people that contain {{unreferenced}}, {{unreferencedsect}}, {{more sources}}, or {{fact}}. Over 16,000 articles on living people that are not completely referenced. Let's get working. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 16:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC) Unless the policy has morphed again, an {{unreferenced}} BLP that contains no controversial statement is not a violation; many of these probably qualify. {{fact}} is probably more serious. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC) This list was updated again recently; as of May 19, 2008, there were 14,679 totally unreferenced biographies and 13,405 biographies with the 'fact' tag. Let's get to work! -- phoebe / (talk to me) 00:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC) Working mainly in visual arts articles, I come across a lot of unreferenced BLPs. The majority are written by a new user, whose only contributions are to that article and related, i.e. most likely either the subject of the article or an agent for them. It would be interesting to see how many unreferenced BLPs fit this category. Ty 10:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC) Just a FYI, BLP's with insufficient sourcing should preferably get the template {{BLPsources}} (Category:BLP articles lacking sources), while completely unsourced BLP's should get {{BLPunsourced}}. The latter is brandnew so the Category:Unreferenced BLPs is nearly empty. I hope these can be of help! Fram (talk) 15:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC) I was thinking of some form of triage to look at harm mimimization given the huge number of unreferenced bits and pieces. Would it be helpful to have two extra templates - one which ran along the lines of "This highly controversial material needs to be referenced" and one for "moderately controversial...". The idea being the unreferenced sections within BLPs are then given some form of rank in terms of urgency? Does this already exist? This may make the list somewhat more manageable as editors can find an easy place to figure out what to prioritize. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC) Well, the first ("highly controversial") needs to be removed asap, not templated. The second is debatable. I don't think it can do any harm, but I'll focus for now on tagging the completely unsourced BLP's. Fram (talk) 09:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC) OK, good point - I was musing on ones where it is/was common knowledge maybe. I will try to think of/look for some. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC) sohh.com Special:Linksearch/*.sohh.com Special:Linksearch/*.sohhdotcom.typepad.com Similar to whutdat.com (see below), I'm seeing an alarming number of hip-hop biographies attributing SOHH.com as a source. It claims to be a magazine, but it really looks like an over-sensationalized blog to me. At the time of this writing, there are 310+ biographical pages linking to this site. Nearly all of the links are either dead or redirect to a blog site which contain highly questionable tabloid-like articles. Example headline: "Courtney Love Needs to Shut Her “Hole”! Junkie Grunge Queen Thinks VMAs Too "Urban”" Community input is requested here. JBsupreme (talk) 08:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC) You are indeed looking at an over-sensationalized blog with your example headline. That blog post clearly contains the text [Editor's Note: The views of this blog do not necessarily reflect those of SOHH.com]. So draw a distinction between blog posts and sohh news articles. Special:Linksearch/blogs.sohh.com gives a more manageable 24 cites that probably could stand some scrutiny. 86.44.24.76 (talk) 05:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC) Whutdat.com Special:Linksearch/*.whutdat.com I'm witnessing some hip-hop biographies being sourced to a website called "whutdat.com". The site looks like a blog to me but I can't really be too sure these days. Is this a reliable source or should it be thrown out? My senses tell me its the latter but I'd like a second or third opinion. Thanks, JBsupreme (talk) 08:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC) NNDB Notable Names Database Special:Linksearch/*.nndb.com Is the National Names Database a reliable source? The Talk:NNDB page discussion leans against using it. One editor mentions that Jimbo is very against it, especially as a primary source. It seems to be used quite frequently on biographies. I've challenged it on the Paul Wolfowitz page, but would appreciate more input from others. Notmyrealname 20:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC) No, it is not a reliable source for any sort of controversial or disputed information. FCYTravis 22:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC) Is this an official policy or just an opinion? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Notmyrealname (talk • contribs) 19:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC). From WP:RS: "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." We do not know who the authors of the NNDB are, and thus we have no way of knowing how credible or trustworthy the information is. What we do know is that many of the articles (c.f. the NNDB article on Michael Jackson) are written from a clearly-biased perspective with the intent of generating maximum lulz. Our biographies of living persons policy demands the absolute strictest standards of sourcing and neutrality when we maintain a biography of a living person, and further requires that we use great caution in sourcing any claim which may be controversial, derogatory or disputed. Citing NNDB for something like a birthplace is one thing, citing it for a claim that someone was arrested for <insert scandalous crime here> is entirely another. Even then, it shouldn't be cited unless it's absolutely the last resort - and if it is, we probably shouldn't have an article on the subject anyway. FCYTravis 21:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC) I ran into one case where the NNDB said a person was born in 1954 but his WP article said he was drafted into the army in 1962. Steve Dufour 00:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC) Here's the quote from Jimbo Wales-Why on earth should we consider it a valid source? It seems to me to be riddled with errors, many of which were lifted directly from Wikipedia. To my knowledge, it should be regarded like Wikipedia: not a valid source for anything in Wikipedia. We need to stick to REAL reliable sources, you know, like newspapers, magazines, books. Random websites are a very bad idea.--Jimbo Wales 18:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC) Notmyrealname 02:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC) NNDB is definitely an unreliable source, especially when it's about sexual orientation, risk factors and trivia. As for the newspapers, their reliability is often questionable. By principle, the tabloids must be considered most unreliable sources... Bachibz, 04 August 2007 The NNDB contains reams of errors and misclassifications (calling all world leaders "heads of state", for instance, or calling all cardiac deaths "heart failure" - that one's inexcusably stupid). There's no way to correct the errors (most corrections end up thrown out from what I can see) and the database owners seem to care more about sensationalism than fact. For some years they reported the Catherine the Great horse story as if it were gospel truth. If the NNDB said the sun rose in the east, I'd verify first. Entertaining but wholly unreliable. --NellieBly (talk) 09:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC) Jewish Virtual Library Special:Linksearch/*.jewishvirtuallibrary.org There seems to be a similar problem as above with the Jewish Virtual Library, especially as a source for biographical information. Sourcing seems to be very vague and often cites wikipedia itself. A few examples: [1], [2], [3], [4]. As with the NNDB, if a source is determined to be unreliable, shouldn't it be prohibited from being listed in the references section as well? It seems that this might be used as a way to sneak in information that otherwise wouldn't make it into the wiki article. (I've tried to raise this issue on the Talk:Jewish Virtual Library page and the Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources pages as well but this seems to be a particular problem for biographical info).Notmyrealname 12:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC) I would treat it as a convenience source, with great care taken about POV. The sponsorship is by "The AMERICAN-ISRAELI COOPERATIVE ENTERPRISE (AICE) was established in 1993 as a nonprofit 501(c)(3), nonpartisan organization to strengthen the U.S.-Israel relationship by emphasizing the fundamentals of the alliance — the values our nations share." The material posted there is only as authoritative as the source or poster may be authoritative--it always gives the source, but only sometimes the exact link. Looking at their index [5] of biographies, the individual ones link to a variety of useful sources of varying reliability. It obviously cannot be used to prove anything contentious--but since it usually omits negative information, little contentious is likely to be found.DGG 21:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC) Well, one concern is that it's a back-door way of implying a person's religion when there isn't a proper way to do it that complies with WP:BLP. It's extremely rare for them to site any of their sources with specificity (I haven't seen any cases of it other than "Republican Jewish Committee" or "Wikipedia"), so there's no easy way to fact check them. I don't see how this resolves any of the concerns that Jimmy Wales raises above about the NNDB. Notmyrealname 22:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC) I have to agree with Notmyrealname on this, we should not be citing the Jewish Virtual Library for any living person biography. JBsupreme (talk) 08:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC) Can we also agree that for similar and even stronger reasons citing http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-entertainment-folder.html is deprecated? ϢereSpielChequers 17:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC) Oy, vey. Thanks for introducing me to THAT little slice of heaven. :) I agree, it should not be a source for info in any BLP. David in DC (talk) 18:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC) I've now searched for Jewwatch and only found Jew Watch, Google bomb, Steven Weinstock and Zionist Occupation Government, all of which makes sense to me. But I don't think that wiki search finds links such as the one on this page or the one I reverted. Anyone know how to search for Websites being quoted in references? ϢereSpielChequers 10:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC) I raised this at the London meetup and have been given a couple of techniques; googling this way gets reassuringly only 40 hits, one in Hebrew which I doubt needs translating and most of the rest in archives and discussions on user pages about hate sites. But on Special:linksearch jewwatch.com comes up 69 times including some that I think need checking out. ϢereSpielChequers 17:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC) f1fanatic Special:Linksearch/*.f1fanatic.co.uk This site is being used as a reference on a number of Formula 1 biographies. It appears to be fan-run and self-published site, without the fact-checking and editorial oversight WP:RS requires, and as such may not meet standards outlined in WP:BLP#Sources. Most, if not all, of the links were added by the site's owner(s) and/or author(s), which raises additional WP:COI issues. The site has other problems, for instance displaying images with no copyright info (http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/wallpapers/) and linking to copyvio Youtube clips (http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2006/06/18/100-greatest-f1-videos-part-i/). There has been some prior talk page discussion about the link's appropriateness (f1fanatic.co.uk as a reference, External link - F1F biography). --Muchness 10:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC) WhosDatedWho.com Special:Linksearch/*.whosdatedwho.com Not a lot of links so far, but watch for this site to be used as a reference supporting celebrity relationships. I've started searching for reliable-source verification for the information (some of it is no doubt accurate) and removing the link and any relationships that can't be reliably verified elsewhere. From the editorial policy of the site: “ Information contained on the WhosDatedWho.com website listed has not been independently verified by WhosDatedWho.com. WhosDatedWho.com does not and can not review all materials posted to the WhosDatedWho.com Web Site by users, and WhosDatedWho.com is not responsible for any such materials posted by users. ” --Risker 04:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC) I am a representative of this site and appreciate that wikipedia needs accurate sources for its information. I acknowledge your concerns and will ensure these are taken into account in our future site update. We are working to improve the accuracy of the information posted on our site and are introducing a verification mechanism in the near future. We recently gave editors the ability to post links to sources for every relationship published on the site. I would also like to state that like wikipedia, all of our content is edited by editors, with our senior editors having ultimate control over what is published. --Aamair (talk) 07:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC) No matter how reliable the information on the WhosDatedWho.com website is supposedly made, it doesn't change the fact that the website is a tertiary source, like Wikipedia. This means it definately can't be used to assert notability, and will probably never be reliable enough to cite content either. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 13:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC) If we still have a representative of the site watching this, is there any way its domain name can be changed to WhosDatedWhom.com? For the impressionable kids out there? :) MastCell Talk 19:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC) It's true that WDW can't be used as a source itself, but it might be used to find sources that can be included. —Ashley Y 00:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC) WP:BLP#Reliable sources policy section itself Edit warring, protection, unprotection, non-consensus changes, edit warring, protection by administrator involved in previously editing this project page. For contexts of problems affecting the protected current version of this section of the project policy page, please see Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons (and archives). Thank you. --NYScholar 00:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC) [strike out in response to reply below. --NYScholar 18:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)] As the protecting admin, I'll leave a quick note regarding the part about "protection by administrator involved in previously editing this project page". First, there are probably relatively few admins who haven't edited a policy page, including WP:BLP. Second, although the page is on my watchlist, I have for the last month or so stayed away from the constant disputes that seem to plague it. My last edit, and the only one affected by the dispute which led to this page protection, was made 10 days ago (on August 18). It consisted solely of a minor rewording and did not constitute a change in meaning. As far as the two issues currently under dispute ... I don't feel strongly about either of them. Third, the version I protected, inevitably The Wrong Version, was the one that happened to be there when I noticed the escalating (both in the nature of comments and frequency of reverts) edit-warring. — Black Falcon (Talk) 00:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC) I appreciate the reply here. The problems do not seem, however, to be the kind that further discussion is going to change. Discussion of the same problems has been ongoing for over three months. I think some degree of non-editorial intervention may be necessary. So many of us commenting on the policy statement have strong views about it that it is hard to reach what Wikipedia calls "consensus" and changes to the page have not, in my own and some others' views, improved it, so that the currently-protected version does not state what it used to (pre-August 12) even though there is clear disagreement about some phrases that have been deleted from the current version. Many editors (including several administrators) have expressed the view that the phrases deleted should remain. --NYScholar 00:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC) Possibly (the length of the "External links" section on the talk page, combined with the absence of any tangible result, is certainly not a reason for optimism). However, continued discussion (even if it leads nowhere) is undoubtedly more productive than edit-warring. Perhaps it may be useful to invite some new participants to the discussion by posting notices to the talk pages of other policy pages? — Black Falcon (Talk) 00:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC) Following your suggestion above, I have posted a message about these concerns in Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Re: WP:BLP#Reliable sources (talk page of WP:V); Wikipedia talk:No original research#Re: WP:BLP#Reliable sources (talk page of WP:NOR), and Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view#Re: WP:BLP#Reliable sources (talk page of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view), and in WP:RSN#Re: WP:BLP#Reliable sources (WP:RSN). Thanks for the suggestion. --NYScholar 18:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC) Porn actors' birth names This discussion has been collapsed. The last several days worth of edits at Lukas Ridgeston, Tim Hamilton (porn star), and the March 14 entry for Johan Paulik raise serious BLP issues. Would someone review them please? David in DC (talk) 01:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC) Yes I will address them. When an actor's real name is reliably sourced and widely disseminated it may be placed on the article. Addresses and phone numbers should not be placed on the article. Repeated removal of well sourced and widely disseminated names should be regarded, in my opinion, as vandalism. John celona (talk) 13:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC) What about the BLP policy of presumption in the favor of privacy, especially when it doesn't help the WP project in any way. BLP policy states that respecting the basic human dignity of the subject is essential, and other editors have noted that "outing" these people's birth names (it's ok to use their public stage name) assists in stalking and potential danger to the subjects. There is no real benefit and there is real potential for harm. This is straight from BLP Policy: "When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated OR HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY CONCEALED **which is the case for these subjects**, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context" --Jkp212 (talk) 14:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC) This surely must not be the first time such matters have been discussed on Wikipedia. Does anyone have pointers to previous threads? I could imagine making the answer depend on whether a large, mainstream publication had revealed the persons' real name. If the real name has already appeared in the New York Times or Newsweek then keeping it out of the article is probably not worth the effort, and has little privacy value. EdJohnston (talk) 17:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC) As you well know the phrase OR HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY CONCEALED which you so helpfully capitalise is immediately followed by AS IN CERTAIN COURT CASES. Since there are no court cases and the actors names are VERY widely disseminated they belong in the article. They are actors which is as much not a "non-public" occupation as can be imagined. John celona (talk) 18:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC) The names have not been mentioned in any large, mainstream publication and are NOT widely disseminated. Widely is certainly more than 5 obscure gay porn blog sources for Tim Hamilton (the interview in question published twice!) or one source only for Lukas Ridgeston plus about 14 gay porn listings with no real value at all. For Lukas Ridgeston the name has been intentionally disclosed in the review of that gay magazine. This has been done against the expressed wish of the actor and production company Bel Ami. AS IN CERTAIN COURT CASES is NOT a concluding enumeration but an example. Even with English not being my native language I can read the difference. So no need for a court case here either. There is no real benefit in publishing the names and no significant loss of context in not doing so. On the contrary revealing the names in this or in any future case violates the WP principles mentioned by Jkp212. Putting them back in repeatedly should be regarded, in my opinion, as vandalism. Just as John celona said "an actor's real name ... may be placed on the article". But it does not have to be placed, which is in accordance with the BLP policy of presumption in the favor of privacy. (Jamesbeat (talk) 19:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC) "As in certain court cases" is one example of where a name has been intentionally concealed. Actors such as these who choose to have stages names are also intentionally concealing their birth name, which they have every right to do. --Jkp212 (talk) 20:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC) The Brandy Alexandre page is the model. Please look at the code. If you hit "edit this page", the first thing you see at the top is code from Jimmy Wales asking that her birth name not be revealed. Need a better authority than that? David in DC (talk) 21:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC) I have to say User:EdJohnston makes a good point. Where is the prior discussion on this? I don't see any for Brandy Alexandre, even on the talk page. Was it archived? What about for Hamilton or Ridgeston or any of the others? Viewing the prior consensus on the subject would be most helpful in this discussion. Thanks. --Ebyabe (talk) 23:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC) What it actually says is "As a courtesy while we discuss the issues surrounding this article". In other words-temporary. Plus, what wikipedia regulation says Luke Ford is not a reliable source. He is on dozens of other pages. provide the source please. as you have been told on many other issues: this is Wiki-pedia not David-pedia. John celona (talk) 00:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC) For everything that needs saying, read the archive here: It sets forth the views of Anon E. Mouse, Jimbo, and SavvyCat (Ms. Alexandre) as fully as necessary. About outing porn actor's names AND about the reliability of Luke Ford as a source. David in DC (talk) 03:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC) Well I know that a number of the participants in WP:P* (myself included) routinely pull out uncited names from porn star articles on simple WP:BLP issues... what if the name's wrong? And there are other stars besides Brandy who have had their names pulled from the article at the star's own request... Sasha Grey is one I remember offhand. Beyond that, the principles that John Celona mentions above ("an actor's real name is reliably sourced and widely disseminated") apply, and no, IMDB is not a reliable source for the name! Now if we can only get all the various editions to follow that last point; I know of one porn star complaining about a foreign language Wiki that has their real name on it with IMDB as a "source", and her parents were getting hassled on it as a result of it (it's Katja Kassin & the German version)... unfortunately the Wiki in question doesn't seem to be responding to her complaints. Tabercil (talk) 06:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC) Some insight into User:John celona's attitude towards privacy and harm reduction may be gleaned from a Deletion Review a year ago, specifically this comment, this comment and this comment. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 14:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC) Outing people is bad. I dealt with porn star names (e.g. Tawnee Stone, Jordan Capri) way back in the dark ages before BLP even existed and even then we all agreed that Wikipedia should not be the primary venue for locating information such as this. If the mainstream media has published someone's identity, then okay, but we shall not rely on the blog of the guy who claims to have gone to high school with the actress. Nor shall we rely on the name that appears on the obscure trademark filing for the "character" (yes, this seriously came up). If you are going to publish information that may have real world consequences for someone then you ought to have sources that are at least as reliable and as visible as Wikipedia itself before doing so. Dragons flight (talk) 15:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC) If we change this policy we need to change it universally, or not at all, and have admin deletes of history of reference to birth names. --BenBurch (talk) 17:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC) This is going to come up repeatedly in the future. In the Brandy Alexandre case, some editors seemed to think that we were just applying the reliable source policy to birth names, and only including those that were reliably attested. But the above discussion tells me that some editors *still* don't want real names included even when published in sources that would be accepted as reliable for other purposes. If this is the case, we should know. EdJohnston (talk) 18:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC) This is really disturbing to me. Someone really needs to explain to User:John celona that Wikipedia isn't just a place that reports every lurid detail about sexually related articles. He's strongly argued for the inclusion of all material related to underage sex crime victims multiple times (as evidenced by CalendarWatcher) and now he's trying to disseminate private details about porn actors because marginally reliable sources (and frankly some unreliable sources) report them. Ugh. No. If he wants to start a wiki of his own that exploits these people he is welcome to do so, but I don't think that kind of attitude is appropriate here. AniMate 18:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC) Are you suggesting that a name attested by a reliable source should still be suppressed at the request of the subject? We need to know if you are asking for a policy change or not. EdJohnston (talk) 18:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC) I would say a policy change is in order. If someone's lone claim to fame is pornography and they want to reclaim some of their privacy, then absolutely we should remove their real name. In fact, I would argue that more often than not, real names shouldn't be used unless they are widely used by the mainstream media. For that to happen, I'm thinking most porn stars would have to have some other claim to fame besides having sex on film. AniMate 18:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC) I am in agreement with a policy change. There is no gain to "outing" people like this. --Jkp212 (talk) 19:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC) So let's throw an hypothetical example out to see how this proposed change works... say Savanna Samson comes to us and says "I don't want my real name used in the article". If you look at the article, there is a reference for it which points directly to an article in the New York Times, which is probably one of the more reliable sources out there and also one of the more visible ones (the third highest circulation according to List of newspapers in the United States by circulation). So... do we pull the name or not? Tabercil (talk) 20:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC) In that case I would say probably not, though that would ultimately depend on why she wanted her name removed. The argument for removal of real names is that these people use pseudonyms to obscure their identities. While she will always be better known as Savanna Samson, I think it's clear with that interview and her other projects that she has no intention of obfuscating her identity anymore. AniMate 21:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC) I lean toward yes. We take her birth name out, but use the NYT article as a source for some other fact, if it backs one. NYT has it's editorial discretion and we have ours. Ours protects the privacy (and safety) of living persons more than theirs does. That's not censorship, it's editing. I can imagine a case where the answer is no. If Savanna ever kills someone on a porn set, the names are gonna be linked. Or if she testifies before Congress, under her birth name, in support of branding strippers and porn stars' with a Scarlet X. But we ought to set the bar pretty high in favor of omitting birth names. David in DC (talk) 21:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC) My own personal thinking is probably not to remove the name in this instance. Why? Because of the visibility and reliability of the source of the name, unless it can be shown to be in error, removing the name would be akin to closing the barn door long after the horse has disappeared over the horizon. However, if the source was much thinner, then I can the name being removed. However, we should clearly have a requirement that the real name must be sourced; I know the the guidelines for WP:P* (which perhaps is the work group closest to the subject) are clear as seen here. Tabercil (talk) 21:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC) Just because something is verifiable and well sourced, doesn't mean we include it in articles. WP:BLP often trumps reliable sources and verifiability. AniMate 21:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC) If that's a policy change, what is the limitation on it? Any subject of a biography can ask for their real name to be excluded, no matter how well known it is? EdJohnston (talk) 21:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC) (undent) Is it specifically laid out in policy? No, but there is a presumption in favor of the privacy of marginally notable people. Exact birth dates are routinely removed for the marginally notable (and that is policy), and (generally speaking) porn stars real names aren't very well known. Looking through the links supplied by CalendarWatcher above, you'll see a case where two minors who were victims of sex crimes had the majority of personal information about them removed from the encyclopedia. All of the information about them was ridiculously well sourced to major and undeniably reliable news agencies. Still, the information was removed and the articles redirected (if I'm not mistaken). I think the removal of real names is definitely up for interpretation, but in the case of a porn star with very few or no other accomplishments... I think we should remove without prejudice unless a valid argument can be made to include them. AniMate 22:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC) I'm agreeing that we could follow a rule where such names are sometimes omitted. I just need someone to give the scope of the rule so that we don't need a lengthy discussion every time the subject comes up again. If the existing policy is too vague in this area we could ask for the policy to be made specific. You could even ask for a change in policy that is limited to porn stars, to avoid widening the debate too much. (Comparing to the example given by AniMate, porn stars don't seem to have much in common with minors who are the victims of sex crimes). EdJohnston (talk) 01:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC) You're right that there is nothing in common between the two, and I hope I didn't imply that there was. I'm not sure that there is a clear cut line that can be determined other than saying "err on the side of privacy". Savanna Samson, for instance, has clearly made an attempt to market herself to a more mainstream audience outside of porn. The same goes for Jenna Jameson and Jeff Stryker. Tim Hamilton, Johan Paulik, and Lukas Ridgeston don't seem to have any encyclopedic accomplishments outside of pornography. There is no benefit to revealing their real names, and there could in fact be great harm to them in doing so. AniMate 02:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC) Thank you for bringing it back to Paulik, Ridgeston and Hamiliton. It's poor judgment to out any of these three. We need the opposite kind of rule than the one EdJohnston suggests above. We need a rule for when a porn actor's birth name should be included. The presumption should be against inserting these birth names, except in the most extraordinary of circumstance. People act in porn under assumed names for reasons of privacy and safety. We should honor the request for safety and privacy that acting under a stage name clearly requests. David in DC (talk) 02:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC) I'm not sure that David in DC's idea would leave us with a clear rule to follow. I like AniMate's last comment because I can deduce a rule from it. How about: Give the real names of porn stars only when the names are reliably sourced, and only when the stars are noted for some activities outside of pornography. This would cause us to include the real names of Jenna Jameson and Jeff Stryker, and omit the names of Lukas Ridgeston, Tim Hamilton (porn star) and Johan Paulik. EdJohnston (talk) 02:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC) Well the first clause I have no problems with, and the second one shouldn't be a problem because anything that'll cause them to be mentioned by a reliable source will most likely be for outside of porn. Tabercil (talk) 03:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC) I like both clauses too, and I personally feel it's essential to include the second part so that there is clarity on that point. --Jkp212 (talk) 05:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC) Section break Give the real names of porn stars only when the names are reliably sourced, and only when the stars are noted for some activities outside of pornography. This seems to be a popular and rational choice. Are there any objections? If there are, how would they be beneficial to building an encyclopedia? AniMate 07:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC) The "objection" is very simple. If an actor's name is widely disseminated and reliably sourced it should be in the article. If one can google the actor's stage name along with the words "real name", "birth name", etc. and come up with a reliable source on the first page than the proverbial cat has escaped the bag. John celona (talk) 13:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC) Your "objection" is of course not as simple as you try to tell again and again. It makes a BIG difference if you read a WP article about people in the porn business, which includes the real name, or if you read the same article without the real name and having to do an additional Google search on your own, which most people have no interest in at all except they have some ill intentions. As said above regarding Lukas Ridgeston and Tim Hamilton widely disseminated and reliably sourced are different from what Google is coming up with for both cases. To avoid any future discussions about this IMO the second part of the statement above in italic is very crucial. (Jamesbeat (talk) 15:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)) It's important for WP to take a stand that, as many of the other editors, have mentioned above, WP should not be the primary vehicle for the spreading of this information unless there is a special reason (like activities outside of porn).. In Celona's example, he mentioned a situation where someone is actively seeking out a birth name of the actor's name (like a stalker); however, most people will come to the WP article not actively seeking out the actor's birth name, and therefore WP becomes the primary vehicle for the spread of this information. In other words, it's more complicated than just being reliably sourced, as Animate points out above. Secondly, without taking a firm stand you open up the door for irresponsible edits, such as this one by Celona [[6]] where the "reliable source" he cited was a porn site. --Jkp212 (talk) 16:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC) Widely disseminated? Here is a google search for Tim Hamilton with the "real" name you added to his article. John, you need to understand that we have to edit responsibly. It is something you seem to fight every time someone tells you that information isn't appropriate for the encyclopedia. You fought bitterly for all possible information to be written about two minors who were victims of sex crimes. You really have to start understanding WP:BLP and that when it is applied is not censorship but editors acting responsibly. AniMate 16:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC) Both clauses make sense to me. Responsible editorial discretion is not censorship. WP:BLP is a more restrictive policy than many other institutions follow. It's one we should be rightly proud of. We should enforce it against indiscriminate, ill-advised, mean-spirited or careless editors. David in DC (talk) 20:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC) Per this discussion, I've deleted Ridgeston's birth name.David in DC (talk) 20:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC) Surely no one can argue Ridgeston's real name is not widely disseminated. I think it is more than absurd to say people with interest in celerities real names are "stalkers" John celona (talk) 22:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC) Here's a google search with the real name you provided for Ridgeston showing that it is also not widely known. Again, you really need to read WP:BLP because you really don't seem to understand it... or at least you don't want to. AniMate 22:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC) It is on almost every google hit! John celona (talk) 22:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC) 21 google hits is a joke when you compare the 78,000 google hits returned for his stage name. If there are only twenty or so places on the web that report his name, then it is not a widely known fact. From WP:BLP When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed... This name is not widely known and it has been intentionally concealed. Let it go. AniMate 22:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC) I am disengaging from this issue-for now. It is sad that a handfull of pro-censorship editors can twist Wikipedia rules that compel boldness and inclusiveness and make them look like they compel a rather infantile, self-righteous censorship. For the record, for anyone reading this as an archive: There is NO regulation on Wikipedia distinguishing porn stars from any other actor or celebrity. If any actor's real name is reputably sourced and widely disseminated it SHOULD be in the article notwithstanding an actor's or a studio's wishes or alleged wishes. If a google search instantly reveals the actors real name through a reputable source the name belongs in the article. Don't be tricked by some sophist making the completely absurd argument that "20 sources isn't enough". Be bold and put the real name in. This is an encyclopedia not a game of "who can censor who" --many editors don't realize that John celona (talk) 00:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC) Blah, blah, blah....Celona, I am glad you reach out to those who are "reading this as an archive" -- clearly you will be remembered and looked back as the noble sole who fought hard for the right to "out" the private names of porn stars. --Jkp212 (talk) 00:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC) I intend to catalog and revert all attempts to remove real names from porn star articles as the removal is blatant violation of WP:POINT. Sorry, but when you decide to be a porn star, you are relinquishing your right to hide your name. This is not a matter of opinion, since it is necessary to comply with the COPPA law. Anyway, as with any actor or author, when a pseudonym is used it is conventional to give the legal name as well. There is no consensus to change this policy and no rationale other then more hysterical WP:BLP hand-wringing. I will take a stand on this issue because I'm sick and tired of the extremists decimating our biographies. Fix obvious BLP errors, but do not remove verifiable information because you have some personal beliefs on privacy. WP:NOT here to be your privacy battleground, so take it to discussion boards if you want to gripe about it. Again, their choice to become a porn star invalidates their right to keep their real name secret. Accuracy and NPOV always trump WP:BLP; we are here to write informative articles for our readers, not play PR Firm for the subjects of biographies. No harm is done by listing the legal name other then fringe concerns invented by concern trolls. --Dragon695 (talk) 22:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC) I disagree. And a lot of what you've typed is put pretty incivilly. "[W]hen you decide to be a porn star, you are relinquishing your right to hide your name" is irrelevant. Getting the real name from a COPPA filing is the archetype of the behavior WP:NOR bans. And, as noted above, WP:BLP gives us pretty clear instructions on what to do if someone has purposely obsured their name, porn star or not. I think we're wise to be guided by the folks from the WP porn project, who have stated a pretty convincing case above, in my opinion, for removing porn actors' birth names unless they are known for something outside of porn.David in DC (talk) 22:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC) Yes, I was rude, but my frustration is borne from seeing well intentioned fans of WP:BLP go to extremes to reduce our biographies to crappy stubs. Somebody has to stop this nonsense. WP:BLP is not a be all and end all to this project. The point of this project is write accurate, verifiable articles. Including the legal name is part of the accurate part and poses very minimal privacy concerns for those who have chosen to become actors. What industry they act in is irrelevant. --Dragon695 (talk) 23:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC) "I intend to catalog" is very different from "I am unilaterally reverting". The recent edits to Tim Hamilton's page are a disruption. Please stop. David in DC (talk) 22:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC) Dragon says "fix obvious BLP errors"...One such obvious BLP error is including a poorly sourced name, the way Celona did above (source was a porn site)....You have encouraged him to engage in this type of behavior, which is not according to WP policy. --Jkp212 (talk) 22:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC) Fine, I will locate more reliable sources, including COPPA filings, and then re-insert the name. I will refrain from reverting any removals where the source was not reliable. But I reject this absurd notion that we must remove all legal names of actors because of privacy concerns. --Dragon695 (talk) 23:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC) No, I am WP:IAR because 3 or 4 biased editors do not get to reinterpret policy. Citing reliable sources, such as a COPPA filing, is not WP:OR. This is SOP for all actors, we list the pseudonym and the legal name. We do not make exceptions for pornographic actors. Again, WP:BLP is not part of the WP:FIVE and it does not trump reporting accurate, verifiable information where there are no REASONABLE privacy concerns. A legal name is not a valid privacy concern for an actor; their decision to be an actor disqualifies them from this right. --Dragon695 (talk) 22:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC) BRAVO to you! As General Macarthur said-"I have returned!" John celona (talk) 23:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC) 1. You are not correct in stating that WP:BLP does not trump verifiable research -- it does. 2. You are, in fact, the one reinterpreting policy, which is pretty clear in terms of editing conservatively and trying to maintain privacy of semi-notable subjects. Especially when there is no clear benefit to the project to do otherwise. --Jkp212 (talk) 23:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC) Jkp12 is correct. WP:BLP does trump verifiability. It's there because not all available information is appropriate for Wikipedia. If you disagree, then I think you should go about trying to have WP:BLP rejected by the community, Dragon695. AniMate 00:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC) I totally agree on this. WP:BLP is fully respected here and violation of WP:POINT is utter nonsense. In his statement Dragon695 has clearly expressed that his real intentions are everything but neutral. But that is how articles should be written on any encyclopedia and on WP and not in a biased, ill-minded and ill-intentioned way. I apologize if I sound rude, but I am really upset about people like John celona and now Dragon695 spinning words and rules that are agreed upon by the community just to appear as victims of censorship when in fact they are the 'culprits' vandalizing established rules. (Jamesbeat (talk) 12:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)) Care to make a point that is actually valid? WP:BLP is not universally accepted and there are still very contentious issues that still exist. The debates that happen on its talk page are rancorous and often very divisive. So I reject the notion that it has universal support, but that is besides the point. The bottom line is that actors in films, whether they be pornographic or not, do not get the same level of privacy that an average person does. It is their choice to become a notable subject. All of our biographies of actors who use pseudonyms list the real name. WP:NPOV does trump WP:BLP in that one class of actor will not be favored over another. Since you will not be successful in eliminating the real names in actors like Marilyn Manson, you can not justify eliminating it a pornographic actor's biography. --Dragon695 (talk) 22:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC) Absolutely. And irregardless of BLP, I fail to see how adding the real names of people who are notable for their work in pornography under another name helps create a good article based on notable information about (their work in pornography under another name). If someone was notable for acting in pornography in the past and had now become an activist under another name and was engaging in activities that might become notable, then perhaps that other name would be suitable for inclusion to add research. But for the majority of these articles? Hell no. John Nevard (talk) 15:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC) Sorry John, but we have plenty of pointless information. All actors using pseudonyms also have their real names listed. This is the default for just about every biography. The reason you and others want it removed is why? Why should porn actors get special treatment? WP:NPOV is very clear, we do not play favorites. There are no privacy concerns, if the information is reliably sourced, in it goes. It's a matter of consistency and accuracy. I'm sorry if the person is ashamed of being a porn actor, but perhaps they should have thought of that before they willingly chose to enter that profession. In light of that, I have already been busy making requests for COPPA documentation where only non-reliable sources document the real name. As these are official, government mandated documents, their accuracy cannot be disputed. Lastly, if you want to see just one of hundreds of biographies where the real name of actors with stage names are listed, please see Marilyn Manson. Note, nobody calls him by his real name in the media, but it is still a very factually relevent part of a biography. --Dragon695 (talk) 21:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC) Can you inform the rest of us what a COPPA filing is and how does one go about requesting this information? I mean is it a government document or database that's publicly available? Can you also explain to me how and why pornographic actors must disclose their real names to the public under COPPA when the law is aimed to protect the privacy of children when they surf the internet? I'm asking these questions because I believe you are advocating a point based on a misunderstanding of the law. Perhaps you're thinking of another law? Vinh1313 (talk) 17:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC) No BLP says: “ Caution should be applied when naming individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed (such as in certain court cases), it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. ” — WP:BLP, Privacy of Names I reinterpret nothing. It clearly leaves it open for discussion and the intent of preserving name privacy, as noted by the example court cases, is mainly to deal with people who are victims or otherwise in positions of great danger. Porn actors are not inherently victims and thus should be treated like any other actor with a stage name -- we should list the real name. WP:NPOV demands that these class of actors get no different treatment than those who are non-pornographic actors. If you can argue why non-pornographic actors should have their real names listed and why pornographic actors should not, without violating WP:NPOV, I am willing to listen. However, the discretion is clearly on a case by case basis and is left to the editor. I am willing to compromise in that I will endorse a temporary removal if there is documented evidence that an actor's live is in direct danger. What I will not accept is a blanket policy to omit all real names of actors with stage names. --Dragon695 (talk) 22:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC) Consensus? Does this represent a consensus now?: Give the real names of porn stars only when the names are reliably sourced, and only when the stars are noted for some activities outside of pornography. It looks to me like it does. David in DC (talk) 17:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC) I need clarification on the "notable activities" outside of pornography. Like say a family law dispute that makes the papers like the Racquel Darrian example [7]. It's clear even from the newspaper article that she is trying to protect her privacy. What if the actor willingly discloses his/her name in a porn publication like Dana DeArmond? Vinh1313 (talk) 16:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC) Well I can't see the Dana DeArmond example as being an issue as her actions make it clear she is voluntarily forgoing her privacy by deliberately and publicly using her real name. It's when the porn star is not acting to reveal their real name that's the crux of the issue here, such as the Raquel Darrian example, and I honestly can't imagine a messier situtation to use to try and figure out how the new policy works than the Darrian example. Tabercil (talk) 21:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC) No David you do not have a consensus. My own guideline would be to merely look and see if Answers.com gives there real name. You may have had a consensus a day ago but now you don't. I reserve the right to proceed without the consent of some extremely small group on some Wiki noticeboard. Please take note that Answers.com does not give out Brandy Alexandres real name. All of these cases must be taken on a case by case basis. You do not have consensus here. Sorry David but your interpretation of Blp and wiki is redolent of that of someone who has an agenda. These cases must be decided on a case by case basis or not at all. Albion moonlight (talk) 20:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC) I'm afraid answers.com is a Wikipedia content mirror. They take our content for many of the articles there. Best to not discriminate and just do like we do for all biographies of actors with pseudonyms. --Dragon695 (talk) 22:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC) Strong Oppose. Like I said above, WP:NPOV demands that we give no favoritism to certain classes of biographies. Actors are actors, they choose to be in the spotlight even if they use a stage name. Being a porn actor is not a crime nor is it done unwillingly. The sense I get here is concern trolls who feel that porn actors are under some sort of extraordinary threat. I would argue that they are no more threatened than Marilyn Manson. We must have reliable, factual biographies so, like in the case of Marilyn Manson, we will list the real name once in the lead section once a very reliable source for the name is found. This is standard biography writing 101 people. Again, WP:NPOV demands that we treat them no differently then any other actor with a pseudonym. --Dragon695 (talk) 22:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC) I don't know if there is a consensus or not, but I think everyone can agree that these names need to be impeccably sourced. So far the names that were being fought over had awful sources. Most likely if really reliable sources have their names, they are notable for something outside of porn. It's not hard to find Marilyn Manson's real name in a reliable source, or Tom Cruise. If we're talking about hunting down COPPA filings for Eastern European porn stars, then yes, that is a BLP violation. AniMate 22:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC) Reliable sources are in the eye of the beholder. No one gets too arbitrarily declare a source as unreliable, not even an admin can do that. Content disputes can and sometimes do go on forever. :Albion moonlight (talk) 23:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC) Fortunately, in this case the majority of the sources were blogs and lukeford.com which aren't considered reliable sources. There's nothing arbitrary about this, and if you'd investigated the background of this you'd see they're not reliable just like you'd see answers.com is a mirror of wikipedia. AniMate 23:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC) I think (LOL) Washington Post is a pretty good source. That hasn't stopped the pro-censorship trolls. see [[8]]. John celona (talk) 00:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC) Strong Oppose To censor well-sourced (NY Times, washington Post, etc), widely disseminated names of actors is a rule only in David-pedia, not Wikipedia. Somebody needs to block this guy from manufacturing his own pro-censorship rules, falsely claiming "consensus" and then censoring all over Wikipedia with that spurious "consensus". An encyclopedia is about INCLUDING facts not censoring them. Save that for David-pedia. John celona (talk) 00:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC) Here's an idea. Stop focusing on other editors and start focusing on the issues. "Pro-censorship trolls" and "David-pedia" don't help your argument at all. AniMate 00:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC) The case that I referenced above is here : Albion moonlight (talk) 23:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC) Actualy AniMate I have seen many examples of the opposite wherein Answers.com does not mirror Wikipedia. But even if I am wrong about that, reliable sources are in fact in the eye of the beholder. You can wikilawyer until you are blue in the face and quote wiki rules adinfinitum but the fact of the matter is that the arbitration committee does not decide content issues. and mediation is not binding. The only rules that are enforced by admin are ones pursuant to behavior. You have heard of the ignore all rules rule on wiki have you not.? It all comes down to consensus and civility. Excuse me now while I go and collect examples pursuant to the mirror theory. Albion moonlight (talk) 04:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC) It does mirror Wikipedia, but unlike Wikipedia, it's not a Wiki that evolves in real time. That will allow for variations between the two platforms; however, each time this happens, answers.com catches up, and mirrors a more current Wikipedia version. --Jkp212 (talk) 05:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC) I'm actually arguing against Jkp212 about letting a porn star's name being allowed in an article. Ty Fox has had extensive coverage in reliable sources like the Washington Post, sourcing birth names to blogs is just sloppy. AniMate 05:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC) In general I agree with AniMate that sourcing birth names to blogs is sloppy, I do however think that there could very well be exceptions to any rule of thumb. Here, is an example of what I have been trying to say. It is one of the Pillars of wikpedia. I prefer it when we all agree to adhere to it. :Albion moonlight (talk) 08:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC) Related case Talk:Calpernia_Addams#Calpernia.27s_wishes and the fact that should the subject of an article express concerns about their birth name being included in their article the edits can be deleted and oversighted. Birth names of performers are encyclopedic information and if they can be reliably sourced then they should be included, unless there is demonstrable harm on a case-by-case basis. The notion that this particular type of performer requires some extra notability beyond that of their chosen profession is untenable. I am aware of no other class of articles, biographical or otherwise, that are required to meet this burden either for inclusion in the encyclopedia or for the inclusion a particular piece of encyclopedic information. Otto4711 (talk) 18:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC) Not including in articles the real name of porn actors is in full compliance with WP:BLP and the other cited rules. It is utter nonsense to argue it is censorship. Censorship would be to delete those articles. It definitely makes a difference if people are acting in mainstream movies or in the porn business. Adding the real name of porn actors does not make a better article but is doing stalker's business like the Johan Paulik case has proofen. An encyclopedia has to be responsible and not to be like a tabloid. Therefore it should respect the privacy of people and not serve ill minded people like John celona, who use unreliable and bad sources to add real names. As the consensus above shows there is no arguing about publishing the names when the criteria are met. Again it is just spinning words and rules that have been agreed upon by the community to make editors appear as victims of censorship when in fact these editors are trying to 'vandalizing' established rules. (Jamesbeat (talk) 22:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)) Washington Post or a mainstream US Tv station are "unreliable and bad sources" only for self-appointed censors like you. John celona (talk) 11:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC) Dear John, you neither gave Washington Post nor a mainstream TV station as source in the two cases that led to this discussion. Both I certainly would not have questioned as unreliable and bad sources and we would have argued about ethics and not about sources. What made the difference was that your sources then were a gay guide and a gay porn blog. Well James, you seem to misunderstand what wiki means by consensus I will assume good faith and remind you that consensus does not exist until everyone either agrees or agrees to disagree. That is clearly not the case here. Second of all you should really avoid making personal attacks by calling people ill minded or vandals. That kind of behavior can get you blocked from editing wikipedia. I am not an ill minded person James nor am I a vandal. So please take it easy on the insults. OK ?? They are not helpful. :Albion moonlight (talk) 05:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC) I don't believe I used the word "censorship" in discussing this situation, but as long as you bring up that politically charged buzzword, I would point out the Wikipedia is not censored. There is a process in place on a case-by-case basis for dealing with the real name of anyone, porn performer or not, appearing in the article and that is to delete the edits and oversight them. I have not followed the alleged Johan Paulik "stalking" case but since Wikipedia requires reliable secondary sources the notion that his name not having been included in a Wikipedia article would have prevented a stalker or anyone else from finding his name is ludicrous, since to be in a Wikipedia article it needs to be available elsewhere already. There is no consensus that I see here that including real names of porn stars (or anyone else) is acceptable only if they are notable for something other than being a porn star. The requirement of reliable sourcing proposed here is redundant to existing policies and the proposed requirement that they be notable for something outside of pornography is stupid and I cannot support any suggestion that there is consensus for this requirement. Otto4711 (talk) 21:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC) It would not have prevented a stalker from finding the name. But it makes a BIG difference if you have to search the net on your own or you just go to Wikipedia as your primary source. Again. This is straight from BLP Policy: "When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed as in certain court cases, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context". The real names of porn actors have intentionally been concealed AND omitting them does not result in a significant loss of context. Both these WP criterias are met when dealing with this issue. But to avoid significant loss of context it was proposed that when these persons are notable for something outside of pornography the name couild be added if properly sourced, of course. So this requirement is anything but stupid. (Jamesbeat (talk) 22:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)) By the way, is there a single reliable source that Johan was stalked by someone because his real name was on Wikipedia? How can you stalk someone without their address or phone number neither of which appear (or should appear) on Wikipedia?John celona (talk) 23:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC) I was wondering that myself. I did some looking around and couldn't find any indication that Johan has ever been stalked, either based on his Wikipedia article or otherwise. Even if he had been, the notion that Wikipedia is responsible for protecting people against stalkers is ludicrous. Anyone could decide to stalk any living person; should we remove all biographical information from all living people out of the fear that someone somewhere might stalk them? I completely support the notion that on a case-by-case basis, where the person (regardless of his or her occupation) can demonstrate that having their birth name in a Wikipedia article is causing them actual harm, then Wikipedia should restrict the inclusion of their birth name. "Someone might do something mean to me" is not a legitimate excuse for omitting encyclopedic and verifiable information. The notion that Wikipedia is responsible for the consequences of being a one-click stop for biographical information as opposed to forcing a hypothetical stalker to do a little extra work is silly. Otto4711 (talk) 23:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC) Amen to that. I think IDMB is a good enough source for birth names but perhaps not for gossip. But that does not mean I think any of us have the right to try and vilfy those who disagree with us. Wikilawyering can be very disruptive. All Blp cases need to be regarded on a case by case basis. It is not up to us to declare IDMB or any other source as unreliable for the whole of wikipedia. Jimbo and a few others have that right but we don't. :Albion moonlight (talk) 00:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC) For sourcing BLPs, all sources in an article must be proven to be reliable for the information they represent. If there's doubt, leave it out. That's what our policy says. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 17:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC) Welcome to Wikipedia and do have fun while you are learning about how things really work here. Albion moonlight (talk) 00:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC) Thanks for the welcome. As a longstanding Wikipedian who has contributed significantly to most areas of Wikipedia policy, I'm surprised to find that I'm still considered a newcomer. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 01:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC) Well to be fair, unless someone knows to look for the link to your previous username, then you do appear to be relatively new. Still, the idea of using shoddy sources for controversial BLp issues is appalling. AniMate 01:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC) Above, a couple of folks questioned whether Johan Paulik has, in fact been stalked. One has called trying to make sure WP doesn't become The Stalker's Handbook a silly endeavor. But there is a Slovak ice hockey player with the same name that is alleged to be Johan Paulik's birth name. He plays on an Irish ice hockey team and is listed here on WP. I can find no online source that indicates this ice hockey player has been stalked on the assumption that he is Johan Paulik. But it's not hard to believe. And Jamesbeat has reported to us that Johan Paulik HAS been stalked. There's no good reason to think JB made this up. First, do no harm. Not Silly. Err on the side of caution. Not Silly. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Very Not Silly. Irish soccer hooligans can be pretty vicious. It's hard to imagine that Irish ice hockey fans would be less so.David in DC (talk) 03:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC) I understand what you are saying David but I don't think wiki is responsible for the actions of soccer fans or hockey fans. I do not believe that JB made it up I just think his or her rationale is not all that compelling. Albion moonlight (talk) 05:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC) Albion moonlight (talk) 05:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC) Fair enough. We can agree to disagree. On another note, thank you for the chuckle. Your greeting to the new editor above made me laugh out loud when I followed the link to his talk page and understood your joke. David in DC (talk) 15:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC) There is no reason not to assume the "stalking" was made up. When asked for a RS the user dissapeared from the discussion. John celona (talk) 00:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC) Well, no reason except for WP:AGF anyway. But assuming JB's good faith is pretty important.David in DC (talk) 11:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC) Sorry for having 'disappeared'. But sometimes unexpected things happen and WP becomes the least important concern. The Johan Paulik stalking happened about ten years ago. It was reported over here at the time in a TV feature about the Prague gay scene. During a short interview Johan Paulik mentioned having been victim to a stalker because his real name had been published. The incident was also shortly discussed on a forum. The forum went offline around 2000. So there is no trace to be found any more, which leaves me of course with no real evidence to proof this story. But it was not made up. What I was trying to say about "to make sure WP doesn't become The Stalker's Handbook" is that contrary to the IMDb the real names are available on WP to everyone sometimes even accompanied by a picture for easy identification whereas the IMDb has no head shots. The IMDb even requires additional steps to view adult content. The name is also not on the first page. Call it nit-picking but it makes a big difference. For the reliability of the IMDb and the use of real names you should give this a try [[9]]. Although adding data to the IMDb is monitored and has some restrictions for contributing a fair amount of unreliable and unsourced data gets published. Regarding COPPA filings. These are confidential documents mandated by the government but not intended to be published. So using them is a violation of BLP. (Jamesbeat (talk) 10:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)) Re COPPA filings. Using them as a source is pretty much the archetype of what WP:NOR prohibits.David in DC (talk) 12:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC) It does not really matter what any of us think about IDMB or any other source unless we have a consensus. And even then consensus can change at the drop of a hat. The link provided by Jamesbeat that declares that IDMB is is unreliable for real names provides no proof of its allegations and still would not be binding even if it did provide such proof. But now that I know that thus may be the case I would be more inclined to look for additional internet sources that provide the same name that IDMB does. Arguing about the reliability of sources is all too often used as a way to promote ones agenda. Each Blp must be taken on a case by case basis. It is as simple as that. The Ignore all rules pillar is a very powerful rule. :Albion moonlight (talk) 22:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC) Unless a source is known to be reliable, we don't use it for biographical information. imdb is far from being known to be reliable, and we should never use it for biographical information that is at all sensitive. For such purposes we must demand unimpeachable sources. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 23:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC) IMDb is not a reliable source for one reason: It uses user-submitted, unverified content. That is the definition of a non-reliable source. End of story. FCYTravis (talk) 00:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC) The story ends when a consensus says it ends. If someone wants to contest a sources reliabity they are allowed to do so by making a complaint to the Blp noticeboard. There is also a mediation committee but neither they or the arbitration committee decides content disputes. So here we are stuck in conundrum. There is no sense in Wikilawyering. Wiklawyering is disruptive. 00:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC): Albion moonlight (talk) 00:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC) There is no "consensus" about it - IMDb is not a reliable source for the purposes of sensitive and personal information. FCYTravis (talk) 01:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC) FCYTravis is an administrator. What I now reccomend is that anyone who wants to use IDMB as a source should first check with another administrator before they do so. I just reread the section on Blps and realized that admins are given too much power in dealing with sources. So in cases where admins insist that a source can not be used one would be foolish to use it without checking with another admin first. Albion moonlight (talk) It's not about whether I'm an admin or not :) It's about the simple fact that IMDb is composed of user-submitted content which is not necessarily verified or fact-checked. That means the information it contains is not necessarily accurate and there is no system of editing and supervision that works to ensure only truthful information is published. It would be like using Wikipedia as a source for a Wikipedia article. For biographies in particular, we need to take our information only from reliable sources, such as newspapers, reputable magazines and television programs, edited and fact-checked Web sites, etc. FCYTravis (talk) 08:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC) Could you please tell us where you get your information about IDMB ? One way to get the birth name information in without ultimately needing the permission of admin('s) is to simply say something like,it is widely believed that such and such's real name is, and use several references to back it up. I have seen this done when referring to hate groups as hate groups. The fact that a member of the arbitration committee was actively involved in that case, suggests to me that it it is OK to do that. : Albion moonlight (talk) 23:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC) The case that I referenced above can be found here : Albion moonlight (talk) 23:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC) What is acceptable for an organization, is not necessarily acceptable for a living person. It is not acceptable to use such unverified speculation in biographies. FCYTravis (talk) 01:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC) This is awful. You're actively trying to figure out ways to skirt policy. Policy isn't in place to hamper editors, it's here to help editors and protect the encyclopedia. I think you should re-read BLP and attempt to explain your understanding of it, since you and John celona both seem to have any idea why the policy is there and what it actually means. AniMate 02:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC) I am pointing out ways to get around what I and others view as a too narrow an interpretation of Blp policy. If Jimbo or one of those people in the upper most echelons want to keep the real names of pornstars a secret they have the power and the right to do so. The rest of us are stuck with business as usual. :Albion moonlight (talk) 05:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC) If BLP disallows something, the solution isn't to try and find a back door way to sneak around the policy - it's to leave the material out. Trying to Wikilawyer BLP is not a smart idea. FCYTravis (talk) 05:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC) It's definitely not a good idea to try to circumvent our policies. Although I've no doubt you don't intend anything underhanded, it's difficult for an administrator viewing your edits to work out whether or not you are engaging in a disruptive form of editing known as Gaming the system. Even if an administrator doesn't take action, other editors may begin to lose trust in you and, ultimately, in Wikipedia. Readers will see the weasel words in an article and lose faith. It's better to search for solid, unimpeachable information, if it exists, and cite it when you find it, being prepared to change your mind if your judgement is overruled. We all submit to this standard, nobody is asking you to do something that isn't expected of all of us. --Jenny 05:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC) NB: Until recently I edited Wikipedia using the account "Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The" --Jenny 05:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC) Section break, again I must agree with Jenny (at least that's the current signature). Why you think this is such necessary information, I don't know, but you do. Again, WP:BLP is here to protect not only the subjects of articles, but it's also here to protect us. When it comes to real people, we have to be careful, thoughftul, and patient. It's really all summed up by this: I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons. –Jimmy Wales [10] Pseudo information includes spurious claims from questionable websites. Clear enough? AniMate 06:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC) So go ahead and delete them where you find them and lets see what the rest of wiki has to say about it. I can live with a wiki that disallows all mention of a pornstars real names. But for some reason some of you seem unwilling to live with a wikipedia that does allow it. Anyway I am through with this discussion because it only seems to be going in circles. I assure you that I will not edit war with you or encourage others to do so. If one of those articles goes to an Rfc or to mediation or even arbitration I may join in. But as for this discussion if I am the only one blocking consensus (and I am one of 3 or 4], I hereby withdraw my dissent and agree to disagree. Best wishes to everyone.: Albion moonlight (talk) 07:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC) I don't particularly like the idea of censoring real names of actors commonly known by their stage names based on what type of film they perform in. That doesn't follow me as particularly logical, and it seems to me like a gross violation of the principle of a neutral point of view toward which we are supposed to be striving toward. Naturally, if there's only sketchy information available (like citations on blogs), then it should be removed, just like any information that can't be reliably sourced should be; but the idea of removing information that can be reliably sourced simply because someone doesn't like it and tried to hide it really rubs me the wrong way. This isn't a case like Genie (where I also argued for the inclusion of the real name), where the subject at least didn't have a choice about the things that made her notable; this is a case where someone has intentionally sought notability and has had to suffer the consequences of living life that way. Having your identity known widely can be one of the prices of that, and it isn't our place to be unnecessarily sympathetic towards peoples' problems at the expense of the usefulness of the project. Celarnor Talk to me 06:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC) You're right people make choices and have to live with the consequences. If someone chooses a career and tries to hide their name but it comes out in multiple reliable secondary sources, then so be it. But the question is, should we at wikipedia be spreading information that isn't already widely available? The answer IMHO is no. And actually I for one don't care whether they are porn actors, scientists or internet celebrities. It is not our job to dig out information from primary sources and tell the world because information wants to be free (or whatever). It does get a little more complicated when we have a person who has been widely covered but who's name is only sourced to one albeit reliable secondary source and I won't discuss this sort of case for now. And definitely if the information is widely covered in secondary sources, then I would have no problem with the information being included, whatever the wishes of the subject. But using primary sources to uncover information not already cited in secondary sources reaks of OR and a privacy violation to me. P.S. I agree the Genie case, which I argued against inclusion of the real name is different in character and doesn't add much to this discussion Nil Einne (talk) 16:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC) How then to square that with the part of WP:BLP that says this, and especially this: "Caution should be applied when naming individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed (such as in certain court cases), it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context."? And how to square it with this, and most especially this: "Wikipedia articles that present material about living people can affect their subjects' lives. Wikipedia editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm". It is not Wikipedia's purpose to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. BLPs must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy."? David in DC (talk) 17:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC) I'd much rather see something referenced by primary sources than something by secondary sources, especially with regards to things that may be controversial; using a primary source allows us to look just at the facts; not at the biases, the prose of people another layer disconnected from the facts, but just the relevant facts. Primary sources are fine for simple, descriptive claims; i.e, some presidents have made their tax returns publicly available, "This person claimed this on their taxes"; there is absolutely nothing wrong with citing a publicly-available tax return for that; I think it would be preferable to do that than to cite a secondary report on it, since we're closer to the information that way and less open to re-reporting bias, which should always be avoided. It's only a problem when you have to use synthesis to get an article out of it. If something is available in a database and it straight-out tells you what someone's name is with zero or near-zero doubt, then it shouldn't matter whether it's a trademark application or an article in the New York Times; they both serve the same function. Celarnor Talk to me 22:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC) But then the database has to be reliably sourced, hasn't it? The IMDb for instance is anything but a reliable database when it comes to adult films. Wrong data and stage names on movie pages, actors incorrectly listed in films they don't appear in, wrong ID connections as well as no source given where the biographical data originates from. So why should this information be accepted when it is in fact based on the same sketchy information that is not regarded as a reliable source by Wikipedia standards? (Jamesbeat (talk) 09:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)) I don't think that using Imdb is what Celanor is talking about but I do know that there are ways of covering wiki's butt and still using IMDb and or other such sources. The question then becomes should we do so? I think that each case should be taken on its own merits. But there are others here that strongly disagree. Albion moonlight (talk) 11:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC) That's not what I was referring to. First, the IMDB isn't a reliable source; it accepts user-generated content. Second, it isn't a primary source. With regards to film, a primary source would be the film itself (i.e, using the film's ending credits as a source for who was in the film or something else that is very, very obvious restatement of fact). I was talking about public (read: government-maintained) databases of public information, like lists of non-profit charities, trademark applications, and the like. Celarnor Talk to me 16:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC) Yes thats what I thought you were saying. I think your idea is a good one. Albion moonlight (talk) 00:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC) Dragon 695 is right in one way. We should not have a special policy for porn stars. WP should not reveal the real names of any persons who use pseudonyms to conceal their identity. The pornstar case should be cited merely as an particular example of this policy. My proposed wording: Where a person uses a pseudonym to conceal their identity (e.g. whistleblowers, political bloggers, pornstars) then Wikipedia should respect their privacy and not reveal their real name. This policy even applies where the pseudonym is used to conceal criminal activity (revealing a real name in such a case is accusing that person of being a criminal - possibly slanderous). Where the real name has not been concealed or is widely known (this is a more onerous requirement than being merely verifiable) then it can be included. Note that most actors do not use pseudonyms to conceal their real names but for other reasons such as another actor already using that name or chosing a name that sounds more macho, more American or whatever.Filceolaire (talk) 14:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC) ==Talk: John Michell (writer) 91.84.204.125|91.84.204.125 was warned by 4 editors of vandalism and flame warring a month before my edit of his non-neural words like "fascist" "follower of fascistr", "admirer of Hitler", "Forty Years of Involvement with Fascism" plus collusion with a distateful editor and author. All untrue terms which I attempted to neutralize in accordance with POV and civility Wiki policies. 91.84.204.125|91.84.204.125 has called the editors of the talk page idiots. My gripe is that his facts are untrue and distorted. This user has a personal grudge against this well-regarded, highly respected living author. 91.84.204.125|91.84.204.125 has also posted threats as if he was an administrator on my User pager (see History). He blanks out his own User Talk and often refuses to sign his anonomous posts in an attempt to thwart undo. My first course of action to him was a polite note and a copy of the Wiki notice about living authors on the top of the talk page which only served to encourage his loaded terms. Thanks for your time. SageMab (talk) 00:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Section break, one more Once a performer gives up a pseudonym in an interview, or even writes something like an autobiography to sell in mass media ads, one could argue that there is no point in concealing the birth name on Wikipedia. However that is the sole exception. How many "Jenna Jamesons" with pop star status are there in porn valley? I think AIM health care tests more than 1,200 actors monthly. Sure not everyone reaches the notability to be included on Wikipedia (although with 300 AVN advert nominations a year many will find their article stub pop up here sooner or later) Anyway, how many of them do you think will want to get another job maybe two years later on? The long careers are pretty much a thing of the past as many rush through the biz in months. With XXX web content on the rise most production companies don't build up stars anymore. So does it have any real world consequences to have your name revealed on Wikipedia by some asshole best boy or webmaster who makes a copy of your passport and later adds cast lists at imdb? You bet! "that most actors do not use pseudonyms to conceal their real names but for other reasons" as stated by Filceolaire couldn’t be farther from reality. (Sorry. I wasn't clear.This sentence refers to non-porn actors, many of whom have pseudonyms. I added this sentence to my post to show that the policy I proposed would not stop us revealing that John Wayne's real name was Marion Morrison.Filceolaire (talk) 19:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)) There's a usually respected codex not under any circumstances to reveal the civil identity of another performer even if you are friends with. The story of a fan "who just tries to help" out Wikipedia by adding some alleged birth name found somewhere on the net, on any kind of blog, online forum, social network where people sign up with stolen identities etc. or even completely unsourced is just too hard to believe. In my opinion you can entirely forget about the assume good faith policy in such cases. Pseudonyms are used to partly escape the social stigmata any sex worker will experience, unless s/hes already a trademark in pop culture. That's just one side to this story there's another. Wikipedia lists many performers from European countries, and what Jkp212 said about "Actors such as these who choose to have stages names are also intentionally concealing their birth name, which they have every right to do." pretty much hits the nail in the coffin. Take for example France or Germany. In these countries you not only do you have a right of informational self-determination, you can even sue people over it. While every foreign language version of Wikipedia may have it's own set of rules the Wikipedia editors living in these countries can't escape their law system pointing to some "that's how we do it on Wikipedia" babble. So with the purposed policy change you not only protect Wikipedia but also editors in these foreign countries who won't believe they will be traced and fined until it's too late. The analogy with some politicians(!) public charity or tax returns used as primary sources for birth names just doesn't cut it. Limitations to this informational self-determination are allowed only in case of overriding public interest. This would be a given in case you run for major in some town, however with some regular porn star performer an European court would always let the right to conceal your identity outweigh public interest. It's pretty much a no brainer even some one without legal education should get just based on ethical values alone. This holds true for the majority of performers in the adult biz! Of course in such discussions people often cherry pick the few(!) super stars, some of which even released autobiographies featuring their real name. Then this notion about how Wikipedia does not contain telephone numbers and addresses, hence no risk for a performer to be stalked. Heck, if an anonymous editor posts something like "today Madam Kristyna Zmrznlina lives in..." some random American village" . Now how many Zrmzlinas might live there? This is not Bel Air. I think you get the idea. There seems to be a terrible bias among some admins in foreign wikis that it has to rain OTRS tickets before a performer gets what is basically a fundamental right. How about whoever adds a real name to porn stars biography gets banned immediately? No I'm serious, I mean such a zero tolerance policy would be way simpler than trying to explain most porn fans how to balance private interests versus public interests. To handle such thing on a case-by-case basis binds unnecessary human resources and frankly most editors don't have what it takes to make such decisions on a level a real world judge would do it in a court. and even in the few(!) cases where the birth name has been sourced with consent by the talent in question (e.g. autobiograhpy, interview) it wouldn't affect the article quality in my eyes. "My own guideline would be to merely look and see if Answers.com gives there real name" Albion moonlight As stated above answers.com is just one of many commercialized mirrors of Wikipedia. They just seem to have some time delay on the updates, and sometimes articles are editorially edited, most often not. Before making your own guideline try to think about where your freedom to make any such guideline ends. It sounds easy but it ain't, since we're not just talking sources here but personality rights. You might be able to generate thousands of Google hits for some source and it's worth nothing if you infringe the personality rights of a performer. In worst case scenario they might engage a lawyer and rightfully shred you to pieces. " I would argue that they are no more threatened than Marilyn Manson" Dragon695 Marilyn Manson is a world famous rock star, he doesn't need to work anymore, it's nothing like the plain Jane 30 year old ex performer who just ended her valley career in favor for a little family. The word pornSTAR is pretty much misleading, they don't play in the same league, it's not even the same sport dude ;) Who pays for the kids to visit a private school just because some clown thought it was a good idea to publicly spread real names of their parents via Wikipedia? NEVER reveal any real names of adult actors unless they have disclosed these names themselves in autobiographies, interviews or other activities outside porn they became notable for. So once again: Everyone has a right of informational self-determination, in many European countries this is written law. Limitations to this informational self-determination are allowed only in case of overriding public interest. For example a porn actor becoming a politician (think Ilona Staller) or some mega success outside the biz (like pulling a Hilton, as you can't have it both ways) or releasing an autobiography and cruising through talk shows in mass media, or becoming a mainstream actor using your real name. The majority of porn actors uses stage names for the sole reason to conceal their civil identity, this should be reflected by the policy change. Further all references to birth names have to be wiped from the article history as well as all entry fields in the adult actors info box. Consistently all links to databases using unverified user submitted information which might infringe personality rights of the articles subject have to be removed too. It makes no sense to remove a name from the article and then backlink to it later on. Just as an aside there have been cases where even mainstream Hollywood actors have fought with imdb, however it goes without saying that most people in porn just can not afford such legal battles. My advices for adult actors is to enter a wrong name at imdb yourself. Sooner or later some creepy fan will import such names to Wikipedia anyway. Pretty much the same goes for birth dates... One of the worst arguments brought up is "they" can't stop anyone from finding whatever questionable source was used to put in a birth name first place. It just doesn't matter, since Wikipedia is one primary source of information for many people and it's content is copied in hundreds of smaller special interest databases all over the internet. So there definitely is a reason for some one who wants to conceal an identity to remove any such data from Wikipedia. In borderline cases, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm", so now act accordingly and act consequent. A little note for European performers: You should get that you don't live at the mercy of some honorable OTRS helpers, in many European countries it's entirely possible to take Wikipedia down with a preliminary injunction, until Wikipedia starts to protect personality rights with some special peer group of members (a legal education background would be great) that can react to such edits in time. If such a thing can not be organized Wikipedia will have to adapt, like freezing all biographies and let every edit by an anyonymous editor be watched over by some other experienced editor BEFORE becoming visible in the article or the article history, by treating biographies on living persons like that, such articles would loose the possibility to be updated in real time in favor for protecting the personality rights of the subject. For this idea to become reality it would only need a small change to the review system which gets currently tested on the German language Wikipedia. Those of you regulary patrolling porn star bios for vandalism might even agree with me that such a thing could save them huge amounts of time. Mean-spirited people would loose interest in adding crap to biographies real quick with such a system in place. In the overwhelming majority of cases you will not be able to source that a name has been released with consent of the subject in question. Why is this consent important at all? You can derive that from the right of informational self-determination which preempts and limits the rights of any public interest group. As to why a porn star has to be treated much differently from some mainstream actor living a sheltered, bodyguarded Hollywood media life should be obvious. Such persons get listed in the credits of blockbusters with their real name. Whenever Hollywood stars would decline to get credited with their real name and sign the contracts accordingly from the very start of their professional career, they had to be treated in the same way as porn stars on Wikipedia. That holds also true in the Savanna Samson case brought up by Tabercil, where there was an article in the NYT featuring her birth name. There is no "the cat is out of the bag thing", if the NYT would publish a name without consent they would be liable. Get a decent lawyer and you could be looking at big $$$. Conclusion: Although I much favor a zero tolerance policy I could live with what was purposed above. But you absolutely need to change this "other activities outside porn" sentence to something like "other activities outside porn they became notable with" to make any sense at all. Otherwise you might get adds in the likes of Madam X ranked second in the ice skating finals in junior high, her real name is blah blah and she entered porn in... "There is no real benefit in publishing the names and no significant loss of context in not doing so" Jamesbeat Exactly. Of course there is a real benefit in NOT publishing the birth names of adult performers, apart from the fact that such a decision should be left to the performer first place and this fundamental right of informational self-determination is protected in many countries ;) "Responsible editorial discretion is not censorship. WP:BLP is a more restrictive policy than many other institutions follow. It's one we should be rightly" proud of. We should enforce it against indiscriminate, ill-advised, mean-spirited or careless editors." David in DC Now this is something I can truly rally behind. xoxo 3vil-Lyn (talk) 18:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC) Whoo-boy, this is the most cogent and thorough treatment of this topic I have seen and it warms my heart. I hope it becomes the basis for real, consistently enforced, definitive policy on this topic. (Except that quote from that David in DC guy. He sometimes comes across as awfully self-righteous.) David in DC (talk) 15:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC) Aww, *blush* thank you so much for starting my morning off with a laugh! :) I'm no native English speaker, but I do hope I could give those of you who struggle to find some arguments to bring what common sense should tell you in line with the Wikipedia policies a helping hand - either legally or ethically. I think it can't hurt the wiki-community to take a look at those European countries with some of the more advanced privacy and publicity right laws. We can learn something from it by trying to understand their intention and looking at the long history of OTRS tickets on porn star bios. I am convinced that ultimately the pornography portal would gain from such a strict enforcement on porn stars biographies when it comes to birth names and vandalism. Once news about such a policy change goes out, some actors might even be less hesitant to supply pictures of themselves ;) C'mon every talent really interested in having their picture on Wikipedia could supply one, it doesn't come as a surprise almost no one wants to do it when anonymous posters are allowed to use their namespace as a piece of jotting paper for their mental blackouts and you can be almost sure some so-called fan adds a birth name every month to update the article history no matter the endless efforts of the guys currently trying to enforce WP:BLP. Let's put an end to this. Give names only with sourced consent of the actor unless the real name was used with notable activities outside porn, just like we do it for copyright stuff on Commons. We should also establish a flagged revision editing system on biographies of living persons just like it's done on the German Wikipedia, maybe with a twist that is no publication without oversight of an experienced editor (registered user with an X amount of edits, who's account is then responsible for the approval, that should put an end to anonymous WP:BLP violations). As for a nicer wording I'd humbly like to request the help of a native English speaker. ;) 3vil-Lyn (talk) 00:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC) Proposal for a vote There appear to be two views here. One that porn stars' real names can and should be added to all articles, the other that they should not be added except in specific circumstances. I am of the second opinion, however I believe this is a particular case of a more general issue and I believe we should draft a policy for the general issue of when to reveal the real name of a person notable under a pseudonym. My proposal is to add the following section to the BLP page, after the Well known public figure section and before the People who are relatively unknown section. It should read as follows: Pseudonyms Where a person uses a pseudonym to conceal his or her identity (e.g. whistleblowers, political bloggers, pornstars) then Wikipedia should respect privacy and not reveal the real name. This policy even applies where the pseudonym is used to conceal criminal activity (revealing a real name in such a case is accusing that person of being a criminal — possibly libellous). Where the real name has not been concealed or is widely known (this is a more onerous requirement than being merely verifiable) then it can be included where it will add to an article.Filceolaire (talk) 19:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC) I support this idea. People should not have to worry about being "outed" by Wikipedia. That's not our job. Kaldari (talk) 04:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC) Oppose on the grounds that all WP material must be wp:verifiable, so the person's real name is actually on the public record already. If the WP editor could find it, then so could anybody else. Also, generally, it is unwise to stifle information. As an aside, the definition could be edited to be more accurate — e.g., his or her identity, not their identity, and libelous, not slanderous. Yours in rather spirited defense of freely available information, GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC) Edited to incorporate these changes. Thanks. Filceolaire (talk) 09:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC) Comment This provision is already covered by verifiability and BLP, since any "outing" would have to be sourced to strong reliable sources, in which case the person has been outed anyway. I don't think it hurts to emphasize that compromising BLP information must be extremely well sourced, but I can see some being concerned about instruction creep. --Gimme danger (talk) 06:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC) The issue arose where WP editors were getting real names from minor blogs and from legal documents (such as age declarations and trademark registrations) to out pornstars real names. This change to BLP would make it clear that even if the person has been outed before on some obscure source that does not make it appropriate to out them on WP.Filceolaire (talk) 09:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)\ Those editors were blatantly violating reliable source standards for BLPs and conducting original research then. The issue of using legal documents is a good point. Perhaps a statement indicating that compromising information, such as true identity, may not be tied to original sources, but instead must appear in a reliable, synthetic source like a magazine or newspaper. Wikipedia editors should leave the investigative journalism to the professionals. Gimme danger (talk) 14:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC) Oppose... respecting their privacy should not be our concern. The only thing that should concern us is that it has been reported in a reliable, verifiable source. Perhaps the wording in WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:BLP needs to be strengthened in that respect, however the fundamental problem is inevitable. People think "ZOMG1!1 I can edit this, guess what I just heard... everyone needs to hear this." What needs to happen, in my opinion, is more of a strict application of current policy in excising information that cannot be reliably sourced. Maybe add a section to WP:BLP stating that a person's connection to their pseudonym needs an inline reliable source, and it should be removed without one (as opposed to adding {{fact}} to it). --Storkk (talk) 10:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC) Oppose - If their real name can be verified by strong independent sources (not forums and blogs) and is already publicly known then it should be added. However, if they are only notable under their pseudonym and their real name cannot be verified then it should not be added. Ғїяеѕкатеяtalk 12:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC) Extremely strong oppose - If information can be verified, it should be included. Wikipedia is not a PR agency. We need to drop this self-important sense of being mighty gate-keepers of knowledge and only letting the little people know what it is appropriate for the little people to know. If it can be verified, it can be included! We're certainly not "outing" anyone if the information has already appeared in something we consider a reliable source. How is it even possible to make that argument? We are an encyclopedia, not a private security service. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 01:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC) Comment Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion Hello Filceolaire :) Let me say, first, that I do like your idea of a more general approach, however I'm afraid your wording in the second part ("Where the real name has not been concealed or is widely known then it can be included where it will add to an article") doesn't help much, it might make things even worse. Look, you at no point have the right to make such a decision for a perfomer. Not you, not Jimmy Wales ;), not even a hundred Wikipedia editors who might vote here can decide about whether or not a certain adult actors privacy rights should be abrogated. Just look at Katja Kassin's case, some German admin made a Google search and said voilà a thousand hits for her birth name, so it's widely known and the name should be restored. What this particular editor overlooked was that he never was in the position to decide such matters according to the law of his country. Apart from the fact that neither IMDb nor any of the other fan databases are reputable sources and a birth name often adds nothing to a porn stars biography at all, since they are usually not known by their birth names. What some people try to do here is transfer the privacy right of an individual to the community, that won't fly with me ;) It doesn't matter whether a name has been concealed somewhere nor if it's widely known according to Google or similar search engines (anyone can spread such a thing all over the internet in no time - in hours even) given that Wikipedia is one primary source of information for many people. The one thing that does matter is whether or not a birth name has been spread with the permission of the adult actor and that's about it. (as long as the birth name wasn't used in other notable activities outside the porn industry, as you can't have it both ways, see, e.g. Sibel Kekilli). So even if the New York Times or any other paper or online zine for that matter would publish such a name without permission and the case goes to court, Wikipedia would not be allowed to cite the source as soon as it becomes clear that the name wasn't cleared. To prevent any such scenario right from the start it would be best to have a zero tolerance policy on porn star bios and work on the proposed changes to the Wikipedia editing system. Such a special treatment to biographies of living persons would make sense anyway, whenever dealing with articles at high risk of vandalism (porn stars, politicians during a campaign,...). I do get a feeling though that article histories and back links to birth names are deliberately neglected all across the Wikipedia project (no matter the language), as if some people would think the actors are somewhat not technical savvy enough to realize how they are taken for a fool. So to push this policy change, ALL article histories (including discussion sites) which contained birth names at some point of their revision history that got removed due to WP:BLP or OTRS tickets, should be flagged and then wiped by a bot. Same goes for the birth name field in the adult actors template. The links to filmographies should be checked on a case-by-case basis, sometimes people try to include birth names as pseudonyms. You could even organize a team in the pornography portal that flags articles. 3vil-Lyn (talk) 13:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC) Absolutely not. There has been enough creep in BLP. BLP is intended to prevent unverifiable or poorly sourced information from going into BLPs. This is a good goal. This should be its only goal. It should not, ever, be used to suppress information which is verifiable from reliable sources. That's an editorial decision to be made on an article-by-article basis. BLP is a powerful tool. It needs to be strictly limited in scope and under no circumstances allowed to expand. Considerations of "privacy" and the like, when information can be verified through reliable sources, should be considered article-by-article. Legal concerns should be addressed by this guy here, not by armchair lawyers. And BLP should stay within scope. Period. It may not be our job to "out", but it is similarly not our job to "preserve privacy" of information already available in reliable sources. The very concept is almost laughable, how could one preserve the privacy of information already available to the public? And if unsourced or poorly sourced, BLP already covers immediate removal. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC) Oppose Real names that are reliably sourced should be included in every BLP, period. Jclemens (talk) 19:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC) Comment - why vote for something that doesn't reflect anything from the discussion above? - first read up on the discussion before posting a one liner in here Comment That was a rather rude comment. I read enough of it to know that I completely reject the notion of "consent" when it comes to the publication of people's real names. The fact that Wikipedia fails to publish real names in certain cases (a la Star Wars Kid) in the name of sensitivity undermines its credibility. Admittedly, there are bigger fish to fry first, but that's a separate matter. Jclemens (talk) 00:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Oh, I didn't meant to be rude, in fact this sentence was there before I even read your post. ;) I thought a moment about moving your post under mine, but decided against it because I was too lazy. I'm still not really fond of polling before there is at least some kind of stub with the input of as many as possible editors that joined the discussion. Voting like I've seen it on Wikipedia often attracts people with blanket statements and discourages consensus between those who value arguments. -- 3vil-Lyn (talk) 04:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Guys! You can still cite reliable sources to include a birth name where consent is implied. A published autobiography? A publication in the NYT and no one complaining -> consent implied. No biggy. But a TV reportage coverage immediately followed up by a verified OTRS ticket? -> NO consent, name has to be removed by LAW in many European countries and (at least) by ethics in the States on the grounds of Wikipedia's own "do no harm" policy. Responsibility is a keyword here for any OTRS helper, as Wikipedia demands little or no responsibility from those who are given the power of publishing information on perhaps the world's largest reference source. To dismiss any calls for responsibility and restraint as censorship or solely focus on a publication though there is a justified objection from the subject in question doesn't do biographies of living people justice. Most large publications (just don't count private TV stations in here) are restrained by journalistic codes of ethics in addition to legal advisers. I fail to see how this one guy has any influence on some anonymous editor messing up article histories of porn stars with unsourced stuff. We should work on a policy that doesn't rely on complaints (by the way the complaint email address is really well hidden from a casual Wikipedia visitor who has no starting point). "The very concept is almost laughable, how could one preserve the privacy of information already available to the public?" Seraphimblade As stated above Wikipedia content is automatically spread all over the internet, therefore it's perfectly reasonable (but not nice! should be the last resort) to enjoin Wikipedia from including personal data that infringes personal rights of an actor. To give you an (rather simplified) example. Say an European newspaper publishes a birth name without consent and some judge issues an injunction to prohibt the newspaper to publish the name on their online websites or print media because it might infringe personal rights of the complainant.(there is also a possibility for monetary compensations in some countries but such things are usually taken care of later on due to exigent circumstances) Let's say a fellow Wikipedian has cited the accused newspaper as source for the birth name of the actor in question, so that e.g. the German language Wikipedia also gets a notice of distringas. Would the involved Wikipedia editors now say "we don't care - yadda yadda" and not comply with the request, then the German language Wikipedia servers in Europe would be cut off with an injunction. Such things already happened in the past. You can read about it here. Wikipedia.de access gone for a whole country just because of one "possible" privacy right violation. So you can see how they take these rights serious and this poor guy was already dead. A postmortem personality right. Nifty :) While it still might be possible to visit Wikipedia under a different domain, this wouldn't help someone who uses the leaked name in some other publication in this country nor would it help the persons who added or restored the private data as they would be legally liable. Seraphimblade, in my previous posts I've tried to address a lot more than just BLP issues, but of course it's entirely up to you how much time you spent to read up on the discussion. Nevertheless, according to your own logic, you might want to explain us on which grounds birth names that have been identified as unsourced BLP violations should be kept in the article's history rather then being flagged for a bot? As for creep? in BLP, one could summarize my proposal regarding porn stars in one or two sentences (just not not the argumentation). However this might not be the best place to propose the introduction of flagged revisions, as we're still on the BLP noticeboard, and such a change would be quite substantial. I do admit, though, that I have no idea where to go with the later proposal. By the way, one thing you learn pretty early at law school :P is that even if for example a "right of public interest" is argued, every right is limited when it infringes upon the rights of others, as there are no absolute rights. At Wikipedia we have no "laws" but we use policies. However we do follow the same principle, as every policy established by consent might find it's limits in other policies that we then weigh against each other. Of course every foreign language Wiki tries to not act against the law of it's country though some editors fall for the trap of privileging wiki-norms over real-norms. Don't. Here we often find a conflict between personality rights versus public interest, and aside from WP:BLP also WP:HARM. In my humble opinion the complications an adult actor or their families might experience with stalkers or even finding a future job outside porn, clearly outweigh any information gain a real name has to an adult actors article. Luckily in most European countries we don't need this discussion at all as people have a right of informational self-determination and it is enforced. Thanks to the insight and intellectual rigor of many OTRS helpers in most cases NOT by order of a court. ;) With my proposed (need work!) changes no one would have fun adding WP:BLP violations anymore as they either never appear (editorially-reviewed articles) or get wiped from the articles history anyway (preferably by a bot once an article gets flagged, just like we do it with pictures). -- 3vil-Lyn (talk) 00:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC) So you think Wikipedia should favor the possible future reputation of porn stars ahead of telling reliably-sourced truth? You might want to go reread WP:5 and go find a project which has core values more in line with your goals. Jclemens (talk) 00:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Oppose We don't need to set a precedent of imposing 'consent' determination steps on BLPs. It isn't our job to out anyone, but it isn't our job to protect people from the internet, either. BLP means keep defamatory material off and nn-bios OUT. It does not mean roll back the clock to a point where pseudoynms obscured identity from all but the most determined searchers. The information will be concatenated somewhere. We can't stop that. We should not author a policy that makes us act as though that transparency doesn't exist. (Oh, and for the eventual comment that A: votes don't substitute for discussion or B: I'm just doing a drive by I have two things to say. Enough discussion has occured that it won't hurt to get a straw poll and just because I haven't opened my mouth above doesn't mean I haven't read it). Protonk (talk) 00:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC) Oppose Fortunately consensus will never be reached on this matter and Wikipedia will remain an experimental encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Albion moonlight (talk) 12:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC) Huh? It take then that this prior post is no longer operative: So go ahead and delete them where you find them and lets see what the rest of wiki has to say about it. I can live with a wiki that disallows all mention of a pornstars real names. But for some reason some of you seem unwilling to live with a wikipedia that does allow it. Anyway I am through with this discussion because it only seems to be going in circles. I assure you that I will not edit war with you or encourage others to do so. If one of those articles goes to an Rfc or to mediation or even arbitration I may join in. But as for this discussion if I am the only one blocking consensus (and I am one of 3 or 4], I hereby withdraw my dissent and agree to disagree. Best wishes to everyone.: Albion moonlight (talk) 07:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC) David in DC (talk) 17:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC) Reply. No David my offer still stands. If I am the only one blocking consensus then I will agree to disagree and thus allow the vast majority to have there way. This offer was and is a rhetorical gesture in the sense that such a consensus is highly unlikely. I do intend to participate in the discussion from time to time and vote in these proposals but I do not value my opinions enough to block consensus over them. Be well. Albion moonlight (talk) 10:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC) Oppose Personality rights as granted in Europe protect the personal life of an adut model better than even this first proposal as worded by Filceolaire Since these are basically privacy rights mandated by law, they are not up to discussion for Wikipedia editors living in Europe. We can and should assume consent in cases where we have publications in reliable sources (questionable or vanity press sources do not qualify (->IMDb, fan databases)), consent is usually implied when citing sources like autobiograhpies, big name newspapers or verifiable interviews (unverifiable podcasts on low profile fan sites migt be problematic though, also material from third-party primary sources should not be used unless it has first been published by a reliable secondary source). Should a subject wish to have a birth name removed and a complaint is received, we will comply following the "do no harm" policy (see, e.g. -> Katja Kassin, Katsuni, Brandy Alexandre, even Star Wars kid) as long as it can't be sourced that the subject in question voluntarily used a birth name in other notable projects outside porn. (-> Sibel Kekilli, Ilona Staller, Michaela Schaffrath) -- 3vil-Lyn (talk) 13:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC) Oppose. Whether or not the legal names of pseudonymous actors should be included in their biographies has to be based on a better standard than whether their work is "pornographic" or not. That's obviously a matter of moral and artistic judgment that no editors should be making. To set up these special rules for pornstars gives them privacy protection that isn't being automatically offered to others. What about writers, for instance? Some authors may publish under pen-names because they don't want to be mistaken for someone else or because they want a sexier-sounding name, but most do it solely to conceal their identity. Their reasons for not wanting to be identified as the author of a particular work may be very real and every bit as personally important as those of any pornstar. The same could be true of artists (e.g. Banksy), political activists, musicians or anyone else who chooses to assume an alternate public identity. We can't make assumptions about the person's reasons for using a pseudonym, how much money they make, nor what the consequences might be of including their birth name or not. Editors' squeamishness about the porn business has already already led to a lot of what Jenny rightly calls "weasel words". For example, Ryan Idol has Idol describes himself as "the creation of Marc Anthony Donais." Apart from being embarrassingly coy, this is a smokescreen that wouldn't be offered to a non-porn celebrity like Kid Rock. The policy has to be consistent for all BLPs, and obviously never identifying a pseudonymous person under any circumstances isn't going to make the encyclopedia more useful to its readers. The only policy that can be consistently applied as a guide here is WP:RS– if a person has been identified by a reliable source, then that name is public information about them which shouldn't be denied from Wikipedia on the basis of an editor's moral judgment. --Proptology (talk) 03:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC) Comment I think you're missing the point of the Ryan Idol wording. Comparing it to Kid Rock is fairly pointless. In Marc Anthony Donais's opinion, Ryan Idol is a character he created and plays. Ryan Idol is therefore not a pseudonym but the name of a character. I see no reason to presume this is because Marc is somehow embarassed by his creation or wishes to distance himself from the character, it's simply the way he has chosen to potray Ryan Idol. One excellent example of this is Dame Edna Everage. I don't think anyone is going to resonably suggest Barry Humphries is embarassed by Dame Edna Everage. However Edna is clearly intended to be a character rather then a pseudonym of Barry and confusing the two makes absolutely no sense. It's as silly as calling Lord British in the Ultima universe a pseudonym of Richard Garriot. Or heck evem Princess Leia Organa as a pseudonym of Carrie Fisher Nil Einne (talk) 06:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC) No, I don't think I'm missing the point of the Ryan Idol wording, and trying to argue that black is white doesn't change anything. We all understand the difference between an on-screen character (eg. Brenda Walsh), an actor's pseudonym (eg. Woody Allen and a stage persona (eg. Larry "Bud" Melman). But it doesn't matter because all of their WP bios list their birth names anyway, while Idol's does not. --Proptology (talk) 02:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC) Than you for proving my point. Ryan Idol is considered an, as you say, on-screen character or persona. Therefore the article is worded appropriately. And his article also mentions the name of the person who plays that character/persona "Marc Anthony Donais. So really, I have no idea what your complaining about Nil Einne (talk) 08:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC) Oppose The birth name of a notable public figure is considered encyclopedic information and is included in traditional encyclopedias' biographies, and it is equally encyclopedic in Wikipedia. Someone who launches a career as a movie actor is inherently seeking to be a public figure, and their life story (where and when born, birth name, education, life experiences) are as relevant to their story as those of Marilyn Monroe being born as "Norma Jean" was when she was alive. But any information about a living person must be verifiable via reliable sources. A blog generally does not qualify and IMDB does not qualify. Wikipedia is not an "outing" site to make public that which is not easily obtainable public knowledge. If the actor's birth name is published in Newsweek or the New York Times, it is readily available public knowledge, and no one can undo the ringing of the bell. It should be added to the article, unless there are unusual and compelling reasons not to. I can't think of any, except legal process. If someone claims to have found it from an adoption record, an obscure court document, a baptism record in a church. a real estate transaction, a property tax record, or similar records which are not widely available, and which are original research, it should not be included. We should not act as amateur private detectives, rooting out obscure information and publishing it, and we should not mirror little known blogs which do the same thing. Many such associations have been found to be incorrect, and are as dubious as much genealogical research. This falls under the "do no harm" notion, while adding a New York Times reference in fact does no harm beyond any done when the name was published there. There is no general policy of allowing the subject of an article to edit it, so as to leave in text which increases video sales or pay for appearing in films, but leave out text which includes reliably referenced biographical details in what purports to be a biography. That sounds more like a vanity biography site where people pay to have the desired biographical details published. I have questioned the notability of porn actors in several AFDs, and see many of the "bio" articles as unjustified efforts by the actors or the video producers to use Wikipedia as a promotional medium. If someone leaves the porn actor trade and requests deletion of their article, I would in some cases favor the deletion in AFD, unless they are truly notable as is Harry Reems. Their notability in some field outside their porn actor career seems totally irrelevant as a deciding factor for whether their birth name should be included. Edison (talk) 03:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC) oppose as written Among other issues it isn't at all clear to me that all porn stars use pseudonyms to keep their real names hidden. I imagine a name like Bertha Bergensteinshwaltz just wouldn't go over well in porn (I just made that name up, I really hope no one has that name). Moreover, when a name is given in many easily accessible reliable sources there's no good reason for us to cover it up. There may be occasional situations where there is some obscure reliable source for the real name. Those cases can be dealt with in a case by case basis. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC) Can we refocus the discussion? Comment I don't believe a 'vote' is helpful here and in any case the issue seems to be distracting from the original point. This discussion original arose (I believe) and definitely it was resurrected for a second time because several edits, including me, are against the use of primary sources, particularly stuff like trademark documents & unreliable secondary sources like blogs, to identify the real name of someone (for me at least, I don't care whether they are pornographic actors or politicians or whoever) when that real name has not already been published in reliable secondary sources. To me, this reeks of OR and is likely a privacy violation and therefore a violation of BLP. While I think we have consensus on the blog part, several people in particular Celarnor and Albion moonlight feel that there is nothing wrong with using primary sources of this sort ("public (read: government-maintained) databases of public information") to identify the real names of people who's real name has not yet been published in a reliable secondary source. While I appreciate what Filceolaire & 3vil-Lyn are trying to do and in fact I'm mildly supportive of the idea I've never advocated it since I've suspected and this discussion confirms that there is unlikely to be much support of the idea (in any case, I"m not sure if this is the best place to discuss a BLP policy change). I suggest we get back to the original point. Nil Einne (talk) 06:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC) Feel free to lead the way. I'm just here for the popcorn. and the occasional chat Albion moonlight (talk) 09:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC) Hi Nil and Albion. I saw this discussion link at the community portal. This[11] says that "any material challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source". So it seems you just need to challenge the material to cause the need for a reliable source. This[12] talks about reliable sources and says they are "third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". The section does not list trademark documents or blogs. I think you need only (1) challenge the real name to cause a requirement for a reliable source and (2) if the source provided does not fall into this[13], then you should be able to keep the name out. Suntag (talk) 01:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC) This discussion bears directly on recent edits at Clyda Rosen and Suzy Mandel. In both cases, I deleted birth names whose only source was IMDB. My edits were reverted, with no edit summary. (At Mary Millington the same editor called my editing pointless and possible vandalism, so he/she may not have felt compelled to elaborate.) What do y'all think? David in DC (talk) 15:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC) I’ve answered your query regarding Millington at her talk page, but to summarize in her case there are several sources beyond the IMDB that verify both her birth and married names, there is also no sigma attached to these names being revealed in public and therefore no reason why wikipedia should be denied this information. The same is also true of Clyda and Suzy, and I can also elaborate on their cases if need be. --Gavcrimson (talk) 05:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC) Well David considering the fact that Jimbo wrote you a note your talk page to laudit your good sense and patience pursuant to this discussion. I quite honestly do not know what to think. I know that you definitely are not a vandal. Your edits are also not pointless but merely at variance with the view of many other wikipedians. Perhaps mediation is the answer. There are many wikipedians who agree with you. Albion moonlight (talk) 07:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC) Jimbo's note to me was reassuring. But more compelling still is his comment on his own talk page, archived here. The most significant quote, it seems to me, is this: ...In this particular case, I think it quite clear that the names in question should not be in Wikipedia. I wonder what agenda is being pushed by the desire to include them, because it's a hell of an obscure thing to fight for, for no reason..--Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC) David in DC (talk) 22:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC) Jimbo.s opinion holds a lot of weight with me, but his opinion does not outweigh consensus or lack of consensus until he explicitly says it does. That is to say that I will continue to vote as I choose to vote unless I am the only one blocking consensus. At that point I would remind people to go ahead and have their consensus. Consensus is very unlikely at this point but perhaps Jimbo's opinion will cause others to rethink their position . Albion moonlight (talk) 06:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC) http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Clyda-Rosen A reliable source ? It looks like one to me, but let us hear from some of the others before I add it to the article Albion moonlight (talk) 02:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC) It has recieved laudits from The NY Times. Albion moonlight (talk) 03:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC) Isn't that a Wikipedia mirror? AniMate 03:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC) Yes, yes it is. From approximately this verson. Dragons flight (talk) 03:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC) I will take your word for it. If there is a version of it that is not a wiki mirror then perhaps it could be used. I am not going to get my hopes up on that one. I was doing a google search when I found it. Thanks for the info. Albion moonlight (talk) 06:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC) IMDB and Luke Ford's blog Suzy Mandel's article has two sources for her birth name: Luke Ford's blog and IMDb. Neither is a WP:RS. I've reverted her birth name on that basis. Even if we can't agree that intentionally obscured birth names should not be posted, surely we can agree that, if they are to be posted, they must be reliably sourced. David in DC (talk) 23:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC) Agreed (unsurprisingly). Any controversial claim, and revealing a birth name that has intentionally obscured is controversial, must have an excellent reliable source. AniMate 23:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC) And then again, what if this claim is true. It will be interesting to see how Jimbo and on the other elites handle that one. Perhaps Ms Mandell will know of a source that will satisfy eveyone. Albion moonlight (talk) 07:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC) Primary sources, such as trademark documents and COPPA filings, are WP:RS We are not here to protect the potential future of adult actors nor are we here to take a position of whether one should be ashamed of being one. They, like any other live performer, will have their real names in addition to pseudonyms if WP:RS are available. That includes official legal documentation. Period, end of discussion. As to Jimbo's question, well it is a matter of consistency and a matter of correctness. This whole thing smacks of some attempt by the forces of chastity and prudery to somehow insert their contention that it is wrong and bad to be a pornographic actor. We are not here to make such determinations, therefore we will publish the facts as best can be determined through proper sourcing. --Dragon695 (talk) 22:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC) Read WP:PRIMARY please. AniMate 22:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC) Please re-read WP:PRIMARY; especially the second set of bulleted points. There's absolutely nothing wrong wrong with taking primary sources at face value. Using a primary source as a source for the existence of itself (i.e, citing a primary source as evidence of the existence of said primary source) is a perfectly acceptable thing to do, as is using a primary source to make descriptive claims of the information found therein (i.e, "So and so filed whatever document whenever"). This isn't a sourcing issue; we can and do use this practice elsewhere for other purposes. This is a morality and privacy issue. Celarnor Talk to me 23:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC) We are not here to reveal information that people have taken pains to conceal. This is not a judgment about someone's line of work. WP:BLP includes a presumption in favor of personal privacy when dealing with obscure facts, regardless of the reason that it has been obscured. If the only source for a personal detail, such as a person's true name, is a poorly known primary source then it should be omitted. We are writing an encyclopedia, not engaging in investigative journalism. Dragons flight (talk) 23:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC) Is this really an issue? Is Dragon695 really going to find the COPPA filings and enter them into an article? Likely, he will not, as he almost never actually edits articles, and tends to focus on the drama of the day according to his edit history. Secondly, if someone is actually able to obtain the COPPA filings, how can we verify that they are accurate? If the information hasn't been published in a reliable secondary source we have to take the word of a contributor that the document they have is legitimate and that isn't enough to satisfy WP:BLP. AniMate 00:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC) Investigative journalism is a very good description of filing FOIA's to get birth names out of COPPA filings. It is original research and it is prohibited. If you want to do that, go work for a newspaper, not as a voluteer trying to build an encyclopedia. Other, secondary and teritiary reliable sources are a necessary, but not sufficient, condition to putting something in a Wikipedia article. After you've gotten over the hurdles of reliability of sources and notability, you're still faced with all of the editorial judgment that must attend decisions about what details to include. That's editorial judgment, gang, not censorship. Things like WP:NOT, WP:BLP, WP:HARM, and WP:WEIGHT, to name a few. This whole thing smacks of some attempt by the forces of chastity and prudery to somehow insert their contention that it is wrong and bad to be a pornographic actor....--Dragon695 (talk) 22:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC) Way to assume good faith big guy! For the record, I'm not aligned with any forces of chastity or prudery. I am aligned, I hope, with forces of editorial discretion. Forces for adult judgment. Forces of perspective. In the face of Wikipedia's uncomplicated-to-understand presumption of privacy where personal data has been purposely obscured, especially in the case of biographies of living people, it must take a near-infinite personal reservoir of what Steely Dan used to call Pretzel Logic to sustain fervant crusading to out living porn actors' birth names. This next is not an original observation, but still: it's one hell of an obscure cause. What agenda fuels it? David in DC (talk) 01:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC) For the agenda maybe this statement might help: Sorry, but when you decide to be a porn star, you are relinquishing your right to hide your name. --Dragon695 (talk) 22:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC) Although written out of frustration this does not need further comment. But of course I still do assume good faith. And just for the record. A few weeks ago the German wikipedia has resolved the „Katja Kassin“ case mentioned above. The real name has been removed from the article as a blatant violation of WP:BLP. The name has even been deleted from the history in this particular case and the page has now been semi-protected because of repeated tries to insert the name again. (Jamesbeat (talk) 09:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)) It's good to hear about how this has been dealt with by our German cousins. It sounds to me like the right result. David in DC (talk) 15:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC) Not only is using their employment records to find birth names Original Research, it's incredibly unethical. I'm pretty sure fraudulently obtaining their 2257 for publication is also a good way to enjoy a stay at Club Fed. I don't like the idea of requiring OPRS action to resolve birth name disclosure, because wikipedia is used to fill in background by reporters. Usually without attribution it seems, but mistakes in articles do seem to show up elsewhere and we do put ourselves in the position of outing people by not mandating the higher standard. So far we've had driver's licenses, high school yearbooks, and falsified references used by cyberstalkers to get people's birth names into articles. Most were quickly removed but the falsified reference managed to stay in for about 8 months because nobody ever read the entire reference to find out the name wasn't there. Once we're used for background by a WP:RS, it's really hard to resolve the damage we've caused. I don't see what we lose by bumping the standard up to "widely reported" before violating people's pseudonymous privacy attempts. Horrorshowj (talk) 11:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC) Dragon I think your completely missing the point. I don't care whether someone is a porn star, a normal actor who plays in family films, a carpenter, a scientist, a politician or a whatever. If they are known by a pseudonym and their real name is not published in a reliable secondary sources then you should not be using primary sources to disclose that real name. Period. This has nothing to do with prudity or whatever you want to come up with but wikipedia policy and respect for LPs. Nil Einne (talk) 09:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC) Saying that living people are former terrorists A question under WP:BLP arises in Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC regarding whether it is okay to repost in the biographies of William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, election-related articles pertaining to Barack Obama and the Obama-Ayers controversy, and in the Weathermen article itself, characterizations made by some that the 1960s and 1970s actions of the Weather Underground Organization constitute terrorism. This affects a number of people who are productive members of society today but who participated in radical US youth movements in the 1960s and 70s. Some feel that calling living people former terorists is a pejorative epithet that is inherently subjective (absent being on any official list) and a BLP violation; others that these people are well known and the accusations of being terrorists are well sourced (i.e. they fit the BLP exception). At the RfC there has been some question (e.g. here as to what BLP really means, so any guidance there would be helpful. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 18:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC) We wouldn't want to recklessly toss epithets as if they were mere bombs used to make a political point, would we? Edison (talk) 19:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC) Using the word fraudulent, and third party sources At Grand Orient of the United States of America there is a persistent wish to insert the word "fraudulent" about claims made by the founders about the membership of the group. It is sourced from another, personal, web page. The claim, that they have fewer members than they claim, is common and perhaps should be reported, but the way in which the word "fraudulent" is used - particularly when used about identifiable individuals - disturbs me. Could we have an opinion on this? JASpencer (talk) 16:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC) To give you more info, here is the situation: a noted and respected masonic appologist website (masonicinfo.com) has stated that the website of a particular breakaway Masonic group contains statements that "are extraordinarily misleading and, we believe, fraudulent". As this accusation goes directly to the notability of the breakaway group, I wish to report this opinion in the article on the group, using those same words (clearly and neutraly attributed as being the opinion of the author, in quotes and fully cited). JASpencer seems to want to remove the word "fraudulent", saying that to quote the author is a BLP violation. Please note that the article does not say that the group has committed fraud as a statement of fact... it simply quotes the author's opinion. The author has stated that he believes that the group's website contains statements that are "extraordinarily misleading" and "fraudulent". Is it wrong to quote him? Blueboar (talk) 16:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC) The word fraudulent is only mentioned in the original source once, and there is no explicit link with the founders. This is not the case in the original Wikipedia wording which did single out the founders, did mention the word fraudulent twice, including in the heading. It has toned down, by why is there such an insistence on using this term? I have no link with either side of this fight, but I find the use of this word ugly and needing a very high level of sourcing which is simply lacking. JASpencer (talk) 19:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC) The insistance is due to a desire to accurately quote the source. Blueboar (talk) 20:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC) Why has the quote changed so much from then and now? Is this bit really the most important part of the piece rather than the claim that there are very few active members? JASpencer (talk) 20:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC) I'm unsure if this is the right board and section for this dispute, as generally this section is for broader and more complex ongoing issues relating to several articles rather than a specific case. It's also fairly hard to get outside opinions, when disputants continue arguing rather than stating their opinions and waiting for responses. That being said... my opinion, you should file an RfC to get some more outside opinions or go to WP:3O to get a new perspective. Even better, find some reliable sources to back up the claim or refute it, as I'm frankly not sure the website necessarily holds up as reliable or notable. AniMate 20:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC) JAS, my most recent wording was posted to the page about 8 minutes before you took the issue to this noticeboard, here is the diff ... after that you reverted saying it had BLP issues here. Perhaps you did not notice that I changed the tone and removed any reference to the people and focused on the webpage... So let's be sure that we are discussing my most recent wording. Do you think that my most recent wording is a violation of BLP or not? Blueboar (talk) 21:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC) Yes, I still think that the word is insufficiently supported connsidering the implications and I am disturbed by the persistence in reinserting it. JASpencer (talk) 21:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC) If this is not the correct place to ask whether an article has BLP issues, would someone please point us in the correct direction? This has to be resolved. Blueboar (talk) 21:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC) Well, if you want more people to look at it, generally a report of this nature would go at the bottom of the noticeboard since this isn't an ongoing persistent problem. Have you filed an RfC? Have you asked for a third opinion? Have you tried finding other sources to support your claim? All steps yous should take and try to be patient. AniMate 21:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC) AniMate, thanks for your time and patience on this... I see from your comments at the article talk page that you cut through the issue of BLP, and address a more fundamental issue... that (masonicinfo.com) is not a reliable secondary source. This should settle the issue, if the source is not reliable then it would be improper to quote the source, and thus there is no BLP question. Blueboar (talk) 22:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC) Disappeared versus dead Harold Holt is categorised as in the mutually exclusive Category:1967 deaths (which doesn't get BLP protection) and in Category:Disappeared people (which does get BLP protection). At what point of certainty (apart from waiting until 1908 + 123 = 2031) do we consign someone from disappeared to dead? Was there another article a few months ago that faced this dilemma? Andjam (talk) 10:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC) templates for new editors? Forgive me (and point me in the right direction) if someone has done this before, have we given thought to a nicely worded welcome template for newish users who are editing BLP articles, explaining why reliable sourcing is important, and if they have any can they please add, or otherwise not add the material, with sorta nice wording like "imagine this was wirtten about you/your sister/brother etc" and highlighting the imporantce of referencing? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Rob Grill

Resolved

 – Removed material per WP:BLP

• Rob Grill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

We have a dispute in a short bio for 70s musician Rob Grill, who in 2007 was arrested for illegally obtaining prescription painkillers, eventually going into drug treatment possibly to avoid jail time. This is sourced to two Orlando Sentinel articles that are only partially available online.

• Hudak, Stephen (2007-06-05). "Singer arrested on drug charges" (fee required). Orlando Sentinel. Orlando, Florida: Tribune Company. incomplete
  • Hudak, Stephen. "Rob Grill - 'Grass Roots' singer arrested on drug charges". Marty Angelo Ministries. Retrieved 2008-02-23. Full text of Orlando Sentinel article, on website of Grill's former manager.
• Comas, Martin E. (2007-07-31). "Drug program may save singer from jail" (fee required). Orlando Sentinel. topix. Excerpt from article not available online. Not used in the article.
  • Comas, Martin E. "Drug program may save 'Grass Roots' singer from jail". Marty Angelo Ministries. Retrieved 2008-03-17. Full text.

The plea agreement is not used in the article since sourcing is was sub-optimal, and to keep this part of the bio short. Leaving it out also helps minimize humiliation of the subject, tho this reference does demonstrate the non-trivial nature of the charge, and that the drug problem is being treated (one way or another) as a serious issue.

Concerns are raised about undue weight, and humiliation of the subject. A pair of anon editors (apparently the same editor as both are SPAs from Naples, FL using similar edit summaries) edit warred to keep this information out (grounds: "defamatory", "inappropriate"). A third editor now argues that WP:BLP recommends it be left out for reasons of "doubt", which is established by the edit war; this editor removes this information accordingly. WP:3O passes this dispute on to this noticeboard.

Some arguments for and against including this information can be found on Talk:Rob Grill. An anon editor was blocked for 24 hours for 3RR violation, but it can be guessed that this editor will resume deleting this information from the article if it is there when their block expires. It would be helpful to establish whether this information is worth including, less it be automatically removed, with windy procedural discussions repeating at each iteration.

I am concerned that the current rationale on Talk:Rob Grill for omitting this information on "doubt" means that anyone can have a BLP sanitized by aggressively deleting unwanted information, edit warring as needed to keep it out, thus establishing a precedent of "doubt" requiring unwanted information to be declared "better left out". / edg ☺ ☭ 13:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Feedback request

Re the issue represented by this diff:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rob_Grill&diff=next&oldid=198764025

I removed the information from the article as I thought it was not sufficiently important to include.

There was discussion between editor edg and myself, which got into procedural issues as well as the substance of the matter (discussion is at Talk:Rob Grill).

A third opinion was requested; the opinion given was to raise the issue on this page.

It was raised here in the above section on 17 March 2008 but to date there has been no feedback. Please can we have some feedback from people experienced in BLP issues. Thanks. Wanderer57 (talk) 18:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps this article should be simply deleted as not sufficiently important, a fan/promo page squatting on Wikipedia's servers but not worth maintaining. Would anyone recommend WP:AFD for this article? / edg ☺ ☭ 22:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The subject's notability is probably too great for AfD to be a productive forum for dealing with this dispute. — Athaenara ✉ 08:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I think edg is really out of line here. A cursory review of the sources provided indicates that this matter directly relates to a medical condition. Medical records fall under Wikipedia's presumption in favor of privacy. This individual appears to have left public life long ago. Details regarding his injury and medical records should be treated with the utmost discretion and sensitivity.

I'm even more concerned that when edg doesn't get the answer he wants, his next suggestion is to have the article deleted "as not sufficiently important, a fan/promo page squatting on Wikipedia's servers but not worth maintaining." Seems to me that this user may have a COI of some sort regarding the article's subject. I think his or her contributions warrant monitoring. Cleo123 (talk) 08:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. This is very helpful. / edg ☺ ☭ 08:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• An agreement has been reached between the parties on the article's talk page. Cleo123 (talk) 05:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Dr. E. Fuller Torrey

The article contains quotes attributed to "MindFreedom". If you go to that site, you will see that they are anti Dr. Torrey, and that is reflected in their quotes and their edits. MindFreedom is the citation for the individual who runs the anti Torrey site. The fact they said it on their site, doesn't mean it should become part of the wikipedia record. thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.201.151.119 (talk • contribs) 04:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Aga Khan IV

User Venkyhyundai keeps inserting completely unsourced and libellous info on the subject under Criticism and Some Critics Say

Papoose (rapper)

Repeatedly reverted edits are based on either the editor's interpretation of songs or postings to internet forums that interpret the songs. In either event, the interpretations make claims about a shooting and an alleged assault. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Debo7 was previously blocked for continually readding BLP violation. Returned to continue readding the same material. New final warning on 4 April. New instance of same BLP vio 9 April. Refuses to discuss issue. Comments please. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Avigdor Liberman

• Avigdor Liberman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - brief explanation can be found here - related diff is the following [14] and can be found at the bottom of the explanation also.
• p.s. editors have collaborated on tag-team reverts though Nickhh has claimed his "Pedro, your turn next if he does it again ;}"' suggestion [15] (Pedro Gonnet responded by reverting) was meant as a joke.// Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The page is protected, you've made an editprotected request, its been mentioned at WP:AE and WP:AN; how many more eyes do you want on it? Relata refero (talk) 14:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

AE was a 3RR report by Pedro Gonnet, I'm not aware of an AN report but I'll give it a look.

On topic, we can't have articles locked with BLP violations. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Is there any noticeboard you haven't taken this to yet? Jaakobou, we really do have a policy about consensus here, and it's just as much policy as the other ones. You can't go around removing whole sections of sourced material with a frankly incomprehensible rationale, even if you do think it's based on WP:BLP. <eleland/talkedits> 16:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Uninvolved admins may give a look at the section and decide on their own if there's a BLP violation. Consensus, btw, involves the general active members of discussion, not the 3-man clique who joined the discussion with a preconception on how the page should look. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that even domestic sources sometimes seem to be hard pressed to tell what exactly was said —and what was meant— by Liberman in this or that controversial comment (as a govt. minister these quotes resonate internationally much more than when he was an mK). El_C 23:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

"Nazi orgies" tabloid allegation regarding Max Mosley

Before I run over 3RR regarding a person I know little about, can I please have at least one sane person look at Max Mosley's page? I believe that tabloids -- Bild, News of the World -- are not reliable sources, and the section that anons and occasional editors keep adding fails our BLP policy. Am I out of my mind? Is anything in this section acceptable? Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 16:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Definitely completely non-encyclopedic. FCYTravis (talk) 18:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Treat as vandalism, revert revert revert, if you get 3RR blocked e-mail me for an immediate unblock.--Doc^g 18:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The page has been fully protected for a day, fyi. -- Naerii 20:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, in which time its now all over the Times, the Guardian and the Daily Telegraph. Sheesh. Over-reaction, anyone? Relata refero (talk) 11:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it was quite the correct reaction. As long as our only sources are tabloids, then it is inappropriate to add them. Now that we have better sources, it's fine. The fact things change, doesn't mean we made a mistake, we should always report things after they are published in reliable sources, not before... Nil Einne (talk) 12:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Rick Reilly

• Rick Reilly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

In May of 2007, I noticed a certain editor (Tanninglamp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) had a fixation to add info in a biased manner to Rick Reilly's article (My first revert here). My recollection is that he was blocked for 3rr and for using multiple IP's and socks to edit war (An archived ANI thread I found is here). After dealing with the socks for a while and trying unsuccessfully to keep out the material which was, as far as I could find, only linked to one source (unlike the U of Colorado sex scandal, which Reilly criticized; it was subject to much media scrutiny) --I tried to keep the material and the source, but present it in a factual way (change diff). This change did not satisfy the editor as it did not properly impugn Mr. Reilly's character and successfully paint him as a hypocrite as did his earlier version. I have no idea why it is so important to this editor (appears to be the same user) for this info to be included, but s/he has occasionally popped up to re-insert the info (latest diff).

• Could a couple of editors help watch the article?
• Does anyone have an opinion as to whether the info should be included in whole or in part?

I'm thinking just throw out the info all together. My recollection from doing research on it last year is that no further news articles could be found. Also in the only reference for this info, it stated, "Prosecutors decided not to file charges because there were conflicting statements from the teenagers involved and not enough physical evidence to determine who was telling the truth." I'm not even sure if they were talking about charges against Reilly or not, as Reilly was not at his home when the alleged incident took place.

• Thanks in advance for any assistance. This appears to be a longterm campaign, and I need backup. R. Baley (talk) 21:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• I just came here to report this, but found one already filed. It does not look like any legitimate "controversy" anyway; I'm of the opinion that it shouldn't be included at all. The source given does not mention any "controversy" rising from this episode. BuddingJournalist 06:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• Wow; just had a look at the history for the page; this issue has been ongoing since 2005! BuddingJournalist 06:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• The latest edit to insert the inappropriate material is here and was inserted about 20 minutes ago. My thanks to BJ for his help so far, but I still think there needs to be some more input to resolve this one way or the other. . .more eyes please, R. Baley (talk) 19:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The edit has been reverted again by BJ (diff), but I would still ask that a few people comment, either here or on the talk page. I would like to have a discussion to point to down the road, because this will keep coming up, I think. Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 19:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
    • aaand back again. Please help, R. Baley (talk) 20:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the page; I explain my reasons on the talk page. Basically, I think this is more vandalism than content dispute, so semi-protection is appropriate. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with both the removal of the content, and the addition of semi-protection: R. Baley's assessment of the situation is good, and as he said, only one source for the material could be found, and so if no other sources can be found to both further verify this information and allow it to be more NPOV, I believe and agree that removing it is best. In fact, I think the entire "Controversies" section in the article should go as well, as none of it is sourced at all. Acalamari 20:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Ashida Kim

• Ashida Kim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I don't know what to do with this article. If I deleted what I suspected was unreliable sources, I'd have to stubbify it, but when I put the article to AfD, it failed. Any advice? Andjam (talk) 09:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead remove all material that's not reliably sourced. The previous afd called for stubification anyway. This will eventually die in a future afd, but we're not there yet.--Doc^g 10:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

A Massachusetts District Court isn't a reliable source? I agree the article needs tidying, but I disagree with the amount of material you've removed. Thedarxide (talk) 13:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The BLP concerns are addressed now. I don't think anyone would have a problem with putting reliable sourced information back in. —BradV 14:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

How have they been addressed? What reliable sourced information? Andjam (talk) 03:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

This was what the article looked like when I made that comment. I see all the unsourced POV has been added back in. —BradV 03:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've reverted to that version for now. As I said before, verifiable, properly sourced information can be added back in. This is going to need attention by a number of people to ensure that unsourced information doesn't end up back in the article. —BradV 03:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the birth date from the article because there is no source given for it. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 20:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The article is still slightly slanted towards the negative and one editor keeps on introducing a section about a move called "Monkey stealing peach" that adds nothing to the page at all. They have provided one link of a person making fun of it online, but it's not from a reliable source. Hell, I could make fun of it on a blog and the person would probably use that as well. Why is it important to note? On top of that, they continue to add that there is a "possibly unrelated" move present in other martial arts systems. That is basically original research because it can not be confirmed that this is true. I have removed that bit, but I'm sure the editor will re-add it. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 17:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The lack of any comment on the talk page or at the least a link here, initially made this appear to be kim fan-boy vandalism. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 09:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The solution is re-writing it as an article about a pen name used buy an 'unknown' author as their is no evidence that a real person called 'Ashida Kim' exists. p.s. Added an advert tag as that's all thats left. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 12:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it was a fan. By adding a link to a website ridiculing the technique, the person was pretty much saying "hey, look at what else this nut claims he can do." --Ghostexorcist (talk) 23:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to the the edits by Bradv, not the random monkey peach thing. That is not amazingly relevent but as he is an internet personality contributing to a meme might be so I left it alone. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 09:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

We're currently disagreeing about the use of court documents to expose his real name. Can someone else look at the issue please? Andjam (talk) 22:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the real name. There's a good rule of thumb for BLPs - if you have to go do a public records search on someone to find something out, it probably doesn't belong in their Wikipedia biography. Wikipedia is not for investigative journalism. FCYTravis (talk) 23:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The point is that others have already done it, the paragraph removed stated that! --Nate1481(^t/_c) 09:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I've been hiding a name derived from court documents from the talk page. I've been accused of censoring a contributor's comments based on this. Would anyone like to provide a third opinion? Thanks, Andjam (talk) 00:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Ulli Lommel and IMDB as a "reliable source

• Ulli Lommel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - User:Jacques clouseau added a biography to the article for Ulli Lommel which was completely unsourced and a little bit biased as well. I removed it and left a message on the user's talk page (this user, so far, has only edited Lommel's article) explaining the rules of citing sources and POV. He reinstated his edit, citing 90% of the article with edits from IMDB. I reverted it again, saying that IMDB isn't used as a reliable source as users can submit information themselves and its not easily verifiable. So this is what Jacques wrote on the talk page.

"Well, what is Wikipedia then? Everybody can submit info to Wikipedia, IMDB updates only info from reliable updaters. Is it just that user CyberGhostface hates Lommel and doesn't want that Wikipedia, A DICTIONARY, would have anything about him?"

I pointed out that Wikipedia ISN'T considered a reliable source, and Wikipedia will NEVER cite itself in an article, and that IMDB has posted false information tons of times. (I remember one time they listed Saw IV as starring Jessica Alba and featuring Jigsaw's baby). He hasn't responded yet, but if someone can just back me on this if I'm correct before it escalates any further, that'd be great. // CyberGhostface (talk) 20:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Users can submit information to iMDB, but it is reviewed by iMDB editors before it's put on the website. Dlabtot (talk) 15:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

imdb is reliable ONLY for film authorship/screenwriting credits supplied by the Writer's Guild. See Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#Use_of_electronic_or_online_sources. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 16:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Nathaniel Bar-Jonah

Nathaniel Bar-Jonah is a living person but I can not tell from the references what is true and what is not. Is about.com considered a reliable source? I thought it was a mirror site of wikipendia but now it is owned by the New York Times. Mattisse (Talk) 22:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look. He has appeared on Most evil a psychology Discovery Channel show, which is a much more reliable source than about.com. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I have edited it and removed about.com as a ref. see here, I'll try to get some more sources later. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you be thinking of answers.com (which mirrors wikipedia), rather than about.com? Andjam (talk) 04:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Neither are reliable, just look where your about.com link takes us. Thanks, SqueakBox 07:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I did a web search and listed some links to news articles on the article talk page. --Coppertwig (talk) 16:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

He died yesterday so its a good thing we caught this before than. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Plagiarism

Plagiarism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - User:Verklempt, in violation of WP:UNDUEWEIGHT, is tendentiously making edits to restore material on alleged plagiarism by Alan Dershowitz. Groupthink (talk) 06:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Verklempt is restoring impeccably sourced edits, about a topic that is already the subject of an entire Wikipedia article: Dershowitz-Finkelstein_affair.Verklempt (talk) 20:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

It certainly seems as notable as any of the other examples in there. (Though frankly I haven't the vaguest idea why there's a list of examples in there at all.) --Relata refero (disp.) 18:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Runhardt Sander

Runhardt Sander (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Biographical article of a "German lawyer and political functionary" linked to far-right political parties, including placement in the neo-nazi category (now reverted). There are absolutely no references given in this article, the "official" website for this individual is now reportedly "hacked", and interestingly there is no parallel article for this person in the German Wikipedia. Would appreciate suggestions on how best to proceed. Risker (talk) 07:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Just my suggestion: you could try to find references, and if you don't find sufficient, then nominate the article for deletion. Note that the corresponding German article was deleted on 21:20, 9. Okt. 2007 by Michael Sander (same surname), apparently after a deletion discussion. (I'm assuming "gelöscht" must mean "deleted".) In the deletion discussion, they talk about sources (Quellen), relevance, "Original Research", etc., and then Michael Sander posts a message when deleting the page. Eep, I see that I was the one who marked the page as patrolled. Sorry about that. --Coppertwig (talk) 16:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

this website mentions that the German page had been deleted and gives the text of two deleted pages, that one and Reichsbürger-Union. --Coppertwig (talk) 17:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

In the German Wikipedia you can find some other references and documents about the activities of Runhardt Sander, see the articles: Freie Wählergemeinschaft Die Nationalen [16], Hoffmann-von-Fallersleben-Bildungswerk [17] or Frank Schwerdt [18]. Much articles and deletion discussions in the German Wikipedia are dominated of neo-nazis, see the exemples in the german website named Nazipedia [19]. About the background of Runhardt Sander see also this german information [20]. Heinrich8 01:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Now I've added some notes and references to the article, most of them are german. I hope it is enough.Heinrich8 20:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I've nominated the article for deletion using {{prod}}. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Some links added, please don't delete, don't support the german neo-nazis (I don't want to hurt you, please to accept my excuse]. Allways, if one has uncovered a fact in the net, Sander has deleted or covered the related information. For example his contact site at fourtway.info. So it ist hard to made a article with good sources, see the fate of the article about him in the german wikipedia. Heinrich8 00:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I've nominated the article for deletion by AfD. The deletion discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Runhardt Sander. Wikipedia is for verifiable, published information. Other websites instead of Wikipedia can be used for collecting new information or information that is hard to verify. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Salt Lake City School District

Salt Lake City School District (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - User Dylandude89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) editwars to add pejorative unsourced information about a school basketball coach and principal, continuing after being warned on 22:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC). Please note also this comment posted at AN/3RR about the ongoing real-life consequences. --Coppertwig (talk) 12:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I've left a warning message explaining our policies on his talk page; while I think he's acting in good faith, unfortunately he's making unsourced allegations. If he persists, we'll just have to block, unfortunately. FCYTravis (talk) 18:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I've explained things to the user on my talk page, and the user seems to have stopped reverting. There were sources, but not proper ones—e.g. a student newspaper, I think. --Coppertwig (talk) 10:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Student newspapers are reliable sources. Unfortunately, he was linking not to a newspaper, but to his assertion that he was a reporter for the high school student newspaper, and that his reporting was censored by the administration (unfortunately possible at the high school level.) As a student journalist myself, I sympathise, but obviously we can't allow unpublished assertions. FCYTravis (talk) 17:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The user again posted similar negative information, this time with the only "source" given being a broken link. I'm not convinced that student newspapers are a reliable source for this type of thing: I'd have to see your arguments or a reference to a guideline or something. For this type of allegation, very high quality sources are needed IMO. I don't think student newspapers qualify. Even small local newspapers may not qualify. Besides verifiability, the information probably isn't sufficiently notable or relevant, either. --Coppertwig (talk) 12:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The Deseret News isn't a student newspaper in any event - it is the second largest newspaper in Utah, a competitor to the Salt Lake Tribune. The source for that issue is certainly impeccable - but whether that minor incident is really encyclopedic in the broader context of a school district's encyclopedia article, is questionable at best. FCYTravis (talk) 22:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Fine; I was referring to an earlier source, "Highland Times" or something, which I presumed was a student newspaper. I still haven't seen a proper citation to Desert News: all I saw was a broken link, no title of article or date of publication or anything. Anyway, that would be one source. There would have to be "multiple, highly reliable sources"; it would have to be shown that the information is sufficiently relevant to the article; and per BLP the information would have to be presented as "allegations" (even if stated as fact in the newspaper), since published stories don't always turn out to be true. What is the reason for including the information, anyway? Is it useful to the reader, or is it being included for the sole purpose of defaming someone's reputation? Certainly negative information is sometimes encyclopedic, but I'm not sure that's the case here. --Coppertwig (talk) 23:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Alberto Lugo

Alberto Lugo is a living person. The article is unsourced. There is one external link to an informal article at a boxing website. Mattisse (Talk) 14:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I've nominated it for deletion with prod, after doing a couple of web searches and not finding any sources. --Coppertwig (talk) 16:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. –Mattisse (Talk) 18:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome; I'm happy to be able to help. Actually, it seems that someone has already speedy-deleted the article; I had also considered speedy-tagging it. By the way, the reason I'm here is that I was helping at the 3RR noticeboard and noticed that a page reported there, Salt Lake City School District, had a BLP problem so I came here to report it. I then decided to look around on this noticeboard and now I think I'll start helping here regularly, too. --Coppertwig (talk) 09:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for assistance

DataTreasury (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Adding links --Coppertwig (talk) 09:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC))

Some lobbying efforts on a patent reform law have turned nasty in connection with a company called DataTreasury and there are lots of accusations flying around about the history and current conduct of the officers of this company. Some of these accusations have found their way onto Wikipedia.

I think the article is currently OK, as I've removed the unsourced info and have toned down the sourced info in an effort to present both sides in a balanced way. However, there is an onging discussion on the talk page which might get problematic. Issues of COI have also arisen, but I think have been dealt with.

I don't get inolved in Bio issues often, and would appreciate a more experienced editor taking a look and making sure that the relevant guidelines are being complied with. Thanks. GDallimore (Talk) 17:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Based on an edit I just reverted, this appears to be an ongoing issue. Additional eyes are welcome. --ElKevbo (talk) 23:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Gerald Grosvenor, 6th Duke of Westminster

Gerald Grosvenor, 6th Duke of Westminster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Adding links to article) --Coppertwig (talk) 09:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding last month's prostitution scandal, the Daily Mail reported that the Duke was a patron of the Emperors Club VIP as Client No. 6. Several other sources also did a story on the allegations. However, the Daily Mail has since removed the article from its site, though I am not aware of a retraction notice having been printed. The Times revised its article to remove mention of the Duke, and many other papers' stories of the Duke's ties to the Emperors Club have been removed or edited down.

Is it acceptable to have those allegations in the article if the main sources have retracted them? Do we have a general rule about how to deal with sources that have been retracted after being cited? Dforest (talk) 09:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not personally familiar with any policy on handling later retractions. It seems to me that the handling of such would be case-by-case. I see that the article doesn't allege that the Duke was Client #6, but rather neutrally reports that the Daily Mail said so (a modest assertion, since it seems that a number of other sources said so as well). It also reports on his lawyers' denial of the claim. I should personally think that rather than removing the mention, the section should be expanded to describe the evolution of the situation, with the alteration of reporting, as set out here. The allegations seem to have garnered some widespread notability, looking at google and googlenews. Withdrawing all reference seems inappropriate to me. Keeping it strictly neutral and factual should not be problematic per BLP. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I think the article should say that certain things were reported and that the newspapers later retracted them, etc. If there are a lot of sources like the link Moonriddengirl gives, talking about how the stories were edited down, then it would not be undue weight to talk about it here too. If things are relatively quiet, it might be appropriate to tone it down a bit in the article: shift it to later in the article or shorten it or something, since the fact that the material was retracted could suggest that maybe it wasn't true and that therefore we shouldn't emphasize such allegations too much. Remembering that Wikipedia is not censored, though. Just my opinion. :-) --Coppertwig (talk) 15:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

What Moonriddengirl suggested about expanding the section to describe the evolution of the situation, in particular the apparent retractions of the articles, is what I was leaning towards. But I also agree that we shouldn't give undue weight to a scandal if the main sources have pulled their stories. One problem I see is that many of the articles online seem to have simply disappeared online, and others seem to have removed certain statements such as mention of "Client No. 6" or linking the Duke to that label. I believe there's a big verifiability issue if we can't cite the original versions of the articles. Unfortunately with web-based news there is no 'history' function like with wiki. Huffington Post, which is already cited, seems to have the best coverage of the retractions. Probably we should cite the Daily Mail's removal of the article from their website and the Times removing mention of the Duke from their article. Does that sound acceptable? Dforest (talk) 16:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like a good approach to me. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Mary-Kate Olsen

Re Mary-Kate Olsen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). (Converted to La template --Coppertwig (talk) 15:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC))

The ref given in the first paragraph of this article is to a 4 year old story about an eating disorder. The paragraph is not about that at all.

The photo of Olsen is quite unflattering, IMO. Should we use such a photo of someone of whom there are thousands of good photos? I know we can't just pick a good photo and use it. My point is that if this is the best photo we have, we should not use any photo.

IMO article is off-policy in both regards. Opinion please. Wanderer57 (talk) 15:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Just my opinion: the photo looks OK to me. She's smiling. It's an ordinary photo, not a studio posed photo, that's all. (Maybe I'm missing something.) If it can be replaced with a better one, fine, but I wouldn't just remove it.

Re eating disorder: I think the article is being used to verify the statement that they're twins. It does that. So I think that's OK too, although it would be better to replace it with a different source because it could draw undue attention to the eating disorder. --Coppertwig (talk) 15:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the photo is particularly unflattering; it's just a candid shot from a rather odd angle. Is there a better picture of her that is not copyrighted? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

We should use the best free picture available unless it is truly awful (in which case we should use no photo at all). That photo is certainly not awful - it's just a regular shot of her looking normal and everyday. If she or her publicists wish a better photo, then they can certainly donate one as many celebrities have done.

I don't think we should be removing a source simply because it mentions her eating disorders (which are, besides, widely publicised). Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, we don't need to be removing it, but I replaced it -- Naerii 18:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Darwin's Black Box

It has been claimed that a review of this book that states, in part, "...an exposition of the Frontiers of Ignorance and that within it systems were labelled 'irreducibly complex' if Behe was not able to envision a simpler system that still worked" constitutes a violation of BLP. What do you think?--Filll (talk) 15:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

That's not in the least a violation of BLP. It's a statement of opinion in a book review. FCYTravis (talk) 17:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Or, a shade more accurately, its a rather petty extract of a one-liner from a devastatingly critical but otherwise scholarly review in a self-published source that makes rather direct implication's about the book's author. Please. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry, this isn't a BLP issue. It's calling the book "an exposition of the Frontiers of Ignorance." That's called criticism. Whether or not you think it's "rather petty" is immaterial. FCYTravis (talk) 19:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed? "His book is an exploration of the frontiers of ignorance...a system is labeled "irreducibly complex" if _he_ cannot postulate a workable simpler form for the system" does not say something about the person rather than the book to you? The pronoun is even in italics....

Quibbling. It's supposed to refer to the book, but actually is being used to make a comment about the person. (In a manner not representative of the original very critical usenet posting, I might add.) --Relata refero (disp.) 19:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

You are stretching this beyond comprehension. My head is spinning. An author who writes a book on such a controversial (and discredited) postulation as intelligent design, can expect to receive criticism from academic sources. The review is criticizing Behe's well-known defense of the irreducible complexity fallacy.

There is nothing in BLP which says we exclude any and all criticism of someone. This is a controversial book and it's going to receive critical reviews. The review is written by an academic expert, published in a reliable source and doesn't constitute undue weight. It is not vulgar, defamatory or otherwise inappropriate. It's not a BLP issue. FCYTravis (talk) 20:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

(ecx2)I'm carrying out this argument on two fronts, so am spinning as well.. have you seen the response on the article talkpage? Its not an academic source, its an archived modified usenet post by a grad student. As I say on the page, part of our mission is to provide trenchant, relevant criticism from academic sources. You are yet to say how the above phrase addresses encyclopaedic criticism of the book (note that vast majority of the post discusses aspects of genetic sequences that Behe misrepresents or elides over); how suggesting the replacement of one critical review from an SPS by any of a hundred others from definite RSes would make "nothing in BLP which says we exclude any and all criticism of someone" even vaguely relevant; and above all, how the phrase chosen from the article avoids commenting on the author rather than on the myriad flaws of his book. In fact you haven't actually dealt with my specific objection, merely saying its 'silly'. Entirely possible. Humour me, why don't you, by actually addressing it, instead of repeating things we already agree on, such as that a lot of criticism is expected, and should be in the article per NPOV? Silly how? Relata refero (disp.) 20:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

How many hours are you demanding of other editor's time to answer this ridiculous series of complaints? How many wasted kilobytes of discussion? It staggers the imagination. Are you really requesting that we waste 10, 20, 30, 50, 100, 200 or more manhours on this silly issue? Surely this is a joke.--Filll (talk) 20:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, if you had focused on my objection narrowly, rather than in my opinion over-reacting, kilobytes of discussion wouldn't have been needed. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

If it's not an academic or reliable source but a blog or something, then delete it. However, I agree that it's essentially criticizing the ideas in the book, which is fine. Even criticizing the author himself is fine, if properly sourced. This sort of quote sounds to me like perfectly normal book review critique and fine to use if from a published book review. Not really a BLP issue, IMO. --Coppertwig (talk) 12:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Criticising the author would be fine if its not a SPS. If it is an SPS, it comes down to whether the quote is chosen to indirectly discuss the author's intellect or not. Since I believe its an SPS, if enough people think that the quote, selected from a long review which otherwise focuses on criticism of Behe's argument, does not do that, the question is moot. So far, FCY and Coppertwig have both disagreed with me on this (as have various people who are regular editors of those articles.) Anyone else - preferably uninvolved - feels the same way? It might help if people read the whole review and then the excerpt. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Ian Blair

Ian Blair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), head of the Metropolitan Police, currently about as popular as a fart in a space suit but the article might just as well be titled "list of things the Daily Mail uses to attack Ian Blair". I removed the crap and left a strongly worded note on Talk about the need for WP:NPOV, but a pound says that it will be back in all its venom unless we watch the article. Guy (Help!) 20:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Watchlisted. FCYTravis (talk) 20:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Far too much, definitely. Not to say that some of it isn't notable, especially the Menezes bit, but putting in a random remark about the Second World War? Bit much. --Relata refero (disp.) 20:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

You should watch your edit titles. Removing half the article with an edit title of "Disgusting" rather than any mention of BLP, NPOV etc. was an invitation for a reversion as vandalism.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Something needed to be done, I agree, but at the moment the article does not mention Jean Charles de Menezes, and that is completely unacceptable. I left a note on Guy's talk page about this, and I hope he will take the initiative and start to re-add material. If he does not, then he is breaching WP:NPOV. Guy, would you wade into Jean Charles de Menezes and Ken Livingstone and other articles, and cut huge swathes out of those ones (and no, please don't go and do that - raise your concerns on the talk page first). Carcharoth (talk) 10:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Things were not helped by the previous criticism of this article on the talk page featuring posts such as [21] when press and political criticism came from more directions than the mainstream right of British politics. Hopefully we'll get something much stronger out of Carcharoth's rewrite.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Seal

I'm blocked but even so, check out the seal article - it's FULL of unsourced claims and quotes to individuals with no sources - one editor reverted back in a claim that he worked for prostitutes and was arrested for such in his zeal to prevent me doing a BLP clean-up! hello Mr. Lawsuit! Forget my edits, someone just take a read of the Personal life section. --87.112.86.10 (talk) 20:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The one contentious sentence has been removed by another user, yet this self-confessed banned person has continued to remove vast tracts of information which are not contentious (such as mention of the singer's two most famous songs). They seem to be applying the last resort 'remove content' option where the article simply needs improvement. --BrucePodger (talk) 20:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

the whole section relies on lengthy unsourced quotes attributed to living individuals. I removed the whole section and suggested on the talkpage that editors read the history and re-add material that can be sourced and does not rely on unsourced quotes from living individuals. I am not saying "this can never be added or is all wrong", I am saying it needs a good read and factcheck and that material that seems ok should be re-added section by section. Or are we just going to say that BLP is now too hard to do properly and we should just leave in unsourced quotes to living individuals until somebody can be bothered to do something about it? is that really what it's come to? --87.112.86.10 (talk) 20:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll say it again. the BLP policy says "Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material". You're removing large amounts of non-contentious material. Your actions are, despite your claims, not in accordance with the BLP policy. --BrucePodger (talk) 20:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It's irrelevant as the whole section has been identified by another editor as a copyvio.--87.114.13.4 (talk) 21:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I just found that myself looking for sources. I guess even the non-contentious bits need a re-write, just not for the reasons they were originally removed. --BrucePodger (talk) 21:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Reverting in unsourced material to BLP articles

Let's play a game, we can call it "let's revert in unsourced statements". Let me begin, I get ten points for every unsourced statement that someone has reverted into a single article about a living figure.

Self-promotion was something of an obsession with James's father.

Once he faded from the public eye, James was employed in a series of low paid jobs but by his own admission usually didn't last very long before being fired or quitting.

Initially he thought himself to be gay and tried the gay lifestyle but didn't fit in.

Allen discovered that many of the qualifications had been purchased on the internet and that Harries' own mother had overseen Harries' counselling on the psychological aspects of gender reassignment. A number of other aspects of the family's life did not bear scrutiny.

Since Harries' childhood the family, who live in Cardiff, Wales, have been persecuted by neighbours who take exception to Harries' "transvestitism" and the perceived snobbery of the family. Cabbages are often thrown at the windows of their house.

All in the article on living figure Lauren Harries.

Shall we play another game? it's called Tabloids are now considered a reliable source and even if a whole section is based upon tabloids and the blog of a tabloid, then we should take no notice of policy because, hey it's best to have some poorly sourced material than nothing at all, you can see it being played in this edit.

I guess bruce is pissed that the Seal material (see section above) was removed, however that's not an excuse to reinsert unsourced or poorly sourced material about living figures. --87.114.13.4 (talk) 21:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Lets play another game instead. Lets see how much we can delete from wikipedia as a banned user by bending the BLP rules for contentious material to stuff that should just have a fact tag. Score extra points if we happen to take out sourced material in the process. --BrucePodger (talk) 21:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I invite people to check the edits I made, they speak for themselves. --87.114.13.4 (talk) 21:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, when you were blocked, you lost the right to make any edits at all, even good ones. I have blocked this IP for you; if you want to be unblocked, request it using your original account. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

That's actually not the case, please see the difference between blocking and banning. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 13:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

And if we weren't having to devote resources to your game of "Let's see how much trouble I can cause even after I've been blocked" (banned? You mentioned earlier you had been banned, if it's the same person as earlier), we'd have more resources to look at the articles instead of cleaning up the messy trail of edits-after-block. —C.Fred (talk) 22:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Simple trolling, revert his wikipedia space contributions, block, ignore but do make sure to go and check out his claims about BLP after you've reverted his self-satisfied game playing. Don't revert genuine BLP edits in the mainspace though, please. -- Naerii 23:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Who is the blocked/banned user? I keep seeing all the reversions here. Can someone provide a link to the ban? Was it ArbCom? We usually revert the contributions of banned users, but not blocked users. The constant reverting here is causing more drama, please stop. Kelly ^hi! 00:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It'll take me a while to dig through ANI archives, but here is the sockpuppet report Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fredrick day. Check the talk page for a list of more IPs he's used. I edited my original comment to clarify; I don't see anything wrong with people reverting his Wikipedia space contributions. -- Naerii 00:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the case, but the reverting is disruptive. Please either get a checkuser and block the IPs, or just block them if it's obviously him evading his block. But does it really hurt anything to let him have his say here if the comments don't violate any policy? There's no need for anyone to even answer if his points are baseless, and definitely no need to "win" by erasing everything he writes. If this is a real problem then follow the community procedure for a ban, please. Kelly ^hi! 00:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You can't checkuser the IPs as he keeps logging off and changing them. For more evidence of his disruption 12 (someone notes in that one that a rangeblock is unworkable) and then today he [22] admitted he's doing it to wind Abd up. -- Naerii 00:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Then please follow the community procedure for banning, this sounds like maybe a viable candidate for that. But until you do, please stop the constant reverting here, it disrupts things for those of us attempting to follow this noticeboard. Thank you! Kelly ^hi! 00:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

A ban is already in place. No administrator is willing to unblock. But I'll stop reverting. -- Naerii 00:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Seems like the ban policy has changed since I last looked at it. I will make a post at AN now. -- Naerii 00:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...yes, I do not see User:Fredrick day at Wikipedia:List of banned users. Kelly ^hi! 01:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:BU is manually updated and perpetually out-of-date; not being listed there is certainly not proof that an editor isn't banned. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I've unblocked the IP. It's entirely inappropriate that he was blocked for removing BLP violations. As well, FisherQueen's block of the IP was inappropriate, as he was not banned, merely blocked. We do not simply remove all good contributions from an account because it is blocked. That's the difference between a block and a ban. It is unacceptable that an admin would let their zeal get in the way of BLP, which is non-negotiable. BLP violating edits MUST be removed, no matter by whom.⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 13:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

He's not blocked for "removing BLP violations." He's blocked for vandalism, gross incivility, and extensive sock puppetry for block evasion. He's now using remote IPs from all over the world. What is missed here is that any legitimate user may bring his contributions back in. So ... if you think one of this insanely pushy blocked editor's edits is good, just bring it back in, taking responsibility for it. He's trolling here for exactly what Swatjester did, trying to get Wikipedians to fight with each other. Please, take a look at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fredrick day and, for recent activity, Wikipedia talk:Suspected sock puppets/Fredrick day. Just as has been the case with other blocked editors, all identified edits from this user are being routinely reverted, by several editors and several administrators, and this has *nothing* to do with content. If he finds some good edits to do, anyone who cares to take responsibility may restore his work, and that is a lot easier than wheel-warring over an IP block, which was a legitimate block, I'm sure. He refers to it from another IP, he is totally cock-sure that he can ignore his block and get away with it. He is, in fact, banned. Don't think so? Well, just undo the block for User:Fredrick day and take responsibility for it. If I were you, though, I'd duck. Incoming! (This guy is an expert at making complaints about other editors that can sound good, getting people fired up. Don't fall for it, and I don't wonder that sometimes some of us do fall for it. He's done quite a bit of damage in the past.)--Abd (talk) 17:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

If this is the case, then just follow the procedure for a community ban. Or, if he is already banned, just provide a link to where this was decided. Simple. Kelly ^hi! 17:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I tried, at first, removing this editor's material, to review the material to see if it was useful. However, not being familiar with so many of the article subjects, I found it impossibly tedious. So I started simply reverting. Sometimes I make mention of the revert in Talk, inviting editors to review his contribution, where it seems there might be some reason (such as BLP). But someone who would like to take responsibility for reviewing this editor's contributions could certainly do so by following block logs and other sources (such as my edits). In undoing his edits, now, I don't even review them. Quite simply, it is too much work. And it is better that those who specialize in the various areas take a look. It's a few seconds to bring one of his edits back in. But what takes time is reviewing each edit to see that it is worthwhile. This editor has openly claimed that he can work better and more freely as a blocked IP editor than legitimately, and he is trying to prove that, to exhaust the community. (And he is continuing vandalism and lying about what is going on, you can see it above.) If we fight with each other over this, he might turn out to be right. If we function as a community, operating by consensus, he will be wrong. --Abd (talk) 17:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Who's fighting? If you want community consensus for a ban, then make a post requesting a community ban at WP:AN. Why argue about it here at this noticeboard where no result will be achieve?. Geez. Kelly ^hi! 17:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Notice who started this report. It was the blocked user, doing what he's done before, trying to stir up trouble. I'm not requesting anything here, except calm. The result I'm happy with here is the very "no result" Kelly has suggested. I don't care if the user is blocked or banned, so why should I go to WP:AN? My understanding is that blocked users can be reverted on sight, and that the one doing the revert need not consider content. If content must be considered, it can become impractical to revert a blocked user. But anyone may take that content (or removal of improper content) and fix it. It's not about content, it is about the right of a blocked user to make edits without review. Which is no right at all, whether they are good edits or not.--Abd (talk) 18:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:BAN - "When reverting edits, care should be taken not to reinstate material that may be in violation of core policies such as Neutrality, Verifiability, and Biographies of Living Persons". One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Adb, you are mixing up blocked/banned users. The contribs of banned users are removed (if made after they were banned), but the contribs of blocked users are not automatically removed. Kelly ^hi! 18:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

So who thinks this edit should be reverted? How about this, or maybe this unsourced claim about a man having a small erection, what about an unsourced claim that this living person gave two other people AIDS. --87.112.67.242 (talk) 22:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Please someone make him stop - he re-adding serious libel about people into articles. --87.112.67.242 (talk) 23:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Abd: this is a warning: If you continue to remove the IP's comments on this page, or reinsert blatantly libellous material, I will block you for disruption. Regardless of the IP's motivations, you do not have the right to do that. He is not a banned user, and you do not have the right to remove his contributions. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 23:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The problem is that interpreting WP:BAN this way makes it impractical to deal with the IP contributions of a blocked user who is very active. It's very easy to see what I'm doing, follow my contributions, and these edits and the relevant articles stand out. To confirm that one of these reverts is, in fact, bringing back in copyvio or BLP problem material takes a *lot* more time than, once his IP is identified, revert all the contributions. If, then, *anyone* thinks any of these edits are proper, it's trivial to bring them back in.

So, is this user blocked or banned? He has essentially not asked to be reinstated. His offenses were about as bad as they come, and he is essentially defying the block, not only with good edits, but with taunts and incivility and defiance. I will, myself, review what he removed and see if I can *quickly* find a basis for undoing my reverts, but I quite simply don't have time for more than that. If what I'm doing is improper, then I'll certainly respond to the community. He is, however, trying to make a point. He set this all up, by searching out and finding some copyvio and BLP violations to edit, knowing that I'd revert them, and believing that the wrath of the community would come down on me. I don't think so. I think I'm serving the community, and if the community wants me to stop, you will hear a sreeching sound. My brakes. --Abd (talk) 23:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Even if the editor was banned which is unclear please read WP:BAN - "When reverting edits, care should be taken not to reinstate material that may be in violation of core policies such as Neutrality, Verifiability, and Biographies of Living Persons" - posted by me above at 18:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC). You've ignored that, and addded gross violations of BLP back to articles. If you think that's serving the community, you're as wrong as you can get. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The editor does not appear to have been community banned. What you (Abd) are doing is absolutely improper. It is not for you to inflict judgment based on his "offenses being as bad as they come" etc. You'd do well to just stay away from him and these articles and let someone with a clearer judgment and a MUCH better understanding of policy deal with it. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 23:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not working on this any more without broader input, so don't worry. However, I made a lot of reverts. I'm not undoing them. Anyone can. Just be aware that you are restoring edits made by a block-evading user, who continues to post here and many come running to check out what he says.... --Abd (talk) 00:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Even if this wasn't an explicit policy, it's simple common sense. While it justified in most circumstances to revert edits by a user evading a block or a ban, egregious BLP violations or copyvios should NEVER be left in an article for a minute longer than when it's clear that it's what they are--no matter who detects them. Blueboy96 00:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is not as simple as this. First of all, I agree. Copyvio and BLP violations should never be left in an article for a minute longer than when it is cleat that what they are. Nor does it matter who detects them. However, there is the problem of blocked users. A blocked user comes in on IP, and the IP is identified as belonging to this user. In the case involved here, it hasn't been doubtful. So edits by this user are (1) removable and (2) suspect. This user is making *lots* of edits, coming in on a different IP sometimes every few minutes. Is it necessary to review all the edits? Let me put it this way. This problem is going to get worse. This user has figured out how to essentially evade blocks. It's not rocket science. If all the edits must be reviewed before removing them, it will be impossible, it's too much work. He is deliberately creating a crisis here, his sudden interest in BLP is not some accident. It is, in fact, his M.O., to stir up conflict. I'm not taking the risk any more of reverting back in possible copyvio and BLP, at this point. As I said above, I serve the consensus, and that I might do something bold does not negate that. I was warned to stop and I stopped. However, there is a better way, and I've described it on my Talk page in a response to Newyorkbrad. And it's late.... --Abd (talk) 03:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

What part of "blocked users do not have their edits reverted on sight" do you not understand? As for your edit summary of you not deliberately reinserting edits, I find that suspect: you in fact DID know exactly what you were doing, even remarking at one point that "A legitimate user can remove these then" For the love of god, just leave this IP alone and stay far far away from BLP articles before you do irrevocable damage! ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 04:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm learning. If there was damage done, it was quite transient, since everything I was doing was extremely visible, and there was some admin participation. No, I did not know that I was inserting something improper; quite simply, I was reverting a blocked editor's edits, as I'd been told I could do. If that was wrong, as has been asserted, I'll find out, this time not by actually making edits. What I said about legitimate users was true. Any legitimate user could have fixed what I did, where it was wrong, in seconds. As to leaving the IP alone, if you can guarantee that this IP editor will leave me alone, I'd be quite happy. Could you?

Swatjester, above, noted that he unblocked the active IP of a known blocked editor. Now, I'm not going to complain about this beyond here. But that wasn't proper, either. The editor was not blocked because of the relevant activity here, and he wasn't identified by his edits to BLP articles, as Swatjester seems to have imagined (being led by the nose by the blocked editor). He was blocked originally for blatant vandalism (edits quite as bad as what he was now screaming about here) and sock puppetry. He was identified because of edits to user Talk pages, taunting and trolling, and, in this case, he knew that his contributions would be examined and other edits reverted. He simply set it up to make things more difficult. He believed that he could get me involved in serious dispute with other editors. I don't have a dispute with other editors. I think Swatjester's unblock of that IP was improper, but I also think Swatjester is doing what he thinks best for the project. Was I wrong to revert all those edits? Perhaps, as I said. I'm learning. But until the BLP incident, nobody was complaining, and others were helping. If the reverts were in general wrong, as Swatjester has further implied, well, that will be of great interest, too, since legitimate verifiable edits are being reverted for another blocked user, apparently without concern for the legitimacy of the content, and the stated justification was exactly, "blocked editors may be reverted on sight." Now, I'll proceed to see if I can find out which is correct, and what exceptions exist. --Abd (talk) 12:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Now, new incident: See [23]. This is a banned user now, apparently, he acknowledged the ban on AN/I. He's edit warring. Swatjester, care to look at this? The article states, before and after all this fuss, that Jessica Dee contracted AIDS. So the issue would be the mention of the other porn stars. As far as I can tell, the source for the news about her infection is the same source as for the mention of the others. Is the source reliable? From what I could tell by a brief search, it is. But certainly I could be wrong. As to "allegedly," that was language there from before. He's trolling, folks. I've left his edit in, it certainly is not harmful if readers don't know about the others. He is forcing the issue: may a *banned* user not only continue to "fix" the encyclopedia, but edit war to do it? Your move. --Abd (talk) 13:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Can we have an end to the ridiculous amount of disruption being caused by Abd? Abd's actions yesterday have been roundly condemned as violating several policies. Revert his bad edits, leave his good ones, but this is spreading like a cancer across multiple noticeboards and talk pages for no good reason. WP:DENY and WP:RBI, although take care when reverting. There's just totally needless drama being stirred up, and it should stop now. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Looking for second opinions at Eric Red

This article was brought to my attention when someone requested protection of the page due to repeated removal of sourced content. I would guess that the user removing the content is either the subject themselves or someone who knows the subject, and is removing any reference to a car accident they caused, resulting in 2 deaths. Some of the edit summary reasons for removal were that the situation was "grossly misrepresented" and that the source was untrue, which is one of the issues that should probably be looked in to (I briefly looked at the source and deemed it to be reliable, or I would have removed the content myself, but a second opinion would be nice). It also appears there was a discussion on the talk page about undue weight being placed on the car accident section, and an editor had cut down the section to a reasonable size. During the recent course of mass reversion, the apparent older version was restored, which i reverted back to its pared-down version. I was immediately reverted and would like a second opinion as to which version is more appropriate. Thanks, VegaDark (talk) 23:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The version you restored seems to be more in keeping with WP:UNDUE than the one that others are reverting into place. It looks to me that ThoughUnlessUntilWhether, a 4-day-old account that seems quite experienced, is now over the 3RR. I see you have already blocked 76.172.72.71 (talk · contribs) for 3RR, and that seems correct. This was the IP that was trying to whitewash the article. EdJohnston (talk) 00:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted and protected on the VegaDark version. Disputes on a BLP can be hashed out on a talk page. FCYTravis (talk) 04:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Tamara Davies

An almost totally unsourced article (only IMDB) about a minor, though IMHO likely notable US actress. Add to this the likelyhood that the article was originally created by a known false-information vandal, and you have a bad situation. User:David from Downunder has, for months now, been apparently working to fix things there, and has given up and is repeatedly hatchet-stubbing the article. Given the BLP situation and lack of good sourcing, I don't really blame him, but the hatchet-stubbing has been going of for a while now with no progress toward a true good article. I'm not a great researcher of good sourcing, but I think that David really needs some assistance here in building a brand new, properly sourced, article from the ground up.

Update. While I was typing this, the article was A7 speedy deleted. I do think she is likely notable, and will drop a note on the deleting admin's talk page, but whether deleted or not, IMHO anything placed there really should be from scratch. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

A subtle correction: I didn't resort to hatchet stubbing because I gave up... what happened was that I did originally tried to improve the article by removing fabricated material that had been put into that article by insidious vandals who had been inserting believable but totally fabricated material into many Wikipedia articles. Then I discovered that all the material for the Davies article was contributed by these same people, so I decided that the only proper course of action was to remove all the material they had added to any article, which included stubbing that article.

For verification, I even contacted one of the people whose article had false but believable information inserted into it by these vandals. It was after that verification that I removed all the content that those users had put into any article (BLP or not.)

I do not have the time or interest in building up the Davies article - I only keep it on my watch list to ensure that those fabrications stay off Wikipedia. (Well, some or much of it may be true... I take the pragmatic view that there is much good unsourced content on Wikipedia and I very rarely remove any of it. I made an exception in this case because the record of the contributing editors.)

You should also be aware that some of the information on IMDB was not there when I started correcting this article. It was taken from Wikipedia (or put there by the same vandals) and now appears to provide weight to the things I've been deleting. --David from Downunder (talk) 01:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Banned for adding fact tags

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This is actually not a forum for complaints about expired blocks. If there is an actual, specific, active WP:BLP issue somewhere in here, then start a new thread focused on it. MastCell ^Talk 22:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

---

I got banned for adding 3 fact tags to the article about Michael Behe. Not deleting statements, but just for adding fact tags. 2 of the statements were unsourced attacks on the credibility of living scientists, and another was a totally off topic statement about a living author, that probably shouldn't even be in the article, but needed a citation nonetheless. Can a wikipedia user now be banned for asking for citations for statements about living people? GusChiggins21 (talk) 06:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It is extremely unwise to bring up libel in any discussion, and even more unwise to say 'I hope you are sued for libel'. If there are BLP issues, then say there are BLP issues rather then unnecessarily bringing up libel. BLP goes beyond libel in any case Nil Einne (talk) 12:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[24] suggests to me your behaviour at least partially predated your block. In particular "We've got some real crack editors working on this page" is likely to be perceived as a personal attack, even if that was not your intention. If you want to say an article is crap, say it, don't bring the editors into it... Nil Einne (talk) 12:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough criticism. I was certainly less than civil. I disagree that it is unwise to bring up libel, because the editors/owners of that page are defending material that is at best irresponsible, and at worst libelous. To say that a scientist's view is "rejected by the scientific community" without any source is begging to get yourself and wikipedia nailed with a lawsuit. Furthermore, the ban was totally inappropriate, and the material I fact tagged is contentious, unsourced, and about living people. Do you disagree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by GusChiggins21 (talk • contribs)

It's hardly libelous to say that a scientist who supports "intelligent design" is supporting a view that is rejected by the scientific community. Truth is an absolute defense to libel, and that is true. FCYTravis (talk) 17:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there are some jurisdictions where truth is not an absolute defense (see libel) but since the person in question live in the US, that's largely irrelevant. This discussion does illustrate precisely why I think libel is mostly a red herring. If the claims in an article are well supported by reliable sources (and in this case, it should be easy to do so, if it hasn't already been done so) then it's fine to have something in the article per policy, if not then no. There's no point arguing over whether it's libellious or not since even if it's not, it could still violate BLP and in any case, legal issues should be dealt with by our lawyer, not random wikipedians. Nil Einne (talk) 20:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, thankfully, Wikimedia's servers are in the U.S. too. FCYTravis (talk) 23:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The fact that this guy's views have been rejected by the scientific community is thoroughly documented and well-sourced. You have the right, of course, to disagree with the scientific concensus; but to dispute where modern science stands, or to pretend that this is not well-documented, is contentious and disruptive. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

You guys are completely missing the point. You're saying: "it's not libelous because it's true, and intelligent design isn't supported by scientists". This is both untrue and irrelevant. The only way that you could say that a person's views are rejected "by the scientific community" is if you have a poll of scientists; see wikipedia's policies on claims to consensus.

I'm sure there has been no scientific poll regarding Michael Behe's particular views; the only evidence you can use to support this statement is citations about intelligent design in general, which is rejected by a majority of scientists (although I wouldn't call it a consensus, because of the prevalence of supporters of theistic evolution). Citing scientific consensus regarding intelligent design as proof of scientific consensus concerning Behe's specific theories is original research, and is not allowed.

Furthermore, it's irrelevant whether it's true or not, because I was banned merely for asking for citations. The policy is that all contentious material is to be sourced, or removed. It wasn't sourced, so it should have been removed. But, instead I merely asked for citations, and was promptly banned. This was an abuse of power by the admin, and a violation of wikipedia's polciy regarding biographies of living people. GusChiggins21 (talk) 23:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Well nothing is unanimous in science. But over 99% of scientists in biology and geology subscribe to evolution. And every major scientific organization in the US and internationally has issued statements rejecting intelligent design. And intelligent design has only two ideas in it; Behe's irreducible complexity and Dembski's specified complexity. And both have been repeatedly and soundly rejected by reviewer after reviewer. In addition Behe's irreducible complexity was soundly rejected in US Federal Court proceedings. Even Behe's couple of dozen colleagues in his university department, his fellow faculty, have issued a statement on their webpage saying his ideas are complete nonsense and they repudiate them. So irreducible complexity definitely is rejected by the "scientific community" whatever that means (although it obviously is a matter of definition; however, your definition is tendentious and has been rejected here by consensus). And I am not so sure you were only "banned for putting on a couple of fact tags". If I remember correctly, this was the climax of a much more extensive and exciting sequence of events.--Filll (talk) 00:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

No. You are wrong on every count, you are distorting facts, your reasoning is full of logical fallacies, and fails to even address the topic at hand. I'm not going to argue ID with you, even though you want to, but suffice it to say that intelligent design is predicated on the complete lack of evidence for evolution and overwhelming amount of evidence contradicting it, including the fossil record, the Cambrian explosion, irreducible complexity, and other issues. Your claim that 99% of scientists support evolution is incorrect, and misleading; there is a small minority than supports special creation, and a large group that supports theistic evolution which is actually a design theory. Your claim about individual scientists rejecting Behe are irrelevant; there is a claim of consensus, and this can only be supported by a source showing consensus; individual scientists, even hundreds of them, do not ever add up to consensus, no more than interviewing thousands of John McCain supporters proves that the consensus of American voters supports him. And if there are so many scientists that think Behe is wrong, why not just cite them instead of claiming consensus? And again, no material was removed, it was just fact tagged; that's it. Banned for adding 3 fact tags. GusChiggins21 (talk) 05:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Your analogy is poorly constructed and inapt. The entire American voting population gets to vote on the president - whether they support McCain or not. Thus you are correct that only sampling McCain supporters would create a fatally flawed view.

However, science is, by definition, carried out by scientists. The opinions of non-scientists are unimportant and irrelevant when attempting to construct a scientific consensus - that many uneducated people might believe something, does not make it true or even a remote possibility. A demonstrated consensus of opinion of scientists is the scientific consensus. There is a demonstrated scientific consensus that intelligent design is a thoroughly rejected and discredited pseudoscience. That you and others do not like that, is neither here nor there. FCYTravis (talk) 05:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You're making a straw man argument, AND completely missing the point of what I wrote. Your attacking the straw man who was saying that the American public should be cited as a source in an article. No one said that, so quit distorting facts; I'll assume it was an accident, but you need to take the time to actually read what people say in the future. And again, I'll make the point I made earlier, until anyone actually addresses it: Scientific consensus regarding intelligent design in general is NOT the same as scientific consensus regarding a specific book, or Michael Behe's views. And furthermore, citing dozens of scientists is NOT evidence of consensus; according to wikipedia policy you must ONLY cite the individual scientists' opinions, not claim that ALL scientists believe something, and only support it with citations of SOME scientists. To support a claim of consensus, you must have a citation of consensus, not the individual opinions of people who support a position. Try to stay on point in the future. GusChiggins21 (talk) 15:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Well what about Kenneth R. Miller? He clearly subscribes to theistic evolution, but not intelligent design. What about Francis Collins (geneticist)? What about Joan Roughgarden? The official position of the Roman Catholic Church? Signatories of the Clergy Letter Project? These are all people who agree with theistic evolution but not intelligent design. I am afraid this is just blatant obfuscation.--Filll (talk) 16:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

What you're saying is ridiculous on its face. How can God guide the process of evolution without design? Theistic evolution supporters may not support the specific theories pushed by Behe, Johnson and others, but there can be no doubt they do NOT believe in evolution by natural selection. Theistic evolution means God created people, he just happened to do it by natural selection. That's a far cry from believing that life came from nonliving matter (how?), evolved exclusively by natural selection, and is nothing more than an accident. And again you're trying to debate ID, and again you're failing to address the issue at hand. I will repeat it in caps, in the hopes that ANYONE here will address it, instead of trying to argue about evolution: WHY ARE WE BANNING PEOPLE FOR ADDING FACT TAGS TO CONTENTIOUS MATERIAL ABOUT LIVING PEOPLE?!GusChiggins21 (talk) 19:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

A couple of points here (1) You seem to be awfully upset and shouting in all caps, which is prima facie evidence of unCIVIL behavior and a violation of WP:AGF and a personal attack, for which you should probably be sanctioned again. Is that what you want? What are you so upset about ? (2) You are the one bringing up the general topic of ID. It has no business being discussed here since this is not a debate site. It is off topic (3) Regardless of whether intelligent design is a good theory or a bad theory or reasonable, people oppose it. So we report that. Even if they are incorrect; that is none of our business. --Filll (talk) 19:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I am sick to death of you twisting the truth, lying (which I've caught you doing multiple times on my talk page), and being uncivil. No one is angry about anything, YOU are pushing the evolution issue, and you CONTINUE to fail to address the issue we are trying to address, which is whether attacks on a scientists credibility need to be sourced. Not whether they're valid, or true. Whether they need to be sourced. I'll say it again; why am I banned for following wikipedia policies? GusChiggins21 (talk) 20:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that the defenders of evolution here on WP seem to feel the need to make every article about a creationist or intelligent designist a major coatrack to tell the world how wrong these things are. Borock (talk) 16:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You are invited to tell us, aside from irreducible complexity, why there is any reason whatsoever to have an article on Michael Behe on Wikipedia. He is a third rate academic at a 3rd or 4th tier school. He has done no research for at least 20 years. He is not funded aside from his DI fellowship. He does not publish aside from his ID books. He is not notable or interesting in any way shape or form aside from his involvement with ID. For example, there are about 20 other faculty members in his department. Do any of them have articles on Wikipedia? We would delete his article except for the fact that he has made himself over the last 20 years very prominent in this one area.--Filll (talk) 16:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

DING DING DING!!! We have a winner! GusChiggins21 (talk) 19:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

This was a matter of dispute? Um...whatever.--Filll (talk) 19:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

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

Answer to Filli's question, which has relevance to WP BLP policies

I have never heard of Mr. Behe before. If what you say is true he should have a stub length article saying what he is notable for. That article should link to the main article on Intelligent Design, where all of the criticisms of Intelligent Design should be explained. Borock (talk) 17:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Except that Behe has created the major idea that is used to tout Intelligent design, a powerful public relations movement. He had a central part in the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial, beign the main scientist testifying for the defense. He has written several of the main books in intelligent design. He has a central role in the upcoming Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed movie. He had a central role in the Flock of Dodos movie. He had a central role in Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial. So, considering that probably another 10 or 15 more minor figures in intelligent design have their own biographies, why should he not have one too?--Filll (talk) 17:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

If he is that important his article should reflect that, of course. What we don't need is for every article about an Intelligent Design person to have a long section on how bad Intelligent Design is. What if every article on a socialist went on and on about how bad socialism is as an economic system and how it has been rejected by mainstream economists, etc. etc. etc.? Or what if every article about a rap artist told us how bad rap music is and how it has been criticised for various things? Borock (talk) 18:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Kamrun

Unsourced claims of being a porn star. An imdb search appears to confirm this, but we need reliable sources, something I'm not willing to look for right now. Corvus cornix_talk 20:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I was in the process of stubbing it when User:Seicer speedied it as an A7 (an assessment that I'm not sure I agree with, but I'm sure not going to waste any effort trying to get an unreferenced BLP restored). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I speedied it because the only assertion of notability was that he was a "black hunk who's been making gay porn [...]" and elaborated briefly on his sexual preference -- e.g. bareback. It then featured a list of his movies. seicer | talk | contribs 21:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that this was once nominated for CSD earlier today, but the original author removed the tag. seicer | talk | contribs 21:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Real person, notable, unverifiable/libelous claims. ;-) Bearian (talk) 23:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

And re-created, and promptly tagged. I'll let someone else handle this, since I'm stepping out. seicer | talk | contribs 23:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

J.C. Carter :P seicer | talk | contribs 23:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Frank Scoblete

• Frank Scoblete (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I could use some help at the talkpage, where one editor, evidently an industry associate, continues to complain, saying that Scoblete "sells scams" and that the article is not neutral. Another editor has also raised questions of whether or not an offline source, The Washington Post is a reliable source for a positive comment, "widely published authority". More opinions would be appreciated. --Elonka 22:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Holy hell, the WaPo, the paper that just won SIX Pulitzers not considered a reliable source? Wow. FCYTravis (talk) 23:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Scoblete isn't quite a scammer, but he's certainly a less reliable source. His craps system is... well, crap. GusChiggins21 (talk) 23:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Bobby Cox

• Bobby Cox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Got a number of users trying to repeatedly add information claiming that Bobby Cox frequently beat his wife and is well-known for doing this. Unfortunately, only one instance of domestic violence is reliably sourced. Everything else is based on manipulation of what sources say or blogs. I'd like to request intervention because I can really only deal with this for so long before I get fed up. The discussion (term used loosely) is here: Talk:Bobby_Cox#Spousal_Abuse_Section_Necessary.3F.3F Dlong (talk) 01:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Second go-around on this one since February[25]. Attempts to only include information supported by cited reliable sources are reverted back to version with obvious BLP issues in my opinion and the opinion of several other editors such as Dlong above. Various attempts to discuss on talk pages for consensus have proved useless and resulted in incivility such as this towards myself. // Roswell native (talk) 01:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Cambios accuses all the editors against him of having biases and trying to "hide the truth" but the simple fact is we're just cutting out misleading and irrelevant info. He cites random, unknown newspapers no one has heard of as "evidence" that is had cast a shadow over Cox's legacy and that it was brought to light again during the John Rocker fiasco. He even used an anonymous comment on a blog entry as a source. This is a ridiculous situation if you ask me and I'll be glad when it's resolved.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 03:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Since when are the New York Times, the Atlanta Journal, and the Village Voice "random, unknown newspapers." I think it is easy to tell who has done their research on this issue and who hasn't. The facts are there - HEAVILY cited. If you want to refute the facts, then please find citations that back up what you are claiming. But 11 citations from newspapers big and small, and sports media sites big and small, really don't lie. Cambios (talk) 03:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The section on Bobby Cox's spousal abuse is supported by multiple New York Times articles, multiple Atlanta Journal Constitution Articles, an article from the Village Voice, the Official Code of Georgia (OCGA), the Colorado Springs Gazette, the Northern Iowan, South Coast Today, and a variety of other sports media web sites and news outlets. The section in question is nothing but facts, explaining not only the incident itself but its long term impact on the sport. As recently as July 4, 2007, Atlanta Journal Constitution editorial writer, Mark Bradley, wrote about the issue.

I have spent an enormous amount of time working on this section to get all the details right and to fully explain the incident and its long term effects. I have meticulously worked to remove all opinionated sounding language so the article is as encyclopedic in nature as possible.

I believe there is some WP:SOAP going on because certain people are fans of the Atlanta Braves and do not want anything negative to be written about them. In particular, at least one of the people habitually reverting out the factual information is from Roswell, Georgia - a suburb of Atlanta. WP:BLP specifically states: "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it."

This incident is not going away, no matter how much Bobby Cox or his supporters want it to. It is a part of the permanent record, and there are an enormous amount of first, second, and third party sources that reference it. The entire Bobby Cox article has a total of 21 citations, and 11 of them are from the Spousal Abuse category. That more than meets any burden of citation needed for the section. There are 14 sentences in that section, and 11 citations. Lets get real - the section as written is truthful, accurate, and incredibly well researched. Wikipedia is not a battleground. It is time to let the facts stand. Cambios (talk) 03:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It's undue weight to go on about it for three paragraphs in an entire section entitled "Spousal abuse." FCYTravis (talk) 04:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Cambios, you are completely off-base with this whole bias idea. While I am a Braves fan, I couldn't care less what's said about Cox as long as it's true and relevant. But the thing is, most of the content you've provided, while sourced, is STILL MISLEADING AND IRRLEVANT, and you fail to see this. Just because some newspaper in Bumblefuck U.S.A. says it casts a shadow on his legacy doesn't mean it does. To make a claim like that, you have to show a pattern and significant mainstream media attention, which you have not and CANNOT because it's simply not true. The fact is, basically no one cares about this incident, so other than reporting what happened there's no need to dwell on it. You're missing the whole point of the problem with your post. It's no that it's not factual - it's all technically true. But it's also misleading because it conveys it all being more widespread attention than it actually is. You will not win this argument, I guarantee you that, so you should just give up now.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 05:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Since Cambios and Leshrak continue to refuse to follow Wikipedia policies (I've always found this odd; this IS Wikipedia, so isn't following their policies the obvious thing to do?), I have requested full protection of the article. This is unfortunate, but I don't see any other option. Dlong (talk) 11:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It really is not a matter of my not following the policy. You removed previous edits because they were "improperly sourced". This latest edit has an array of reliable sources including the New York Times, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Baseballsavvy (A popular baseball website), and the Colorado Springs Gazette. It is my feeling that you and Kingjeff are continuing to remove this section under the guise of a Wikipedia rule while trying to push your own personal agenda and "clean up" Bobby Cox's history and legacy. The man beat his wife, got arrested, and people have been talking about it ever since. I really cannot understand why these facts are continually being debated on this forum. Having this page locked is not unreasonable at all, however this content definitely needs to be included. Please take a look over WP:SOAP and WP:BLP. Thanks again. Leshrak (talk) 13:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

User Persists in Posting Court-Ruled Libelous Material

User:Cult free world has posted the full text of a newspaper article two courts in India found prima facie libelous and defamatory here. Specifically, "The news item extracted above and also the allegations made in the complaints are prima facie libelous and defamatory." (http://www.allahabadhighcourt.in/ILR/ilr-2004/Jan-Feb2004.pdf, page 4, #5)

Cult Free World has been warned previously against making libelous and defamatory claims in any Wikipedia space (see #8 here, see this, see full explanation here--please note that some of the links leading to libel have been cleaned up, so the libel no longer appears, see here ).

Some editors have adopted "revert and ignore" strategy, which Cult Free World complained about and received no response. Here a vandalism report was dismissed without action. Here a complaint about myself turns into a discussion of Cult Free World's actions. Other archived ANI reports were filed by him and were also ignored with no action taken.

I have reverted the user twice this morning, posted two warnings on this talk page, and he keeps re-posting the libelous material and OR.

Posting a newspaper article in any Wikipedia space (user, talk, project, main) that the user knows two courts found libelous and defamatory is a serious violation of WP:BLP and WP:LIBEL. Renee (talk) 10:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

p.s. An MFD was filed on the user's version of the article, but by the time the MFD was closed other editors had adopted the revert and ignore strategy mentioned above and the article was in a neutral state. Upon the MFD closing he immediately reverted to his libel version of the article

hmm....I wonder how he plans to make the world cult free. Borock (talk) 16:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Those interested may wish to have a look at talk page of the concerned user-space[26], and closing note at MfD deletion discussion [27] nominated by Renee only, there have been close to three incidents where s/he has been warned for WP:COI, I do not find any living person in the court order, neither do i see any Biography section in the page, i am attempting to work on. here is the section, Renee has trouble with. In anycase, once i am done with writing the article about the subject, I will be filing for RfC, till now, Renee and her associates are giving me really hard time, while i am attempting to start an article on wikipedia, Reason for this agony appears to me as WP:COI, this has been noted not only by the closing admin at MfD, but at two other places as well. [28],[29].

Just to make the context more clear, the final judgment was that the report published in indian daily is not defamatory, but i don't think we are suppose to interpret court order's without any secondary source, hence there i have tried to make no comments from my side, keeping in view WP:NOR, while i am writing the article in my own user-space for moving it into main-space in future. --talk-to-me! (talk) 17:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I reviewed the links provided by Renee.. goosh.. s/he has given link only to what s/he has written. I wonder why she did not gave the links for MfD closure, or her previous nomination of speedy deletion of my user-space, all of them were rejected, citing COI of Renee !!! --talk-to-me! (talk) 17:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Cult Free is mis-quoting the MFD closer again. If you read it under the Discussion header it refers to the COI arguments I made against cult free (i.e., regarding his COI due to the blogs) and then later rightly noted that these claims were really user comments against Cult Free and not content comments. Hmmmm....projection? POV username? COI?

In any case, this notice is to prevent libelous statements appearing on Wikipedia, something that many editors (not just myself) have repeatedly written to Cult Free about, pleaded with him, warned him, and he just ignores everyone. The exact newspaper article user Cult Free World is posting is sourced to this court case, where the judge ruled, The news item extracted above and also the allegations made in the complaints are prima facie libelous and defamatory. Prima facie offence is made out against the accused applicants disclosing the ingredients of the offence under section 500 IPC. (p. 4#5). Making a claim and sourcing it to a newspaper article declared libelous cannot stay in any Wiki space.

Now, if he can find a verifiable and reliable secondary source then we're golden and this will all go away. But, he has failed to provide a single secondary source and insists that he can quote selectively from court cases (i.e., testimony, opposing sides, etc.) and he thinks that's a secondary source. I pasted in this very nice explanation from Vassyana to show him how he needed a secondary source and he just ignores it. Help educating the user about verifiable and reliable secondary sources would be valuable. Renee (talk) 17:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Let people read and understand themselves, try to understand, people ARE intelligent on wikipedia. :), those who wish to see what is stated in MfD will follow the link, just give the link, thats all. BTW which blog according to you I own ? --talk-to-me! (talk) 18:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to add, incase you have missed again [30], this noticeboard is to discuss articles (not user-space sections), second, discuss the content not editors here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cult free world (talk • contribs) 18:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, it might benefit all concerned to read Prima facie as an indication of why the linked HC submission isn't really that damning. --Relata refero (disp.) 00:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

In terms of Wikipedia, any sort of libel or defamation, hint of libel or defamation, court-ruled libel and defamation, "self-evident"/prima facie libel and defamation, must be removed immediately from Wikipedia because they violate one of two of its key policies -- WP:V and WP:R. Further, drawing testimony and quotations from court cases are not valid, as Vassyana pointed out here. (sorry I had the wrong link above, I fixed) Renee (talk) 13:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Matt Sanchez, again

Disagreement over whether to use Category:DADT and link to the DADT article under see also. Proposed source to justify the category and link is the Marine Corps Times; editors disagree about whether the article is specific enough to justify that particular connection. The biography subject strongly objects to it. The article is under arbitration probation per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bluemarine. Requesting outside opinion about whether the category and link should stay or go. Durova^Charge! 18:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up; the category was deleted yesterday (Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_April_2#Category:DADT) and renamed to Category:Sexual orientation and military service with the explanation This category is for articles relating to the worldwide treatment of sexual orientation by military institutions. So requesting independent opinion about whether to use that.

Suggested replacement for the see also link would be identity politics. Durova^Charge! 18:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• I've been reworking the contents of the newly-renamed category since the close of the CFD. I don't feel it's appropriate to include Matt Sanchez in the category. His relationship to the topic of the category, "sexual orientation and military service," is tangential at best. Very few articles on individuals belong directly in that category; indeed, I removed most of them (including such barely-related people as SCOTUS Justice John C. Roberts) as having only the remotest possible connection to the topic. The only biography article that remains is Barry Winchell because I'm stumped as to where else to put him to keep him in the category structure. I have no idea how Sanchez identifies his own sexuality. If he's gay or bi he can go in the sub-cat Category:LGBT military personnel but only of course if the reliable sourcing exists. As for linking to DADT in his article's "see also" section, it seems just as remote a connection as the category. Identity politics seems like an odd choice as well, as does placing the article in Category:Identity politics. I just don't see the categorizable connection. Otto4711 (talk) 18:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • So is your recommendation to take out the DADT link without replacing it? Regarding the categorization, I think the disagreement boils down to editor differences about whether a man who self-identifies as straight would participate in gay porn for economic reasons, and whether article content to the contrary is sufficiently sourced. Durova^Charge! 23:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• DADT is already linked within the text of the article, so no, along with what I said above, I don't see any need for having it in the see also section. I don't really care if Identity politics replaces it, I just don't see the relationship so I don't see the point. As for the category disagreement, I guess I'm not getting it. For him to be included in the category, "sexual orientation and military service" should be a central or defining characteristic of him. It's not as far as I can tell. Now, if his reserve contract gets voided on the grounds of his having participated in "homosexual acts" then he can go in the subcat Category:American servicemembers discharged for homosexuality. But there is no justification for including him in the high level SOAMS category. Otto4711 (talk) 03:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you very much for your responses. The investigation cited in that source closed last year without a discharge. Best regards, Durova^Charge! 07:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Johnny Sutton

• Johnny Sutton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article, about a US Attorney, has been the subject of edit warring in the past. A new editor, Maha Pizza (talk · contribs), is repeatedly adding material sourced from WorldNetDaily and something called libertypost.net - the first is manifestly an unreliable source and the second seems very flaky. I've removed these sources and given Maha Pizza a warning about violating BLP, but the overall tone of the article makes me uneasy; it reads very much like an innuendo-laden hit piece. Could other editors please have a look at the article and see what they think of it? -- ChrisO (talk) 18:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked the editor for repeatedly restoring the BLP-violating material despite the warning. Sigh. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Matthew Koso

Matthew Koso, a young living person, was convicted of something but was it Statutory rape? He is in Category:Statutory rapists. –Mattisse (Talk) 19:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Genovese crime family

Genovese crime family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). This article makes a lot of serious allegations on some fairly thin sourcing. It would be very appreciated if a few BLP savvy editors would look it over and help steer the article in the right direction. Thanks! Vassyana (talk) 06:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Please keep an eye on Paul John Ferris this weekend

I just got a call from a freelancer for News Of The World (Sunday edition of The Sun).

The Glenburn Young Team are a group of idiot youths in Glasgow who added a line to Paul John Ferris (a Glasgow gangster turned author) saying "He was lucky the Glenburn Young Team didn't kill him in 2008." This was added 26 March and not reverted until 1st April.

They also created an article on themselves (Glenburn Young Team) which was created 17:47 on 14 Dec 2007, tagged for deletion at 17:48 and deleted at 18:21.

I said:

• We get rubbish all the time, we sigh and remove it. This being the Internet there's a certain proportion of idiots.
• We have stricter rules for articles about living people, and that shouldn't have been there six days - it should have been spotted sooner. Our apologies to Mr Ferris.

There's been no complaint from Mr Ferris, but if this makes the paper on Sunday I expect an eye on Paul John Ferris (and Glenburn Young Team) would be a good idea - David Gerard (talk) 10:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Christian Death

OTRS had a complaint about this article from one of the ex-members of the band, Valor Kand. He feels very upset about the article, which is quite unflattering about his role in the band (the breakup and the various versions of the band involving more than a little bitterness). I've asked Arkady Rose to have a look over it, and anyone else who wants to look over it should feel free - David Gerard (talk) 10:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

There is an ongoing revert war between an IP address 98.220.43.195 and Valorkaend (presumably the Valor Kand, as above). I have given the IP address a 3RR warning. Valorkaend deserves one too, but seems to be trying to reforming a negative view of the history and himself, so I haven't given one for now. The whole thing looks stuffed full of original research and due for a massive crop to me.--Slp1 (talk) 12:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

"Stuffed full of original research" is putting it mildly. I had a look at the article; it's a mess. The good news is that there are plenty of reliable third-party sources out there that can be used and cited. The bad news is: trying to re-write the article to match those sources will mean deleting large sections of original research, rumor, gossip, unsourced speculation, personal opinions, and God knows what else at the objection (I suspect) of the die hard fans of the group. I'm not sure that's something I want to do all by myself. Anyone interested in re-writing the article to match the sources? J Readings (talk) 19:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Isavella Dara

• Isavella Dara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I don't often deal in BLP (most of my interests are long dead), so when I came across this I thought I would bring it to the attention of editors better versed in BLP policy. It isn't particularly negative, just entirely unsourced and of marginal notability to boot. Pastordavid (talk) 20:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Nick/Nicolas Ruston

• Nicolas Ruston (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Nick Ruston (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am not sure if this is the proper place to report this but I thought that I would start here. Yesterday and today User:Bengough99 created the above two pages. A quick look will show that they are identical so, at the least, they should be merged. I suspect that they may also have WP:COI and WP:NOTABILITY problems. If you would like me to report these pages at these, or any other, places here at Wikipedia please let me know. Also, if this was not the proper place to bring notice of this situation please let me know about that to. Thank you for you time and attention in this matter. MarnetteD | Talk 21:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I have redirect one article to the other, and added a couple of tags about lack of references and questionable notability. Not sure about the conflict of interest myself. I will give it a few days and look for some reliable sources, and if not, it would probably be suitable for WP:PROD --Slp1 (talk) 02:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The artwork seems to be quite remarkable. Based on the work, I expect that notability will not be a problem. (I realize references are needed.) Wanderer57 (talk) 21:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It is striking, I agree. Unfortunately I have done some fairly extensive searches and haven't been able to find any independent secondary sources for him, that would indicate his notability. I have prodded the article, but perhaps others will find sources in the interim.--Slp1 (talk) 13:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Reposting of a Deleted Libellous Article on a User Page

I recently stumbled upon a very contentious and disturbing MFD discussion here, which seems to bring a larger issue to light regarding the latitude some admins are inclined to give to user pages. In short, an article on this particular religious group and its leader has previously been deleted from Wikipedia several times, amidst allegations of libel, defamation, lack of reliable sources, lack of notability and the like. The primary author of the article Cult free world, has now reposted the article in his user space, under the pretext that he's rewriting it in a more suitable fashion. Although Cult free world cleaned up the "article" considerably during the MFD debate, several editors who were involved with the article's previous incarnations warned that libelous material would undoubtedly be reinserted into the working draft, which he keeps carefully guarded from meddling contributors, who don't share his POV. Considering what I see as a long history of very obvious POV pushing, personal attacks & documented libel (which apparently has already been the subject of a court case) - I would have thought this MFD would have been a no brainer. Unfortunately, the closing admin chose to ignore all the editors who expressed WP:BLP and WP:LIBEL concerns, accusing us all of being "involved parties". Well, I never had any prior involvement with this article, and I'm somewhat dumbfounded by the closing admin's decision to allow the user page version, which BTW is appearing on google searches.

As predicted, objectionable accusations of rape and incest have been reinserted into the article almost immediately. Cult free world is so brazen that he/she even attaches a copy of the 100 plus page court document from the libel suit, as he's reprinting the objectionable material! LOL! All this would appear to be part of a prolonged campaign of what appears to be harassment against Reneeholle. How can this be allowed? To my mind, this editor is using Wikipedia not only as a free web hosting service for some sort of personal campaign against cults, but also as a means of harassing real life "enemies" via a private attack page, disguised as an article under construction. Sincerely, this is one of the worst cases of harassment and abuse I've ever seen on Wikipedia. My understanding is that WP:BLP pertains to ALL PAGES on Wikipedia, including user pages. Am I wrong? Would some other editors please take a look at this? Cleo123 (talk) 01:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Almost immediately !! what was this for ? get your facts correct before coming here. --talk-to-me! (talk) 13:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I do have my facts straight. As I see it, you made a show of cooperating with some editors and cleaning up the article for purposes of the deletion debate. As soon as an admin made the naive decision to keep what seemed to be a relatively harmless NPOV article, you went right back to business as usual posting inadequately sourced allegations of incest and rape. You and your cohorts have aggressively fought with anyone who has tried to remove anything from YOUR article, contrary to WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:SOAP, WP:LIBEL, WP:HARASS and WP:OWN. Wikipedia is not a battleground for real world disputes, as the most recent sock puppetry report against you alleges. Cleo123 (talk) 02:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

If you care to go through the history of the page, you will find, that all members in the SSP case are the one who reverted any attempt from my side to complete the article, wish your statement show of cooperating with some editors was true !! That case of SSP is yet another personal attack on me only to prevent that article from getting published, this is done by the paid members of the cult, who do not wish to get any information out in public domain, this is/was the sole reason as why the page was deleted at the first place by Jossi, and then nominated for Speedy deletion twice (in my user-space) and then MfD, and now this case of SSP, apart from numerous notices at this page. It should be understood, that wikipedia does not work according to PR policy of any cult, it has its own.--talk-to-me! (talk) 07:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

J. T. Snow

• J. T. Snow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Last sentence in section "Early Years" unsourced and possibly defamitory --Hennap (talk) 01:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Sentence removed.--Slp1 (talk) 02:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

George Weigel

Just a heads up; I am posting here prophylactically to avoid an edit war. An older but mostly inactive IP has twice added objectionable material, as much on the grounds of WP:OR and maybe WP:SOAPBOX as actual BLP, to said article. I left a note explaining briefly what the issues were and reverted a second time, but do not wish to get sucked into too much reversion, even over something so clearly obvious. A few eyes would be appreciated. Thanks. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 03:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• Continued addition by anon, semi-protected for a while. Guy (Help!) 10:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Patrick T. McHenry

Patrick T. McHenry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). It would be appreciated if some BLP savvy people could look over Patrick T. McHenry#Controversy and its sourcing. Vassyana (talk) 04:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Cult free world/Proposed page

User:Cult free world/Proposed page (edit | [[Talk:User:Cult free world/Proposed page|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). This is a userfied page, but BLP applies outside of article space. Could a few BLP-experienced folks take a look over the claims and sourcing? Vassyana (talk) 23:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Gene Green

Gene Green (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The BLP policy says "The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals, though editors are advised to seek help from an administrator or at the BLP noticeboard if they find themselves violating 3RR, rather than dealing with the situation alone." That's almost where I am now. Different IP's keep re-adding the defamatory material, but I don't know if it's all the same guy or not. Art LaPella (talk) 01:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Page semi-protected for a month. CIreland (talk) 12:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Various unsourced controversial remarks and some blatant reader-leading original research also removed. CIreland (talk) 12:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Biography about Joan Ifland CEO of the Sugars and Flours Project.

I don't know where to begin Joan Ifland's biography. I have been pouring over Wikipedia for days and need to finish this project. I have Joan's resume, her accomplishments and Endorsement of DSM-IV Dependence Criteria In Eating Behavior. Where do I begin? I have read: Your first article, Biographies of living persons, the help section,Manual of Style(biographies), Citing sources,Reliable sources which I am getting confused with citing sources?

Cindy Leach —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThePureTransition (talk • contribs) 02:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Try Wikipedia:Help desk--Doc^g 22:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Image Placeholders

A discussion concerning the use of image placeholders on biographies of living persons at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders may be of interest to editors at this noticeboard. The placeholder images have recently been uploaded to 50,000 articles, and while there has been disagreement about the use of these images in various corners, there has not been a centralized discussion on this issue affecting the community. Please contribute your thoughts and publicize this discussion anywhere you feel would be appropriate. Thank you. Northwesterner1 (talk) 10:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Naomi Oreskes

Naomi Oreskes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - There is a content dispute over who said what, and what exactly did the person mean. User:KimDabelsteinPetersen appears to maintain that Benny Peiser has withdrawn his criticisms with Naomi Oreskes's findings, while User:Lawrence Solomon has argued that Benny Peiser hasn't withdrawn his criticism completely. This content and edit war has become disruptive, and has even gotten national media attention here [31]. As such future edits regarding who said what needs to tread lightly due to the media attention. ThePointblank (talk) 23:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Note the sources that Solomon used are dodgy at best: a scientific paper that was rejected; commentary on a partisan political website; and his personal (and thus unverifiable) correspondence with Peiser. This doesn't fit our injunction in WP:BLP to "Be very firm about the use of high quality references." Raymond Arritt (talk) 09:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

This issue has been published in a major Canadian paper [32] and looks very much like Wikipedia has egg on its face, again. Personal correspondence is not unverifiable, merely difficult to verify. There should be a standard way that is accepted as reliable. There doesn't seem to be one right now and that's hurting the reputation of this encyclopedia. Peiser apparently was alleged to have said something in the Oreskes page that he denied in personal correspondence. You don't just go down a check list with something like that, you find a way to get at the truth. TMLutas (talk) 14:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Opinion please

Will someone please look at this ref?

This is London [33]

Its extreme negativity leads me to suspect that it is highly biased and shouldn't be cited. Can I get another opinion please. Wanderer57 (talk) 16:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

That's "This is London [34]"

Crappy tabloid. Biased, but not given to lying (much).--Doc^g 19:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Lisa Brennan-Jobs.

Any reasons on why it shouldn't be redirected to Steve Jobs? -- Jeandré, 2008-04-13t19:11z

Nope, done.--Doc^g 19:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Gordon Lee (comic store owner)

I've had this page on my watchlist for a while, never thought much of it until I've recently taken more notice of BLP. Yes, I'm a latecomer to the party, but that aside, isn't the summary at Comic Book Legal Defense Fund enough for the basic facts of the situation? Does the store owner require an article? There has been some reporting of the case in The Comics Journal, which is a fairly reliable source, but that has tended to focus on the case and how it impacts comics rather than on the individual. I'm also a little concerned about the dab page description, too, Gordon Lee. Appreciate the thoughts of people more experienced in this area. Hiding T 14:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• Not a good article, it's all about the controversy related to one book, by the looks of it. Can it be refactored as an article on the notable case? Guy (Help!) 10:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I'll mention it at WP:COMICS, see what comes up. Hiding T 10:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

David L. Cook

David L. Cook (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has had potentially harmful material added to it by 12.26.86.253 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The material has been reverted and the offender has been warned with 4im. However, Canyouhearmenow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has asked that the offending material be removed from the history, on my talk page. I don't believe I have the capability to do that. Toddst1 (talk) 17:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The information added was false and defaming. If allowed to remain in the edit history, it could be read by other editors or the public at large and could harm the reputation of the subject. I am asking that it be deleted from the edit history. Thank you Canyouhearmenow 17:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• it looks as if this has been handled by WP:OVERSIGHT, there are no revisions of that article in that IPs contributions or deleted contributions. Guy (Help!) 10:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Muhammad Mian Soomro

In the biography of Muhammad Mian Soomro "Corruption and Use of power", the two cliams made there, namely the arrest and beating of an opponent and the embezzlement of property both are untru with no reliable source listed, nor have i seen any such reliable source that i can point to. In the absence of such verification this information should be removed. In the past this correction has been requested but no change was made. kindly see to it that this section is deleted as it directly violates the Wikipedia rules for posting biographies of living persons as the claims in it are not sourced or verified nor is any such source provided. Footnotes do not link to a source either.

"~ be" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearl2340 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any such claims in that article. --Fredrick Dayton (talk) 19:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Terri Nunn

Please watchlist this article. Unsourced claims that this actress posed nude for Penthouse while underage have been repeatedly inserted by various anon/SPAs. They've been removed before, but they keep coming back - and this time, it's been in the article since January. A friend of mine pointed the article out to me - otherwise who knows how much longer it would be sitting there. FCYTravis (talk) 09:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I have deleted {{Penthouse Pets of 1976}}, and I suggest further scrutiny of the contributions of Sp-mxs5md (talk · contribs) may be in order.--Doc^g 11:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep Austin Weird

This is the second time I've come to this board asking about a section of the Keep Austin Weird article. The section was removed last time I brought it here, and I just noticed that it had been replaced without discussion. I've removed it a couple of times today, but I'm guessing based on my previous experiences with the editor that it will likely be replaced again. The issue is that a user insists on including what appears to be a section of poorly sourced original research about "Famous Austin eccentrics", former section title of "Austin Weirdos". Anyone have a moment to take a look...see if I'm overreacting? --Onorem♠Dil 14:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You are not overreacting. The policy that applies here is perhaps the clearest policy that Wikipedia has. "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion,"

The only items that are sourced are that a couple of people have run for office and got a certain % of the votes. Under the policy, this information could be left in but to do so would make the section pointless.Wanderer57 (talk) 15:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I've warned the user concerned.--Doc^g 16:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you both for the sanity check. I was fairly confident in my removal, but wanted an uninvolved set of eyes to take another look. --Onorem♠Dil 16:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Michael Klonsky

• Michael Klonsky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• VRTS ticket # 2008040310021682

Article written almost entirely from biased and inaccurate sources, apparently, see Talk:Michael Klonsky#Factual disputes.

Zehrudin Dokle

I ran across this article today. It's a biography of living person, whom I think is a director/ actor. I marked it for speedy because it lacked sources and the subject did not appear notable. The tag was removed and now that I look at the article, I wonder whether a speedy tag is appropriate or whether this article needs a lot of work. Also, if this isn't the correct forum for this question, let me know. Thanks! Tnxman307 (talk) 18:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

the article has many problems, but it asserts some importance, so it passes speedy. It may need AfD, but several editors have been editing it by removing such content as it has-I restored it. DGG (talk) 20:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Michael T. Studer

Michael T. Studer seems to me to be a big BLP violation, but i am not really confident enough on the needs and requirements to make the call. It does, however, have phrases like blank-check companies run by Michael Studer and Meyer Blinder, for instance, cheated investors... and ...Studer was intimately involved in the fraudulent transactions. The only reference given is "a Google search". Anyone? Cheers, Lindsay 21:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Carolyn Jessop

There are various WP:BLP and WP:SOAP issues in this article. Ms. Jessop wrote a book calling her mother (possibly living) a child abuser and her husband a rapist, etc., and the article is transmitting all this as if these were facts. I don't have time to clean all this up as I'm on wikibreak. But, her husband is about to hire a load of lawyers though[35], so I think we need to be very careful here. Someone please take a look and keep an eye on this! -- Kendrick7^talk 22:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I have done some necessary cleanup, mainly attributing opinions in Jessop's autobiography to the author (rather than asserting these opinions as facts), as well as some trimming. It may need a few more eyeballs for the next couple of weeks, given the current controversy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Aliza Shvarts and abortions as art

Wikipedians may want to watchlist the freshlisted Aliza Shvarts article - its a BLP of an individual who intentionally went on an abortion spree for artistic purposes. There may be repercussions. Skomorokh 21:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

List of Dominican Athletes With Unethical Sports Practices

Extreme BLP violation. I've nominated it for speedy deletion. Corvus cornix_talk 01:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

ellen Young

• Ellen Young (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Revision 204586172 contains potentially libelous statements inserted by 162.83.173.22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). I recommend it be deleted from the article's history. MrPrada (talk) 06:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Genie (feral child)

• Genie (feral child) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is an issue of whether or not it is ok to include this person's real name according to WP:Biographies of living persons#Privacy of names.

WP:RFC/BIO yielded no help. For An Angel (talk) 12:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I put a note in the article talk page. Wanderer57 (talk) 17:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I did too.--Slp1 (talk) 22:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. For An Angel (talk) 17:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Sandra Lee (cook)

• Sandra Lee (cook) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - article and talk page are regularly disrupted by BLP violations
• Biff714 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - WP:SPA editing this article and its talk page only, usually in violation of WP:BLP
• 68.50.248.111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - recent, one-time vandal
• 71.167.234.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - recent BLP violator, one day only
• LIG177991 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - SPA, recent BLP violator, one day only
• Charliebb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - SPA, recent BLP violator, two days only
• LLP JET (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - only one edit
• Tidyboy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - only one edit

Most likely other editors as well, but I think the problems are obvious. --Ronz (talk) 17:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

See the ANI report on Biff714s editing --Ronz (talk) 17:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Doris Burke

Doris Burke (closed)

Jason Leopold

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

• I'm not a BLP expert, but a couple of IP addresses (presumably the individual in question) have been making what amount to legal threats on Jason Leopold, complete with terse legal documentation and other things. Can someone who is experienced in this actually deal with it? --Haemo (talk) 03:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Tom Papania

My name, Brian Karjala, has been dragged through the mud at the above mentioned page. I've tried to make corrections but the false information about me remains. I was not fired from James Dobson's Focus on the Family. Nor have I admitted to receiving counseling for depression. The slanderous author gives people the impression that "he" had a conversation with me, which is not true. The author also implies guilt by association by attempting to link me to the financial crime of my former Focus on the Family supervisor. My reputation as an online minister is potentially damaged by the slander on that Tom Papania Wikipedia page. On my personal websites I've reported factual information about Papania's fraud which is why I've been slandered by this individual and/or his supporters. It is character assassination without addressing any of the info from my reports (though some links to my sites are provided). Can I obtain the IP address or identity of the individual who has posted the false information about me (for potential legal action)? What are my options? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.219.187.232 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject) gives a pretty good summary of what your options are, and how you can proceed. In the meantime, since you've already mentioned the article, we can look at the article and remove any unsourced information, with might also resolve your issue. -- Ned Scott 05:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

While I don't know if you are Brian or not, none of the content that mentioned that individual had a reliable source, and thus I've removed it from the article. I will try to keep an eye on it, and hopefully others will who see this discussion page will do the same. If you still feel it necessary, you can send an e-mail and follow the instructions on Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject). -- Ned Scott 05:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate your help. 71.219.187.232 (talk) 17:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Monique D. Davis

• Monique D. Davis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

IMO, this is not really a biography, but a stub bio with a large section about one negative incident. I wanted to split that off into an article on the incident, but was reverted. More eyeballs welcome. <eleland/talkedits> 22:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Joe Scarborough

• Joe Scarborough (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

editors are trying to insert Christian Terrorist as a label in front of a person that Scarborough tried to represent. There is no reliable source describing this person as such and it wasn't what Scarborough was defending him for (Scarborough tried to defend him in a capital murder case). The only reason to inlude the pejorative is to smear Scarborough as a defender of Christian terrorism or a christian terrorist. Even the article on the killer doesn't describe him as a christian terrorist as there is no reliable source that uses that label. --DHeyward (talk) 22:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, he did gun down an abortion doctor while shouting, "stop killing babies," so one can sort of understand why the label just might be appropriate. Nor do there appear to be "no reliable sources" calling him a terrorist; try Google Scholar, Google Books, Google News... <eleland/talkedits> 23:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I don;t mind his article having it, but in Scarboroughs its a form of ad hominem and is used to paint him as a defender of terrorism. It's enough to describe the crime without the pejorative label. The editor is attempting to smear scarborough, not the killer.--DHeyward (talk) 23:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The news links didn't seem to use the term to describe the individual. --DHeyward (talk) 23:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

As it is, that small segment of his life is only highlighted in blogs that oppose Scarborough. It is a very small segment and has a WP:UNDUE problem as well. It's not really relevant or comaprative to his other accomplishments since in essence all he did was refer this person to another lawyer. --DHeyward (talk) 23:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Chanelle Hayes

• Chanelle Hayes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am having to repeatedly remove graffiti added that is erroneous and put there to spread rumour and hate form this page. Their is much controversy surrounding Miss Hayes and people get very emotional about the rumours put out in certain websites and winds up on the page having no basis in fact. I am trying to keep the page subjective and simple as the more there is the more I have to edit. I fear if I do not look in there on a daily basis to clean up erroneous and subjective/libellous info then t page will deteriorate and I want to help Wickipedia keep this page clear on rumour and usubstantiated hearsay. I hope the moderators understand.Nightfactoy (talk) 00:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I indefinitely semi-protected the article, which should stop most of the nonsense. However, I am also concerned at some of the material added by autoconfirmed editors. CIreland (talk) 17:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Category:American criminals

There's a dispute over at Category talk:American criminals over how liberally the category should be added to articles, and I thought it might be of interest to participants here. Be advised that this debate stems from the long-running dispute at Peter Yarrow (now in mediation, with this being the most relevant sub page). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

At the same time, an alleged archive of American Criminals has been posted on the talk page of User:John celona that raises grave BLP concerns. David in DC (talk) 02:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Caroline_Cox

• Caroline Cox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is a dispute going on with an editor who is wishing to insert into the article a quote in which an individual has stated that Caroline Cox is an "Armenian nationalist". However Caroline Cox is not an ethnic Armenian, has no Armenian ancestry whatsoever, has no Armenian family members, is not a citizen of Armenia, and does not live in Armenia. For that reason the claim that she is an "Armenian nationalist" cannot be true. I have been arguing that this physical impossibility of the claim being true makes the quote invalid for inclusion in a biography of a living person, regardless of the fact that the quote comes from a verifiable source which has attributed the statement to a named individual. Meowy 17:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Herbert Schildt

There seems to be a recurrence of problematic editing on this article, referring to "Criticisms of Schildt's books" [36] but with rather poor sourcing (apparently blogs, Usenet FAQs, etc), and referring to a neologism, "bullschildt". I would appreciate it if someone else took a look this time, as my own trimming down after an earlier outbreak of this attack material has been challenged and it would be unseemly to get into a personality contest. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 22:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Pritam

I don't normally pay much attention to BLPs, but I just noticed this page, (it was linked on the RefDesk), and it seems like a very negative article to be both unsourced and about a (presumably) living person.

There is a sort of a reference in the external links section, but that seems to be some sort of POV heavy blog or something. The history shows that a few other questionable links have been removed from the article, often by bots. APL (talk) 05:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Christopher Gillberg

• Christopher Gillberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - this article needs urgent attention. Some anonymous users have been active there lately, now joined by a single-use account TIAA Is An Acronym (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Two things are happening: false accusations about "alleged scientific misconduct" are being added to the article (the accusations of misconduct against the subject of the article was examined and dismissed by the ethical board and are without basis--they are not even "alleged") and ref tags linking to court records, news reports and government records are being replaced by blog entries and private translations on a self-published site. I have reverted this user twice tonight. The article has a long history of edit warring along similar lines, and at one point a user even tried arbitration as a way to include various accusations against the subject (after which the article received lots of attention, was protected and the false accusations along with the POV activities finally died down). I think it's about to restart. Pia (talk) 08:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)