Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.
This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input. Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem. Search this noticeboard & archives Sections older than 7 days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. Additional notes: Edits by the subject of an article may be welcome in some cases. For general content disputes regarding biographical articles, try Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies instead. Editors are encouraged to assist editors regarding the reports below. Administrators may impose contentious topic restrictions to enforce policies.

mohamed faarax aidid

Mohamed Farrah Aidid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Presidents of Somalia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

somalia has never had a president since mohamed siad barre (1991) - ali mahdi mohamed was a self-declared one but for a short period of time between january and june 1991. Please remove mohamed faarax aidid and hussein mohamed faarax aidid from somalian presidents' list. There is no somalia central state since 1991. Merci

(Undent)You make a good point. I have left a note at the list's talk page, pointing here to BLPN. Following are excerpts from the Concise Encyclopaedia of World History by Carlos Ramirez-Faria (Atlantic Publishers & Dist, 2007):

Somalia fragmented into warlordist fiefs in 1991 and Barre had to leave the country....Since 1995, Somaliland [northern Somalia] has been stable with its own president, Mohammed Haji Ibrahim Egal....Elections gave the presidency of Somaliland to Dahir Rayale Kahin, re-elected in 2003....A count by a reporter in November 2003 put at five the number of would-be presidents of Somalia.

So, it looks like you're correct that Barre was the last president, and the others should come off the list.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:22, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, User:86.89.241.108 is incorrect. Somalia has had several internationally-recognized presidents since the outbreak of the civil war in 1991, including Abdiqassim Salad Hassan (the former Minister of Interior) and Abdullahi Yusuf Ahmed (the former President of the autonomous Puntland region). The passage above refers to the various militia leaders, such as Ali Mahdi Mohamed and the late Mohamed Farah Aideed, who, in the period immediately following the outbreak of the war, competed between themselves for power and in the process declared themselves president. Somalia has also had various internationally-recognized federal bodies since that period, including the Transitional National Government and the current Transitional Federal Government. Middayexpress (talk) 07:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Middayexpress, thanks for responding here. Aidid's Wikipedia article says: "Aidid then declared himself President of Somalia in June 1995,[4] but his government was not internationally recognized." If that's correct, then Aidid shouldn't be listed as a President of Somalia, should he? Aidid is not a living person, but he still needs to come off the list, along with anyone else (living or dead) who was not internationally recognized.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:21, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Aidiid indeed was not actually internationally-recognized as president. And anyone who was not internationally-recognized as president should be removed from the list. Middayexpress (talk) 07:36, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

International recognition is different from a country's recognition as per its constitution. For instance, some conflict regions are not accepted internationally, but accepted by some neighbouring countries. It could be mentioned in the "Notes" in List of Presidents of Somalia. So, the argument carries less weightage here. --Freknsay (talk) 08:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

For instance, Azad Kashmir is the Pakistani administered part of Kashmir. This is not internationally recognised as a seperate country or state, since India is claiming that this region belongs to them. This region is only recognized by Pakistan, and not by any other country or UN.

It has its own elected president, prime minister, legislature, high court, and official flag. Azad Kashmir has it own Judiciary as well with Khawaja Shahad Ahmad as its present Chief Justice.

In wiki, we have List of Presidents of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, even though this is not internationally recognized. Just my thoughts.. --Freknsay (talk) 07:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay thanks for that. I think the situation is a bit different, though, since we're talking about self-proclaimed presidents of an internationally recognized country as opposed to leaders of territories (sub-national or otherwise) with little or no recognition. The men Anythingyouwant alludes to above, Aideed and Ali Mahdi, are militia leaders from the Somali Civil War. They both claimed to be President of Somalia after they had managed to topple the regime of the former President and long-time strongman Siad Barre. As far as I'm aware, neither of the two rebel leaders was ever recognized as President by the international community. They just wielded a lot of influence locally. That's I think what Anythingyouwant was getting at. Cheers, Middayexpress (talk) 07:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

If there was someone who was not recognized as president of Somalia by the international community, but was recognized as president of Somalia by virtually the whole country of Somalia, then that might be worth noting at the list, but as far as I know such a person never existed in Somalia. Sometimes (e.g. in 2003), as many as five people in Somalia were claiming to be president of the country at the same time. The Kashmiri situation is quite different. The Somaliland subregion of Somalia has had widely-recognized presidents even when the whole country did not have a widely-recognized president, and indeed we have a List of Presidents of Somaliland, but those people shouldn't be listed in List of Presidents of Somalia, IMO.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

There already is a List of Presidents of Somaliland, just as there is a List of Presidents of Puntland (whose presidents are also widely recognized). At any rate, it would appear that Ali Mahdi Mohammed did enjoy some recognition as President within the international community: "at the second Djibouti conference (Aideed boycotted the first) held between 15 and 21 July 1991, Ali Mahdi was elected interim President of Somalia for a period of two years[...] Because of the legitimacy conferred on Ali Mahdi by the Djibouti conference, his government was recognized by several countries, including Djibouti, Egypt, Italy, and Saudi Arabia" [1]. His former cohort Aideed, on the other hand, didn't. So perhaps, given your assertion above, Ali Mahdi should be re-added to the list. Middayexpress (talk) 08:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

From what I can figure out, Ali Mahdi Mohammed was inaugurated as President in August 1991 and Aidid pledged to support him. They even signed a cooperation agreement. But by October 1991 Aidid rejected the legitimacy of the government.[2] So, I suppose we could list Ali Mahdi as President, but figuring out the end date may be kind of difficult.Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Middayexpress (talk) 17:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Sounds convincing. Thanks --Freknsay (talk) 06:52, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

family kocovic

AS I REMEMBER as a child about my fathers side of the family, Kocovic, my grandparents Savo and Milijana have roots in Monte Negro, now I am not completely sure how long ago was that family Kocovic migrated, however they settled in Ribnica, near Kraljevo. Savo and Milijana had Cedomir, Dragomir, Milijana (Mica), Dusan (my father) and three other kids. My grandfather Savo is killed during WW-II on his doorstep by chetniks, while his two sons where killed in Banjica, concentration camp, during WW-II. Their property has been confiscated by Yugoslavian goverment in 1945. and they are left with small block of land. All of Kocovic family has been fighting against fashist regime, some of them has perished but some of them like Milijana, Dusan, Cedomir and Dragomir survived WW-II. Kocovic Dragomir (nearly blind) and Kocovic Dusan have had carear in Yugoslav army, long time retired before civil war on Balkans erupted.

Resolved

 – Considering stale as page isn't being disputed after almost 2 weeks.

Robert W. Harrell, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This individual is a politician in South Carolina. Information that reflects negatively upon him has been removed from his biography on more than one occasion and replaced with puffery, likely written by members of his staff.  Working - I will check into this and see who is doing it and if it is an IP, I would recommend semi protection. If it needs some "re-writing" or something, I will take a stab at that as well.  JoeGazz  ♂  00:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, it looks as if it's stale. Today is the 11th and they haven't caused any issues since DeltaQuad protected it on the 3rd. I would consider this stale but recommend to the admins blocking the accounts removing referenced information, repeatedly, which becomes vandalism after a period of time.  JoeGazz  ♂  00:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Animal X

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

Article 'animal x (band) is about a music band from the country of romania. Please consider it is not a living person. It got me confused expression wikipedia:biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons.. should it not tagg articles for living characters in the band?

Gudrun Schyman

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

I'm Swedish, and thus have a lot more sources availible than the average wikipedian with regards to the subject. Still, this was (is) a mess of such proportions that I don't think I can fix it. Maybe crowdsourcing it here can make it less headache-inducing. Good grief.

Jane Fonda

• Jane Fonda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I would like to get some feedback on the following addition: [3]. It is being argued that since the original source of the quote cannot be found it cannot be included in the article, despite the numerous references to it on many WP:RS's and a lack of any sources that challenge it. ZHurlihee (talk) 15:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia actually prefers secondary and WP:Independent sources for things like this; they show that the quotation is worth mentioning. The absence of (for example) a publicly available recording of the original speech is therefore irrelevant.

If the fact that she said this had been seriously disputed in reliable sources, then that would need to be mentioned, or considered as a reason to remove it under WP:UNDUE. However, the mere fact that the WP:PRIMARY source isn't easily available is irrelevant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

This has all the hallmarks of a phony quotation. There are no identifiable contemporaneous news reports found that verify the quote, or even that Fonda gave a speech at the supposed site (Michigan State University). In fact, these "reliable" sources give at least two different dates (1969 and 1970, typically on November 22, the anniversary of the JFK assassination, which seems a bit convenient), and at least two different locations (Duke and MSU). It looks like the first press reports of it turn up in 1972, after Fonda's notorious sojourn to North Vietnam. Fonda said and did a lot of stupid things, and they were generally reported by the press as they happened. The reliably-documented ones are all we need to write a comprehensive article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

It looks like a well-referenced fact, to me; it's widely reported in numerous reliable sources [4] - to revert it as "unsourced or poorly sourced" when it has a book ref and NY Times isn't good. It might not be true, but it's not our job to judge that; the text actually stated According to several sources (indicating the potential doubt). If there's some RS actually claiming it might not be true, then fair enough, we could explain that - possibly a footnote?

As to whether it is appropriate per WP:UNDUE...that's another matter entirely, and could be discussed on the talk page. But from what I've seen, I don't know why you think it isn't reliably documented. We don't need to work out who originally reported it.

But I do suggest more discussion, input from others, before reinstating it of course.  Chzz  ► 

Our BLP policy needs to be paramount. If we think it's not true, it shouldn't be in a BLP even if we can verify that others have said she said it. Dougweller (talk) 06:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The supposed "New York Times" ref appears to be an online reader's comment. As for being "well-referenced," when an inflammatory quotation like this is reported without contemporaneous evidence, but with multiple inconsistent dates and locations attached, that's not exactly a signal of reliable reporting. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:52, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The Bloch/Umansky book published by NYU Press confirms the quote on page 246. This book is a fine source to use for a BLP; the only source needed for including the quote. Binksternet (talk) 18:20, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

That's silly. If it were the only report, perhaps. But the existence of multiple, contradictory reports undermines the reliability of the entire set. There's a notorious fake Lincoln quote that was often cited in "reliable" sources, including many books, until Ronald Reagan used it in a speech, leading to such widespread public debunking that it's now only rarely trotted out. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:35, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Coming late here, but I agree with Hellaballoo, this is just too poorly sourced and given that I don't think the Block/Umansky book should be seen as reliable for this. If it came from Lee Winfrey where is the original? Dougweller (talk) 15:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Just read the talk page (should have read that first) and it seems even more dubious, I note for instance Binksternet has changed his mind. Dougweller (talk) 15:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed I have changed my mind. There are too many conflicting versions of this quote to sort out the truth. Binksternet (talk) 00:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• The Washington Times says this. [5]

“ On Nov. 21, 1970 she told a University of Michigan audience of some 2,000 students, "If you understood what communism was, you would hope, you would pray on your knees that we would some day become communist." At Duke University in North Carolina she repeated what she had said in Michigan, adding "I, a socialist, think that we should strive toward a socialist society, all the way to communism." ”

I kept checking for a reliable source in the news, and found this thankfully. That clears things up. Dream Focus 00:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Good job, DreamFocus. That's not only 1 reliable source, but 2. -- Avanu (talk) 00:28, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

That Bruce Herschensohn column looks like an opinion piece rather than a news article.   Will Beback  talk  00:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

There's no indication in the article where the reporter gathered the information. I don't think that this Washington Times article helps in the slightest. Binksternet (talk) 00:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

No, that Washington Times piece is an opinion piece and we never use opinion pieces for BLPs (and Washington Times is notoriously unreliable in such articles anyway, simply repeating rumors and half-truths found on the internet without fact-checking or attribution). This clearly is not good enough for highly contentious factual claims. --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:55, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• Continued the discussion on the proper talk page. Verifiability not truth, is Wikipedia's policy. Ample reliable sources have been stating this for decades now. Dream Focus 06:19, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Zara Phillips

Resolved

 – User:Reaper Eternal Move Protected Zara Phillips (expires 22:48, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

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

As she is not changing her name upon marriage can someone revert this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zara_Tindall and possibly move protect it at least for now given the marriage has just happened so drive by page moves are likely. thanks RafikiSykes (talk) 22:06, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I moved it back to Phillips and requested temporary move protection. Off2riorob (talk) 22:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Adam Levine

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

The article insists on including that Adam Levine is part Jewish, even though it is completely unnecessary. It also falsely cites two sources which have nothing to do with Levine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.205.233 (talk) 13:27, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Here we go again... Yup, it looks like a classic case of ethno-tagging, right down to comments about his maternal grandmother. As for the sources, can you say which ones are problematic? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Here we go again, fanatical scrubbing of all mention of Jewish ancestry... this was the source:[6]. Fences&Windows 22:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

That citation asserts that the subject fits in the cat - People with three non Jewish grandparents - Off2riorob (talk)

"Levine's father and grandfather on his mother's side were both Jewish". Edenc1 • Talk 16:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Levins father was half Jewish one of his four grandparents was a full Jew, the other three were not Jewish at all. The majority are clearly more notable than the minority - or at least deserve a mention. Is it correct to focus on the minority - The subjject himself refused a Bar Mitzvah and self describes as an atheist. This Levin is a quarter Jew, and fits in the cat - People whose genetics are seventy five percent not Jewish - Off2riorob (talk) 19:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

And this Levine is in the Category:American people of Jewish descent which is correct, that's what the source says, he is descended from one Jewish ancestor. Is that not sufficient, already? CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 22:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Ancestry/descent categories are not mutually exclusive. Stop being so fanatical with the Jew-scrubbing, it's really tiresome. Fences&Windows 01:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Another unintelligible response, this makes no senses F&W. Fanatical, eh? And what does one scrub a Jew with I wonder? CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 11:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• Agree w/Cullen. Looking through this long string, including the below, I find Cullen's comments above to be the most convincing. We follow the RSs. That's a good way to avoid POV.--~~

• - note - from my talkpage but related to thus discussion.- == Adam Levine ==

Hello Off2riorob,

The reference discussed at WP:BLPN states that his father is Jewish, as well as his grandfather on his mother's side. The implication of stating his father is Jewish is that his paternal grandparents are also Jewish. So that's 50% of his grandparents, plus the 25% that is his maternal grandfather. So, if we are into tracking percentages of Jewish ancestry, that comes to 75% not the 25% you repeatedly stated. I think it is fair to say he's of Jewish ancestry, though clearly, according to the source, not religiously observant. Please also be sensitive about exegesis of Jewish ancestry that calls to mind antebellum Southern categories like quadroon and octaroon. Such analyses make a mockery of my sons, born to a Jewish mother and a non-Jewish father (me) who converted to Judaism after their birth. My boys would object to being called "half Jewish". They live in a 99% non-Jewish mileu, but are proud young Jews. It is all complex and very, very sensitive. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Its not sensitive - you are a convert to Judaism and not ethnically Jewish at all. Your sons sound like religiously practicing ethnic half Jews. As regards Levine, one of his grandparents is Jewish - the Jewish post is calling his father Jewish - but the fact is that one of his parents is not Jewish at all and only one out of four of his grandparents is Jewish - he is more not Jewish than he is Jewish. Off2riorob (talk) 05:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

"It is all very complex and very, very sensitive". True enough. But is it sensitive enough to (a) ask the opinion of the subject of the BLP whether he/she wishes to be labelled unambiguously 'Jewish', and (b) establish that this 'sensitive' issue is one that should be used as ammunition in the endless ethnotagging warfare that goes on in Wikipedia? Frankly, I suspect that 'sensitivity' is the least of the concerns of several of those involved in this debate. Still, who cares about people, when we can argue about abstractions... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

You are misreading the source, Off2riorob. The source says that his father is Jewish. Therefore, it is highly likely that his paternal grandparents are both Jewish. His maternal grandfather is Jewish according to the source, therefore it is highly likely that three of his four grandparents are Jewish. How do you reach the conclusion that only one of his grandparents are Jewish and that he is "more not Jewish" than Jewish, in terms of ancestry or ethnicity? Are you assuming that his paternal grandparents are not Jewish? What is the reasonable basis for such an assumption? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

As for "ethnotagging", Andy, the subject of the BLP openly discusses his Jewish ethnic background in the referenced source. He could have declined to comment if he wished to. You won't find me arguing to categorize him as religiously Jewish, because the source makes it clear he isn't. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:15, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

"it is highly likely" - the source does not support it. Off2riorob (talk) 06:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Nice try. A Jewish media source asks specific questions about his background. He gives polite answers to the questions asked. So this means that he accepts everything the Wikipedia ethnotaggers wish to state about him? Yeah, right. And incidentally, if he isn't 'religiously Jewish' (which he isn't), is he 'Jewish' at all? Logic might suggest at least partly (ethnically), but given the fact that the article (before I removed the ethnotagging) went out of its way to point out that his maternal grandmother wasn't Jewish, according to Halachic law, he isn't. I think this is nonsense, but the ethnotaggers tend to argue otherwise - except here they don't. I wonder why? - Actually, I don't. Sadly, Wikipedia suffers from a surfeit of POV-pushers and obsessives from all sorts of backgrounds, who will use whatever argument they can to slap a label on someone, regardless of what they argued the last time. If Adam Levine considers himself Jewish, and is proud of the fact, good for him - but that is for him to decide, not the Wikipedia Committee for Ethnobureacratic Classification and Stereotyping. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep ethnicity out of it. I think WP:BLPCAT and Wikipedia_talk:Categorization/Ethnicity,_gender,_religion_and_sexuality are pretty clear here. If the ethnicity/religion is ambiguous, keep it out. NickCT (talk) 16:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

NickCT—A person can believe that there is no God, and that the moon is made out of green cheese—and still be a Jew. Being a Jew is not predicated on holding any particular beliefs. Also, you are referring to "ethnicity". That is original research. No source that I have been able to find says anything about Adam Levine being an "ethnic Jew" or anything along those lines. You've got to stick to real language, which is to say, the language used by reliable sources. You are pointing to policy at WP:BLPCAT, which specifically speaks of "belief":

"Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources."

In fact there is no "belief…in question" concerning Judaism because being a Jew is not predicated on holding any particular beliefs. Please note the following:

"A Jew is any person whose mother was a Jew or any person who has gone through the formal process of conversion to Judaism. It is important to note that being a Jew has nothing to do with what you believe or what you do." [7]

"According to Jewish law, a child born to a Jewish mother or an adult who has converted to Judaism is considered a Jew; one does not have to reaffirm their Jewishness or practice any of the laws of the Torah to be Jewish."[8]

Adam Levine was born to a non-Jewish mother. More importantly I have not found a reliable source stating that Adam Levine is Jewish. On the point of Adam Levine being born to a non-Jewish mother I think it is common knowledge that the liberal end of the spectrum of Judaism recognizes either parent as conferring Jewish identity on a child. But without a source stating that Adam Levine is Jewish, I don't think Adam Levine should be placed in any Category for Jewish identity. The notion that he is "ethnically" Jewish (you refer to his "ethnicity") is original research. No source that I have seen is using any such terminology. This is an especially important point because the majority of the world's Jewish people are not religious in any way. They may not hold any "beliefs" whatsoever of a religious nature and they may not partake of any religious "practices" whatsoever. But reliable sources are more than capable of verifying for us that they are Jewish. I am going to have to recommend that he be in no Categories relating to Jewish identity. Bus stop (talk) 21:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Bus stop, I have already pointed out repeatedly that 'Judaism 101' isn't WP:RS. Furthermore the second source you cite ('Who is a Jew?') cites the first as a source, so cannot be considered reliable either. Also, Halachic law is of no relevence to Wikipedia, as you well know. Please stop wasting peoples time with the same poor arguments repeated ad nauseam, and your own WP:OR interpretations of what 'ethnicity' means. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—I'm not even using the word "ethnicity". I'm not sure why you are referring to "…your own WP:OR interpretations of what 'ethnicity' means." I am merely pointing out that not even one reliable source uses the term "ethnicity" or any related term in relation to Adam Levine. If you know of such a source please bring it to our attention.

Furthermore you are saying here that "…if he isn't 'religiously Jewish' (which he isn't), is he 'Jewish' at all?"

In fact there are Secular Jews. Is it your opinion that secular Jews are not Jewish? I think you are trying to apply a one-size-fits-all definition to Judaism and it does not fit.

A sampling from the lead of our Secular Jewish culture article:

"Secular Jewish culture embraces several related phenomena; above all, it is the international culture of secular communities of Jewish people, but it can also include the cultural contributions of individuals who identify as secular Jews."

Are they not Jews? The language above says otherwise. That, by the way, is the very first sentence of that article. Bus stop (talk) 22:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, they are. "Secular Jewish culture" is the culture of people who are (a) secular, and (b) see themselves as ethnically Jewish (not that Wikipedia meets WP:RS either). AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—you are inserting the term "ethnically Jewish". Sources in fact never describe a person as being "ethnically Jewish". That is purely your own language. It is often a good idea to stick to the actual language used by sources to avoid original research. The relevant point is that no source ever says that a Jew is a person that holds any particular "belief". But if you know of such a source please present it to us.

If we were to look at Christianity, by way of contrast, we see a different type of religion. The place of Jesus in Christianity makes for a religion different from Judaism. To "believe" that the figure Jesus in a spiritual form provides Salvation is clearly in the realm of belief. The terminology used in Christianity clearly alludes to this: one speaks of "believing" in Jesus. You do not ever hear any talk parallel to this in Judaism. And sources tell us straightforwardly that one need not hold any particular "belief" in order to be a Jew. Bus stop (talk) 12:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the term is used. Frequently and often. And even in a number of WP articles including BLPs, hence "never" is absurd. And the categorization of people has been found to be problematic at best - so Andy is on very solid ground. [9], [10], [11] show current news articles using the term. Need more? Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Collect—yes, the term is used, because all Jews are "ethnically Jewish", with the exception of converts to Judaism, as your 3 links above illustrate. Matisyahu, for instance, your first link above, is an Orthodox Jew. That is not how you are using the term "ethnically Jewish", and our article on Matisyahu does not, nor would it ever, refer to him as being "ethnically Jewish", because it would be redundant. Bus stop (talk) 12:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

You made a specific claim. The claim was shown to be wrong. Cheers. Andy has not been shown to be wrong. Cheers again. Collect (talk) 13:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

BTW, the cite reads specifically While always ethnically Jewish, Matisyahu was a late-bloomer in terms of his faith. Raised in White Plains, New York, his was a predominantly secular childhood with no strong connection to the sacred aspects of his Jewish heritage, or a belief in God. In short - he was not raised "Orthodox" nor was he always "Orthodox." And I suggest that more errors do not help your position on categorization. Cheers yet again. Collect (talk) 13:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Collect—that is correct, the quote reads: "While always ethnically Jewish, Matisyahu was a late-bloomer in terms of his faith." This is a reference to Matisyahu's having been born Jewish. Were you only using the phrase to refer to Jewish by birth I would have no objection. The source above is using the phrase correctly. Another point worth making is that this is a relatively rare usage. You don't for instance find the subject of this thread, Adam Levine, referred to by those phrases. Ethnic Jew and ethnically Jewish are rarely encountered, and they are never rarely used by reliable sources simply to refer to nonobservance. There are other, preferable terms, that well-written sources employ. They use terms like secular and nonobservant and assimilated for instance. We cannot employ a term like "ethnically Jewish" in a way basically inconsistent with the way a source uses it. Bus stop (talk) 14:34, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Bus stop, I used the term 'ethnically Jewish' on this talk page, because (a) it is common academic language when discussing ethnicity (which is what you are describing) in general terms, and (b) to distinguish from a person who is of the Judaic faith (which is a religion by any reasonable definition). Can I ask whether you agree that the terms I used are correct in general, for discussing the topic in neutral academic language, and if you don't to suggest any other way that a person can be described as 'Jewish' (again in neutral academic terms), other than by ethnicity, or by faith. 'secular' can only mean 'ethnically Jewish, but not having any religion', whereas the other terms you suggest are loaded, at minimum, in that they carry the implication that an ethnically-Jewish person ought to be a follower of the faith - and 'assimilated' is downright offensive. Talk page dialogue over complex issues needs to be conducted in the language appropriate to the topic in general, not the language preferred by a particular section within the group being discussed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

(e/c) Bus Stop, you appear to be being deliberately obtuse about this issue and repeatedly engage in the same debates/arguments left, right and centre. Above Below you state:

"One need not be religious to be Jewish. Secular Jews are just as "Jewish" as Orthodox Jews."

Well, unfortunately, for the purposes of Wikipedia, secular Jews are ethnically Jewish whereas Orthodox Jews are religiously Jewish, this is what the whole debate is about, IMHO. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 18:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

a jew is a jew. ortho or reform, secular or sephardi, tall or short. not sure why people feel a need to qualify it with adjectives. what's wrong with calling a jew, a jew? i understand explanations in a bio (like: while raised orthodox, she later became active in the conservative movement), but not adjectives. be brave - call a jew, a jew. let's see what happens. Soosim (talk) 14:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

What is wrong with reading a discussion before you comment? There seem to be no sources whatsoever that actually state that Levine is 'a Jew'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:34, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Sooism, your comment begs belief, especially seeing as what is written directly above your comment. Try reading Wikipedia:CATEGRS for example. What's wrong is that if their religion or ethnicity has no relevance to their notability or career, then it shouldn't be mentioned.

And adjectives are useful as in gay man and straight man, the first being homosexual and the second heterosexual, but according to your reasoning, damn, let's just call a man a man and not differentiate between the two. ??? I don't even know how to qualify this type of reasoning (sic). CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 15:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

CaptainScreebo—we do not have to stick to the language that you suggest here. We are free to choose from the language that relevant reliable sources provide us with. You are oversimplifying in your prescriptive language here. I think that a Jewish person can be observant, nonobservant, or in-between. I think the best way for all of us to proceed is to look for the language that reliable sources provide us with. Bus stop (talk) 15:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, leave it out Bus stop. An ethnically Jewish person (which as yet we have no reason to see Levine as) may or may not be of the Judaic faith. Thank you for stating the blindingly obvious. Now go find (a) a source that states that Levine is Jewish (in any way whatsoever) and (b) a logical reason why this should be noted in the article beyond your wish to tag as many Jews as you can. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh I see Andy beat me to it, yes leave it out, I am not suggesting what language one should use, I am pointing out the difference to you between a secular/ethnic Jew and a practising/Orthodox/religious Jew, look I didn't want to say this to Sooism, but let's start handing out the yellow stars again shall we?

I know this is deeply offensive and it's not aimed at anyone in particular, but you are doing the work of the anti-semitic brigade too in keeping your ridiculous arguments going, basically anyone with Jewish heritage, whether they are observant or not is a Jew right? Both the pro- and anti- brigades wish to tag anyone and everyone possible to advance their personal agendas, Wikipedia is not a WP:BATTLEground, do you do anything else but repeatedly (and doggedly) intervene as soon as there is a discussion about whether someone should be labelled Jewish (secular or religious if you prefer) or not? CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 16:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes it is offensive, but also confusing. It's not clear what your point is. Nobody is tagging here, or doing the work of Nazis. There's a persistent debate among a small group of editors about Jewish identity and Jewish-related categories, that continues to spill over into multiple discussion boards, and seems to involve taunts, name-calling, and apparently Nazi comparisons. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but it is clear, if you read the above (recent) discussion, Wikipedia has clearly defined policies about BLPs, categories, religion and ethnicity, and the notability and relevance of such attributes to the person's fame/career, which a small group of editors repeatedly ignore. Saying a jew is a jew, no matter what, whether practising or just descended from Jewish ancestry, is reminiscent of the criteria used by Nazi Germany to differentiate between Aryans and non-Aryans, see this section for example. And this behaviour is demonstrated by both pro- and anti-semitic povs, despite the policy, guidelines and so on being repeatedly explained, pointed out etc. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 14:19, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

If someone is sourced of being of Jewish descent or background then they are sourced as such. If someone is sourced as being of Jewish religion, same thing but then they fall into a preference against categorization by religion unless it's relevant to their notability. The sources use a number of different terms depending on the context, and which sources. Whether that makes a person "a Jew" or not is beyond the scope of the encyclopedia. Bringing in the Holocaust raises complex questions without resolving things. One easy lesson is not to categorize people because that is a tool of bigotry. A contrary lesson of history is that Jews are foolhardy to ignore their Jewishness through denial or assimilation because the world will not let them forget. In any event group identity has various criteria: self-definition, scholarly / academic, external definition, historical, and so on. Wikipedia covers matters of identity and culture to the extent the sources consider it worthy of note, as we reflect the state of human knowledge as it stands, not as it should be. This is a question of identity politics more than it is of BLP concerns like sourcing and harm -- Levine's ancestry and religious background are or should be clear from the sources so we're not maligning him by claining any untruths -- which is why the endless rehashing of Jewish labels on this page doesn't seem to go anywhere. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• One easy lesson is not to categorize people because that is a tool of bigotry.

This conversation began because some people insisted on putting Levine's Jewish ancestry into the article and making him Jewish, whereas he states in one of the sources quoted above that he does not follow the Jewish faith and prefers a wider, more open spirituality, enough time on this, look through the conversation to find the ref. End of story. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 17:18, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

CaptainScreebo—This is off-topic:

"…let's start handing out the yellow stars again shall we?"[12]

And from your same post as the above, this is off-topic:

"…you are doing the work of the anti-semitic brigade…"[13]

This is off-topic:

"Saying a jew is a jew, no matter what, whether practising or just descended from Jewish ancestry, is reminiscent of the criteria used by Nazi Germany to differentiate between Aryans and non-Aryans…"[14]

And from your same post as the above, this is off-topic:

"…this behaviour is demonstrated by both pro- and anti-semitic povs…"[15]

I don't think my own posts have been characterized by such widely ranging subject matter. In my first post I tried to address the topic raised at the beginning of this thread. I said:

"…I have not found a reliable source stating that Adam Levine is Jewish."[16]

And in my same post as above I said:

"…without a source stating that Adam Levine is Jewish, I don't think Adam Levine should be placed in any Category for Jewish identity."[17]

I and others have felt compelled to respond to off-topic comments posted by you and others. "Off-topic" in this case is I think a matter of degree. I think that you are going too far off-topic. I have only posted what in my opinion are the most egregiously off-topic of your comments. I am tempted to address your comments but they are far afield from anything germane to this discussion. We have Talk page guidelines that should be kept in mind. If I address your comments I will be complicit in perpetuating a discussion that is tangential at best to the ostensible purpose of this thread. I am also sure that such a discussion in this space will lead to nothing productive. This is not to say that I do not have what I think are adequate responses to the implications of the points that you raise. But I do not wish to address way off-topic discussion, and certainly not in this forum. Bus stop (talk) 15:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

tangential discussion about editor behavior
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
AndyTheGrump—you say that "And incidentally, if he isn't 'religiously Jewish' (which he isn't), is he 'Jewish' at all?" Though it is presented as an interrogative, it makes a point. The point is that your point is an incorrect one. One need not be religious to be Jewish. Secular Jews are just as "Jewish" as Orthodox Jews. I'm not addressing most of the above questions posed to me because your above statement, posed as an interrogative, is so completely incorrect. If you wish to modify your stance on that which I am quoting you as saying, please do. I am sure that sometimes I misspeak too. But if you are standing by your above quote, and I have asked you about it before in this thread, then it is obvious to me at least that there is no point in my trying to address the questions that you pose immediately above to me. Bus stop (talk) 16:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC) Bus stop, please stop being a Wikilawyering shit, and answer the question I asked, rather than dragging up a misleading half quotation of what I said. As everyone can plainly see, I wrote "And incidentally, if he isn't 'religiously Jewish' (which he isn't), is he 'Jewish' at all? Logic might suggest at least partly (ethnically), but given the fact that the article (before I removed the ethnotagging) went out of its way to point out that his maternal grandmother wasn't Jewish, according to Halachic law, he isn't. I think this is nonsense". Try a stunt like that again, and I will report you to AN/I (unless you wish to draw attention to your misbehaviour by complaining about my description of you, and beat me to it) AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC) AndyTheGrump—please exercise restraint so as not to violate our policies of wp:civil and wp:npa. I too get flustered but I try to exercise restraint. Obviously it is not pleasant to be spoken to in strongly negative terms and I never speak to you in such terms. I am worthy of respect just as you are worthy of respect. We can disagree without being disagreeable as the cliche says. Also this is not just about you and I. There are others here. We have a job to cultivate a pleasant and welcoming atmosphere here. That is a responsibility to others that I recognize, and I try not to set a bad example that other editors might follow, including editors who might just be familiarizing themselves with editing Wikipedia. Bus stop (talk) 17:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC) I'm not interested in your patronising waffle. There is nothing whatsoever remotely 'pleasant' about deliberately misrepresenting another contributors comments. If you don't like the language, don't engage in behaviour that justifies it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

For some reason we have a perpetuation of this issue with this edit and this edit.

Now the issue seems to be, if I understand the two edit summaries of the above, that the parent's attributes of identity are "inconsequential", a term probably borrowed from my prior edit here.

But there are some important distinctions between my earlier edit and the subsequent reverts. One important distinction is that no source whatsoever supports a statement that the subject is an "atheist". But more to the point, Bar mitzvah genuinely is inconsequential, while the attributes of identity of the parents are not.

A person is "Bar mitzvah" as a consequence of the passage of time—in the case of a male that point in time is reached at thirteen years of age; in the case of a female that point is reached at the age of 12. This source only references a party. As such it is pretty inconsequential. Furthermore no source, including that one, is saying that Adam Levine is Jewish; for Wikipedia purposes Adam Levine is therefore not Jewish.

Why would our article make a point of stating that someone did not have a Bar mitzvah party if our article is not even saying that Adam Levine is Jewish? Do non-Jews get Bar mitzvah-ed? Do non-Jews have Bar mitzvah parties? I removed that as "inconsequential".

Now another editor is removing the information that the father is Jewish and the mother is Protestant. This is a pointless tearing down of the article, as the attributes of identity of the parents are well-sourced, and they arguably are consequential.

We are permitted to provide the reader with well-sourced information on the background of the subject of the article, and the reader arguably might find this interesting. Bus stop (talk) 18:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

So you are seriously suggesting that Levine's mother's religious beliefs are consequential, while his aren't? Don't be ridiculous. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—I'm not understanding what you are saying, because I said nothing about Adam Levine's "religious beliefs". Why wouldn't the attributes of identity of parents be potentially includable material in biographies? Is this something particular to this article, or do you feel that the attributes of identity of parents should never be included in biographies? Bus stop (talk) 19:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

What the heck are "attributes of identity"? This isn't... well, fill in the grossly-inappropriate/entirely-reasonable comparison with some totalitarian state or another to taste. Like I said right at the beginning of this discussion, 'a classic case of ethno-tagging'. We cannot include random statements about people's parents just to satisfy the preoccupations of minority groups - particularly where not only does the person in question not identify with the said group, but where members of the said group are insisting that he isn't a member anyway. And to answer your more general question, no, I don't think that "attributes of identity" should be used in articles at all - because it is a phrase you've pulled out of a hat in an attempt to give some sort of academic credibility to your own peculiar worldview. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

In American Jewish culture, "having" a Bar Mitzvah generally refers to going through the ceremony. In some parts that's a perfunctory matter involving saying a few prayers, in others it is a rite of passage on the scale of a quinceanera. As to whether it's noteworthy that a person "refused" to have a Bar Mitzvah (note that refusing one is different than simply not having one), that's all a matter of sourcing and editorial discretion best reserved for the article talk page. Similarly, simply being agnostic or atheist isn't particularly noteworthy ([hhttp://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/08/23/eveningnews/main3199062.shtml unless perhaps you're Mother Teresa). However, if the sources establish one's loss of faith or rebellion against faith as being relevant, of due weight to the biography, etc., it is conceivably worth noting. Posing these questions as whether somebody is "ethno-tagging" or not is pretty much unintelligible for Wikipedia's purposes, as that's a behavior question rather than a content question, and even as a behavior matter the concept that editors should not take an interest in the ethnicity of people has not gained wide consensus. It does not matter to the encyclopedia what a source's or reader's inner motivations are for why they find a fact worthy of note, nor does it matter why an editor might be interested in the fact. What matters is whether the fact is sourced, relevant, of due weight, and so on. Many sources, and most written biographies, do find the national origin, ethnicity, culture, ancestry, and religion of a subject's parents to be worthy of note. For various reasons we tend to downplay religion where it is not related to a person's notability, but we do not downplay parentage and upbringing. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:39, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

We do not downplay parentage and upbringing". I'd of thought that refusing a Bar Mitzvah was relevant if you are discussing someone's upbringing - certainly as relevant as commenting that his mother was Protestant. In any case, we are not 'downplaying' anything - instead we are asking the entirely reasonable question as to whether any of this is worthy of inclusion in an article about an American musician. Or are you also suggesting that Levin's mother's religion is significant, but that his (lack of) faith isn't? This is a ludicrous proposition to make. Or is 'Protestant' actually an euphemism for 'not Jewish'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—a Jewish attribute of identity is associated with Adam Levine's father, is it not? I am not trying to "give some sort of academic credibility" to anything. I'm just trying to speak plain English. But I'm glad you asked me to clarify what I was saying. I never suggested using the phrase "attribute of identity" in article space. Look at the sentence that was in the article—it read "Levine is Jewish on his father's side..." I didn't write that sentence or alter it in any way. I think it is fine the way it is, because it adheres to the terminology used by the source. You came along and removed that sentence, which is why we are having this conversation. Bus stop (talk) 20:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikidemon—it would be more correct to say that he "declined" to have a Bar mitzvah. The word "refuse" isn't used in the source. Bus stop (talk) 20:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

No, " Jewish attribute of identity" isn't associated with anyone - identity isn't an attribute, it is a fluid, contextual cultural construct. The word you seem to be looking for, but avoiding, is "ethnicity" - though again, it is a complex social construct, rather than any sort of rigid 'attribute'. Incidentally, you seem to be rather confused as to what this 'identity' is in Levine's case: You have previously stated that in your opinion he isn't Jewish - but now you note that he declined to have a Bar Mitzvah. If he had accepted instead, would he be Jewish, in your opinion? If so, this would rather imply that the only person who can determine Levine's identity is Levine - and he seems to have declined to be classified. What does this tell you about 'attributes of identity'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—you ask:

"If he had accepted [a Bar mitzvah] instead, would he be Jewish...?"[18]

No, a Bar mitzvah would not make a person Jewish. A Jew is simply defined as a person who was born Jewish or converted to Judaism. The Jewish religion is different from the Christian religion in this regard. While it is true that Christianity recognizes conversion, Christianity places far less emphasis on Christian identity acquired at birth.

Of course, for Wikipedia purposes, a Jew is anyone identified by reliable sources as being Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 22:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

You haven't answered the question I asked: if Levine had accepted the Bar Mitzvah, would he in your opinion be Jewish? (Christianity seems to be a red herring here - I don't think anyone has suggested that Levine is a Christian). You seem to be asserting that being Jewish is an "attribute of identity", and I am trying to ascertain how one acquires this attribute, and whether this attribute has any material existence beyond the minds of those who wish to see it attributed (presumably not including Levine). Like I said, a social construct, and one with contested membership - so not an 'attribute' at all. For Wikipedia purposes, 'a Jew' is a label applied to some people by some others, some of the time... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—I have no opinion independent of Judaism. Who would listen to me, even if I did? I am simply parroting Judaism's definition of itself. My point in mentioning Christianity is that Christianity defines itself differently than Judaism does. Christianity is also the more influential religion: people tend to be more familiar with the way a Christian is defined than the way a Jew is defined. Bus stop (talk) 00:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

But "Judaism's definition of itself" is neither clear, nor consistent, as you yourself have acknowledged - to a the reform wing of Judaism, the fact of Levine's father being Jewish, combined with a commitment to the faith (presumably the Bar Mitzvah would be relevant here?), would make him 'a Jew', but to the orthodox wing, the fact that his mother appears not to be of Jewish descent would rule that out - without the explicit and complex process of 'conversion'. I note too that you are contrasting Judaism with Christianity, in spite of earlier stating that "religious beliefs" weren't relevant. The real point is that you are "parroting Judaism's definition of itself" - or at least your particular interpretation of it. As a matter of faith, it may be undeniable, but as a statement about the 'identity' of someone not of that faith, it is nothing more than opinion - unless of course, your faith is the 'correct' one - but that isn't for Wikipedia to decide. We cannot classify people according an 'identity' that derives from outside of them, except in as much as we can assert that others have used such term to describe them - and that is a dangerous game. Labels encourage stereotypes, and we have too many of these already. Adam Levine is a human being, and a musician, not a set of 'attributes' - and Wikipedia does everyone a disservice if it suggests otherwise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

• I replaced this - its all cited and users wanted to mention the subjects Jewish heritage , so whats the issue? - Levine is Jewish on his father's side and a Protestant on his mother's side. He refused a Bar Mitzvah and is an atheist. [6][7]

AndyTheGrump—Please don't attribute to me something that I never said:

"But Judaism's definition of itself' is neither clear, nor consistent, as you yourself have acknowledged…"[19]

In point of fact I have not "acknowledged" anything of the sort. Would you please provide a link to where you find me acknowledging anything remotely like that? Bus stop (talk) 04:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—you are here removing material from the Adam Levine article with an edit summary reading:

"It thus follows logically that if Levine's religious beliefs aren't noteworthy, then neither are his parents' (though you should read the source cited Bus stop)"

I'm unable to understand the above. Where has it been discussed whether Levine's religious beliefs were noteworthy or not? And even if such a discussion took place, what bearing would it have on whether or not we mention his parents? You are removing information from the article. For what reason? Bus stop (talk) 04:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Luke Evans (actor)

Topic has become a long magnet for trolls coming simply to complain. Content is being discussed on the talk page and looks to have some resolution. Closing to prevent further descent into chaos --Errant (chat!) 11:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Luke Evans (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) User "Acerroad" keeps deleting properly sourced and verified information regarding the personal life of this individual. The section should read: Luke Evans came out as gay in an interview with The Advocate in 2002.[3] In September, 2010, however, it was reported that he was dating a woman, Holly Goodchild, the former personal assistant of singer Charlotte Church.[4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pepe1958 (talk • contribs) 21:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC) Acerroad is correct to delete this. Evan's sexuality is of no relevance to the article: see WP:BLPCAT. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC) Disagree. Evans' himself spoke openly about his personal life in 2002. If this is removed, then all information regarding the personal lives of Angelina Jolie, Brad Pitt, and Jennifer Aniston should be removed, as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pepe1958 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC) Also, you cite WP:BLPCAT, yet the information about Evans' personal life fits the regulations stated there: he himself admitted as such in a reliable source and it was part of his notable achievements early as an actor, starring in the musical Taboo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pepe1958 (talk • contribs) 22:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC) Given that you yourself cite two contradictory sources, how can he possibly be unambiguously be categorised as 'gay'? As for Taboo, I fail to see the relevance: playing Shylock doesn't make you Jewish. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC) I have received a warning for engaging in an "edit war" and for making more than three revisions in a 24-hour period, which is untrue. I did not make more than 3 revisions in a 24-hour period. And the revisions I made were mostly to add proper references and citations to make the "Personal life" section conform to Wikipedia guidelines. Someone keeps deleting any reference to a publicly available interview that Mr. Evans did with The Advocate in 2002. The article is from a reputable source and verifiable. The article is only one of several magazine articles that Evans did over a period of several years in which Evans spoke at great length about being a publicly out gay actor. I don't understand why this information keeps getting removed when it is public record, quotes Evans himself, and comes from verifiable sources.JoeBotX (talk) 17:00, 7 August 2011 (UTC) There doesn't appear to be anything notable about his sexual preferences. And Jonny likes sex with men? Off2riorob (talk) 17:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC) If you're going to argue that there's nothing notable about his sexual orientation (not preferences), then you would have to argue that there is nothing notable about the sexual orientation of Ellen DeGeneres, Rosie O'Donnell, Ricky Martin, Neil Patrick Harris, or any other similarly out gay celebrity. So why aren't references to their sexual orientation being removed from their Wiki entries? The inconsistency is glaring. I'm sorry, but Evans' sexuality is notable, for reasons that Evans himself spoke about in the Advocate article (and other sources). In that article, he explained that his being out helped give gay teens and other aspiring actors have "hope for the future." He said he had received letters from fans praising his decision to come out. This is all public knowledge and public record. It's not a "dirty secret."JoeBotX (talk) 17:39, 7 August 2011 (UTC) orientation/preference(whatever) some peoples sexuality does become a part of their notability, this does not look like one of those cases to me. It is clearly not a dirty secret in any way - sexuality is normal in all things on the planet its just that it is rarely encyclopedic-ally notable. Also the claim of helping overs come out as being the notable thing, that is quite common actually. Johnny_Weir - if only one person can be helped by my coming out....as for support letters from fans, that doesn't seem anything but normal to me either. Weir's sexuality was very high profile and there had been massive speculation about it. Here in Oct 2010 he seems to have changed his mind/preference/orientation and was reported to be in a relationship/dating a woman. Off2riorob (talk) 17:46, 7 August 2011 (UTC) Why is this not "one of those cases"? Evans was publicly out to his family, his fans, the press, and the public for years. He has spoken about it at length in interviews with The Advocate, The Gay Times, QX Magazine, and other sources (most of which are freely available online). We're not talking about one quote or one article here. It is notable because he chose to make it notable. He chose to make it an issue. As for him changing his mind, I agree that if The Advocate article is mentioned, the article saying that he is now dating a woman should also be mentioned. But when I tried to also include a properly cited reference to that article in the Wiki entry, it too was removed.JoeBotX (talk) 18:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC) I would like to see those other interviews he has given about his sexuality, I have only seen the advocate, are the others simply reporting that one interview from 2002? - have you got the links to them? I don't see his sexuality as noteworthy really but others might, if you present other interviews asserting more notability to it you may have a case - if his gay comment earlier is mentioned it clearly stands to reason that if that is notable then having a relationship with a woman is also notable - I don't think either are notable but lets see what others think. Off2riorob (talk) 18:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC) Here is a link to the 2004 QX Magazine article, Luke Goes Hardcore. It's a pdf file of the entire issue, and I should warn you that there's some graphic content elsewhere in the magazine. The article talks about how being out has affected his career as an actor. In the article, Evans says, "I wasn't happy living a lie as I'd been living a lie for the majority of my life, so performing in Taboo was a good time to come out, and it hasn't bothered my career at all." The article also says "Luke does gay very well, which is not surprising, but it was encouraging to hear that he's never experienced any negative effects from being 'out' as an actor." I haven't seen the Gay Times article, but it preceded The Advocate article and is referenced in the first paragraph of the Advocate article.JoeBotX (talk) 18:51, 7 August 2011 (UTC) Thanks, section seven of the QX article, supports a pretty out gay man position, still not really anything that puts some bones on a reason to report his sexuality - I am of the position that being gay is not notable, others may support inclusion but to me being gay is not encyclopedic notable and neither is being orientated "straight" - which we never mention - Jonny really liked women. In 2002 and 2004 Evans was an "out" gay man and commented he came out for himself and hoped that it would help other gay men to come out. In 2010 he was reported to be dating a woman. - ... Off2riorob (talk) 19:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC) Thanks. Your last 2 sentences seem to sum it up nicely. The problem is that anytime I or any other user has tried to add something like those 2 sentences, it has been quickly deleted, usually by user Acerroad, who has made 35 edits to the page, but now also by user PitViper26. Usually, no explanation is given. Looking at the revision history for the page, the removal of any reference to Evans' sexuality or the Advocate article has been going on since October 2010 (one month after the article that said he is dating a woman appeared in the press). So, in the end, I guess this whole debate is pointless because even if something is added, it will simply get deleted again and the user who added it will be tagged for engaging in an "edit war."JoeBotX (talk) 21:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC) Please don't give up now, your contributions to this discussion are very beneficial. If you can create an addition with the cites, post it below, for support or oppose inclusion comments here and we can see a consensus among a few commenters then we could defend the removals and protect the article and block drive by users that repeatedly removed the consensus addition without discussion. As you say, this has been disrupting the Biography for over six months - we really need to end that one way or the other through this discussion here. - Off2riorob (talk) 21:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC) I may have to give up because I don't have time, and I'm not that invested in it. However, my recommendation would be that PitViper26's edit of 15:02, 7 August 2011 be undone, reverting the page back to the 03:25, 6 August 2011 revision by Acerroad. Acerroad is the user who has usually removed any reference to the Advocate article, or anything else about Evans' private life, sometimes within minutes of it being added. However, in his/her most recent edit, Acerroad allowed the reference to the Advocate article to remain intact, but added a couple of sentences about Evans now wanting to keep his private life private. Those sentences are a bit opinionated, but maybe they help clarify things. It had seemed that everything was resolved until PitViper26 then proceeded to remove the "Personal life" section. Undoing PitViper26's edit and reverting to Acerroad's most recent edit might be a compromise that would satisfy all users (except, obviously, PitViper26).JoeBotX (talk) 04:52, 8 August 2011 (UTC) If they've been confirmed by reputable news sources, why do they keep getting deleted? Do people want to censor the fact that Luke Evans is gay? AfterElton even ran a story on this today, talking about the Wikipedia article and showing screencaps of the page to two of its revisions. Can't we just include The Advocate quote, about him being openly gay (which is indisputable—he came out, that's not made-up) and the fact about him now dating a woman, as reported by WalesOnline? Why does it have to be so complicated? Leave something like those above two sentences, protect the page against whoever's edit warring for whatever reason, and leave it. He's either gay or bisexual to me, as in, it's kind of irrevocable that you speak about being out and proud basically, and now according to some fashion industry expert, he's dating her? It's notable. 220.239.157.22 (talk) 17:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC) It's a shame that my suggestion for how to resolve this issue was simply ignored. It could have avoided this whole ugly mess. Off2riorob asked me for a suggestion. I offered one -- revert to Acerroad's last edit -- Acerroad being the user who has in the past removed all references to the Advocate article, but in his/her most recent edit was OK with it, as long as there was also a mention of how Evans now tries to keep his private life private. It appears that what I said earlier was true: "I guess this whole debate is pointless because even if something is added, it will simply get deleted again and the user who added it will be tagged for engaging in an "edit war."JoeBotX (talk) 15:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC) This is not a BLP issue. We have two very reliable sources where Evans says he is gay and furthermore, links its strong relevance to his acting career. We have another reliable source (Wales Online) reporting that he is in a heterosexual relationship; WalesOnline is reliable, even if they are clearly publishing churnalism floated by a publicist (but this is not relevant to the strength of the citation). AfterElton are also very reliable, and have published a synthesis of this discrepancy and a reliably-attributed comment from Evans' management where they more or less admit to telling him to keep quiet about being gay. However, that inference is for the reader to draw. As of my last revision, the article is entirely factual and not contestable by crying BLP.Zythe (talk) 17:26, 8 August 2011 (UTC) It is a BLP issue - what is notable about this persons sexual preferences/outlook? Nothing has been presented here. Off2riorob (talk) 17:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC) What isn't? You have the burden of proof, unfortunately. Your last edit was to remove highly-cited and interesting material (ie. notable in its implications for how management handles celebrities' sexualities in public, and for how Evans related his sexuality to his acting process in 3, possibly 4 interviews with gay magazines) and restored a completely unverified section about his Early Life which was violation of BLP. So I don't think you're actually debating policy, but you have an objection to the content which remarks on his being gay (or not gay - we cannot officially 'categorise' him as long as there is contradictory evidence). I would contend that reverting you isn't even 3RR because you are making clearly disruptive edits based on an assumption that his personal life is not relevant to Wikipedia (a personal conviction), which you can take up as a topic of discussion cocerning what Wikipedia is for. But you can do that elsewhere. It's not about consensus because there are clear facts and policies in play.Zythe (talk) 17:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC) It might be interesting to you but peoples sexuality is not generally notable. Off2riorob (talk) 17:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC) Unfortunately your opinion is moot, because it doesn't affect Wikipedia's remit. And it frequently is notable when it surrounds how a management company suppresses information and keeps up the publicity machine. If you have any declared interest in this page -- not that I'm assuming bad faith -- I would argue that trying to stall it in violation of Wikipedia policy will only draw further attraction to you from not just gay press, but Nationals. A good story for a left-wing National would be how in the run-up to a big film, a publicist company is trying to bury Internet evidence of their commodity being or having been openly gay. It would be best to let Wikipedia sit, unnoticed by the majority of people, and not attract spotlights. You don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to policy and to try and revert the page, as you admit on my talk page, continually for six months is not fair practice. There isn't a single good reason why this page should be under dispute because this is not a BLP issue whatsoever.Zythe (talk) 17:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC) Demanding to focus without valuable educational detail on someones sexual preference is a BLP issue. Off2riorob (talk) 17:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC) You 1) refuse to acknowledge anything I have said, and 2) don't seem to know i) what BLP is and ii) what Wikipedia is for. This is getting embarrassing for you.Zythe (talk) 18:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC) I laugh at your claim of embarrassment. Please stick to the content dispute and focus on that, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 18:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC) As cited and discussed previously, the BLP policy says that if the person in question has stated the fact is true and its quoted in a reliable source, it's fine. As an up and coming actor in an industry where homosexuality has been and still frequently is covered up and hidden, it is very notable. The fact that an individual editor may not find it notable does not, ipso facto, mean it is not notable writ large. If you don't understand the social context or notability of the issue, do some research right here on wikipedia. See, e.g., Celluloid Closet. If you think it's not relevant period, then please begin removing such references from the following articles: Rock Hudson, Ellen Degeneres, John Barrowman, Rachel Maddow, [Ricky Martin]], Clay Aiken, David Bowie... eh, you get the idea. Anyway, better get to it, unless it some cases it is notable. Otherwise, the content and sourced material should go back in. croll (talk) 17:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC) the addition - Personal life In 2002 interview with The Advocate, Evans identified himself as an out gay man and stated "I knew that even though my part was a straight character everybody knew me as a gay man, and in my life in London I never tried to hide it.... So I thought, 'Well, I'm going to have to be open. It's who I am. And if people don't like it, then I don't want their jobs.'" - http://books.google.com/books?id=v2QEAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA55&ots=ryIXRPJTFQ&dq=luke%20evans%20gay&pg=PA55#v=onepage&q&f=false In September 2010 however, WalesOnline reported Evans as dating "fashion industry marketing expert" Holly Goodchild - http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2010/09/19/tamara-drewe-star-luke-evans-lands-love-and-musketeer-role-91466-27296101/ AfterElton.com contacted Evans' management, who declined to clarify his sexuality and stated "I do not comment on my client's personal lives in the media. As for Luke, he did so once, a long time ago when he was an inexperienced, young actor and now with maturity and hindsight, he has learned not to engage the press in his personal life again - http://www.afterelton.com/people/2011/08/luke-evans-in-or-out-gay-man comments as regards the notability /privacy issues of the subjects sexuality Corrected. Because it's annoying the hell out of me and betrays some bias/perceptions here. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 18:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC) add comments here please. Off2riorob (talk) 17:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC) NOTABILITY IS A PHONY ISSUE. This is entirely appropriate for a phony "encyclopedia" that doesn't bother to adhere to facts or its own policies. Wikipedia's own policy on "notability" states that "notability" applies to whether or not an article is to be included, but NOT to the contents of the article. Yet Wikipedia has censored the article for this reason. It's not the first time Wikipedia has misapplied the so-called "notability" "standard" in this way. The reality is that Wikipedia has no standards. This is one of many reasons why serious authors no longer participate here, and why no respected academic institution will permit a student to use this atrocious children's "encyclopedia" as a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.188.7 (talk) 17:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC) You're trying to make this an argument about notability in general of romantic relationships which you wouldn't be doing if the actor in question wasn't gay. But unfortunately in almost every case, Wikipedia does describe these things as notable. Wikipedia is not an educational tool, as you seem to mistakenly suggest above. It is simply an encyclopedia. One could even argue that this case has special notability given the bizarre actions of the record company and for that matter, coverage of the editing of this Wikipedia page. But alas, it doesn't have a notability problem. And it's not a BLP issue in the first place, sorry. Someone close this discussion.Zythe (talk) 17:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC) it is notable. it is very notable in so many other living persons pages as well. this guy is going to be in a few big movies coming out soon. and now its getting even more notable, with afterelton doing a story about it. i think by not including the multiple reliable sources, readers are done a disservice. are you sure you realize how many times this has come up before? it is pretty standard.... 207.238.152.3 (talk) In almost every case, it is not important enough to place into a biography. Nor is religion. Nor is ancestry. Biograpies, of all things, should focus on the life of a person dealing with matters of importance to their life. A revolutionary concept. And it is absolutely a WP:BLP issue. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC) Well, the actor repeatedly affirms how much being openly gay is important to him and how being gay affected his choice to be an actor, his acting process, his choice of roles, and also how his roles have affected his decisions to be out. Then, the subsequent sources are notable with regard to the much wider (academically notable) issue of how gay actors are professionally managed. Essentially this is a de-gaying effort. This wouldn't be an argument on the page for Brad Pitt.Zythe (talk) 18:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC) WP:BLPCAT and WP:EGRS only relate to categories, as does the 'only mention sexuality if it's notable to the subject's public life' clause. I don't think any of this is notable to Luke Evans public life, even if he is publicly out. I really don't see how its any business of Wikipedia if someone like Duncan James is bisexual, essentially coming out before being outed by for at the hands of The News of the World. That someone's private sexual preferences can be discussed at length in BLPs seems very off to me. This applies to content and cats. If a subject is a LGBT advocate, that is one thing. If they are LGBT person going about their private business, that is another. How not? Span (talk) 18:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC) You're applying your personal values to a subject irrespective of policy. The fact is, it is notable to their lives and to wider issues -- cultural, political and philosophical ones at that. And we even, in this case, have a published synthesis (by AfterElton) affirming that very notability I'm describing.Zythe (talk) 18:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC) My personal values are meaningless here. Subjects sexuality is usually not notable - Elton Johns sexuality is high profile and extremely notable, this persons is not and adding jonny said he was attracted to men in 2002 but in 2011 he was dating a women is just not encyclopedic-ally notable. Off2riorob (talk) 18:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC) I have repeatedly given evidence of notability (eg, Evans' own declarations of its relevant to his career, plus published synthesis attesting as much). If it is Verifiable, published to Reliable Sources, and written in a style where there is No Original Research, then the ONLY dissenting voice is an echo chamber of people saying "People's sexuality is not relevant." But you yourself restored BLP-violating information about where he went to school, in contrast, which is a complete triviality and one that obviously doesn't bother you being there. So the issue is that you object SPECIFICALLY to sexuality being mentioned at all when BLP doesn't give you any specification other than you don't commit libel on somebody by using unverifiable information. And yes, the discrepancy is wonderfully notable. Because it illustrates something about the industry; the inference is for the reader to draw, of course. What will you do when the Guardian's interest is piqued? Does it become "notable" enough for you then? Zythe (talk) 18:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC) There is a move to cast figures like Evans and Duncan James as gay advocates - foregrounding their sexuality in support of the gay community. There maybe high profile reports in the Advocate, AfterElton and the tabloids. That does not speak to notability on Wikipedia. Span (talk) 18:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC) That, as you call it, "a published synthesis (by AfterElton) affirming that very notability " http://www.afterelton.com/people/2011/08/luke-evans-in-or-out-gay-man just looks like a gay blog post with no editorial control to me. Posted today by http://www.afterelton.com/user/19..Off2riorob (talk) 18:26, 8 August 2011 (UTC) note - the Evan's wikipedia article is mentioned in that www.afterelton.com/user/19 blog post from today and also discussed in the comment section also. Off2riorob (talk) 18:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC) AfterElton.com is not merely a "gay blog". It is an award-winning news outlet whose stories have on more than one occasion been picked up by the international press and which is recognized as a reliable source on Wikipedia. In the interest of full disclosure, I have written articles for the site and I can promise that the content is subject to complete editorial control. The person who posted the article in question is Michael Jensen, who is also the Editor-in-Chief. 70.226.162.163 (talk) 18:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC) Who gives a shit? Back in the 80s the request from gays was don't label us. We are actors not gay actors, we are musicians not gay muscisans, we are teachers not gay teachers. They were right back then and the activists are wrong now. Enough of the labelling fucking crap OK. These people do not exist for Michael Jensen, or anyone else, to abuse for there own ends. John lilburne (talk) 12:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC) I'm not sure why you feel the need to be so hostile, but your information is not accurate. In the 1980s the "request" was to be treated with dignity and respect as gay people. Including information about an individual's sexuality that is sourced directly to the subject is not "activism" and it isn't "abuse". 70.226.164.175 (talk) 21:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC) * If a gay man gives multiple interviews in which he states that he is a gay man then there should be no issue with saying so in his article. Saying that a gay person should only be identified as a gay person if hir sexuality is "notable" is demeaning. It is true that biographies rarely if ever directly state that the subject is heterosexual. That is because the vast majority of people assume that a person is heterosexual unless it is specifically known not to be the case. Information that directly or indirectly discloses a subject's heterosexuality (who they've married, who they've dated, etc.) is routinely included in biographies and in most if not every instance leaving that information out if it's known would be considered a defect. Yet reliably sourced, verifiable information that indicates homosexuality or bisexuality is deleted, often with the insulting claim that "sexuality isn't relevant". As a gay man who's been battling for equality for decades I can damn well guarantee that my sexuality is relevant to me and it's apparently relevant to the millions of people in this country who have over those same decades voted to implement or retain sodomy laws, voted to strip away basic civil rights protections, voted to strip away even minimal domestic partnership rights and voted to make same-sex marriage unconstitutional. BLP demands that biographies of living persons contain only information that is verified in reliable secondary sources. There are multiple reliable secondary sources that discuss Luke Evans' sexual orientation. BLP does not require that the information be separately "notable" or "relevant" and even if it did those selfsame sources clearly show that Evans' sexual orientation has had an effect on his life and career. There is no valid justification for removing the information and doing so is naked bigotry whether the person censoring the article realizes it or not. William Bradshaw (talk) 18:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC) Very well put. FuFoFuEd (talk) 04:55, 12 August 2011 (UTC) Ugh. Evans is quoted as saying how it is VERY important to him to be out at an early age and to not have this skeleton in his closet. No one is trying to pigeonhole him or for that matter Duncan James as a gay activist. (Duncan James' outing does have added notability given it was by NoTW who probably hacked him, but that's a side-issue.) You're two editors who are determined to make it so that these people's personal lives which they have adamantly disclose openly should be kept hidden, and you're keen to malign someone like me as a myopic gay activist when I am in fact just a stickler for policy which states three issues: WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR.Zythe (talk) 18:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC) I agree with you Zythe. Off2riorob and Spanglej, whether you both like it or not, this information will continue to be re-added until it sticks. That's not a threat or any such thing, that's a fact. Look at every other out gay actor's article; they all state their sexuality. If it's information, it's out there, and is a reliably-sourced fact, it'll probably end up being on their Wikipedia article. You can start entries on noticeboard pages like this all you want, but singling out Luke Evans, whether his sexuality is in contention for the moment due to issues of clarity is only going to be temporary for the most part. You can't police a page forever, and information about relationships and sexuality, under "Personal life" sections, will continue to abound, and won't abate due to whatever issues you have with the facts being put there. 220.239.157.22 (talk) 19:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC) I agree that saying being gay is not "notable" is a blatant double standard given how most biographies of straight people mention things down to who was dating whom (e.g. Alanis Morisette). We don't mention they're straight because it's pretty damn obvious and it's the default, isn't it? By simply mentioning who they're dating, you are already actually divulging their sexuality. It's also their own private romantic lives and not actually "encyclopedically notable", so why can they be mentioned? Because it's actually an intrinsic part of a person's life, whether it actually has anything to do with their notability or not. Same thing with being gay. The incessant refrain of 'we don't say someone is heterosexual' is becoming ridiculous. It's not like we're accusing them of being axe-murderers. In cases where it's clearly noncontroversial and freely admitted (e.g. Neil Patrick Harris where being gay is also not central to his life), it can obviously be mentioned in the same way that we can mention where Actor X went to high school. But I digress... In this case, I also think it should not be mentioned. AfterElton and The Advocate, etc. are not quite neutral sources. And given the actor's apparent reluctance to clarify things on why he's dating a woman these days, it's best to assume he doesn't want to talk about it. Bringing attention to it strikes me as forced outing and scandal-mongering, sorry. It's all speculation at this point, so unless he reaffirms his earlier statements in previous interviews, it is quite controversial and falls under WP:BLP.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 19:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC) :* Do you have some evidence that either AfterElton or The Advocate (which is a nationally-respected award-winning publication of some 40 years vintage) are pushing an agenda regarding Luke Evans? Is The New York Times guilty of bias when it covers heterosexuals? Or is it only gay publications that are to be held to this higher standard? Outing means reporting on someone's homosexuality when they don't want it to be public knowledge. Evans presumably gave the interviews of his own free will; he was not outed in any way. It is not speculation that Evans gave interviews in which he discussed being gay; it is verified fact. It is no more controversial to say that he said he was gay but now a woman is claiming to date him than it is for someone to say s/he's vegetarian only to have someone later claim s/he ate a steak. And even if he is dating a woman it doesn't mean he isn't gay. His current reluctance to discuss his personal life now does not mean that previous statements about it are off-limits. Ethel Merman famously "wrote" about her marriage to Ernest Borgnine by including a blank page in her memoir; were she alive no one would suggest deleting Borgnine from her article because she became reluctant to discuss him. This entire situation reeks of the same old double-standards. Sexuality is only "relevant" if it's mainstream. Variants are "irrelevant" and through censorship rendered invisible. There is no valid reason why the article can't include something like "Evans gave interviews in 2002 in which he discussed being gay and how it affected his personal and professional lives. He has since declined to discuss his personal life." It's neutral, verifiable and factual. William Bradshaw (talk) 21:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC) :* And may I add, who are you to decide whether someone's sexuality is or isn't central to his life? William Bradshaw (talk) 21:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC) ::* Above comment was removed for an unstated reason by Off2riorob. William Bradshaw (talk) 22:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC) "Who are you to decide whether someone's sexuality is or isn't central to his life?" Precisely. And who are you? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC) :::: I'm not anybody to say that his homosexuality is or isn't central to his life. Whether it is or isn't is absolutely irrelevant because "central to his life" has no basis as an inclusion standard. No policy-based reason has been given and the cited policy, BLP, in no way restricts the addition of this information because it has multiple independent reliable sources. William Bradshaw (talk) 23:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC) Having gay publications commenting about his sexuality is not a gold star to include content , thats a simplified position. - clearly there are additional issues here - it seems that Gay blogs are attempting to publicize the subjects comments about his sexual preferences a decade ago - the subject is not apparently changing his mind and dating women and commenting he is a private person - the gay locations are screaming loudly he is gay and out - imo all of this sexuality dispute sourced to the locations provided it not presently notable. Or add it at People that have said they were attracted to men and a decade later dated women - Off2riorob (talk) 23:25, 8 August 2011 (UTC) :::::: The "simplified position" you note is not my position so don't attribute it to me. Please cite the policy which states that LGBT-related publications may not serve as reliable sources for LGBT-related content. Whether "gay blogs are attempting to publicize" his old comments doesn't change the fact that he made the comments to independent reliable sources. The only "additional issue" is whether we will follow the BLP policy and include this verified information in a neutral manner or whether we shall adhere to a non-existent standard of "I don't think it's important" as an excuse for censorship. You keep talking about how his being gay is supposedly not "notable" but notability is the standard for articles themselves, not the information contained within those articles. This person is notable and his statements of his homosexuality are verifiable. There is no valid reason for exclusion. I will not comment on the suggested article title other than to note that it demonstrates the thinking of someone who knows little or nothing about gay issues and the gay experience. William Bradshaw (talk) 23:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC) WP:Weight and WP:Undue are two positions that come to mind - also = this is not a gay activist location - this is the en wikipedia - here - having a sexuality that is referred to as gay is not automatically notable. As a response to your comment - "it demonstrates the thinking of someone who knows little or nothing about gay issues and the gay experience." - I don't care about gay activism or gay issues - this is not the gay activist news.Off2riorob (talk) 23:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC) :::::::: WEIGHT and UNDO are two links to the same section of WP:NPOV which discusses the importance of giving all "significant viewpoints" representation in an article "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint". This actually argues in favor of including verifiable information about Evans' statement of his homosexuality, as long as it's done in a way that's in balance with the rest of his article. A sourced paragraph about them such as has been suggested here several times would satisfy policy. No one is trying to make this about gay activism but you. Reporting a simple statement about an individual's sexual orientation is not "activism". Repeatedly removing it could be interpreted as an act of anti-gay activism, however, especially when accompanied by statements like "this is Wikipedia not the gay activist news." And it's been explained that notability is not the standard for including information within an article; was that not clear? William Bradshaw (talk) 00:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC) Yes, WP:NPOV supported by the err on the side of caution aspect of WP:BLP - someones sexual preference is unrelated to - "significant viewpoints" - Claims of anti gay activism here in regard to me are laughable - I have thousands of edits here and can present many additions and supports of additions regarding someones gay sexuality - you on the other hand are a single focus new contributor , a single purpose account as regards gay labeling with forty discussion edits that only wants to focus on this persons disputed sexuality - yada yadas yada. Off2riorob (talk) 00:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC) * (outdent) Dude, you're the one who brought up WEIGHT and UNDUE; not my fault if it doesn't say what you claim it says. We err on the side of caution by citing information in BLPs to reliable sources, which the article did. Evans' sexuality is not "disputed". Evans gave multiple interviews in which he stated clearly that he is gay and neither he nor his publicist has ever made a public statement to the contrary. A sourced paragraph covering all of the available material is completely appropriate. However long I've been here and however many "additions and supports" you've made it doesn't change the simple fact that you're misinterpreting and misrepresenting policy here. And hey, if you're so supportive of adding material regarding individuals' sexuality (despite supposedly never thinking about gay issues) then that makes your failure to support this reliably sourced verifiable information all the more unfathomable. Strange how on all those other articles their sexuality was important enough to include but somehow it isn't here... William Bradshaw (talk) 00:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC) And out come the innuendoes again... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC) ::: No innuendo, I'm flat-out saying that what he's saying here is completely self-contradictory and it makes no sense. He makes a point of adding material to articles about peoples' homosxuality but he doesn't think about gay issues. He supports the inclusion of sexuality material except he doesn't think sexuality is relevant. And on top of that he won't explain what he thinks makes inclusion of sexuality "notable" (leaving aside that notability isn't the standard for inclduing information within articles). William Bradshaw (talk) 21:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC) If anyone makes a decent case with decent independent reliable support for this persons sexuality being a notable thing I will add it myself - As for your claim that, "Evans' sexuality is not "disputed" - well - Evan's was last seen dating a woman. Off2riorob (talk) 01:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC) I feel the need to enter this conversation again. I think it would help, Off2riorob, if you would explicitly state what your (or Wikipedia's) criteria for notability are. What WOULD make an actor's sexual orientation notable? If you would please list those criteria, then it would be easier to argue whether or not Evans meets those criteria. Also, it would help if you could explain why you believe Evans' sexual orientation is less notable than the sexual orientation of several other actors whose sexual orientation IS included in their Wiki entries. For example, actor Luke Macfarlane, who has a role in an ensemble TV show but is not a particularly well-known celebrity or household name, came out in a single newspaper article in Canada. That article has been referenced by other media, but it is the only article as far as I know in which Macfarlane has talked openly about coming out. Macfarlane's Wiki entry mentions that he is openly gay. Other examples would include Lance Bass, Reichen Lehumkuhl, and Neil Patrick Harris, whose Wiki pages mention their personal lives and sexuality, even though one could probably argue that their sexuality has no direct influence on their careers. It appears as if you believe an actor's sexuality is never notable. If that is not the case, please explain when it WOULD be notable. And please explain why other actors' pages, such as the ones I have mentioned, are allowed to include references to their sexuality.JoeBotX (talk) 02:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC) With regard to those particular articles, I've not looked, but see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. If Wikipedia used precedent to determine content, we'd be in the gutter. Or perhaps we are, but at least we are trying to climb out... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC) I understand that Wikipedia doesn't use precedent, but it's hard to overlook the glaring inconsistency, which reflects poorly on Wikipedia. It appears that if an actor comes out in a respected publication such as The Advocate, it is noted on their Wikipedia page. Unless that actor happens to be Luke Evans. You did not address my larger point, which is: What are the criteria for determining notability? What, specifically, makes sexuality notable? Because it seems completely arbitrary. In previous comments, you and Off2riorob have said that publicly coming out doesn't make it notable. Talking about it in a publication such as The Advocate doesn't make it notable. Talking about it in multiple publications over a period of years doesn't make it notable. Taking on gay roles doesn't make it notable. Talking about how you can help others come out and deal with discrimination doesn't make it notable. Talking about how it has (or hasn't) affected your acting and your career doesn't make it notable. So what DOES make it notable? If you would state those criteria, it would help this discussion greatly (and would also help determine whether references to sexuality should be removed from other celebrities' pages).JoeBotX (talk) 03:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC) I think you are rather getting this backwards. Sadly, there is a great deal of trivial nonsense in Wikipedia articles. By and large, it either goes unnoticed, or gets fixed. Someone noticed the inconsistency between Wikipedia labelling Evans as unambiguously 'gay', and reports the he was dating a woman. So they did the obvious thing, which was to look into the matter - at which point it became obvious that Evans didn't consider his sexuality to be a public issue - as is his right. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, sections of the US gay media seem to think that this is a big issue, and kicked up a fuss. Suddenly new editors pile into the discussion, with no idea of what previous debates have been about, and no concept of just how much time is wasted on contributors trying to shove people into arbitrary boxes ('gay', 'Jew'...) regardless of whether it is actually relevant to the people themselves. So yes, We react, because we don't think that pressure groups of any kind, regardless of the justness of their cause have the right to use other people's sexuality (or faith, or ethnicity...) as ammunition in their political debate. Now, the question is, do you? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC) It is incorrect to state that Evans didn't consider his sexuality to be a public issue. He CHOSE to make it a public issue by sitting down on the record with several publications for in-depth interviews: London's Gay Times, The Advocate, QX Magazine and GaydarNation. Evans CHOSE to come out to the press, and not just once but on at least four separate occasions over a span of at least 2 years. He (or his handlers or someone else connected to him) chose to make it an issue again in 2010 by speaking with the British and Welsh press about the fact that he is now dating a woman. Once an actor chooses to make something public, it IS public and is fair game. I don't see how it is political to merely acknowledge the existence of articles that are part of the public record. And again, you have not addressed the issue of the criteria that are used to judge notability. Without some criteria, it is impossible to debate the notability of Evans' sexuality. And please do not assign motives to my comments. I am participating in this discussion because off2riorob encouraged me to. He said, "Please don't give up now, your contributions to this discussion are very beneficial."JoeBotX (talk) 04:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC) Still, no criteria by which to judge notability have been offered. AndyTheGrump and off2riorob have repeatedly asserted that Evans' sexuality is not notable, without ever explaining why. No standards or criteria by which to judge notability have been offered. No examples of what MIGHT make it notable have been offered. It appears that ultimately it is a purely arbitrary judgment, which explains why publicly "coming out" IS notable on some celebrities' Wiki pages but not on others'. Without any attempt to identify clear criteria, this ugly debate is likely to play out over and over again whenever a celebrity publicly comes out in an interview with a publication such as the Advocate.JoeBotX (talk) 05:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC) Here's my summary of the arguments so far, with a few additions of my own: A) Evans’s sexuality is not relevant Evans himself said he was gay and stated that it affected his career and notability B) Evans seems to have changed his mind about sexuality (or at least publicity). A change in mind does not erase the period of his life. He moved from Crumlin to Aberbargoed, but Crumlin still gets mentioned. (Anne Heche’s same-sex relationship also gets mentioned.) C) Being gay is not encyclopedic notable. “His sexuality has not notably affected him in any way.” We don’t say people are straight. Why is a few years in Crumlin encyclopedic notable? Evans himself chose to make it notable on several occasions. We mention paraplegic athletes because they are rare. We should mention out gay movie stars because they are rare. (The very fact that his handler is trying to cover it up reinforces this.) Do you think that growing up gay with Jehovah’s Witnesses does not have an impact on his life? Why are there countless examples for List of LGBT writers/films/Jews/etc? Countless examples of LGBT people (Anna Paquin and Anderson Cooper are pretty comparable) mention sexuality. That's not OTHERCRAP; these are highly trafficked pages. D) Off2riorob removed highly sourced material from direct interviews with Evans, replaced it with unsourced material, and froze the article for BLP It's not "notable." [but no rebuttal to his adding unsourced material] E) We shouldn’t force people out of the closet if he doesn’t want to talk about it He DID talk about it and came out. That’s a verifiable fact. F) He hasn’t said RECENTLY that he’s gay See B1 --Merrywanderer (talk) 02:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC) Abuse of process Off2riorob (talk · contribs) has unofficially "locked" the page on his preferred version for the past 6 months and has made 4 reverts which have repeatedly removed NPOV/RS information and re-inserted BLP-violating unsourced information. My good faith is waning. I believe Off2riorob wants to stall the discussion indefinitely by repeatedly asserting that it's "irrelevant" (an irrelevant assertion itself, huzzah!) and ignoring all challenges to his idea. He is repeatedly warning of a need for a "consensus" which is not the process with regards to a clear application of policy. Where BLP is not being violated, it is not a BLP issue. In light of that, I see these nonconstructive edits as blatantly disruptive. I think the BLP noticeboard is itself being abused to actually lock the page to suit an editor's personal preferences (irrespective of policy) and in fact, ironically, for some reason to keep unsourced information frozen on the page. Because a BLP discussion is going on doesn't give Off2riorob the right to maintain a personal version of the right page under the mistaken opinion that this is a "consensus" issue when it is a policy one.Zythe (talk) 19:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC) Peoples sexuality is rarely notable at all. Even if you have a citation and you add it neutrally and without original research. Nothing apart from sexual labeling has been presented here to support this living persons sexuality is encyclopedic-ally notable. His sexuality has not notably affected him in any way. - Off2riorob (talk) 19:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC) Well we have this BLP under discussion at the external citation as presented above and now this post at LGBT studies discussion page, looks a bit like not neutral canvassing to me - there is an attempt to de gay someone - quick get your pitchforks - Off2riorob (talk) 19:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC) Well yes, it has. He says so himself! And again, there's also external notability (e.g., new article on the subject here http://www.queerty.com/action-star-luke-evans-doesnt-realize-his-gay-past-is-all-over-the-internets-20110808/comment-page-1/#comment-474152). You're trying to say we need to come to a consensus because you think as long as you're unwilling to change your mind, the page will have to stay the way it is.Zythe (talk) 19:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC) No - as long as you're unwilling to give a valid reason why an actors sexuality is anyone's business but his, the page will have to stay the way it is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC) Say what you mean, Andy: you want a valid reason why an actor's homosexuality is anyone's business but his. Do you have the same standard of inclusion for heterosexual actors? Should they be stripped of all information that relates to their being heterosexual? And how exactly does an actor make his homosexuality anyone's business but his if discussing it directly and openly in multiple interviews doesn't do it? And what Wikipedia policy or guideline supports the "no one's business but his" as the standard for inclusion? The standard for inclusion under BLP is met by multiple independent reliable sources that attest to the information. The reasons given for excluding it are unsupported by any policy or guideline and amount to a variation of "I don't think it's important." The subject of the article has said on more than one occasion that it is important from both a personal and a professional standpoint and he is a far better judge of what's important in his life than you are. William Bradshaw (talk) 21:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC) Do you make a habit of accusing everyone who disagrees with you of being a bigot? Frankly, I think this indicates how little thought you have put into this. And by the way, I too have been a long-term supporter of gay rights - I merely believe that one of these rights includes not being co-opted against your will into a political campaign. Still, this is a Wikipedia BLP, so the opinion of the person concerned doesn't matter a damn... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC) Are you joking? Who exactly is co-opting anyone into anything against anyone's will? A real "long-term supporter of gay rights" couldn't rationally think that merely calling a gay person gay in a Wikipedia article is co-opting anyone or anything. Is listing off all of Britney Spears' marriages "co-opting" her for the straight agenda? Ridiculous. And unless you've personally spoken to Luke Evans, you can't possibly know whether he thinks his self-acknowledged homosexuality being mentioned in his Wikipedia article is good, bad or indifferent, much less whether he thinks he's been "co-opted" into something. I don't see a political or social campaign here on the part of the people wanting to include this verified, reliably sourced material to the article. What I do see is a campaign on the part of a handful of editors to suppress that information with no valid reason. "I don't like it" or "I don't think it's relevant" or "I don't think it's important" are not valid reasons for censorship. I've been thinking about homosexuality since I figured out I was one almost 30 years ago, so I think I might possibly have a better understanding of what being gay means than someone who hasn't been. Expecting the same standards to apply to both straight and gay biographies is not an accusation of bigotry. Neither you nor anyone else here has offered a valid reason for censoring his homosexuality out of his article or for classifying his homosexuality as "controversial" when the same information about a heterosexual would not be. And even assuming for the sake of argument that a person's homosexuality is "controversial" BLP doesn't say that controversial information can't be included. BLP says that "contentious" information about living people must be removed if it is unsourced or poorly sourced. Luke Evans' homosexuality is not unsourced or poorly sourced. It is sourced to at least two reputable news outlets which offer direct, undisputed quotations from the subject himself stating that he is gay and why and how being open and honest about his homosexuality is important to him. Claiming that it violates BLP is intellectually dishonest. William Bradshaw (talk) 23:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC) So you don't think that Evans' choice not to answer After Elton's questions about his sexuality is of any significance here? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC) First, Evans did not choose not to respond to AfterElton. Evans' publicist refused to contact Evans regarding the inquiry. Second, I absolutely think that Evans' decision not to discuss his personal life and/or sexuality is relevant to the article and should be noted within it. That's why I suggested the proposed addition that I did. Put in a paragraph about his coming out and discussing the effect of his sexuality on his personal and professional lives, sourced to The Advocate and the other interviews, along with information about his no longer discussing his personal life including a quote from the publicist sourced to the AfterElton article. William Bradshaw (talk) 23:26, 8 August 2011 (UTC) I can see nothing in the AfterElton article to suggest that Evans' publicist refused to contact him. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC) Second paragraph from the bottom: "And his management would neither let me speak to Evans, nor provide a quote attributable to him." (emphasis added) I read that as a refusal to contact Evans but whether that's technically correct you still can't state as fact that Evans chose not to respond to AfterElton. That really makes little difference to the overall point, which you seem to have avoided yet again. The overall point is that this is verifiable information and no policy has been properly cited to prevent its addition. William Bradshaw (talk) 23:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC) Living subjects sexuality is not usually notable - Gay is normal and unworthy of inclusion unless additionally noteworthy - that has not been shown in this discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 23:52, 8 August 2011 (UTC) In other words, you are unable to cite policy which supports the exclusion of this information and so are once again falling back on the "noteworthy" thing. There is no policy issue. In your opinion the information shouldn't be included and in the opinion of other editors it should be. Since we are an encyclopedia dedicated to dispensing information and since there is no valid reason to exclude this information it should be included. William Bradshaw (talk) 00:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC) So you have no evidence at all to suggest that the choice not to talk to AfterElton wasn't Evans'? And regarding policy, you seem to be under the misapprehension that 'inclusion' of verifiable information is the default. It isn't. It never has been. If you think there is a valid case for adding this material to the article, then make it - but don't paint everyone who sees things differently as a homophobic bigot. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC) (outdent) Oh for god's sake, it makes no difference to this discussion whether Evans personally instructed his representative about talking to AfterElton or not. This is a meaningless canard that has no bearing on the main question. As for policy, show me one that precludes the inclusion of this material. BLP doesn't. I've made the case time and again. The information is verifiable in reliable sources and can be presented neutrally as required by policy. William Bradshaw (talk) 00:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC) I saw this comment higher up: "Peoples sexuality is rarely notable at all." That seems extraordinarily incorrect. The people whom biography subjects marry, an expression of their sexuality, is almost always included in an article if known. Likewise, when those who have sexual orientations different from the standard it is routinely a significant part of the coverage of them. While I don't think that every gay person who sings should be categorized as an "LGBT singer", neither should we go out of our way to exclude that information from the article text simply because it isn't the thing they are best known for. Otherwise, leading to the logical conclusion, we'd have to begin deleting from articles those spouses who are not "central" to the subjects' notability.   Will Beback  talk  23:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC) Will, marriage is notable and will be reported without question - whether they marry a man or a woman or Jesus. Your other position is a focus on a minority as notable - your assertion is that its usual to have a man with a woman and so we should report men that go with men - my position is diametrically opposed to you - imo its normal to be gay and unworthy of special reporting standards. - as I have seen its usual for activists and activist sites to focus on such but quality independent reports (such as wikipedia policy strives to be)don't even comment about it. Off2riorob (talk) 23:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC) If it's normal and unworthy of comment then why do people make a point of commenting on it? If I understand this case, the subject went out of his way to talk about it.   Will Beback  talk  00:54, 9 August 2011 (UTC) Its normal to be gay, do you dispute that? Off2riorob (talk) 01:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC) If by "normal" you mean "in conformance to an average", then no, it's no more normal than left-handedness, red hair, or any one of a number of other traits that define a person. It's not normal to be born in Spain either, but we routinely report the country of birth for subjects. Sexual orientation is a major factor in the nature of a person, and it inherently biographical information which should be included when known from reliable sources.   Will Beback  talk  01:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC) I'm sorry, but that's completely bogus. "Quality independent reports" routinely mention the sexuality of their subjects and this pretense that it's the purview of "gay activist sites" is nonsensical. And you say above that you don't think or care about gay issues. But you're supposedly familiar enough with the practices of gay media outlets to declare that they're infested with activists with agendas? William Bradshaw (talk) 00:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC) Its not bogus - I have experience of thousands of neutral editing here for over two years - you are a single purpose account with forty edits only focused on gay labeling. Off2riorob (talk) 00:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC) And you think the number of edits you've made is relevant to my points about your arguments...how exactly? William Bradshaw (talk) 00:59, 9 August 2011 (UTC) you are a single purpose account with forty edits only focused on gay labeling - what part of that don't you understand? Policy and guidelines have been repeatedly pointed out to you . Off2riorob (talk) 01:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC) Stop getting away from the point. It's not relevant what edits William's made. It doesn't make him any less of a contributor. I don't think anyone's disputing that being gay is normal. Can we just settle this already? This is the longest post on this page now, all over a pretty simple issue. He commented on being gay in reputable news sources, it's his personal life and should be under the appropriate section on the article, just as it is with every other out gay person's article. It's relevant, and like it was said above, it should only be challenged if it's unsourced, which it's most definitely not. Unless you are Evans' publicist who clearly doesn't want his sexuality to get out, you have no valid hitherto-undisproved reason for objecting. 130.130.37.13 (talk) 04:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC) If being gay is normal (which it clearly is, by any reasonable definition of 'normal' other than that of Conservapedia) can't we just say that Evans is normal, and leave it at that? Or even better, since being normal isn't worth mentioning, not mention it: "it's his personal life" - not anyone else's. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC) It's his personal life which he chose to make public by granting at least three interviews in which he discussed his decision to be openly gay and the effects that being openly gay had on his life and career to that point. Whether or not gay is "normal" (of course it is) is irrelevant to the question of whether there is a BLP violation. There is clearly no BLP violation because the material in question is impeccably sourced to words spoken by the subject himself and to later news reports of his supposedly dating a woman. This was never a BLP violation. This was always a content dispute and should have been handled on the article's talk page. This should be marked as resolved with instruction to take the content discussion where it belongs. William Bradshaw (talk) 05:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC) Luke Evans dispute Comments posted at the LGBT studies talkpage by User:Zythe - Off2riorob (talk) 19:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC) - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_LGBT_studies#Luke_Evans_dispute An attempt to de-gay openly gay Luke Evans (actor) and freeze the page that way is under way at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Luke Evans (actor). Please comment. Further context, http://www.afterelton.com/people/2011/08/luke-evans-in-or-out-gay-man and http://www.queerty.com/action-star-luke-evans-doesnt-realize-his-gay-past-is-all-over-the-internets-20110808/?utm_source=wordtwit&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=wordtwit. Use of "Notability" Violates Wikipedia's Own Policy - Not That It Matters to This Phony "Encyclopedia" Once more, Wikipedia shows itself to be a pack of fools for whom facts mean nothing and Wikipedia's own policies can be blithely ignored by any ad hoc flashmob that comes along. Is it any wonder that serious authorities on a wide variety of subjects routinely ignore Wikipedia, and no respectable academic institution anywhere in the world will permit a student to use Wikipedia as a source? Notability does not apply to material in an article. It applies only to whether the subject is notable. Therefore, to censor information in an article on grounds that it's not "notable" violates Wikipedia's policy. Here is Wikipedia's policy on notability: "The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content (with the exception that some lists restrict inclusion to notable items or people). Content coverage within a given article or list is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies." I don't expect this fact to carry any weight whatsoever here. You see, Wikipedia doesn't care about facts. Its rules are a joke. All that has ever mattered at Wikipedia is the whim of whatever flashmob will enforce whatever version it can agree on, without regard to what's true, or what conforms to Wikipedia's rules. People, you're a joke. You write, and edit, a children's book that no one in his or her right mind should, or will, ever take seriously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.188.7 (talk) 02:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC) If you don't think anyone takes Wikipedia seriously, why bother to comment here? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC) I agree. Since Wikipedia is a children's publication read and edited by children, there's no need to ever care about anything written here, because there are no standards whatsoever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.188.7 (talk) 17:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC) Good Job It's always nice to see Wikipedia in the news for doing something like this. Having more people laugh at how idiotically bureaucratic our policies are. See Gawker for details on that. I know that people might want to be participating in bisexual erasure or something to that effect, but if Evans is truly dating Holly Goodchild, then he's bisexual. We're not going to call him that, of course, but it's annoying to see all of the arguing above being about how he's gay or straight and that there's no middle option. Now, about the actual subject at hand. The information that was included in the article before was fine. Citing a statement from a BLP subject cannot violate BLP. Because the information is coming directly from the subject. Thus, if he directly stated that he was gay in the past in a reliable source, then we should include that statement. We should also include the well-referenced fact that he is dating Holly. Maybe even include a bit of Holly's quote from that source as well. But we shouldn't be whitewashing his BLP because he is dating a girl now. Without a direct statement from him one way or the other, we should be including both sides of the issue. As for those talking about notability in terms of the gay information, the fact that in the past, him being gay played a large part in his acting career, as explained in references given above, shows that it is important to include his statement in his article. SilverserenC 06:54, 9 August 2011 (UTC) Amen to that. Can't we just go with this and get over this whole pointless, tiringly long argument already? It's information, it's there, it's cited, move on. 220.239.143.238 (talk) 08:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC) Here here. There isn't a policy blocking this, just a couple of people who don't think sexuality "is noteworthy" (but who seemingly think where Evans went to sixth form is).Zythe (talk) 09:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC) Absent a statement from Evans that he's bisexual, his bisexuality can't be assumed. But you are otherwise absolutely correct as to how this issue should be handled. William Bradshaw (talk) 21:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC) I was just expressing my annoyance at the above arguments of "he's gay" and "he's straight", since those aren't the only options. Maybe he's pansexual with a proclivity for gay porn? That would also make sense. SilverserenC 21:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC) I agree that people view sexuality with far too much polarity. I just mean that we can't say he's bisexual unless he does. We can say he's come out as gay and we can say that he's reportedly dating a woman. William Bradshaw (talk) 05:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC) This is yet one more case in which Wikipedia is run by an ad hoc flashmob that is free to ignore Wikipedia's own policies, and the facts. In this case, the fact is that the actor gave an interview to the Advocate, a leading magazine, in which he discussed his homosexuality. That information has been censored here, in violation of Wikipedia's own rules. This is one of the reasons why Wikipedia has become a worldwide joke. Leading authorities on a wide variety of subjects have given up on Wikipedia, and there isn't a single respectable academic institution anywhere in the world that permits its students to source from Wikipedia. At Wikipedia, facts are determined by politics, and a "Lord of the Flies" mentality supercedes any and all policies or rules here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.188.7 (talk) 02:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC) Problem is that only gay publications ever posted articles on his sexuality - the interview was some time ago (even if current articles relying on the one interview are found in a number of current gay publications) and the issue of WEIGHT is always present when categorizing people as to sexual orientation. Current feelings on BLP/N appear to indicate that categorizing people where the issue is not part of their notability in any way may well violate WP:BLP. If his notability is dependent on his sexual orientation, then a good cite would be from a mainstream reliable source, which hasnot been given thus far. This same discussion has been made anout nationality and religions of people, with the same position being taken that unless the matter is of some substantial improtance that such matters should (must) have strong mainstream reliable sourcing. Thus a magazine aimes at Gnarphians is a poor source for asserting that John Doe is one of that group, sect or nationality, even if it publishes an interview apparently saying John Doe is a Gnarphian. If a mainstream reliable source publishes it as a fact, then that would far better meet the strictures of WP:BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC) If you have the slightest shred of evidence that any of the sources which published interviews with Evans about being gay fabricated them, misquoted him, misrepresented him in any way or are in any way unreliable as sources, please present it now. The idea that a gay-interest publication must be held to higher standards when reporting on a gay-interest story is not only flat-out wrong, it is a gross insult to the hundreds of journalists who have worked diligently to secure their reputations for journalistic integrity. Sports Illustrated is not considered suspect as a source for sports-related articles. The Wall Street Journal is not a suspect source for economics articles. The New York Times is not a suspect source for articles about New York politics. In the absence of evidence that The Advocate or any other source is biased, the assumption of bias is itself a biased accusation of groupthink and agenda-pushing. It is sheer ignorance. It is unacceptable. William Bradshaw (talk) 05:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC) There is no need to declare him "gay." His interviews with the Advocate and other magazines should be quoted and linked. But that won't happen at Wikipedia, because Wikipedia isn't a reliable, ethical, or factual publication. Never has been, never will be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.188.7 (talk) 02:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC) Agree with SS's proposal above. It's all notable and sourced, so include it all. Dayewalker (talk) 06:09, 11 August 2011 "Notability" is irrelevant here. Wikipedia's own policy on "notability" says so. "Notability" applies to whether or not a subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, NOT to the contents of the article. But the children who have censored the article haven't even bothered to read, much less comply with, Wikipedia's own rules. Is it any wonder that serious people and academic institutions throughout the world laugh at this phony "encyclopedia" that has no regard for fact or even its own policies? WP:CANVASS violations Have occurred with non-neutral canvassing being done on a LGBT project page etc. All those who come here as a result may well be disregarded as solicited !votes (sigh). BTW, the fact that a young person said he was gay, and later in life shows up with a girlfriend and with a publicist saying he will not comment on his sexuality now seems to me to indicate that the "gay" adjective may well be misplaced at this point in time. [20], [21], [22], seem to belie "gay" as a utile term for the person. Frankly if a person appears to change orientation, it is not WP job to freeze them into a category of sexuality. Anne Heche is a great example. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC) I don't watch the LGBT project page, so that has nothing to do with me (thus, i'm not solicited). Secondly, I agree that the original wording should be changed, it was stating it as a fact, when it should just be quoting what he said. But it should still be covering both sides of it and not ignoring the extensive amount of statements and things he was involved with in the past that were based on his original reported homosexuality. We shouldn't be stating anything as fact in terms of it, correct, but we also shouldn't be omitting information about it. SilverserenC 20:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC) Accusations of canvassing are completely false. WP:CANVASS says, in a nutshell, "When notifying other editors of discussions, keep the number of notifications small, keep the message text neutral, and don't preselect recipients according to their established opinions." While the word "de-gay" may not be the most neutral word choice possible, the notification was a request to comment, not a request to weigh in against the deletion. It should not be assumed that all gay people share the same opinion on this issue. The very first example of appropriate notification is "The talk page of one or more WikiProjects (or other Wikipedia collaborations) directly related to the topic under discussion." The LGBT Wikiproject is directly related to the subject under discussion so notification is entirely appropriate. Key in your opinion is the phrase "if a person appears to change orientation". That is not what has happened here. Evans has stated publicly on several occasions that he is gay. The act of dating a woman, if he is indeed dating her, does not prove anything about his self-identification. Categorizing him as gay based on his own statements is acceptable. Categorizing him as bisexual based on the act of dating a woman is original research. If categorizing him as "gay" is considered too appallingly inappropriate then he can go into the "LGBT" categories. William Bradshaw (talk) 21:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC) Amazingly enough - I find absolutely zero recent statements from him that he is gay. And the CANVASSing was absolutely not neutral, and might lead to a WP:False consensus if you read the Arbcom principles and findings in the past. Lastly, WP:BLP states that contentious claims requires extremely strong sourcing. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC) So you're saying that someone has to continually reassert that they are gay in front of the media every few years in order for it to stick? We would be referencing the fact that he stated he was gay in the past. If he makes a statement in the future that changes that, then we add in that changed information. But, in the past, his homosexuality was a fairly large part of his theatre and film career, as stated in his interviews. SilverserenC 21:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC) The canvassing accusations are absolute nonsense. The most directly involved Wikiproject was notified of a discussion relevant to it and invited to participate. That's all. And there's no evidence anyway that anyone from the project even read the notice, much less have come here to participate. Continually saying that the canvassing guideline was violated is in my opinion beginning to border on a bad-faith attempt to influence the discussion by casting aspersions on one of its leading participants. And seriously, even if saying that a gay man is gay is "contentious", exactly how much stronger does the sourcing have to be for us to say that he has identified himself as gay than multiple quotes directly from the man himself? Whether he said it last week, last year or last decade, he still said it. Quotes don't have expiration dates. William Bradshaw (talk) 02:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC) A simple question. Do you believe that it is possible for people to change their sexual orientation over time? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC) In the way you phrased it, no. I believe in Kinsey's sliding scale of sexuality, that almost everyone is bisexual to one degree or another, even if they heavily favor one specific gender. So, in terms of what you're specifically asking, my answer is yes. And in terms of what you're asking about Luke Evans, I think that we should reflect what he has stated in the past, as we have no current statement on what his sexuality is. Therefore, we have no reason to believe otherwise than what he has stated, even if he has a girlfriend. For us to assume straightness or otherwise because of this girlfriend would be original research, as we are only meant to reflect the reliable sources as they are. SilverserenC 03:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC) Whether they can or they can't is not relevant to the discussion. The proposed addition is to include what Evans himself has said in interviews and actions that Evans has been reported to have done. It is indisputable that Evans has identified himself as gay through several news outlets. It is indisputable that reliable sources have reported that he is currently dating a woman. We are not suggesting returning to the "Evans is openly gay" version of the article. We are suggesting a version in which Evans' statements about his sexuality are included in a neutral fashion. William Bradshaw (talk) 05:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC) And in addition to that, the page should not be categorised under any category due to the discrepancy. We're not accusing him of being anything now. Everything is cited, true, and attached to a date. Wikipedia makes no BLP-violating pronouncements about the man. Only citing his own words back to him. However, refusing to include that the actor identified as gay because you personally find that incompatible with recent events is editorialising. It doesn't violate BLP, so why should Wikipedia care? It's not even a matter of privacy; these matters are not private, they are in the reputable press, and self-disclosed at that.Zythe (talk) 20:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC) Is It Notable Enough Yet? This whole debacle showed up on a national cable television show (Chelsea Lately) earlier this evening. They mentioned The Advocate interview and how bad Wikipedia is coming off over this. I expect there will only be more coverage from here. So is it notable enough yet? Or are we going to continue to ignore Wikipedia guidelines in order to perpetuate homophobia? 184.9.212.12 (talk) 07:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC) "Chelsea lately" is part of a tabloid television cable network which is not RS either AFAICT. Meanwhile, accusing all the large number of editors who oppose sexual categorization as homophobic does your case here no favours whatsoever. A mere mention about Evans is not a reliable factual source as to his sexuality. What you might be able to use it in is an article about how seriously Wikipedia edotors take the WP:BLP policy. Cheers. Collect (talk) 10:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC) You say you take WP:BLP seriously and yet I've just reread the page and I see nothing to suggest that including information from multiple sources that quote the actor's own words violates BLP policy. Can you please explain to me exactly what criteria you're using justify its exclusion. The BLP policy says that information must be from strong reliable sources and that is exactly what was done. The only mention of sexual orientation and its need for notability on that page is in regards to Categories which is another matter and not one that is currently being discussed. --AlbionBT (talk) 13:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC) Can you please respond to the argument that it's 1) Evans's own words 2) in multiple non-tabloid sources 3) which have not been disputed (dating a woman is not disputing that he said he was gay) 4) and actually have been tacitly affirmed (Publicist: "As for Luke, he [commented on his private life] once, a long time ago"). How can this possibly violate BLP? --Merrywanderer (talk) 16:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC) Wikipedia can't even follow its own rules. "NOTABILITY" is not something to be applied within an article, as per the Wikipedia guideline on the subject: "The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content (with the exception that some lists restrict inclusion to notable items or people). Content coverage within a given article or list is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies." Yet this is why the article has been censored. No wonder Wikipedia is so widely scorned. Not only do facts not matter here, but this place can't even follow its own rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.188.7 (talk) 19:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC) Policy versus editorial judgment I haven't participated in this discussion, nor even read all of the back-and-forth here, but can we at least agree that there is no violation of WP:BLP involved here and that the argument is about exorcising editorial judgment? If there is a violation, can someone please explain in short sentences with direct reference to policy? This isn't going to end well. It is probably in Wikipedia's best interests to reduce the protection level on the article and work this out on the talk page with less polarized editors. Delicious carbuncle (talk) That will not happen. Wikipedia has censored the article in violation of its own rules. This is far from the first time such a thing has happened at this phony children's encyclopedia, and it's far from the last time it'll happen. This is merely one more instance of the sort of disregard for fact and internal policy that has made Wikipedia a standing joke among serious people, and academics, throughout the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.188.7 (talk) 17:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC) Your arguments would carry a lot more weight if you stopped insulting everyone. AlbionBT (talk) 19:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC) I'm not insulting any people. I am insulting Wikipedia. It is a joke. Remember: Not a single responsible academic institution anywhere on earth permits either students or faculty to cite Wikipedia as a source. In popular culture, Wikipedia is typically the punchline to a joke. This isn't an "encyclopedia," it's a bunch of words thrown together by flash mobs of children with no respect for facts or for Wikipedia's own stated policies. Whether or not I am polite has nothing to do with the corruption right at the center of everything Wikipedia does. Oh, and even if the actor's homosexuality is restored to this article, it won't "fix" anything. The fact that there was ever an argument about this here shows that Wikipedia merely postures as an information resource. It can never be trusted by any responsible adult. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.188.7 (talk) 03:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC) Nonsense - Experienced editors should be aware this thread and the article are mentioned off wiki on a gay chat thread and new users are showing up from there. Someone sexual preferences are not notable - unless they are massive, this subjects sexual preference is not notable - and jonny said he was a homosexual and then he dated a woman, really how encyclopedic-ally interesting - this is simply a matter of editorial control and respectable reporting about living people. Off2riorob (talk) 18:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC) Do you have any evidence to back up that assertion? This issue has been reported in a large number of places and has generated a large number of tweets, more than just a 'gay chat thread'. AlbionBT (talk) 19:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC) From Wikipedia's own "NOTABILITY" rule: "The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content (with the exception that some lists restrict inclusion to notable items or people). Content coverage within a given article or list is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies." But, you see, on this laughingstock of an "encyclopedia," the children who write and edit it can't even follow their own rules. Sad, irritating, and laughable, all in one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.188.7 (talk) 18:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC) That guideline appears irrelevant here as for the sad laughable children - don't get me started, please stop it with your attacking opinions, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 18:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC) Why of course that guideline is irrelevant. Facts are irrelevant too. After all, this is Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.188.7 (talk) 18:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC) This section starts with a false premise: All policies require editorial judgement. BLP requires more editorial thought, not less. I'm also not seeing any compelling evidence that the material in the "personal life" section is anything other than trivia. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 06:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC) Everything is trivia when it comes to celebrities. I never read any of that. Therefore Paris Hilton should be speedily deleted per BLP. FuFoFuEd (talk) 09:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC) FYI: topic ban proposal I have requested that Off2riorob be topic banned from articles like this at WP:AN. FuFoFuEd (talk) 05:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC) I saw the request there and I have to say it was extremely poor judgement on your part. You don't jump to a topic ban because you don't like how your discussions with someone are going in one instance. Next time please explore more productive ways to work your problems out.Griswaldo (talk) 11:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Tawana Brawley rape allegations

Tawana Brawley rape allegations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

After Brawley's rape allegations were shown to be false, she withdrew from the public eye. She has since joined the Nation of Islam and changed her name. Is it appropriate to mention those facts in this article, or does WP:BLP#Presumption in favor of privacy preclude it? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think her later life should be mentioned. If she has changed her name, she may be trying to disconnect from an earlier negative experience. She is not a public figure who needs to be followed with successive developments in her life unless they are strictly connected to the earlier incident that was in the public eye. I think we should be presuming privacy is called for. She was also quite young when she was in the public spotlight. Life changes a lot with the transition to adulthood. Bus stop (talk) 18:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree. This is an article about a notable incident that happened a long time ago. It is not a biography that ought to describe every event of her life. Let's respect her privacy now. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:31, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

As the subject of the article was a major events, very well publicized by TB and her supporters, and had a significant impact upon race relations in the US, a continuing interest in the person is justified. People quite reasonably want to know the later life, and there can be no possible presumption of privacy about her in general. That she joined the Nation of Islam & changed her name is relevant information if unequivocally reliably sourced; where the presumption of privacy does hold, is what she changed her name to. Perhaps this was the intend of the comment here. DGG ( talk ) 15:37, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

You say that the event "…had a significant impact upon race relations in the US". I highly doubt that. It was an event but I don't think a case could be made that it had any impact on anything at all—and that is primarily the point. This is not an article about Tawana Brawley. It is merely an article about an incident that inflamed racial tensions. But that incident is entirely over. This article is titled "Tawana Brawley rape allegations". There were allegations of rape and they involved Tawana Brawley. The nature of the case was such that it highlighted injustices perceived and real on two sides of a black-white divide. The case was a flare-up that has since disappeared. We must not confuse one incident with ongoing interest in anything related to that incident however tenuously. Tawana Brawley is not a public figure and never was a public figure. It doesn't matter what transpires in her life subsequent to the incident which took place in 1987. Why would it matter if a non-notable person changed their name? Bus stop (talk) 16:06, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Tawana Brawley is a hoaxter, as determined by a grand jury and by defamation lawsuits. Being a hoaxter means that she intentionally performed activities that were designed to put her in the public's eye (and even if she didn't intend such at first, she could not have continued the hoax later without intending it). It seems to me that intentionally putting oneself in the public eye has to make someone a public figure, at least for the purpose of related subjects. And it's not like we're reporting that she took up stamp collecting; the events of her later life that are being reported are about a related subject. If a bank robber later joined an organization that promotes the idea that bank robbery is beneficial to society, we probably should report it. Ken Arromdee (talk) 20:48, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

@DGG, I know that the Brawley affair had a significant impact upon race relations in the New York area, but I'm not sure anybody outside the New York area has ever heard of Brawley.

@Ken, I don't agree. The facts of her later life are that she moved 300 miles away, changed her name, and converted to a different religion. That is like taking up stamp collecting. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

She engaged in an incident of race-baiting. SAhe then joined a religion most prominently known for its connection to race relations. Sounds relayed to me. Ken Arromdee (talk) 16:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The Nation of Islam is an African American organization and Tawana Brawley is an African American. There is no significance to Tawana Brawley joining the Nation of Islam except any significance that might be gratuitously read into it. The question becomes: why are we mentioning this extraneous piece of information in our article? Are we trying to make a point? What point are we trying to make? The only subject that attains the level of noteworthiness qualifying itself for an article is the incident. The individual, Tawana Brawley, would not qualify, in terms of noteworthiness, for an article on her alone on Wikipedia. It is only the circumstances of the incident that thrust her into the spotlight. Therefore her ongoing life should not be subject to continual coverage unless something significant came to light relating her to the original incident. Merely joining an African American organization hardly qualifies as something that puts the original incident into a new and revised framework. Rather we should be concerned that a private individual not be tracked by Wikipedia, years after an incident, in ways that might be irksome to someone who has not attained the level of notability that would qualify them for a standalone article on Wikipedia. Bus stop (talk) 17:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, precisely. Wikipedia shouldn't concern itself with people's religion, or with any other personal issues, except in as much it relates to their notability, particularly when it involves persons who became notable as minors. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Not necessarily. At WP:NOTE we find: "Notability does not directly affect the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article." That is from the "This page in a nutshell" box at the top of that page. Further down that page I find a section called "Notability guidelines do not limit content within an article". The very first sentence of that section reads: "The criteria applied to article content are not the same as those applied to article creation." Bus stop (talk) 18:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLP does moreover limit what should be in articles covered by BLP concerns. And one limitation is that material should be of some importance to the biography. Not often I see a person disagreeing with a person who agreed with what they had written, to be sure. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Collect—I am not sure what your last sentence is saying—"Not often I see a person disagreeing with a person who agreed with what they had written, to be sure."[23] But this is not strictly speaking an article about Tawana Brawley. BLP concerns certainly apply. Any editor can argue that the title of the article should be "Tawana Brawley". But the title of the article presently is "Tawana Brawley rape allegations", and I have not heard any editor arguing thus far for changing the title of the article. It may very well be that BLP considerations led to the present title. But even if no such considerations went into the choosing of the present title, its present form serves to take focus somewhat off Ms Brawley. The title says that this article is primarily about "…rape allegations". I fail to see how joining the Nation of Islam and changing the name have bearing on "rape allegations". BLP calls for high quality sources. We have a high quality source—but it doesn't matter—because this is not an article primarily about Ms Brawley. BLP says: "…it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives…" There is nothing particularly "sensationalist" or "titillating" about joining an organization or changing one's name—but it doesn't matter—because this is not an article that focusses on Ms Brawley. BLP concerns make their presence known in the title—whether that title was chosen out of BLP concerns or not. In my opinion, some of the most applicable BLP concerns at this article are a direct consequence of the title: it is not an article about Ms Brawley, so why should we be tracking relatively inconsequential developments in her life twenty years after the "rape allegations" which are the focus of the article? Bus stop (talk) 16:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The cite for her becoming Muslim clearly connects it to the rape case - and also includes claims by her parents that she would be protected by any mosque in the world. In short - the cite is absolutely and clearly germane to the article at hand. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

What cite are you referring to? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Reading over this, I'm inclined to agree with DGG here; what she's done later in life is directly related to this hoax. She moved 300 miles and changed her name because of the fallout of this whole case; I certainly think that if she's the primary topic of this hoax, the effect it's had on her should be mentioned. At the risk of violating WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS here, there is some mention of what happened to Rodney King after the riots in the Rodney King riots article. Obviously not quite the same thing, but I think the logic still applies. Full disclosure; I'm from Fairfield County, CT, which is certainly in the New York area. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe a short blurb on her current situation is warranted. Also, I live in Oregon and was quite small at the time, but I still was aware of the TB thing. It was big news across the nation, not just in NY. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 15:09, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

• I am inclined to say presumption in favour of privacy outweighs the other concerns here, because she was a minor at the time she became notable. Presumption in favour of privacy becomes an even more definite concern when it comes to mentioning her new name; I would be against it. --JN466 22:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

  We don't necessarily have to say what her new name is, just that she decided to change it and join the nation of Islam. That'll show how the fallout of the hoax affected her without necessarily invading her privacy. You kinda lose your right to that level of privacy when you deliberately whip up a media circus; the fact that she was a minor then is somewhat immaterial, because she's an adult now. I get where you're coming from, but that doesn't absolve her of her notability for instigating this hoax. If Wikipedia were around in WWII, it wouldn't be any different than mentioning that Mark Rothkowitz (see where it redirects to) had changed his name without mentioning it (at least until he began publishing his works under that name). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:59, 14 August 2011 (UTC) Finished at 01:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

  Wikipedia should not be in the business of meting out retribution. The Blade of the Northern Lights reasons that, "You kinda lose your right to that level of privacy when you deliberately whip up a media circus…" I haven't seen that in WP:BLP policy. And I also read above, "That'll show how the fallout of the hoax affected her…" Do we really know that there is any connection between joining the Nation of Islam and the 1987 rape allegations? They seem utterly unrelated to me. I'm not sure why we are considering following her around 20 years after the incident to report unrelated developments in her life. That is an invasion of privacy. She is a non-notable individual according to Wikipedia's definition of notability. I think arguing for inclusion of the fact of her joining the Nation of Islam should be pursued by arguing for a title change to just her name. The name of the article isn't just "Tawana Brawley" (though there is a redirect) and we should respect that. Bus stop (talk) 02:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

  It's not "meting out retribution" any more than mentioning that Rodney King ran his record label into the ground and had several additional arrests in the Rodney King riots article; that's not at all related to what made him notable, but it's true and received significant media attention. I also haven't seen in BLP policy that we pretend things didn't happen just because the subject doesn't want people to know, even if it's verifiable (and it is). Again, DGG, Peregrine Fisher, Ken, and I aren't saying we need to reveal her name, just mention that she has changed it. Ken above explained why it was significant, and not just like taking up stamp collecting. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)Just as a side note; when I say you lose your right to that level of privacy, I'm not talking in a Wikipedia sense, more at a general level. The media will pay more attention to you if you deliberately grab their limelight, whether you want the extra attention or not; that's inevitable.

  Revealing her new name is irrelevant. It doesn't matter one way or the other. We aren't discussing secrecy. We are discussing the propriety of privacy. That starts with whether or not we add that she has joined the Nation of Islam. You mention receiving "significant media attention." I don't think we are concerned with this because this is not an article about Tawana Brawley. I respect that you are not speaking about privacy in the Wikipedia sense, but I think it would be a good exercise for Wikipedia to try to hone standards above the general media. I think the Rodney King article is misnamed. A title should distinguish between an incident and an individual. Bus stop (talk) 03:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

  Blade, I'd agree with you if she had been an adult at the time. But she was a minor, and minors are not held responsible for their actions in the same way as adults. --JN466 12:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Autograph as signature in infobox

I noticed this edit which adds a signature to an infobox of a living person, and it appears the signature is a newly uploaded image of an autograph. There was a discussion about this issue at Jimbo's talk which pointed to a proposal at WP:Signatures of living persons. What is current feeling on this practice? It appears the editor (Hindustanilanguage (talk · contribs)) is doing similar edits on other articles, and I will let them know about this question. Johnuniq (talk) 12:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

My view is that unless the signature is historically significant (the Founding Fathers, signers of the US Constitution, Elizabeth I, John Hancock etc) signatures of the living or dead serve no encyclopedic purpose whatsoever and should be removed from iboxes. In the case of living people, there are additional concerns with possible identity theft and fraud. – ukexpat (talk) 19:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, when celebrities go on signing/ autographing spree, they know the obvious risks. And I believe that they do take adequate precautions. Arundhati Roy is no single celeb to have her sign/autograph posted on the internet. How do you explain many other celebs including living heads of state whose autographs are posted on the internet? Hindustanilanguage (talk) 06:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with UKexpat's points. Don't see the encyclopedic value and the downside is possible ID theft. We have to be careful with BLP's. A little caution here would be good I think.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 10:35, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

FWIW - "autographs" are not the same as "legal signatures." Anyone trying to cash a check with a copy of what the celebrity furnishes as an autograph will be quickly disillusoned! (Even applies to George Herman Ruth, by the way) Collect (talk) 18:21, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, in my experience the most important thing about cheques is that there is some kind if ink in the proper field. A recognisable name is not usually required, let alone a unique signature. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• I have removed almost all/all of this User:Hindustanlanguage's additions of claimed uncited autographs and asked them to stop adding such without consensus support/discussion here. Uploading some signature without any verification that it is released and citable as noteworthy is simply not verifiable or encyclopedic. Off2riorob (talk) 19:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

It is interesting to try image searches for "[famous person] signature" - it often returns results and does in the case of the aforementioned Arundhati Roy. We are not Google though and our image policies are different; I mention this merely to establish that it is not an overwhelming security issue. I don't believe that many of them are worth including though. violet/riga _^[talk] 20:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I think ukexpat explained the situation well: there are cases where a signature is significant, but the examples I looked at in the current discussion appeared as non-encyclopedic fluff to me. We don't put someone's favorite color in their infobox, and we don't include their autograph (without good reason). Johnuniq (talk) 02:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for removing/ deleting all my contributions, Off2riorob. But:

1. Is it not rude on your part to ask a person not to edit signature on hand, and on the other unilaterally carry out a massive editing operation.

2. If you really believe in democracy and human rights, you should wait for the other persons reactions (For example, you asked me not to include any autograph in any article, give me some time to react to your order / appeal).

3. The autographs I have posted are from my personal collection. In fact, many have my name/my family member's name in the accompanying letter. I don't want publicity. I only want to share something with fellow Wikipedians. I am sure no one knows my name and probably will never know.

4. Please consider me also as a fellow human being.

5. Although I would not like to edit autographs / signature in the infoboxes till a decision is taken, justice demands that unilateral decisions taken by Off2riorob are undone immediately, i.e. till a decision is taken, let the existing autographs be in their place. Whether further inclusions are needed or unneeded shall be discussed later and I will fully cooperate in this direction. Hindustanilanguage (talk)

WRT the specific instance of the Roy autograph - a person who engages in "autograph signing sessions" and whose autograph is widely bought and sold is precisely the type of autograph which is reasonable on Wikipedia. One who has such sessions is producing autographs in abundance, including on letters, and the implication is that she is not using any signature which could be used to defraud on a legal document. This would not apply to persons who do not hold "autograph signing sessions" by the way. The only BLP issue would be fraud - which is not here present. Collect (talk) 12:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I mostly agree with Collect. Including a well-published signature or autograph is not a BLP issue. If it is useful or desirable is an independent question that may well be decided differently in different situations, and should best discussed elsewhere. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

It may or may not be a BLP violation, but what about the wider question of encyclopedic value? What is the encyclopedic value of including a signature/autograph such as Roy's? Answer: none. – ukexpat (talk) 12:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

If it is useful or desirable is an independent question that may well be decided differently in different situations, and should best discussed elsewhere. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Where is the verifiability - the citation to support what it is? I also see there alleged autographs as completely encyclopedic-ally valueless - this is my position wherever you discuss the issue. First issue which has BLP issues as regards verifiability is where are the reliable citations to assert they are what they are claimed to be? - None of them should be replaced without a WP:RS - the days of - trust me, its an autograph I got in 1987 at a book promotion are long gone (imo other users might support the inclusion of such uncited user created and disagree with me). User:Hindustanlanguage says, "The autographs I have posted are from my personal collection. In fact, many have my name/my family member's name in the accompanying letter." - although I assume good faith - that is different to verifiability. - you will notice I removed them with an edit summary of "uncited" - that as I said is my primary issue with these additions after that its "notability" and educational value? and also the low quality of some/all of them. As Stephen Shultz says , which unless there are complicating factors I agree with, "Including a well-published signature or autograph is not a BLP issue." Off2riorob (talk) 16:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Similarly an article could say, with perfectly reliable sources and therefore not a BLP issue, that the subject "has a cat named Spot", but unless that is somehow relevant to the notability of the subject, it is of zero encyclopedic value. – ukexpat (talk) 19:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Ukexpat. I got into this issue a while ago, possibly on the Robert Pattison article, but I'm not sure. There are lots of parameters in infoboxes that serve very limited purposes for a small subset of articles. Unfortunately, many at Wikipedia think that if it's a fact and it's sourced, that's the end of the issue. It's just the beginning.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Views V/s Admin/ Volunteer Views

The big issue which is probably missing in all the discussions is that what are the "accepted" opinions of Wikipedia itself?

1. What is the difference between a ‘signature’ and an ‘autograph’? Consider the cases:

a. Arundhati Roy signed her autograph for me?

b. Arundhati Roy gave her signature to me.

c. ‘to sign’ means ‘Mark with one's signature; write one's name (on) something’.

d. ‘signature’ is the noun form of the verb ‘sign’.

e. Autograph is ‘something written by one's own hand, usually by a celebrity’.

Hence policy-wise there is absolutely nothing wrong in uploading autograph as signature. It is completely wrong to undo the good work done by me.

2. When this person Off2riorob requests not want me to carry out editing of autographs as signatures, decency demands that he quote the accepted rule / norm about the autographs. Further, he should at least give me sometime to react – positively or otherwise.

3. Consider the Wikipedia article on Manmohan Singh:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manmohan_Singh --check signature part. The signature is in English and Hindi and is uploaded not by me but my the user: Connormah. Now compare a autographed letter uploaded by me: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ManmohanSingh_AutographedLetter.jpg

What’s the difference do you find? Which is an autograph and which is a just a signature? Admins first make a distinction been autographs of living and dead persons, then notability, then encyclopedic value, etc. What I say is where exactly is a written rule / norm in all such matters. If there is no written rule or norm, then how can Off2riorob carry out a ‘dissection’ of my articles?

4. The question of notability is very vague when you consider some of the Wikipedia pages such as:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spouses_of_presidents_and_prime_ministers_of_Iceland
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spouses_of_German_presidents_and_chancellors
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_First_Ladies_of_the_United_States

Is being the spouse of a president / head of state so special that you find a special mention on Wikipedia?

• - WP:Other stuff exists - Off2riorob (talk) 21:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

5. I have uploaded about 300 autographs. Initially I wanted to uploaded autographed photos. But there was an objection on account of copyright issues. So I was forced to restrict myself just autographs (without photos). The autographs which I uploaded include:

• David Ben Gurion.
• Niels Bohr
• Ernest Hemingway
• Dr John C Mather
• Faiz Ahmed Faiz
• Ho Chi Minh
• Mark Tully
• Milton Friedman
• P G Wodehouse
• Sania Mirza
• C V Raman
• Sirimavo Bandaranaike
• Host of celebrities from India / Asia and the world

In fact, Category: Autographs of the Wiki Commons mostly contains autographs uploaded by me. Does that mean no interest or encyclopedic value addition. How is it that Wikipedia fully encourages its volunteers to demotivate people like me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hindustanilanguage (talk • contribs) 07:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Your attempts to improve the project content is appreciated but imo in regard to policy and guidelines a bit mistaken. Category: Autographs of the Wiki Commons mostly uploaded by you are at least commons compatable and wikipedia readers and users can do what they want with them, which is great if users want to use them - but according to wikipedia policy and guidelines they can not add them to en wikipedia articles. Off2riorob (talk) 21:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Hindustanlanguage commons uploads - the user says he has uploaded three hundred of these unverified autographs.... have a look at the users uploads ... such as this http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ShazTamkanatAutographedPostCard.jpg . Please do not add these to any wikipedia en articles thanks. - Off2riorob (talk) 21:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC) Off2riorob (talk) 21:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean by this user has uploaded 300 unverified autographs? Compare, for example, the signature of Dr Manmohan Singh at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manmohan_Singh and the letter signed by him uploaded by me - you can verify things before your eyes. Similarly, the verification of a number of autographs can be found on the Wikis themselves. I fail to understand your efforts to ridicule a dedicated contributor. When want to downplay my contributions, you choose the example of an upload autograph in a language not known to you. What about the uploads, especially the ones I have mentioned in the example ? There is nothing wonderful in hurling abuses and downgrading others if you are part of a larger and more conducive forum. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 05:27, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

As I said, "Your attempts to improve the project content is appreciated " - I am not attempting to ridicule you in any way. If you can verify something in a WP:RS and you think it has value to the information in the article then great - please remember, wikipedia is not a reliable source in itself. - also imo neither is just look at the claimed signature and how much it is similar to my uploaded claimed autograph. As for the Singh signature , you would have to ask to uploader where he got it from as its basically uncited and unverified also. Off2riorob (talk) 06:19, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

My dear Off2riorob, when there is a rule in the English Wikipedia for one user, it should be equally applicable for all. You have taken the trouble to undo my editing work as well stopping me from further editing about autographs/signatures. You should follow the same rule for others such as the uploader you have cited. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 07:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I would like to amend all such issues but its a great big wiki and I just do what I can - I suggest it may be beneficial to you to introduce yourself to the User:Connormah - he seems quite an experianced contributor and interested in and has uploaded similar files as you, have a chat with him as to how best to resolve this, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 19:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with Connormah. In fact, even before you tried to enforce a moratorium on my editing of signatures/ autographs, I saw Dr Manmohan Sigh's autograph in two languages posted by him. I must admit that even though could cut the english autograph and upload it in place of Connormah's uploaded link, I didn't because his upload is superior (in two languages).

But the whole issue has blown out of proportion when you tried to delve into my editing history and undid my work without at least discussing things with me. So the onus falls on you to adopt similar stance for other editors as well. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 07:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry - I can only do what I have energy and inclination for I am a volunteer - I reverted your contributions because they were uncited - So ? Off2riorob (talk) 18:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Why is it that you are unleashing your energy only at me and not others? Hindustanilanguage (talk) 04:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Moreover, why is it that Off2riorob thinks a citation is required? The current version of today's featured article has five images with captions, including on in the infobox, and none of them have citations. The few citations I've seen in captions are for facts not derivable from the caption (e.g. a photograph of a plant with a caption discussing similar plants), and I've never seen one for the inclusion of an image without a caption. Richard Dannatt, Baron Dannatt was just promoted to FA this week, and it contains a photograph without a citation proving that it's the subject of the article. Signatures need no more verification than photographs: it's just as easy to create a fake signature as it is to take a photograph of a random person and claim that it's someone else. Nyttend (talk) 23:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Have you looked at some of the signatures? How do they help the article? Johnuniq (talk) 23:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I hope "the signatures" means signature uploads of Hindustanilanguage as well as all other users such as Connormah. In targeting me, you people forgot to adopt a similar stance for others. Further, the debates of living v/s dead persons and celebs with signing sessions v/s relatively reserved celebs also subsided. Only I am being stopped from contributing to Wikipedia and my work is wholly undone by Off2riorob without bearing any of these considerations in his(?/her) mind. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 06:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Tyrese Gibson

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

This page has an extreme amount of false information, specifically in the Awards & Nominations section. Seems like a prank to put in strange words in wrong places.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TJohanis42 (talk • contribs)

 Checking... - I'll look into it and see.  JoeGazz  ♂  15:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Paul Lendvai

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

Very biased 'biography' and potentially libellous.

It reads as if it has been created entirely to serve the poltical views of the Hungarian right (who are doing their best to publically discredit PL at the moment).

It should be removed asap, if it cannot be rewritten from a more neutral POV.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.98.12.90 (talk • contribs)

agreed. As he is clearly notable it should be rewritten. Anyone is free to rewrite it, making clear from the beginning that there are two positions about the nature of his journalist activities, rather than doing as the article does, judging which one is correct. DGG ( talk ) 15:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I reverted what I saw as BLP violations and semi-protected it. The edits were basically restored so I reverted and fully protected, but this was removed (see my talk page). I've made some comments on the article talk page about sources, etc and found what looks like an impartial source. It definitely needs attention but one of the reasons I protected after removing material was to hand over to others to decide what should be in the article, as I don't want to edit it myself, having many other things to do (selfish me). Dougweller (talk) 11:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

It may be best to notify WP:HUNGARY because there's not much that editors not knowing that language can do here. FuFoFuEd (talk) 06:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

As a general note: the further you move to the East in Europe, the more biased the press tends to be. (ref for Hungary [24]) So even if stuff is cited from mainstream newspapers, there's a good chance it is biased, and newspapers from the other end of the political spectrum may not agree even on basic facts. FuFoFuEd (talk) 06:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Islam-related BLPs: Fjordman, Bat Ye'or

JonFlaune (talk · contribs)

I have concerns over this editor. He appears to have a highly negative view of those who are critical to Islam. Virtually all his 600 edits have been related in some way to the 2011 Norway attacks and Anders Breivik. His edits generally portray critics of Islam in a negative light and are of poor quality. Two examples are Fjordman and Bat Ye'or. Some of his edits on Fjordman:

• 3 August Adds that Fjordman is "far right" in Wikipedia's voice (his first edit at the article)
• 6 August Adds it back when reverted
• 6 August Adds that Fjordman is "Islamophobic" in Wikipedia's voice, sourcing it to an opinion piece
• 6 August Someone attributes the labels "far-right" and "Islamophobe" to his critics, but JonFlaune reverts them back as facts in Wikipedia's voice
• 6 August Adds that Fjordman is an "extremist" in Wikipedia' voice, sourced to this, which is of undetermined reliability
• 7 August Adds that Fjordman is a "conspiracy theorist" in Wikipedia's voice
• 7 August Adds the Category:conspiracy theorists category
• 7 August Someone changes "Islamophobic" to "anti-Islam", but JonFlaune reverts backs, saying "scholarly term used by sources"

The article now says Fjordman is a "Norwegian[1] far-right[2][3][4] Islamophobic[5] blogger and conspiracy theorist[6] who uses the pseudonym Fjordman". Before JonFlaune edited the article, it merely said he was a "anonymous Norwegian blogger". Some of his edits on Bat Ye'or:

• 7 August Adds conspiracy theorists category (based on the premise that some argue that Eurabia is a conspiracy theory)
• 7 August Adds that Robert Spencer is a "Islamophobe", sourcing it to an Al Jazeera opinion piece
• 7 August Adds that Bat Ye'or was cited favourably by Breivik, an attempt at guilt by association
• Further edits that unbalance the article

JonFlaune came to my attention when he renamed the template "Criticism of Islam" to "Islamphobia" (and the corresponding template title) (so that all the critics on the template were Islamophobes), arguing bizarrely that it was a "non-extremist title", saying further that "The curren title of this template ("Criticism of Islam") is POV and Islamophobic". I reverted the rename, and they responded by adding a POV tag to the template. I went to their talk page, but I didn't think their response was constructive (he said I had moved a template from a "neutral, established, and scholarly term to a POV title expressing a fringe point of view and which pretends the racist Eurabia conspiracy theory is merely "criticism" of Islam"). I'm bringing this here for more eyes, and because I don't want to have to follow him around and monitor his edits. Christopher Connor (talk) 22:46, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

This is not an appropriate place to discuss this - none of this concerns WP:BLP policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:53, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Aren't Fjordman, Bat Ye'or, Robert Spencer etc. covered under BLP? Christopher Connor (talk) 23:04, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes there are some BLP issues but if there are severe BLP violations then WP:ANI might be a better place to report. New user - strong POV around a single issue and a limited understanding of wikipedia policy and guidelines. I reverted this one for undue attacking labeling, personally from this users contributions they are unable to edit NPOV in their single issue and they should be topic banned in any edit connected to Islam/Muslims and pointed towards WP:Adoption - Off2riorob (talk) 23:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

You are the user who insists on describing Robert Spencer -- the leader of what the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti Defamation League (and any other reputable source) consider to be an extremist hate group[25][26] -- euphemistically, politically, and misleadingly (and completely unsourced) as a "writer on the West's relationship with Islam"(sic!). The real problem here appears to be users with strong and fringe opinions enforcing such views in these articles. What's next? Will the leader of KKK (another organization considered to be an extremist hate group by the mentioned reputable sources) be described as a "writer on the West's relationship with people of African origin"?JonFlaune (talk) 05:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Fjordman is described as far-right and Islamophobic by the Norwegian Wikipedia and most (all?) mainstream sources -- for example by The Independent[27]. It has been pointed out by others that some editors have "slanted the (Eurabia) article towards supporting views" (see extensive previous criticism on its talk page), and indeed it appears it's heavily guarded (any criticism of this fringe and far-right conspiracy theory, as it's described by all mainstream and non-extreme sources (e.g., Marján, Attila; André Sapir (2010). Europe's Destiny. Johns Hopkins University Press. p. 161. ISBN 0801895472), was just removed from the lead). The same applies to some other articles related to Islamophobic far-right concepts. Spencer is a self-proclaimed "counterjihadist" and founder of "Stop Islamization of America" (considered to be extremist by the Anti Defamation League[28] and considered to be a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center[29]), and extremely controversial, described as "Anti-Muslim" (which is the same as Islamophobia) by the New York Times[30]. Dagbladet writes that:

"Spencer is widely considered to be an extreme Islamophobe who is spreading hate against ethnic groups and religions. He has been heavily criticized by [the American organization] The Anti-Defamation League"[31]

The Anti Defamation League writes, for example, that he is an "anti-Muslim writer" who promotes "a conspiratorial anti-Muslim agenda" and considers him a proponent of an "extremist ideology"[32] Describing him as a "writer on the West's relationship with Islam" (in an article which looks more like an advertisement for fringe, far-right ideology than a balanced and encyclopedic article based on mainstream sources), as if he were a recognized authority in the field, is not only extremely misleading, it's clearly political.

As for the categorization of Bat Ye'or, Category:Conspiracy theorists states that:

"For purposes of article inclusion, this category specifically only includes articles where the subject is mentioned in their article as actively defending one of the conspiracy theories listed in the articles under Category:Conspiracy theories"

Eurabia is categorized under Category:Conspiracy theories. Andrew Brown (writer) describes her as the inventor of the Eurabia conspiracy theory.[33]. Numerous other sources can be found establishing that she is a promoter of what mainstream scholarly works and mainstream media consider to be a conspiracy theory. JonFlaune (talk) 02:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

For comparison: The Norwegian Wikipedia article on Fjordman states in the introduction that he is "a far right Norwegian blogger [...] who writes English language conspirational, dystopian articles criticizing Islam and Muslim immigration to Europe". In the body of the article, he is described as an Islamophobe, which is sourced to an interview with a researcher at the Norwegian Center for Studies of Holocaust and Religious Minorities in Dagbladet[34]. The Dagbladet article discusses Fjordman's proposed "Nazi solution" (from the article title) for Europe's muslims (i.e. he wants to "remove" all Muslims from Europe). Obviously Fjordman is also categorized under Islamophobia on the Norwegian Wikipedia. I must admit that I'm somewhat opposed to the idea of removing all muslims from Europe, but surely, agreeing with the article subject is not a condition for editing the article. JonFlaune (talk) 09:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Fjordman should be renamed, thats the only BLP concern I see (I KID! :) As to the other stuff, this is a behavior issue, not a BLP issue, I concur ANI should be the place.

I will only add that there is nothing insulting in calling a a spade, a spade. Calling an anti-semite an anti-semite is not a violation of BLP if it is verifiable, and neither is calling a far-right-winger a far-right-winger if it is verifiable. There are problems if not verifiable or the only sourcing is partisan - extraordinary claims do require extraordinary sourcing.--Cerejota (talk) 11:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Peter Palumbo, Baron Palumbo

Odd recent edit history over at Peter Palumbo, Baron Palumbo: vast expansion of the article last night, which at first glance looks as if it could be a hatchet job, followed some hours later by a proposed deletion by a new account, giving the reason "Lord Palumbo himself has seen his Wikipedia page and has decided categorically to delete it. He wishes to take no further part in Wikipedia and very much disagrees with the page's existence. He asks that the Wikipedia community respect his wishes and apologises for any inconveniences caused."

I considered contesting and simply reverting to the revision as of 3 August 2011, but thought perhaps some extra eyes would be of use, given the apparent sensitivity of the subject's feelings on the issue. --88.104.47.107 (talk) 06:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I have restored the article back to April of this year, which is before most of the COI edits and the very weird addition of contentious material with most unorthodox sourcing methods. I have removed the prod tag because the reason given is not a valid one. The restored version is unsourced, which is a significant problem. I will look at it to remove any material that is contentious and add a tag. Other eyes would be helpful.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't this fall under biographies of people who are marginally notable, where we take into account the subject's wishes to delete the article? Ken Arromdee (talk) 05:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Amy Goodman

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

User:Mathsci has removed some sourced criticisms form the Amy Goodman article claiming BLP violation: [35] Original source: http://www.jewishpress.com/printArticle.cfm?contentid=17410 The Jewish Press is a reliable source. Feedback if this is a BLP violation would be appreciated. Miradre (talk) 13:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP, "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone." The piece is a sharply-worded one-sided attack by the senior editor of a self-described "politically incorrect" publication that "has been a tireless advocate on behalf of the State of Israel" "[k]nown for its editorial feistiness" [36]. The source is neither WP:RS nor presented conservatively or in a disinterested tone. Rostz (talk) 13:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

'Sourced criticisms"? Really? What else do we find in the article cited: "Professor Noam Chomsky, one of the most virulent Israel-bashers in America and a friend of Holocaust deniers everywhere, is a close friend of Amy's". Guilt by association of the worst kind. Garbage like that doesn't belong in any encyclopaedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

See WP:NEWSORG which would seem to apply here. Newspapers usually have a political stance. That does not make them unreliable. See also what WP:NEWSORG says regarding opinion material. "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces are reliable for attributed statements as to the opinion of the author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." Miradre (talk) 13:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Any further BLP violations of this type, added after being warned explicitly, will be removed on sight and if repeated could result in a block. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 13:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I asked for outside opinions. I know yours already. AndyTheGrump as well as Rostz are involved in disputes with me so I would appreciate opinions by uninvolved editors.Miradre (talk) 13:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I am just interpreting wikipedia editing policy accurately. Having been given prior warnings, you are currently disrupting wikipedia to make a WP:POINT. Mathsci (talk) 13:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

How is asking for uninvolved views on this noticeboard disrupting Wikipedia? Miradre (talk) 13:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

You were explicitly warned about this material in relation to Amy Goodman; and while this very issue has been raised at an arbitration noticeboard, you chose nevertheless to make a disruptive WP:POINT, blatantly violating WP:BLP. Mathsci (talk) 13:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• Mathsci, would you be so kind as to link to the difs of the warning, and of the Arbitration noticeboard comment(s)? thanks much. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

  The specific article was discussed in relation to Amy Goodman here. The attempts to add negative or improperly sourced content about Amy Goodman were mentioned on WP:AE here.[37] Mathsci (talk) 13:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

  You cite yourself. Still unclear how asking for an uninvolved opinion disrupts Wikipedia.Miradre (talk) 14:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

  Given that Miradre chooses not to respond to my point about the source, can I ask 'uninvolved editors' to comment on whether they think the Jewish Press article is suitable for use in a BLP? AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I concur that you citing yourself is somewhat different than other non-involved editors making these same points; I would have appreciated it had you made that more clear in your original post, Mathsci ("I have previously informed Miradre [here] and [here]", for example). That said, I will address the question of disruption. the edits violate BLP and if you continue adding such content, you risk sanctions. While raising the question here was the correct procedure, continuing to argue the point or re-adding the content, or similar content, or raising the issue in other venues, may be construed as disruptive, which also may carry sanctions. In the future, please be much more careful about the sourcing for any negative content on a BLP. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Miradre proposed edits of that kind and was warned by me, before adding such content, to ask for advice here. In the talk page discussion linked above other editors concurred with that view and the interpretation of BLP. A previous edit of a similar kind was made here.[38] There was a discussion following that edit which resulted in Miradre adding an NPOV tag to the article Democracy Now!. Previously Miradre had blantantly violated WP:BLPPRIMARY by adding content to Democracy Now! about Amy Goodman drawn from a public tax declaration.[39] Mathsci (talk) 14:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Nothing defamatory or critical of Goodman was added. But I do not dispute that tax returns are a primary source so I did not object to the removal after this was pointed out. As noted there is a dispute here by the uninvolved editors regarding whether the Jewish Press article is OK or not. I think we should wait for more outside opinions.Miradre (talk) 14:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The puppy has spoken. The puppy said that the source is unacceptable per WP:BLP. The puppy is uninvolved. Please listen to the puppy. Mathsci (talk) 14:40, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Another uninvolved editors disagrees. See below.Miradre (talk) 14:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The difference is that Killerchihuahua is an administrator and has given a warning about santions. WP:BLP is very strict. Mathsci (talk) 14:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Goodman is a broadcast journalist. The fact that she has been accused of bias by a notable publication seems relevant. Even if they chose to do it in a way we don't like. --GRuban (talk) 13:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Criticism is required by WP:BLP to be presented "conservatively, and in a disinterested tone"; the policy also states "Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association". The editorial meets none of these requirements. Rostz (talk) 14:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Rostz is correct; the contested content is unacceptable per BLP. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

That's a requirement on how we should present criticism. That's not a requirement on what sources we should take note of. --GRuban (talk) 14:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Without questioning whether you have seen, below, that the source itself is questionable, I find this kind of hair splitting to fly in the face of common sense, and border on tendentiousness. Are you saying that we must take care in not being biased and hyperbolic, but oh, its ok if we use sources which are biased and hyperbolic? That seems overly argumentative. I'm sure there is a better word for what I'm thinking this is; I hope I've managed to be clear nonetheless. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The difference is that we write about the world, which is often biased and hyperbolic. We can do our best not to be that way ourselves, but that doesn't mean we need to pretend the world isn't. We have entire articles, much less sentences, about far worse, more biased, and hyperbolic, personal attacks on living people, for example Macaca (term). For that matter, most of Category:Ethnic and religious slurs. We can't endorse what that editorial says without better sources, correct. But we should note that an important conservative Jewish newspaper has accused her of bias. --GRuban (talk) 14:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

No, "we" really, really shouldn't, not without some strong sourcing from elsewhere. I don't know how to be any clearer about this. Do not re-add this information. If anyone does re-add this information, without extremely good secondary sourcing and an in-depth discussion on the article talk page, revert, inform them they are violating BLP, and inform me AND post on this page. Thank you. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• The source is questionable; unless supporting sources of more stature can be found, the content should remain out of the BLP. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• The only secondary source I have found is a peer-reviewed article which states that the current affairs reporting on Democracy Now! is as unbiased as comparable programmes on National Public Radio.[40] (see also [41]). I have previously explained that, with a little more detail, on Talk:Democracy Now!. Mathsci (talk) 14:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, yes, but you'll find plenty of accusations that NPR also has an anti-Israel bias. NPR#Allegations_of_ideological_bias, Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America#National Public Radio. Accusations of political bias are generally going to be opinions, rather than peer reviewed studies. This is the first I've heard of Amy Goodman, so I had to look around. I find there are plenty of accusations of anti-Israel in the blogosphere, but they're not of the stature of the Jewish Press. Here's one that is published on the official US blog of Meretz, the Israeli political party, but since that blog clearly disavows its statements as being the official statements of Meretz, I don't think it meets our standards in itself, though it does show the trend. --GRuban (talk) 15:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

We're not discussing NPR, or the validity or lack thereof of various complaints about NPR. Please do not cofuse the issue by dragging in other sources. The question about whether this content, sourced to one editorial on The Jewish Press, is acceptable, has been asked and answered. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• Per WP:NEWSORG, editorial commentary is reliable for attributed statements as to the opinion of the author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. The source in question is not appropriate for a WP:BLP. aprock (talk) 16:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
• Agree with Aprock. Leave the statement and the source out of the BLP. Binksternet (talk) 00:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Jared Bernstein

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

I would appreciate it if you would look at the entry for "Jared Bernstein."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Bernstein

On June 1, 2011, I posted a note on the discussion page suggesting that a fact be added to the "Publications" section. I also explained why this fact is relevant to the Publications section. I waited until July 7, 2011 for any comments on my suggestion -- none were posted, so I added my suggested edit that day.

On Aug. 2, 2001, an anonymous editor undid my edit without providing any reason.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jared_Bernstein&action=history

Rather than risk starting an edit war by simply undoing his edit, I would appreciate your guidance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebw343 (talk • contribs) 14:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Ebw343 (talk) 14:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)Ebw343

I replied on the article talk page. Short answer is that your addition was original research, and that was the reason it was removed. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 14:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. How about this:

According to Mr. Bernstein's website, which lists his publications, he has not published an article in a peer-reviewed economics journal. (footnote) See http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/publications/

Ebw343 (talk) 20:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC) Ebw343

Cameron Mitchell (singer)

Cameron Mitchell (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is not an urgent request, but I'd appreciate it if someone could keep an eye on that article for a few days. There was a flurry of edits yesterday, mostly harmless, but sourced to unreliable sources (some regarding his dating history) and other assorted fancruft. I'm a little concerned that his growing online fan base might continue to insert rumors or cruft. Thanks, /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Yep, I'll watchlist it and keep a close eye on it. Thanks for the heads up.  JoeGazz  ♂  12:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Fjordman (again)

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

Source given for him living at a "daycenter" does not say "for the mentally retarded" and I suggest that implying that he is "mentally retarded" absent an exceedingly strong source is contrary to WP:BLP. Others are invited to weigh in on this, but I find the claim to be "contentious" as a minimum. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• Unsourced materiel which could be construed as negative is an automatic removal; unsourced positive materiel can also be removed. No argument possible against removal of this unsourced claim. I support your removal of this content. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 22:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Revisiting the labelling of David Ogden Stiers as gay

• David Ogden Stiers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive69#David Ogden Stiers
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 41#David Ogden Stiers

In March of 2009, a little-known blog published what it claimed was an interview with actor David Ogden Stiers in which Stiers said he was gay. This interview was picked up and referenced by a number of reliable sources. Those sources were used to add the material to Stiers' BLP and to add the categories "Gay actors" and "LGBT people from the United States". I believed, based on an examination of their other content, that the blog was a clearly unreliable source and the mere mention by reliable sources did not (or should not) confer any measure of trustworthiness to that source. Other editors disagreed.

Two things have changed since that time. The gossipboy blog now redirects to a site called hatetrackers.com which appears to list suspected "child sex predators" (although it still makes reference to the gossipboy name on the main page). Also, Recent cases have shown that WP:BLPCAT is now taken more seriously on Wikipedia than in the past.

The basic argument is this: reliable sources are such because they are presumed to exercise editorial judgment and fact-checking (and presumably have an observable history of doing so). If reliable source Newspaper A says simply that unreliable Blog B said something about Actor C, that does not make the statement of Blog B reliable. Reliable source A has not reported the fact or confirmed that it is true, merely reported that Blog B has said it. While this seems obvious to me, it seemed difficult for people to grasp in previous discussions.

Is the single interview in an unreliable source sufficient and appropriate to use as self-identification as gay by Stiers? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that reliable sources quoting unreliable ones doesn't automatically give them validity. It would depend on what sort of fact-checking they did when they picked up the story, is there information on this? I'll go and read the links you posted now but if the info has truly been shown to be unreliable it should obviously be removed. AlbionBT (talk) 19:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• A single interview, unless by a very reliable source, would generally be insufficient for this. A person's sexuality is very personal, and if Stiers wanted this to be public knowledge there would surely be multiple instances of him discussing it. There are not; we must omit the info and the categories. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 22:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Disagree. The source is ABC News, and they don't just write "some blog claims Stiers is gay, but we're not sure", they put it in the headline of their story, as a fact, "'M*A*S*H' Star David Ogden Stiers Reveals He's Gay". So they think it's reliable. Did they do additional fact checking? We don't know, but it's original research for us to decide they must not have done enough fact checking. I see your point that there aren't many sources, but note the phrasing - Stiers reveals this "in the twilight of his career". In other words, he mentions it once he no longer cares, and there aren't many instances because ABC at least thinks that he's no longer that important. --GRuban (talk) 11:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
    • You seem to think that there is more than one source of this information. There is not. ABC explicitly credits the information to gossipboy in the second sentence of the article and then simply quotes chunks of it. I find your misguided reminder about "original research" particularly odd, considering you go on to invent a justification for why Stiers has not repeated this admission. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Heh. You are certainly correct on the last part - we don't know why Stiers didn't have more interviews, that's merely my speculation. But in general we trust sources like ABC News and MSNBC to fact check, and in this case we don't have any evidence that they didn't. Yes, they cite the interview, instead of conducting their own interview, but the way they wrote their story it is clear they are certain enough that the interview did, in fact, happen as stated, and Stiers did outright state he was gay. --GRuban (talk) 18:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

A reliable source does not make an intrinsically unrelible base source reliable by repeating gossip which amounts to a contentious claim about a person. Recall the hoax about Bush's IQ which got repeated in reliable sources - the repetition does not add any veracity to the claim. In the case at hand, we only have one real base source - the blog which clearly fails WP:RS. Stiers as a public person can not succeed in the US in any ciurt action, so the fact he did not sue the blog is irrelevant - the source at the heart is not reliable, so the claim, under current stringent BLP rules, must go. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

First, it's not gossip, it's an interview, the man's own words. Second, some pretty impressive news channels, 2 networks and a respected newspaper, did not consider the base source unreliable, they clearly considered it reliable to publish this clearly contentious information. It is not for us to decide they were wrong. Third - yes, actually, that is exactly how a source becomes considered reliable, by other reliable sources relying on it.--GRuban (talk) 18:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

As an aside, we should remember that WP:BLPCAT refers to the use of categories and does not concern what is written in the text of an article.   Will Beback  talk  23:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

GRuban, I suggest you take a look at the site as it exists today or read over the example content that I posted during the first discussion. I very much doubt that any responsible news organisation would consider this source to be reliable. That is why they took care to note the original source and absolve themselves of liability. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I just looked at the blog source which is at the heart of this.[42] The interviewer specifically asks the subject why he is giving to interview to the blog rather than a more prominent publication. The subject responds that it's because of a longterm association with a friend of the blogger. Since it was reported without question by MSNBC and ABC, it appears that those news organizations did find the material to be credible.   Will Beback  talk  01:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

And the 93 IQ hoax about Bush was thus also credible? A poor source does not become reliable just because an entertainment article cites it. And the requirement as to quality of sources is higher in BLPs than for other articles. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I see that it was also reported in several newspapers.[43][44][45][46] Taken together, this assertion seems to be "widely reported".

Also, we're not talking about George Bush's IQ here. This thread concerns David Ogden Stiers' announcement that he is gay. Different things entirely.   Will Beback  talk  01:50, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Nope - the issue is how many times a poor source gets repeated before making it a good source for a contentious claim. And I suggest that the answer is a lazy eight. [47] CBS News. By your apparent standards, the hoax is now "reliable" I fear. The whole idea of WP:BLP is that biographies must be conservatively written with exceedingly strong sources for any contentious claims. I suggest that the consensus on Wikipedia is now that WP:BLP must be upheld. Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

No one is calling this a hoax. There is no consensus here that these numerous sources are all too poor quality to use for a self-admission. I'll restore the material, but not he categories.   Will Beback  talk  02:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Hoaxes reported by RSs must be reported by us as true until they are later proved to be a hoax. Otherwise, one could come up with reasons to challenge most of our sources, saying they may be a hoax. Reliable sources decide, and if they decide wrong, we'll be wrong until something changes. Verifiability, not truth, etc. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:21, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Will Beback, why would you restore something labelling someone's sexuality based on a single interview in an unreliable source? WP:BLP has specific cautions pertaining to both sexuality and the use of poor quality sources. If Stiers sexuality was an important element of his career, I could see an argument for including this material, but it is not. Given the circumstances, I am baffled that anyone could defend this. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I would restore material based on what someone says about himself which has been widely reported in newspapers and online sources. Please quote the exact text in WP:BLP which requires us to delete this text: "In March 2009, Stiers came out as gay in an interview published by the blog Gossip Boy. Stiers also has a son from a relationship in the 1960s." The only material I see in BLP is WP:BLPCAT which only refers to categories, templates, and links.   Will Beback  talk  03:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

So unless there is a specific requirement to delete the material, you will re-add it? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

If there was no good reason for it to be deleted, then it should be restored. WP:BLP does not prevent reporting what people say about their own sexuality, religion, or other personal details.   Will Beback  talk  03:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Since it's a blog, there's no real evidence that it actually is Stiers own words. The blog's author could have fabricated it. That's one reason blogs are generally not allowed as sources. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

It's been reported in many mainstream media sources. The idea that is fabricated is a bit of a fantasy.   Will Beback  talk  03:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

So are blogs now considered reliable sources? Or have the mainstream media done some independent verification? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

ABC News, MSNBC, and the Courier Mail are reliable sources. Also, when someone conducts an interview, and the blog reports their responses directly, then it's an enormous presumption of mendacity to assume without any proof, that they simply made up the most important revelation in the interview, and that the subject did nothing to stop it from being published far and wide. Maybe, as Collect seems to believe, the whole thing is an elaborate hoax, but he's going to have to prove that.   Will Beback  talk  05:21, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

To be technical for a moment, ABC News, MSNBC, and the Courier Mail are news organizations, not sources per se. The stories they write are the sources, and sadly far too often people just stop at the brand name of a news outlet without stopping to identify whether the particular story is well-researched or reliable itself. WP:RS doesn't say "If its from ABC, go ahead and add it without question", but specifically 'Mainstream news reporting is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact'. Is this the reporting of news or simply reporting that a blog said such-and-such? I generally believe any source can be reliable, but if we ignore WP:RS just because we see a brand-name news source, we're doing a disservice to our content. -- Avanu (talk) 06:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Let's say we're writing about a bank robbery. A reporter interviews an eyewitness, whom she reports said, "the robbers fled in a blue car". The suggestion of some here seems to be, "how can we trust this eyewitness, the real source for this information?" That's entirely the wrong approach. The reliability of a source is the combination of three factors: the publisher, the author, and the nature of the claim. ABC is a broadcaster whose news department is known to be reliable. The author we know nothing about, but there's no reason to doubt his or her ability. The claim is not remarkable. That's sufficient for this matter. We're not flatly saying he is gay, we're saying that "he told a blog that he is gay", a fact which was widely reported. That's analogous to the reporter saying, "An eyewitness said the car was blue".   Will Beback  talk  06:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually in this present case, we have no idea what the motivations or reliability of the 'witness' are. And we often see mainstream news outlets publish things with little to no fact checking. The original website for this is no longer up and there are no other sources that independently confirm what was mentioned in this story. Despite being published in mainstream news outlets, we have zero confirmation that it is accurate and true. The mainstream outlet stories entirely rely on the blog story for their facts and don't mention independently contacting David Ogden Stiers. So this fails the WP:V test. -- Avanu (talk) 06:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The "eyewitness" in this case is the subject, who apparently sought out this blog belonging to a friend of a friend in order to give it a minor scoop, probably to give it some extra hits and income. The blog is not reporting that it thinks the subject is gay, or that it heard rumors that he is gay. It's simply reporting that he told them he is gay, and in his own words.

The gossip.boy blog looks like a small commercial local portal, blog, etc. site that likely had more than one employee. In any case it's setting a pretty low threshold to simply transcribe what someone tells you. Further, it's unlikely that ABC would be scouring Oklahoma gay blogs for juicy gossip on celebrities. More likely, the subject or the bloggers tipped the reporters to the story. That ABC and other news organizations decided to report it meant they believed it was true, they're just giving correct attribution to their source. Reprinting a libel creates a fresh libel.   Will Beback  talk  07:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

(innumerable edit conflicts) No end of red herrings and irrelevancies here. That Stiers came out in a blog is very much beside the point. Blogs are a fact of life, and celebrities and other notable people sometimes use them to communicate with the world instead of calling news conferences, writing press releases, going on TV, uploading videos to YouTube, granting interviews to magazines, posting announcements on their Facebooks or official websites, tweeting, or whatever; a blog is just one of many forms of communication. While it is understandable that blogs aren't acceptable as secondary sources, it is an utter absurdity to exclude information from an article simply because it originates on a blog. Every piece of news, unless it's based exclusively on a reporter's own observations, originates with a source, and it is not our job as editors to second-guess the reporters as to a given source's reliability. In this case, a variety of news outlets widely considered at Wikipedia to be reliable have reported the information. Years ago. Each of them has had ample time to retract it and run a correction; none has done so. Per Will Beback, Peregrine Fisher, and both letter and spirit of WP:RS, the information is verifiable and belongs in the article. Rivertorch (talk) 07:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd also add that it is relevant to his notability. In the interview he said he had waited this long to come out because of fear for his career.   Will Beback  talk  07:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

You now assert that his "gayness" is relevant to his notability? The NYT has mentioned him 467 tomes - and in not a single one of the mentions found on that site is he called "gay." WaPo over seventy articles since 1987 - not a single "gay." So "relevant" is it? Not very. How do actually reliable sources feel? [48] Why are we supposed to care that David Ogden Stiers is gay? I suggest no one cares, and that it is thus irrelevant to his biography per WP:RS sourcing. Pardon our yawn.' Claims about sexual orientation are contentious - all but you seem agreed. But it is "relevant" is the response? Not much. Cheers. Collect (talk) 08:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is relevant to his career. Just as if he said that he had had hair implants, or learned to speak German for a role. I dn't really se why you're protesting this so much. It's not a contentious assertion, it's based on an interview with the man himself, and it's widely reported. What's the problem?   Will Beback  talk  09:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Rivertorch (and others), the concern is not that the source is a "blog" but that it is an unreliable blog reporting something that has not been reported anywhere else before and not repeated since. Please go to the existing site or an archive of the original site and consider whether or not this is a reliable source. Is this a trustworthy source, one that should be used not for uncontroversial facts but to label someone's sexuality? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

All good questions that have been answered in the affirmative for this particular information by the many reliable sources that reported on the interview. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 15:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Snippet from the archive you link to:

The one who better stay out of Salem, Massachusetts, is also an instructor at Transformation Fitness Center. Now as this is located in Edmond, OK, you know city ordinances require it to revolve around church life. TFC is owned by Ministries of Jesus – Healing Spirit, Body & Soul. Anyone else think that Edmond is one of those types of towns that Fox Muldar and Dana Scully would stumble across? Could Lord don’t peek in a window as you might see some pig woman breeding with her sons! Take a clue Mr. and Mrs. Blair --- that episode was banned on television for a reason.

Yeppers -- sounds like a really reliable source indeed. Not. <g> Collect (talk) 15:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

(ec and agree with Collect) Really, people, until he's out and about in public with his publicly acknowledged partner, or makes a statement in recognized mainsteam media (such as an interview on "60 Minutes") this is all blog-based speculation. The phenomenon of repeating something until it takes on the mantle of veracity is nothing new, let's not indulge that phenomenon here. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 15:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Will, if you can't be certain of the source (aka verifiability), then nothing else matters. While Rivertorch makes a reasonable point that it was repeated in several mainstream news outlets, we don't have much evidence that it was news gathering/reporting (independent of the blog), as much as just repetition of something reported by a blog. Also, you make a case above that it is "relevant to his notability". He is not noteworthy for this, but for his work as an actor. You keep asserting that he is the 'witness' here, and he was interviewed, but if this is the case, then why didn't ABC or the others report that they independently confirmed this? If it is an unreliable source, then it might entirely be a fabrication. So in line with the BLP policy, we don't report it. Simple. -- Avanu (talk) 15:18, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The sources I'm suggesting using are ABC, MSNBC, and a couple of newspapers. I trust that these sources would have made a responsible effort to confirm the story before repeating it. They deemed the blog to be sufficiently reliable to use it. No one has retracted their versions of it. the idea that we have to scrutinize the sources of a source is not part of WP:V or WP:BLP. ABC is a reliable source, and that's sufficient.   Will Beback  talk  00:10, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Verifiability not truth

Someone has already rolled out the "Verifiability not truth" maxim in this discussion. I do not claim to know the "truth" about Stiers' sexual preferences. I do not care what Stiers' sexual preferences are, and I have no political or other interest in seeing him labelled one way or another. I continue to be amazed at the arguments offered here, when the source is so clearly unreliable and the claims made so personal. WP:VERIFY states "all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source appropriate for the content in question". Although this is an interview, and therefore Stiers himself is assumed to be the actual source, WP:VERIFY states:

Exceptional claims require high-quality sources.[5] Red flags that should prompt extra caution include:
   *surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources;
   *reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, or against an interest they had previously defended;

Both of these are true - Stiers has not said that he was gay either before or after this interview, and Stiers has previously said he is not gay (see this interview where because he plays a gay character in a play he is asked "Are you gay?" and he answers "No, I'm not.").

I was hopeful that this could be resolved through discussion of the source itself, but that didn't work last time either and I feel like I am banging my head against a wall here. So, I offer these diffs from an editor who took it upon themselves to call Stiers' publicist when the story first broke: [49] & [50]. I offer no comment, since I think there are all kinds of problems with this approach, but perhaps some editors who are not swayed by reason will read these diffs and reconsider their opinion. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment Based on the diffs you provided, perhaps it would be helpful to contact his agent again. The point is privacy, and how much privacy DOS wants. There's no credible public interest in this, which is not the same as the interest of the public. If someone wants to improve the article, I note there is nothing about his directing (at least two episodes of MASH), and nothing about his long-term orchestra conducting. I find these two points much more in the public interest, and personally interesting as well. This unremitting focus on someone's private life is too tabloidish for an encyclopedia, imo. I do think it reflects the bullying culture within Wikipedia. Something to think about? 99.50.188.77 (talk) 15:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Contacting Stiers agent is really not the way to resolve this. For one thing, if I say I've spoken to them, you have to trust that I am telling the truth about that and that I am not misrepresenting what they said. For another, there are obvious verification issues. I do agree with you both about the other areas of the article that could be improved instead, and, to a certain extent, about the the "bullying culture" although I don't think those are the words I would use. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I read the two links, and they were years ago, and shortly after the story broke. My point about talking to them again was that their view on this may well have changed, and BLP requires that we show sensitivity to the subject's current privacy wishes. 99.50.188.77 (talk) 16:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

ABC is a perfectly reliable source. This whole discussion is absurd.   Will Beback  talk  20:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Although I understand why you say it, ABC is not a source. It is a media organization. Each story/source should be independently critiqued (although it is far too infrequently done). -- Avanu (talk) 20:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Uh, ABC is a source. A media organization may be a reliable source. ABC is generally considered a reliable source. Beyond that, I'm not sure what your point is.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:42, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

"Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources" Are you saying ABC itself is a published thing? Or is it an organization that publishes things?

"The word 'source' as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings: the piece of work itself (the article, book), the creator of the work (the writer, journalist), and the publisher of the work (for example The New York Times, Cambridge University Press, etc.). All three can affect reliability."

So again, while I get what Will was saying, ABC by itself is not a source, but must be taken together with the other pieces of what Wikipedia means by "source". -- Avanu (talk) 20:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

That's all delightfully academic, but why don't you apply it and say whatever it is you think about this source and this article?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The "creator", as far as we can tell, is that blog. None of the sources we have seen so far show that they independently confirmed the information. I keep trying different Google searches to try and verify something, but I can't find anything yet. Although my 'gut' tells me this is probably accurate, we don't run Wikipedia on 'truthiness'; we go by what we can actually verify. -- Avanu (talk) 21:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, all three elements are the blog, but I thought the issue was whether ABC was a reliable source, not the blog. We're really going in circles, though. Will's point is that because ABC reported the interview, it means they believed it and put their imprimatur of reliability on what otherwise would have been a unreliable source on WP. I should point out that many other reliable sources did the same. Other editors disagree and claim that all the reliable sources that reported on the interview are derivative of the unreliable source. I don't think we're getting anywhere on this issue. My view is it's a close call. Normally, when I see a derivative source like this one, I'm against citing it. However, here we have many reliable sources reporting on it, and not just in passing but extensively as fact. So, I suppose I side with Will.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Will Beback, why do you keep trying to make this discussion about the reliablity of ABC? All ABC did was report that a blog published an interview with Stiers. They took care to identify the source. They did not publish any comments from Stiers or his representatives. If the interview has been held with ABC instead of an little-known, now defunct blog, I would have no problem with the reliablity. But ABC is not the source - the sole source is Gossipboy.com. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Right, so what's the problem with relying on ABC, and the other news companies, as sources? Are they unreliable? The "original source" is not a blog, it's the subject who gave an interview.   Will Beback  talk  21:19, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, I strongly disagree that an unmarried actor saying he is gay is an "exceptional claim".   Will Beback  talk  21:21, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Will, how do you know the blog gave the interview? Were you there? You keep mentioning this original source and witness and so on, but you are simply relying on something for which we have no proof. Exceptional claim or not, it was only 'reported' by the blog, unless a mainstream news agency says they also fact checked it, we only have a third-hand report here, and no way to verify it. (By the way, I think this is probably a true story, but WP:V hasn't been met here.) -- Avanu (talk) 21:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Because I trust ABC.   Will Beback  talk  21:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

You appear to be suggesting that unmarried actors are likely to be gay, but I don't want to misinterpret your words. Is that what you are saying? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm saying that this is not an exceptional claim.   Will Beback  talk  22:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Stiers had previously said that he was not gay, and has not repeated the statement since. I would say it is the very definition of "exceptional". You earlier stated that you were going to restore the disputed information to the article, but you have yet to do so. Do you still intend to restore it? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I missed that previous statement. Could you please link to it?   Will Beback  talk  01:47, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, now I see it. The subject explains in the later interview that he used to be in the closet. The answer is simply to report both statements.   Will Beback  talk  01:49, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

And do you still intend to restore the removed material? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

As things stand now, yes. However I am waiting to see if user:Red Act has any comment.   Will Beback  talk  22:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The editor who called Stiers' management? Their suppositions they expressed in the talk page discussion from that time do not give me any confidence in their understanding of policy. They previously said they supported including the material but not the gossipboy reference, so I expect they will say the same now. How is their input germaine to your actions? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

That editor seems to know more about this controversy than anyone else.   Will Beback  talk  00:27, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Utterly amazing how Will Beback trusts a blog when it suits his needs but doesn't trust a recognized expert in a field when it suits his needs. 95.211.27.70 (talk) 23:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know which expert you're talking about. Does it concern this article?   Will Beback  talk  00:06, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

This is an impasse if ever I saw one.

@ Collect: The 467 NYT mentions aren't terribly relevant. Most of them are reviews and the like; they are passing mentions or deal exclusively with Stiers's professional work. As far as I can tell, no publication has run a lengthy interview or profile of Stiers since he came out.

@ Delicious carbuncle: Inclusion of the information isn't dependent on our perception of the blog's reliability; it's wholly dependent on the accepted reliability of the multiple secondary sources that ran the story. In the absence of any reputable reports that the information is inaccurate, there is no policy-based reason not to include it. The argument you're making to the contrary flies in the face of WP:V. The information has been out there for a long time now. Stiers and those in his employ have had ample time to refute it, and there is no evidence that they have done so.

The diffs you provide vis-à-vis Stiers's publicist are quite interesting but ultimately inconclusive. They also constitute a textbook case of original research. (Since they apparently had little if any direct influence on content, I don't see much of a policy violation, but it wasn't a great idea. By all means, one might contact the publicist, the agent, or the man himself—but only to make the suggestion that they provide clarification directly to a reputable media outlet.)

There is nothing "extraordinary" about the claim. In fact, it is an incredibly ordinary claim. A certain percentage of actors are gay. Not long ago, it would have derailed their careers to come out, so nearly all of them categorically denied being gay when asked. Times change, prejudices slowly fade, and courageous public figures decide to stop hiding and instead be open about themselves. One of three things happened in Stiers's case: (1) he made the decision—unfortunate in hindsight—to come out to a blogger or (2) he spoke openly to someone without realizing his words would be published or (3) he was the victim of a very successful hoax that took in several reputable news sources and went viral on the Web. It is not up to us to attempt to determine which of the three it was; the reliable sources have been reporting it for years now, there's no evidence that Stiers has complained, and that ought to be enough.

@ Avanu: Your argument appears to rely on a novel interpretation of Wikipedia guidelines. The source—in the WP sense of the word—is the secondary source. There are a bunch of those available, including ABC News, The Advocate, the Courier Mail, MSNBC, multiple NBC mirror sites, queerty.com, Yahoo Movies, answers.com, Access Hollywood, and so on. Several clearly meet WP:RS guidelines. There is no basis in policy for second-guessing our accepted reliable sources based on shortcomings we perceive in their original sources; if we did that, not only would we find that precious little WP content was verifiable but we'd also be violating WP:NOR.

It's not just ABC; it's ABC News. They are indeed one of multiple publishers of the story, as well as a secondary creator. As far as I'm aware, the veracity of the original creator (i.e., the blogger) hasn't been called into question—either regarding this story or in general—by any reliable source. If it had been, that might be a different matter.

@ everyone:This is the BLP Noticeboard, and I have yet to read any credible suggestion of a BLP violation. Not even close. But leave aside the cherry-picked snippets of wording and consider the basic aim of the policy: to avoid causing harm to living persons through the inclusion of damaging, unverifiable content. I support that aim strongly. If anyone can provide a sound basis for claiming that including this content is even remotely likely to cause harm to Stiers, I'd be very interested to read it.

Googling "David Ogden Stiers" gay returns more than 85,000 results, led by the ABC News page. Simplifying the search by omitting the word "gay" finds that same ABC News page in third place, behind only Wikipedia and imdb. Apparently, the Web-surfing public considers his coming out to be noteworthy and relevant. My hope is that Wikipedia won't find itself in the position of failing to include significant verifiable content that's available from innumerable other sources.

Sorry if tl;dr. I'm not really here. Rivertorch (talk) 08:38, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Rivertorch, did you take a look at the blog in question (then and now) as I suggested above? If so, what was your evaluation? If not, why not? This isn't an indictment of Wikipedia's sourcing in general, simply of the use of the secondary reporting of a specific interview in a specific blog. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I fail to see how looking at the blog would inform this discussion. In fact, it has been my chief point all along that the reliability of the primary source is irrelevant. Maybe ABC News, MSNBC, and all the other secondary sources got it terribly wrong. Maybe they failed to check their facts. Maybe they took shortcuts and never sought corroboration. Maybe the information is wrong and, despite its being reported as fact all over the place and entering the public consciousness, neither Stiers nor anyone associated with him has bothered to contact a single one of its principal disseminators, any of whom would have run immediate corrections (they do so every day for far lesser errors). Maybe maybe maybe; we can speculate ad infinitum, but it doesn't matter. None of it matters unless we learn of another secondary source that says it matters. As I see it, this is a really basic tenet of WP:V and its accompanying guideline, WP:RS: we rely on reliable secondary sources first, and what they publish trumps anything we may glean from primary sources. Rivertorch (talk) 04:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Rivertorch, The BLP concern is in calling someone 'homosexual' who doesn't want to be. I'm not saying David Ogden Stiers cares either way; I'm just saying that would be the central BLP concern. Googling and getting 85,000 hits is easy for almost anything. The problem we all keep seeing is that if we try to confirm that Stiers is gay, we can't find one peep on it besides the stories that rely on the blog. The statement "there's no evidence that Stiers has complained" is not the best argument for keeping material in WP. This entire thing circles around Verifiability, and I think Wikipedia 99% of the time just parrots whatever it is given from 'secondary sources', the problem is that many of these sources also just parrot what they are given, so we end up with content that is actually pretty dubious and poorly researched. -- Avanu (talk) 14:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

That is certainly something to consider, but it involves rethinking the foundations of core policy. That isn't germane to this or any specific case. It's way beyond the scope. Rivertorch (talk) 04:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Avanu, which is why I suggested we get an update from Stiers's agent to determine his current privacy views. Relying on a years-old gossip blog and a years-old statement by his agent is absurd. Wikipedia does not exist to repeat every bit of tittle-tattle about someone's private life that they wish to remain private, whether or not it's true. Stiers is NOT required to refute every claim which appears in a gossip blog, and demanding that he do so is equally absurd. It's called 'trawling' or 'fishing'. You sound like a reporter from the late News of the World. They recently learned the difference between public interest and interest of the public. It doesn't matter how many in the news media repeat the original story, we don't have to join them. They all reported on the Obama madrassa story, and the Obama born-elsewhere story, but that doesn't make them true. It was acceptable for ABC to report someone said something, but that doesn't mean we assume it's an incontrovertible fact as reported by a reliable source. If you don't understand the difference, talk to a serious journalist. 99.50.188.77 (talk) 16:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: The only source that Stiers is gay is the gossip rag; the ABC, etc articles merely reprot that interview and do not confirm the veracity of the claim: hence, we have one non-RS source for gay, vs. Stiers in a RS for not-gay. This is clear-cut. We do not have him in any category, nor do we have any content, which claims he is homosexual. To do otherwise is a clear BLP violation. Sexual preference is a very private matter; if Stiers wanted to be known as gay he would surely be saying so in more than one highly questionable interview which is not acceptable per WP:RS. Case closed; I am horrified that anyone is arguing otherwise. Remember that BLP means to respect the subject's desire for privacy as much as anything else. Stiers has not made it public; if and when he "comes out" in a RS we can revisit this, but not before. To claim that ABC reporting the interview implies some kind of "fact checking" by ABC is not acceptable. We do not know, nor should we guess, whether ABC even bothered to consider it, since they were reporting on the crappy interview. Puppy has spoken. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
  • We don't know what fact checking ABC News or MSNBC or The Advocate, or the Courier Mail or all the others did. But just as we can't assume they did some, neither can we assume they didn't. Our policy is to trust their reputation, which is, in sum, quite good. In the end, after all, the fact checking we are hoping for would have come down to them asking other sources that also individually wouldn't meet our policy. (For one thing, they would be unpublished and therefore unverifiable.) We are a tertiary source; we exist specifically to reprint secondary sources. Those secondary sources often rely on primary sources that would not, in themselves, meet our various policies. We do not do the research ourselves, we are forbidden to. We rely on reliable sources. These are them. And no offense to the speaking puppy, but I believe our policies also require us to consider these sources as more reliable than she is. --GRuban (talk) 20:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
    • We're going in circles, but again RSs determine what's reliable information, and lots have published this info. WP:RS needs to be modified if we don't like the result, since BLP says follow the sources. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 21:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Woof. WIth all respect, Puppy's bark doesn't determine consensus; we have a whole pack for that. Sexual orientation (not preference) can be a "very private", as you said, or very public. Multiple sources generally considered to be reliable for WP purposes reported that Stiers self-reported his sexual orientation, which means it's no longer private at all. Those reports happened years after the contradictory reports, and they contained an explanation of why there were contradictory reports in the first place. Rivertorch (talk) 04:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

James O'Keefe

James O'Keefe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I believe that the lead sentence of James O'Keefe is a violation of BLP as stated here.

James E. O'Keefe III (born June 28, 1984) is a conservative American activist who has produced videos, which were recorded secretly and heavily edited before release, of public figures and workers in a variety of organizations. He came to national attention after publishing video and audios of workers at Planned Parenthood in 2008 and at ACORN in 2009. O'Keefe has altered recordings to portray his subjects as unethical, criminal, irresponsible and/or racially biased. Such secret recordings are illegal in California and Maryland, which are among the states where he staged encounters.

There seems to be a desire to drive home the fact that he edited videos and recorded them secretly by basically stating the same information twice in the lead paragraph. I have tried to present a more neutral presentation without any success. My current attempt at compromise here

James E. O'Keefe III (born June 28, 1984) is a conservative American activist. He came to national attention after secretly recording and then releasing edited video and audio of workers at Planned Parenthood in 2008 and at ACORN in 2009. O'Keefe edited the recordings to portray his subjects as unethical, criminal, irresponsible and/or racially biased. Such secret recordings are illegal in California and Maryland, which are among the states where he staged encounters.

One of my main contentions is the use of the weasel word "heavily" in the lead sentence. This comes from the point of view of the DA assigned to look at the videos relating to ACORN in CA. However, it is applied as a blanket statement of fact, which I believe to be a violation of BLP. My version clearly states that the video was edited, the degree of editing is arbitrary and meaningless other than to push the case. My other main contention is the insistance to include the statement in the first sentence. While he is known for the second part of the sentence, it is not the way you define a person. For the record I don't approve of his actions in the least, but he is a living person and BLP must be applied equally to all. Additionally, I am not sure the last sentence should stay either since it is accusatory that he has committed a crime, which to my knowledge he has not nor has he been convicted of one relating to the videos. Arzel (talk) 20:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• I made an uninvolved - Neutral edit diff to remove the unduly attacking portrayal in the lede. Off2riorob (talk) 20:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • "unduly attacking portrayal" is anything but neutral, as is the edit made with that mindset. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Off2riorob's edit is actually a much stronger statement even without the use of the word "Heavily". It doesn't apply a WP first person approach, and is also better grammatically. Arzel (talk) 00:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The above grossly misstates reality: ...the word "heavily" ... comes from the point of view of the DA assigned to look at the videos relating to ACORN in CA. That is simply not true.

"Heavily edited videos" is the conclusion of a 5-month investigation by the Brooklyn (not 'CA') District Attorney's Office — not the "point of view" of an individual. Heavily edited. The California Attorney General's Office further investigated more videos, and found those, also, to be "severely edited". Later, even more videos were examined and found to be heavily edited, and described as editing tactics that seem designed to intentionally lie or mislead about the material being presented.

There is nothing "weasely" nor "unduly attacking" about the reliably sourced descriptions of O'Keefe's editing jobs from literally dozens of high-quality reliable sources. The extent to which he has edited his videos (heavily, severely, and selectively to deceive) is not "arbitrary and meaningless" as Arzel asserts; they are his hallmark. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

It is still in reference to the ACORN videos. The Raw Story story is also an opinion. Everything else is still included, I don't know why you seem the need to make the blanket statement when there is no RS that applies it to him generally speaking. Arzel (talk) 00:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect. I haven't cited any opinion pieces. The criticism of O'Keefe's deceptive editing applies to the NPR videos as well. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• I see no BLP violation here. While we must remain neutral, that also means we do not whitewash - negative facts are not in themselves BLP violations. The statements are well sourced, the lead is a summary of the content of the article. While you may feel that other phrasing is preferable, that is a content dispute which needs to be resolved via normal channels (discussion, consensus.) KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 22:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

What "Whitewash"? No information was removed. I don't see how applying a blanket statement unsported by RS's to not be a BLP. Arzel (talk) 00:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps he was speaking about your attempt to prevent the article lead from conveying the kind of editing O'Keefe does to his videos, and instead having it innocuously say that they are merely 'edited'. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The sources appear to mostly refer to videos regarding ACORN with one reference to heavily edited videos of NPR (but apparently a conclusion from the source rather then a lengthy investigation, the Glenn Beck site doesn't really say heavily edited to me since depending on the content it's arguably possible to edit a video to make it very misleading without heavy editing). In other words, the sources as provided don't really support the claim of 'heavily edited before release' .... 'in a variety of organizations' since they only source the claim of heavy editing for one or at most 2 organisations. Nil Einne (talk) 14:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

P.S. An example of highly misleading but not heavy editing is perhaps easier with text then with video/audio. One of those 'importance of punctuation' text examples shows a case when what many people would call limited editing still produces a highly misleading result. Nil Einne (talk) 14:55, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

BTW, O'Keefe is in the news again for applying for Medicaid in Maine while claiming to be a drug smuggler. http://bangordailynews.com/2011/08/11/politics/secret-video-alleges-possible-medicaid-fraud/?ref=mostReadBox --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Marina Marmolejo

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

The information recently posted pertaining to 8/8/2011 NY times article does not comply with Wikipedia's core principles. It is not neutral or verifiable and sole purpose is to be disparaging. It is not reflective of Marmolejo's 15 year legal career. The allegations in article are unsubstantiated. There is no response to allegations by Marmolejo or US Attorneys Office due to policy not to comment on pending matters. Posting this information is not relevant to Marmolejo's legal career, is libelous,and sensationalist in nature. This needs to be deleted immediately and contributors blocked from reposting. Attempts to delete have resulted in reposting by same contributor. This is a personal attack and attempt to force subject to defend herself. These tactics should not be permitted by Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssantos29 (talk • contribs) 20:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I deleted your allegation about "criminal activity" above. Be careful what you post about living people on Wikipedia, even if it's not in an article. As for your claims, at the moment, you've reverted the material, but it's not clear to me whether it belongs in the article. I will say that the level of detail that was in the article was far too much, but a brief mention of it might be okay. I'm curious what other editors think.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The New York Times piece was principally about the case and its effect on a family, and its mention of Marmolejo was almost in passing. For the time being, I would say that any mention of the case in the BLP would be undue weight. If there turns out to be masses of coverage of Marmolejo's involvement in the case, or if reliable sources talk about it affecting her career or political fortunes or whatever, then a mention of the case would be worth including. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I think your analysis is very reasonable.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Rick Perry

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

Under Governor, Paragraph 7 indicates that Perry's tort reform reduced medical malpractice insurance costs by 30%. The New York Times article cited lists the decrease as 21%. Additionally, the article doesn't offer the 21% as fact, but rather quotes a known tort reform advocate who offers the number without citing his source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adjustmenthandle (talk • contribs) 00:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that the correct course of action was to remove the material, as you did, as opposed to correcting it.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Not surprisingly, someone restored your removal. I have edited the material to conform to the source.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Aris Poulianos

section collapsed. This rant contains serious BLP problems itself. User has been blocked
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Aris Poulianos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Dear Mms./Sirs: Bellow you shall find my completed report to Ting Chen and Jimmy Wales about articles on pseudo-scientist Aris Poulianos, a LIVING known Greek Supremacy advocate who appears to have written, or contributed to the Greek article on your Greek Version himself. However, I am asking you, in good faith to mediate with admin "Future Perfect at Sunrise" (FPS). FPS decided to remove an edit I did pointing to dubious education information about Poulianos on the English Poulianos article. Being that I was given the boot by the Greek admins on your Greek version for fowl language, which they started first with racist remarks, I am asking you to mediate. My allegation against FPS in specific is, while she removed my edit, she also vandalized the article by removing the year when Poulianos had "supposedly" graduated, which was contributed, I presume, by another reader who contributed part about his education. Instead, she replaced it with an error, which again points to Poulianos and his family making the revision. In her comments about the deletion of my contribution she made the same "Queen's" College mistake Poulianos seems to make on his biography, on his own association's webpage, which should not be used for verification of Wikipedia articles on Poulianos. FPS wrote "Cited source says it was Queen's College, New York (which became part of City University when that was established later) explaining the deletion. But by deleting the date of 1948-1962, she VANDALIZED the article raising further suspicion she is an alias or an agent for Poulianos and his accomplishes. Kindly advice and pursuant to regulation I want to discuss this with FPS, if you deem it appropriate, via emails because I have heard enough accusations from the Greek admins thus far. In the alternative, I ask you deleted all Poulianos's articles, pursuant to your rules because Poulianos is a living person embroiled in controversy and nonsense theories of Greeks being 700,000 years old! Thank you in advance for your timely attention and response. letter to Jimbo and Ting Chen August 11, 2001 Ting Chen, Chair Jimmy Wales, Founder Wikimedia Foundation 149 New Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA 94105 via: Facsimile and Email Re: Urgent - Wikipedia's Greek Edition Is Controled by Greek Supremacists Dear Sirs: I am alerting you to investigate "Βικιπαίδεια," the Greek Edition of Wikipedia for conspiracy perpetuated by its 20 administrators. Collectively, they promote racist Greek supremacy views of pseudo-scientist Aris Poulianos, a living person with dubious credentials. According to the Greek Poulianos article ("Άρης Πουλιανός"), Poulianos believes Greeks preceded modern humans by 700,000 years unopposed. Admins Markellos and Ttzavaras repeatedly deleted my edits and threatened me. Eventually, I was suspended permanently by tony esopi for fowl language, which admittedly I used while enraged. However, Ttzavaras began the fight with "is this how you behave in the country where you are?"[1] at 21:47, August 10, 2011. The comment was directed at a user who defended me. Ttzavaras accused the user that "this is not the first time you are hiding behind an anonymous IP."[2] As a Greek living in America, I am sensitive about comments pertaining to ethnic origin and the Greek Diaspora. Ttzavaras's despotic behavior in egregious for an admin empowered by Wikipedia. I understand Βικιπαίδεια is independent but still, they use your trademark. Thus, they must follow high standards. As for my edits on Βικιπαίδεια, Ttzavaras alleged when I wrote Poulianos's career was filed with "contradictions, inaccuracies, misinformation and political intrigue" I was expressing a personal view. However, I had supported it, inter alia, with a link to the English Wikipedia article which conflictingly claimed Poulianos was studying biology in Queens College in New York earning a degree while simultaneously fighting with the communist partisans in the Greek Civil War of 1946-1949. Thus, I was proving the controversy I alleged: Poulianos's conflicting biography. Poulianos is a charlatan and a vagabond that promotes racist stereotypes. According to the article, after studying biology in the US and anthropology in the Soviet Union, Poulianos returned to Greece in 1965 where he became involved with the 700,000 year old "Greek" skull. However, the skull was found in 1960 by shepherds, whom eventually Poulianos came to regard as "associates." By the time Poulianos investigated it, 5 years later, it was contaminated. The article is filled with Poulianos's absurd claims like "12,000,000 year old human bones of the homo erectus trigliensis".[3] "Trigliensis" is a term coined by and used almost solely by Poulianos. No independent reference is provided. In support, the article mentions scientists "Ε. Breitinger" and "Ο. Sickenberg." The bizarre citations of "E." and "O." do not have any biographical links or references. A web search reveals nothing about them, unless they are mentioned in conjunction with Poulianos's racist theories. Chances are, Poulianos made them up. As for Poulianos's membership in organizations that have generic names such as the "New York Academy of Sciences," no links and no indication of "New York" referring to the City or the State are provided. There is one exception: membership in the "Anthropological Association of Greece," a not-for-profit organization Poulianos founded and manages with his wife and son as a family business, which until 1982 had taken advantage of the Greek government to the tune of $10,000,000 in today's money (62,000,000 Drachmas around 1982), according to a source saying Poulianos had been investigated for tax evasion and fraud ("υπεξαίρεση"). Τhis is not mentioned in the article. Finally, the article attributes the rebuttal and rejection of Poulianos's views by almost all the Greek Scientists to "organized anti-scientist and anti-Greek circuits that act mainly through government agents."[4] However, the quote is from Poulianos's Association website. Furthermore, Poulianos's wife is his biographer. So much for not mentioning political intrigue and being impartial! Apparently, I had retained the capacity to edit English articles. Today, I worked on the Wikipedia Poulianos article. I noticed the disclaimer "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should not be inserted and if present, must be removed immediately" which does not apply to Βικιπαίδεια Poulianos's articles. I did a minor edit. Next to "Poulianos studied biology at the City University of New York between 1948 and 1952," I added "However, the City University of New York did not exist until 1961 when legislature enacted its creation." Amazingly, 15 minutes later, my revision was eliminated by Future Perfect at Sunrise to say "Poulianos studied biology at "Queen's College, New York and then anthropology in Moscow and earned his Ph.D in 1961." Besides the omission of dates, the phrase points to the person responsible for the change: Poulianos and his family! There is no "Queen's" College in CUNY but there is a "Queens" College. The only persons referring to "Queens" with an apostrophe are the Poulianoses! You will find the same error at his biography, written at Poulianos's association website at www.aee.gr/english/2apoulianos_biogr/apoul_biogr.html. Clearly, Poulianos cannot tell "Queens" College from a hole in the wall. Already, I am waiting on an inquiry I made at Queens College about a graduate named Poulianos circa 1949. All this promotes the fallacy that Greeks are a superior breed, occupying Greece for millions of years and people like you are prohibiting Greeks from realizing their supremacy. Behind a thin veil of impartiality, your administrators are suspending me from reaching out to my fellow Greeks with the truth. I am pleading you immediately suspend permanently Markellos, Ttzavaras and tony esopi and investigate Future Perfect at Sunrise. Besides, Greek admin Atlantia, whom I do not know and appears to have contributed very little to be an admin since 2007 (around 50 entries), wrote with additional threats, proving my theory the Greek admins are tightly-knitted conspirators. Further, because of multiple articles in other languages that appear to perpetuate the Poulianos fraud on Slavic editions of Wikipedia (e.g. at http://ru.wikipedia.org "Пулианос, Арис" "Пулианос учился с перерывами на факультете биологии в Queens College Нью Йорка с 1948 по 1952"), which again point to Poulianos as he speaks Russian, I ask that articles on Poulianos and related ones are permanently banned from all editions of Wikipedia because Poulianos is controversial and living. Otherwise, Poulianos is using these articles to perpetuate his fraud in Greece and abroad among my fellow Greeks, siphoning millions out of their pockets with fraudulent and racist theories. As for my part, I am attempting to bring together Queens College and the Greek government to validate Poulianos's educational credentials. I have already spoken with a Greek official as well. Finally, I am sending this letter to Poulianos. I want him to speak about the discrepancies in his education, contrary to your admins who felt justified to silence me from actively participating in Wikipedia. Sincerely, I am Mitch Fatouros cc: James L. Muyskens, President, Queens College; Pavlos Geroulanos, Secretary of Culture and Tourism, Republic of Greece; Aris Poulianos. [1] "Έτσι συνηθίζετε στη χώρα που βρίσκεσαι?" [2] "δεν είναι βέβαια η πρώτη φορά που καλύπτεσαι πίσω από μια ανώνυμη ΙΡ." [3] "λείψανα ηλικίας 12 εκατομμυρίων ετών του homo erectus trigliensis." [4] "οργανωμένα αντιεπιστημονικά και ανθελληνικά κυκλώματα, που δρουν κυρίως μέσω κρατικών οργάνων." There's no indication that FPS vandalized the article, that I can see, so please be a little more careful in your accusations. Please also be careful what you say here (or elsewhere on Wikipedia) about Poulianos. There is a source cited in the article for the information about Poulianos' education, and that source uses the apostrophe in "Queen's" also. FPS said that source is where they got the information from, so your conclusion based on the apostrophe seems flawed. If you wish to email FPS, you would do so by going to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:EmailUser/Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise ... I don't really see what else you are requesting to be done, or that there is any WP:BLP problem with the article in question. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC) Aris Poulianos Evidence and Wikipedia Regulations Support My Claims against the Article 1. Even under your theory, "Queen's" is wrong. See disambiguation about Queens College on Wikipedia. See also external website of Queens College, New York. The apostrophe is an error. 2. Wikipedia, Vandalism: "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." The dates of when Poulianos studied in the U.S. were removed. This is vandalism, unless you are basing it on the source of the bio which indeed, does not mention dates. Accordingly, see further below. 3. Wikipedia: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist." Claims of Greeks being 700,000 years older than modern man is sensationalism. 4. Wikipedia: "Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subject, and in some circumstances what the subject has published about himself." The referenced bio is at www.aee.gr/english/2apoulianos_biogr/apoul_biogr.html The site and bio belongs to the ANTHROPOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION OF GREECE. Its home page at www.aee.gr states clearly a "Non profitable scientific society, founded by Dr Aris N. Poulianos." The biography is published or is under the control of the subject himself. As such, it must be scrutinized and be held to a higher standard. 5. Wikipedia: "Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as [...] personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if: it is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties; the article is not based primarily on such sources." The bio states "Since 1983 he becomes a target of cruel assaults by organized unscientific and anthellenic cycles, mainly acting through various state services." Self-serving and involves claims against and Greeks and the Greek government. Further, nothing is referenced in that bio and descriptions are generic. 6. Beyond, see footnote 12 on Wikipedia article, it states "ΣΤΗΝ ΤΡΙΓΛΙΑ ΧΑΛΚΙΔΙΚΗΣ ΒΡΕΘΗΚΕ Η ΑΠΟΛΙΘΩΜΕΝΗ ΚΝΗΜΗ ΑΝΘΡΩΠΟΥ 11 ΕΚΑΤΟΜΜΥΡΙΩΝ ΧΡΟΝΩΝ," no translation, it means "The Petrified drumstick of an ELEVEN (11) MILLION YEAR OLD Human was found In TrigLIa of Chalkidiki(!)" It is a tabloid story, humans did not exist 11 million years ago. You will not locate the article in the referenced link as it is written in a confusing manner, with English Characters but in Greek. Its translation by Google almost impossible. Conclusion: I have done nothing wrong. I deny your allegations and I ask that the article is immediately removed or you permit me to ad the note that the validity of the article is in dispute. Are you O.K. with that? I am O.K. with (and I would actually prefer) you add the validity question. Thank you. Greek Mitch (talk) 02:39, 12 August 2011 (UTC) Just so, the apostrophe shouldn't be in the article. in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia is the important text here. The article does not make that claim; it merely reports that Poulianos made claims similar to that. Reliable independent sources would indeed be preferable. As I said, it would be preferable to use independent material, rather than that self-published source. The claims about "state services" are too vague to be of much concern. That's not a great source either. Perhaps you could suggest some better sources on the talk page for the article? Alternatively, if you feel that Poulianos is not notable enough for there to be an article about him on Wikipedia, you could nominate the article for deletion? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC) In response: A. "The article does not make that claim; it merely reports that Poulianos made claims similar to that." HOWEVER, Poulianos has based his ENTIRE career on the fraudulent and racist claim. This is Poulianos's claim to fame, he created the sensationalism. Can you find any other other scientist advocating the 700,000 year old Greek? Because of this central theme, Poulianos BLPs in the various versions of Wikipedia are sensationalistically self-serving and ought to be fixed, if not deleted. B. "Reliable independent sources would indeed be preferable." The only reliable, independent source I found on Poulianos is because of the Article, see footnote 2, "Pontikos, Dienekes. Racial Type of the Ancient Hellenes. September 2006." I went looking in it. It is very well written in English, it will take you 2 minutes to look up "Poulianos." Poulianos is mentioned 3 times over 16 pages as a antrhopologist who had conducted metrics on a wide sample of Greeks. Based on that paper, Poulianos's did not even use the term "Greek" for ancient Greeks but calls us a mix of "Aegeans" and "Epirotics" which means a mix of people of the "sea" and the "land." Is this a new discovery about Greeks? However, he found a mix of other populations up to 20-30% among us. Why is not this mentioned? Racist Greek Supremacy perhaps? And what do Poulinos's metrics have to do with his fictional 700,000 year old Greek? If Poulianos was impartial, I would consider him reliable. Having watched him ranting for an hour against the government in a documentary (see Greek version article but documentary is Greek), he is not. By the way, the top Greek Court finally ruled against him recently. Hence, we must use reliable sources. C. "The claims about "state services" are too vague to be of much concern." Read his bio again. He started his not-for-profit during the Greek Military Junta years in 1971. See Wikipedia article "Greek military junta of 1967–1974." He was supported by them. Now, he is fighting with a government democratically elected by the people. He claims the Junta prosecuted him but I can find any support for this claim as well besides Poulianos's own bio. However, all the extreme blogs that seem friendly towards the Junta regime and revising modern history, seem to support him. The same entities are also extremely anti-semetic. You have to take the bias into account because it is a "deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." Instead of deletion, I want you to mentor and help me rewrite it using impartial sources. Let's make it impartial. Then I shall take that result to the Greek and the other versions of Wikipedia. The people have a right to know about the controversy, particularly Greeks like myself. This can be the only objective source about Poulianos AND IT IS NEEDED!!! Your assignment, if you accept it, is to protect me when I am assailed. Because I am certain I will as I have already. Then, I can help with the Greek Wikipedia, where you guys need help desperately. As for the reference about his education has to go. At least the part about being educated in the U.S. It is in doubt. Simply, the article can state "he is an anthropologist that has studied a wide sample of Greeks." Further, " Poulianos claims Greeks are older than Cro-magnon and Neanderthal while no other scientists are reported to support Poulianos's view." I am o.k. with just these two lines! Is this a deal? Greek Mitch (talk) 04:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC) Instead of deletion, I want you to mentor and help me rewrite it using impartial sources - which impartial sources did you have in mind? no other scientists are reported to support Poulianos's view - Wikipedia doesn't report on what is not reported, it only reports on what is reported - or on what is reported not to have been reported. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC) so far, two of the footnotes are impartial, one contradicts Poulianos's view, G. J. Hennig, W. Herr, E. Webert and N. I. Xirotiris. "ESR-dating of the fossil hominid cranium from Petralona Cave, Greece", Nature 292, 533-536 the other is the one from Ponticos, Footnote 2, see above. also http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/030544038290005X "An early hominid skull found in Petralona Cave in Greece has been widely quoted by the archaeologist now excavating the cave as being about 700,000 years old. A recent volume of the journal Anthropos (Athens) carried several papers dealing with uranium series, thermoluminescence, ESR and palaeomagnetic studies on material from Petralona. Careful reading of these papers shows that there are problems with all these methods when applied to material from this site and that it is not possible at present to give an age for deposits in the cave. In this paper we discuss each technique in the light of current knowledge." All views from blogs and Poulianos's own site must be eliminated, pursuant to Wikipedia guidelines about higher scrutiny. what is reported must come from objective sources and entities outside Poulianos's control. Further, a Greek user alleged I cannot use articles from international versions of Wikipedia. ("Επιπλέον, η έκδοση του Γκρίκ Μίτς δεν έχει καθόλου πηγές για τα λεγόμενα της (οι άλλες βικιπαίδιες δεν αποτελούν πηγές) και δεν έχει καμία θέση σε άρθρο,"). This statement does not sound right but the 4 Greek admins involved did not object to it (that is why I question their impartiality). Is this correct, that I cannot reference other, international Wikipedia articles? I would like to reference the predominant theories on Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal through Wikipedia articles, always in an impartial way. In other words, the bios must be stripped of anything that is irrelevant and under the control of Poulianos and radical bloggers. However, most of bloggers quote your Poulianos's articles now! This is why the article must become objective. Poulianos is questioning the evolution of the human race. How scientific is that? http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html "Petralona 1, Homo sapiens (archaic) Discovered by villagers at Petralona in Greece in 1960. Estimated age is 250,000-500,000 years. It could alternatively be considered to be a late Homo erectus, and also has some Neandertal characteristics. The brain size is 1220 cc, high for erectus but low for sapiens, and the face is large with particularly wide jaws. (Day 1986)" further http://www.archeo.uw.edu.pl/en/zalaczniki/upload23.pdf and "In 1960, Greece joined in the panoply of European archaic human sites, with the discovery of a robust but large cranium in a cave at Petralona. Dating this fossil has long posed a challenge, but most recently it has been estimated to be 200,000 years old. (See figure 28.9.) " Lewin, Human Evolution. All these studies that seem impartial do not mention Poulianos. Your call if it should be deleted, although you will be doing us a service if the article gets stripped of information provided by Poulianos. Certainly, the 700,000 year claim is not supported in these sources, unless 1. they quote Poulianos, or 2. they are written from a creationist point of view to contradict Darwin. But Wikipedia cannot rely on those sources. Greek Mitch (talk) 07:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC) Talking with you, I am beginning to understand how to edit the articles. For example, see where it says Poulianos is a member of a the "Council of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences" in UNESCO. I just gave a call to UNESCO in New York. They have no Councils in UNESCO. The want to know more about Poulianos and they referred me to their Attorney in France. However, I cannot use that. Instead, I can either A. Eliminate the sentence explaining in a note this is a fictitious entity within UNESCO. Or B. make a note the point is in question. Can I do either? HOWEVER, what I can do for certain is bring to the attention of UNESCO's that Poulianos uses Wikipedia to replicate the fabrication. It turns out the only sites that mention the "Council of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences" are the ones mentioning Poulianos's Wikipedia Biography! Greek Mitch (talk) 13:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC) Final Entry on Poulianos By now you should have taken the initiative and changed the apostrophe. You admitted it. But you did not. This is 1 indication you will not upset other admins even if they are wrong. I have forwarded this case to the associate counsel of Wikipedia, besides a direct email to Jimbo because I believe Wikepedia is denigrated by fraud perpetuated through Wikipedia and replicated throughout the web, while Wikipedia admins propagated it actively or by remaining indifferent. Further appropriate course is that am alerting UNESCO as I was told by UNESCO to do, being that they do not have a "council" as Poulianos alleges and they are actively fighting scams involving their good reputation. Which means, they will ask Wikipedia about it. I presume the same applies to Queens College. As far as I can tell, Wikipedia reeks with fraud that people like Poulianos create articles on Wikipedia to create a mythology about them for their own financial benefit. I remind you what happened on the Steven Colbert show, where Steven demonstrated how easy it was to pervert Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia administrators suspend anyone who brings all this to their attention. Signing off suspended or not. Your loss, I save time. Greek Mitch (talk) 17:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC) Oooh, serious case of tl;dr here (and I wasn't notified). Just for the outside readers: the biography of Aris Poulianos has in the past repeatedly been a BLP problem. The subject of the article is a archaeologist/palaeontologist of, let's say, unorthodox views, and the article has oscillated between glorification and ridicule at several points. Currently it seems to be keeping a relatively decent middle ground, but it is true that the detail of the biographical information relies heavily on the subject's own web page. The particular detail Greek Mitch picked out about the subject's early studies seemed to me to be a fairly harmless plausible mistake (the guy said on his webpage he studied at college X; our article had turned that into saying he studied at university system Y, when in reality college X had only become part of university system Y a decade or so later; there was also an overlap of one year between two parts of his biography that would appear mutually exclusive), but the overall gist of the biography seems plausible enough. The fact that he later studied in Moscow seems unproblematic, because (if I remember correctly) it was easily testable that he actually did his PhD there. – If somebody wants to cut back on the article on BLP grounds, I have no obejctions. Greek Mitch seems to have a bee in his bonnet about the subject of the article; partly understandably so (I might say I'd personally tend to agree with the view the guy is a charlatan), but obviously we run into a problem if we let him "fix" the BLP according to his liking. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC) I find your response less than sincere because: A. You deleted a date and you have not reinstated it. B. The few objective footnotes added to the BLP are the ones objecting to the theory. C. The ones supporting the BLP are primarily based on a study Poulianos conducted in 1981. THE BLP IS SLANTED. D. You still do not know that Queens College does not take an apostrophe, why edit what you do not know? My SLANTED AND BIASED GREEK VIEW (FEEL FREE TO DELETE): It hurts me, really I am bleeding, watching my fellow Greeks destroying ourselves. Based on neutral sources, the finding of the skull was of stupendous value! It is 200,000-300,000 years old and probably, I have share some of that person's genes. The problem is that a charlatan is usurping control over it and Wikipedia has become his free-ride vehicle for fraud. STOP HIM! PROPOSE: In good faith, I will work with you to make ALL Poulianos's BPLs objective. Greeks must be able to have a balance view that does not rely on Poulianos. As for his education, the U.S. part be deleted on two grounds. 1. Confusion about when he attended and what school he attended. 2. According to the Greek BPL, he studied Biology solely in the U.S. while he is an anthropologist. Thus, we can eliminate it as irrelevant to the object of his career. I am o.k. with. I am reasonable. Let me trust you are not associated with Poulianos. Because unfortunately, as an objective observation, on your discussion page, where I could not leave a message, I noticed several users with Slavic or Slavonic names had left you messages. That is another group Poulianos targets with his BPLs on Wikipedia. You may wish to dispel the notion of association with a charlatan. Let me know if you want a copy of the final letter to Wikipedia and their counsel and how to send it to you. Not a threat, just a fact what I have already done. It gives my view of what you did. Greek Mitch (talk) 22:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC) Heh. LOL. Here on Wikipedia it seems it's my fate to be alternately identified as a member of the Turkish secret service, a member of a "Greek nationalist Wikipedia junta", a member of an Albanian tag-team, or somebody in the pay of the government of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Skopje ή όπως αλλιώς θέλετε πέστε την. Whatever. If you want to know what I think of that article, look at what I tried to do five years ago but failed to get consensus for. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC) You may LOL, but I am not convinced about your impartiality. I tend to look at facts. Instead of opinions, I looked up the type of articles you edit. That could give me an objective idea about you. You see, it hit me: why did you undo my change within 15 minutes, unless you have been guarding the article? Ethnologically, you appear to be working on two groups of articles: Greek and Slavic. Further, you have been involved with the Poulianos article almost since its inception (I may be wrong but at least since 2006, you have worked on the article). I wonder, why the interest? Is it a coincidence you have the same interests with Poulianos and his family about Slavs and Greeks ethnologically? I do not understand your participation in the Greek dialects article that names Bulgarian as a dialect. Bulgrians being a group that Poulianos had determined similar to Greeks and culturally (not necessarily ethnologically), I believe they are extremely close to Greeks. The article that calls "Bulgarian" and "Macedonian" Greek dialects should go, or has to be changed to "Languages Spoken In Greece." And there is no "Macedonian" language, not even a dialect. If anything, the FYROM language is an idiom, just like Greeks in Crete have an idiom, unlike the difference of Ancient and Modern Greek, which are dialects. See videos of Slavi Trivonov where he makes fun of the other Bulgarian "dialect." Thanks for the / * code change. I took the liberty of changing something in what you said. I like the touch you added to it. So, how come you share Poulianos's interests and why are you watching article? I may attempt to bring it in order, I am not sure yet. Greek Mitch (talk) 00:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC) You know what, it takes you too long to answer. I will challenge you. I will edit the article and delete with explanations on every deletion. Let's see if you reinstate them. After all, this is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. I am sure you will be hearing from Jimbo about this anyway, whatever you decide. I am under the impression some action was taken with the Greek admins. Greek Mitch (talk) 01:44, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Paul London

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

The last line of of Paul London's biography, in the section titled "personal life" alleges Mr. London "has admitted to having a affair with Brian Kendrick". This phrase was added to a sentence about his having a romantic relationship with Ashley Massaro (a female), and the cite was for a note about Ms. Massaro.

This "addition" appears to be malicious - there is no source cited, and no indication elsewhere in the article that Mr. London was romantically involved with Mr. Kendrick or any other man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.36.24.77 (talk) 02:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done Reverted the recently added vandalism, thank you for the heads up. This page could probably be on a few more watchlists since the vandalism went undetected for about a week. VQuakr (talk) 02:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Margaret Downey

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

This BLP article has been done at the behest of the living person to help her promote herself. The claims made about her in the article are hardly noteworthy, are not offered from a neutral point of view, and are probably no longer verifiable.

Quite a few of the listed references come from articles that were penned by the living person or come from websites supported by her and used to promote herself and her personal causes. Other articles are taken from the local newspaper in her area where they were reporting on publicity stunts generated by the living person to promote herself and those causes.

The article is also incomplete and omits quite a few controversies that accompanied the projects that she has been involved in. None of the controversies are worthy in themselves of Wikipedia coverage, but are significant exceptions to many of the claims and accomplishments listed on this page. For instance, the "Tree of Knowledge" reference listed in the article refers to a Christmas display that was subsequently rejected and discontinued by the County of Westchester, PA. (I would list the on-line references to this event, but the websites appear to be on Wikipedia's blacklist.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bumblemouse (talk • contribs) 02:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you could add the information Richard Dawkins included in The God Delusion about her work Sean.hoyland - talk 15:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Any evidence for your claim 'This BLP article has been done at the behest of the living person to help her promote herself'? The primary author appears to be User:JoshuaZ who has been a user for a long time and his editing history suggests he may have a personal interest in the subject matter so I don't see any reason to think he was doing it on the behest of the LP to help her promote herself. Please note if you don't have good evidence, it's probably not a good idea to make a claim which may negatively affect the reputation of two living people on the BLP/N. Nil Einne (talk) 15:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Mark Duggan

Death of Mark Duggan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Mark Duggan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

A significant number of both delete and keep !vs are referencing BLP1E. How does BLP1E relate to a dead person?--Cerejota (talk) 04:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Some of those comments were by editors who confused WP:BLP1E with WP:BIO1E, perhaps an understandable error by less experienced editors. A few editors, though, made the valid point that his partner and their children were the subject of unwarranted attention in the article. Last time I looked, discussion of those individuals had been removed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:32, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Since the article is not about his family, BLP1E issues would resolved via editing, not deletion, correct? Also, some of those making BLP1E arguments are indeed experienced editors - it seems to me that rather than a simple mistake, there is a generalized misunderstanding of what BLP means. --Cerejota (talk) 04:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The article shifted from a biography, arguably a BIO1E, to a "Death of . . ." article in the midst of the long and messy debate. That rendered some early opinions moot. Of course, some editors get emotional, on both sides, and misapply policy in this type of debate. It would be wonderful if half that energy could be devoted to improving the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:49, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed!--Cerejota (talk) 05:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

John J Nance, and the "discussions" section of my listing.

John J. Nance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am John J. Nance, and I am hereby filing a complaint that will accelerate into a libel action against the individual who continues to post a diatribe against my writings and has done so with clear malice and intent to defame. This individual's personal animosity is based on his misguided opinion that airline deregulation was a boon to the U.S., and that anyone who disagrees must be attacked. This concerns such a small part of my overall body of work as an author, lecturer, broadcaster, pilot, and military officer as well as entrepreneur, that continuous contamination of my biographical listing in wikipedia with his hysterical opinions, as well as his slanderous observations of my attempts to correct the record are, in the first instance, wholly unworthy of this project; and secondly, simply a personal attack without merit. I request that his entire commentary be permenently removed, or that at least his continuous "reversions" of any corrections I make be blocked and his ability to affect this site be barred. While I reserve the right to proceed against this individual in tort (and I am a licensed attorney in Texas ) at any time due to the continuous and notorious nature of his postings, I would prefer to resolve the problem by having his ravings removed permanently. Please contact my law office at (Redacted) regarding this matter. john J. Nance — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.125.236.190 (talk) 18:49, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Please do not make legal threats. If you have an issue with an article, the first place to try to resolve it is the article's talk page. If that fails, this page is the next stop. Having said that, and having read the article, which bits are you objecting to specfically? – ukexpat (talk) 18:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

If I had to guess, I'd say he objects to reverts like this one from 2008 (!). That was the last version that might possible meet the IP's description. There are comments on the talk page from around then that I suspect the IP dislikes. It appears that Mr. Nunce had a WP account - JJNCOM (talk · contribs) who was blocked for NLT as well. The article now is much better than it was in 2008. Could probably archive the talk page, which gets the comments out of immediate view. Ravensfire (talk) 20:52, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

This is a strange one, as Mr. Nance (assuming that the IP editor is actually him) is all-of-a-sudden very upset about a dispute about the article that took place in late 2008. Traces of that dispute remain on the article's talk page, but the article itself is now relatively neutral and contains nothing that I see as especially problematic.

Mr. Nance, if your are reading this, I offer some friendly advice from one individual Wikipedian: You can pursue legal action as is your right, or you can try to resolve your concerns through Wikipedia's dispute resolution process. However, you can't do both at the same time. Many editors active at this notice board will try to help you resolve your concerns in accordance with Wikipedia policy, but only if you unambiguously withdraw all legal threats for now. If you do so, then I am sure that an administrator will unblock you so that you can contribute to discussion about your article. However, I encourage you to learn about how we deal with people who edit articles about themselves. Please also learn about our expectations about dealing with conflicts of interest, and how everything that may be disputed in an article must be based on reliable sources and not on any form of original research. Please realize that because you are a public figure, you are not entitled to control the article about you, although your input on the talk page is welcomed. We call that attitude ownership here, and it is not acceptable behavior on Wikipedia. Finally, we expect that you will not insult other editors. We expect you to assume good faith of other editors, even those you disagree with. Civility is one of our basic policies. So, the choice is yours. If you withdraw all legal threats, we are here to work with you. Feel free to ask questions, either here or on my talk page. I bid you peace. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

As Ravensfire notes, JJNCOM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was indef-blocked 2 1/2 years ago for making legal threats. Presumably it's the same guy, back making the same threats. So it's deja vu all over again. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:09, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Destorm

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

People keep editing this wiki with false information. They keep changing the subject's name and adding false birth dates. The confirmed birth name for the subject is Destorm Power, not the other names that have been added to the wiki i.e. Demetrius, Derek, etc. I will update it with the correct information right now, could you please make sure it doesn't get removed? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mylaiva (talk • contribs) 19:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I've watchlisted the article to help ensure the contentious information is not restored without reliable sources for verification. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 01:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Corwin Brown

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

There is a death date listed in the first line of his bio. However, there is no source cited that he has, in fact, died. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.74.231.163 (talk) 20:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

You're right, death dates should never be added without proper sourcing. I've removed the date as right now the situation seems to be totally unclear; the are reports of Mr Brown's home being surrounded by police and shots being fired, but it seems unclear if Mr Brown is even in the house, let alone if anyone died there. --Six words (talk) 21:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Websites of many reliable sources are now reporting that Corwin Brown has been hospitalized with a gunshot wound after a standoff with police. I see no reliable reports of his death at this time. No need to rush on this - wait for reliable sources that report on official statements, and write conservatively and judiciously. The basic facts will emerge over the next day or two. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Barney Glaser

Resolved

 – User now understands how Wikipedia works.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

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

I have worked carefully with one of your editors, MaterialScientist, to carefully and objectively create a small addition to the biography of Barney Glaser. The material is all based on a court case, from the public court system of California. The relevant document is sourced, and I have a copy in my possession. Continuing to edit out these few sentences is censorship. Dr. Glaser has had an important history in his post-academic life and this is relevant to people who wish to know about him.

I have not called him any named, or committed any libel. Only facts from the court case are presented.

I trust you understand that Wikipedia is not censoring you in any way. Just as you are able to add information, another editor is able to remove it. That's how this process works. You've got a very determined editor removing the information, and eventually they will probably end up blocked. Focusing on the information you're trying to add, I'd start by getting a better source. Especially on a WP:BLP, court documents can be problematic. At most they should be supplementary. You're using it as your only source for everything you add. A quick look through Google turned up this which covers just about everything. I suspect you're wanting to keep the court doc for the quote about fraud as it's pretty powerful. I'd summarize things using the Bakersfield.com source for most of the info, then say that the bankruptcy court believed CAC had been insolvent for several years and had concerns about fraudulent conveyance. Beyond that you're getting into WP:UNDUE territory, especially trying to base it off of a single primary source. Ravensfire (talk) 22:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and summarized the information based on the secondary source. Sourcing fraud to a primary source in a BLP is beyond what I'm comfortable doing, so I've left it out. Please leave that out until other editors express views here. If the IP reverts again, I'll file a WP:AN3 report. Ravensfire (talk) 22:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

And after his last revert, AN3 report filed - WP:AN3#User:67.188.201.99_reported_by_User:Ravensfire_.28Result:_.29 Ravensfire (talk) 22:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Do please let us know if that doesn't seem to do the trick. Lots of people reading, but for now you seem to have the situation well under control - let us know if not :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Chris Mullin (basketball)

Chris Mullin (basketball) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Racial (White this and that) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.126.96.190 (talk) 05:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Could you provide some more details on the problems with the article? --Jayron32 05:09, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Eddie & JoBo

Eddie & JoBo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Resolved

 – Now oversighted. Requests of this nature should be made off-wiki, please see WP:Requests for oversight. January (talk) 09:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

This edit should be removed from the page's history. Not only is it potentially slanderous, but it also contains the names of the subject's children - possibly minors - who should not be included in the encyclopedia. Strikerforce^{Talk Review me!} 08:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

David Ramadan

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

The subject page has been written as a self serving political advertisement in support of the named political candidate, created by his paid operatives and supporters. As it stands in the currently protected state, it simply constitutes a link to the subjects desired PR sources and addresses no in depth insight into the individual, his history, or the raging societal controversies surrounding him. Any changes applied to this page which varies from or introduces verifiable and valid subjects which might challenge the subjects assertions, 'party line' and 'talking points' or introduce verifiable opposing views have unilaterally been repeatedly deleted without discussion, (even to the extent of the subjects legal name). It biases completely in the subjects favor and constitutes pure Political Campaigning much more appropriately placed in http://campaigns.wikia.com/wiki/Campaigns_Wikia.

The subjects 'biography' makes no mention of the issues surrounding his candidacy which are numerous, his opponent, the election issues, the documented national interests in his running for office and the documented national issues raised by numerous nationally recognized and political party unaffiliated entities. Mr. Ramadan's candidacy has been commented upon in numerous 'mainstream' verifiable publications (and even more in the blogosphere), his campaign finance record is both public and shows what many consider to be a contradiction between his public philosophical statements and reality not to mention serious issues surrounding his claiming foreign citizenship rights while running for a U.S. State governmental position.

Mr. Ramadan's contradictions touch on many subjects, naturalization, societal and religious philosophy, legal philosophy, personal history, citizenship, truthfulness and candor, personal and political affiliations, and even national security. Many thorny issues are involved with Mr. Ramadan's biography, the greatest being associated to Islamic issues such as his support for Park51, a publicly perceived inclination to support Sharia and connections to other controversial individuals with documented support for these issues. All issues of greater gravamen than his 'traffic plan' for the district seat he is a candidate for. As a WP:BLP subject Mr. Ramadan may well achieve that status in the future as a result of circumstance and history, but with the minor minimal history of the subject and in the current 'climate' of an active campaign, and the serious contentions of his opponents (not just political) I believe that Wikipedia would better be served by transferring his entry to http://campaigns.wikia.com/wiki/Campaigns_Wikia.

However, In the case that you might decide to retain this article, I appeal to allow the removal of bias in favor of the subject as it now stands by restoring the page to 'some' state which addresses the issues surrounding Mr. Ramadan. I assure you that I am acting in good faith and am unaffiliated in any way with ANY party (not just political) related to this page, its' content or cites, my interest is based solely on principle and philosophy, I'm not adverse to editing my entries in order to comply with any suggested guidelines and have no problem seeking and participating in discussion and have no desire to enter into 'edit wars'. Zparqi (talk) 19:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

• I took off some of the uncited promotion. There was also some uncited material which seemed to be added to make him seem more Arab. Article needs to be watched, it seems. Borock (talk) 12:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Luke Evans (actor)‎ - disputed BLP sexual categorization

Luke Evans (actor)‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Users are desirous of categorizing this living person as LGBT actor and LGBT from Wales - when it is clearly disputable - a decade ago while promoting his parts in homosexual focused films he declared as homosexual and recently there are reports that he is suggesting his private life is private and has recently been reported to be dating a woman - clearly although he did self declare a decade ago - there has been no follow up to that declaration at all - no boyfriends no relationships with same sex subjects and not the subject tis dating a woman - clearly as per BLPCat there is a disputable position here - content is king and insisting on labeling his sexuality in the situation imo is clearly controversial. Off2riorob (talk) 21:49, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Off2riorob is apparently trying to take this through as many venues as possible, since the talk page consensus is against him. Alright, let's run through this, back in 2002 and 2004, the subject, Luke Evans, had fairly lengthy discussions in a number of interviews in reliable sources about his homosexuality and how open he was about discussing it and not being in the closet and all of that. Fast-forward to now, a reliable publication caught wind that Evans is reportedly dating an actress, Holly Goodchild. There is a quote from Holly in that publication, but there is no quote or any seeming discussion from Evans, so his dating her is still just a rumor in that regard. Another reliable gay-oriented publication sought out Evans' manager to ask him to clarify on what Evans' sexuality actually is, since he stated he was gay in the past, but is dating a woman now. The manager just responded that Evans had been far too frank about his life in the past and that there will be no more discussion about his personal life.

And that's all we have. Evans has made absolutely no statements in regards to dating Holly, so we don't even know if that's true or a publicity stunt, and he has made no new statement about his sexuality, whether he identifies as heterosexual or bisexual at this point in time. Because WP:BLPCAT relies on self-identification for adding categories about people, the only self-identification we have is his statements in the past that he was gay. Everything else currently is just hearsay, as Evans himself has said nothing on the subject. Therefore, until he makes a public statement saying otherwise, we should be currently considering him gay in regards to his past public statements in that nature. The moment he states otherwise, we will change our views, but in terms of BLPs and categories, we can mostly only go off of info that is directly stated by the subject. So, the cats should be included for now, until Evans says otherwise to his sexuality, if he ever does. Silverseren^C 22:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Correction - She's a PR agent. AlbionBT (talk) 22:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

So, not even his manager? That makes it seem more...PR-ey. Silverseren^C 22:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have clearer. Holly Goodchild is a PR agent. AlbionBT (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC).

Agreed. AlbionBT (talk) 22:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Off2riorob, having watched this one from the sidelines, both sides of this dispute seem to be making assumptions that they should not make. We have no idea how many men and/or women Evans has been involved with since the interviews in which he declared he was gay - all we know is that no one has produced sources which identify any girlfriends or boyfriends. What we do know is this - he said he was gay in earlier interviews and now he is reported to be dating a woman (the fact that she works in public relations is probably not relevant for our purposes). Although you seem to be suggesting that Evans is now straight and other are suggesting he is now bisexual, both due to the "girlfriend", what we need to know is how Evans himself categorizes his sexuality. We do not know that. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree. A small quibble. Off2riorob refers to a decade--the latest source in the article with an interview in which he self identifies as gay is from july of 2004, which would be roughly seven years ago, not a decade. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

We're not suggesting that he is bisexual just that in absence of a statement changing the record, we have to go on his only previous statements regarding his sexuality which classed him as gay. Bisexuality was only brought up to refute Off2riorob's idea that being linked to a woman suddenly made him straight. AlbionBT (talk) 22:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, I wouldn't put him being bisexual into the article without a source quoting him saying so. Silverseren^C 22:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

That isn't the impression I get from reading the talk page. I suggest all parties in this dispute need to step back and let others try to work things out here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:31, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

There's a difference between bringing up a point in discussion and proposing it to be included in the article. That said, I do agree that it has gotten a little heated and that we should all step back for the time being. Though, I would like to say that, as with the previous discussion, this isn't a BLP violation issue and the talk should probably move back to the talk page. AlbionBT (talk) 22:52, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I see nothing wrong with categorizing Evans as gay based on his self-declaration. I think it's a bit much, though, to say that the report of his dating Goodchild is just a "rumor" unless Evans himself confirms it. We report dating on a lot less than that without classifying it as a rumor. As an aside, I think the sentence currently in the article ("In September 2010, Evans was romantically linked with a woman.") is just plain silly. It makes "woman" sound like an epithet. We should report on the relationship in the usual way, naming Goodchild. As to what it means to say that he said he was gay and is dating Goodchild, that's up to the reader, not us.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

It did originally name her but Off2riorob argued that it should be remove since she's 'not a public person'. AlbionBT (talk) 22:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that makes good sense. And we need to work through this carefully and calmly, since WP is now part of the story in places like Gawker. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:34, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I was fine with putting her name as well. As Albion said, it was Rob who thought we shouldn't put the name. Silverseren^C 23:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

She is a private person named in a single article was the reason to keep her name out of the article - wikipedia would immediately become the primary source of her name, something that is not encouraged. As a not notable person that is not widely reported about the naming of her in our article is of no specific benefit to a reader and yet not naming her is beneficial to the privacy of the woman.Off2riorob (talk) 23:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't get that. First, she's obviously mentioned in a public source. Second, she's described as a fashion industry expert (whatever that means). Third, what if Evans married someone who was a "private person"? We'd still the include the spouse's name. Finally, what policy or guideline supports that view?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Its editorial judgment and BLP privacy. I also remove such spouses names and children's names also they are worthless to the readers educational understanding of the notable issues and the privacy is respected - we are requested not to allow wikipedia to become the primary source of information about basically private not notable people. Off2riorob (talk) 23:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, at least you're consistent, but I see no support for it, other than a very expansive interpretation of BLP guidelines. You're speculating as to what people want. What makes you think she wants to be private? She's quoted in the article. And even if she did, how does it harm her? I can see, for example, removing personal identifying information about non-public figures (like dates of birth), but she's just dating the guy, and we're just reporting her name. With some actors, they date serially lots of different people. If they are not public figures (in your view), what are we going to say? So-and-so dated Person #1 and then Person #2 and then...--Bbb23 (talk) 23:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

* Enough already - this is yet another campaign being waged by an editor in his war to remove any suggestion of homosexuality or bisexuality from this article. First he doesn't want it mentioned at all. Then he supposedly agrees to a compromise and immediately begins editing to undermine the compromise. Then he starts questioning the reliability of the sources. Then he jumps on this weird "he hasn't said it lately" bandwagon that I absolutely don't get. And laced through it all are misrepresentations of both Wikipedia policy and false accusations regarding the conduct of other editors.

• This is ultimately a very simple situation. We have someone who, in the last instance he made any statement of his sexuality, declared himself openly and unambiguously as gay. That declaration in and of itself is sufficient to categorize him as gay. We cannot assume on the basis of his supposedly dating a woman and in the absence of a statement from Evans that his sexuality or his self-identification has changed. If it is somehow seen as too controversial to categorize a man who says he's gay as a gay man, then put him in the LGBT categories. William Bradshaw (talk) 23:18, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

You are losing the point - his homosexual comments a decade ago are not what he is notable for - hes a movie actor and not a very notable one of those. This is not the gay times - get over yourself. This is an educational encyclopedic publication, this persons minor homosexual statement from a decade ago is worthless in the scheme of things - he hasn't even had a named same sex relationship. He is not a notable gay person - hes barely even a notable movie actor. Off2riorob (talk) 23:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Never heard of the fellow myself, then again I don't usually remember actors. What his sexuality has to do with anything is quite odd, and rather intrusive. John lilburne (talk) 23:28, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

(ec) William Bradshaw, the LGBT cats are being objected to. User:Off2riorob, he's clearly notable in our terms, and it is arguable that those who are trying to remove the references to the reliably sourced information about his orientation are causing public controversy. And "get over yourself" is not exactly assuming good faith. Best to loose "decade" 'cause it ain't been that long... --Nuujinn (talk) 23:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

With respect to the "get over yourself" comment, in all fairness to Rob, William's comment about a campaign wasn't helpful, either.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

::::: I don't know what else to call it but a campaign. Multiple challenges to the same piece of information across multiple forums. William Bradshaw (talk) 01:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, but you miss the point, you don't need to call it anything. Your opinion about Rob doesn't need to be expressed at all. It just distracts from the substance issues.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I disagree, Rob. First, it doesn't matter whether he's "barely notable" as an actor. If he's insufficiently notable, then you should nominate the article for deletion. Second, his coming out was related to his acting career, so it meets that prong of WP:BLPCAT. Third, he doesn't have to have a "named same sex relationship" to be gay. In the interview, he said he had a boyfriend, but it wouldn't matter if he never had a boyfriend. Is someone not heterosexual because they never have a non-same-sex relationship?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:31, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

John lilburne, you may wish to read the relevant references, that should, I think, clarify what his sexuality has to do with his career. The short version is he did not start out as a blushing violet in G rated movies. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:34, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Whatever- he has never had a same sex report apart from his own, and now he is advertising some other sexuality - some would laugh and say it was all promotional, kissing the (whatever) of the people that were paying his salary at the time - now its the hetrosexuals. Anyway - a clear positive that has come out of this trivial crap is that its not notable on wikipedia to simply be homosexual , you need a notability related excuse to add it. The claim here is that his career didn't suffer...suffer, f, this whole crap has been a worthless suffering - Off2riorob (talk) 23:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sorry, Rob, but that's all speculation on your part and arguably a BLP violation to say so without support. And I thought the whole idea of WP:BLPCAT was self-identification, so why do we suddenly need another report "apart from his own"?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Hes more notable as a homosexual than a movie actor. Its not speculation at all its all cited. Hes a notable homosexual who has done some acting. Off2riorob (talk) 23:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

What's speculation is your statement about him doing all this for promotional reasons. As for notability, the problem is there's almost never any way to truly satisfy the notability prong of WP:BLPCAT. How is being Catholic related to an actor's notability? Or being gay? Or being straight? My view is - and always has been - we should do away with these categories, but I'm stuck with them and the policy. So, the only way the policy can possibly work is if there is some way to satisfy the notability prong, and here I think it's been sufficiently met.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:51, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Its just an off wiki homosexual promotional tagging group, in a bit they will all go and I will tidy up after them. as I usually do - we should be less obliging and enabling of such desirous activism. Off2riorob (talk) 23:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

^ Yeah, Rob has been repeating that personal attack a lot lately. Silverseren^C 00:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Bbb23, I agree wholeheartedly regarding the value of these cats, and about Williams's comments. Off2riorob, please assume good faith, we're not all part of some cabel. I can't help but note that if you really do believe "Hes more notable as a homosexual than a movie actor" then you should not be objecting to the cat at all, but rather the movie references. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Suit yourself how you take it, theres no personal attack though. If I have violated WP:npa PLEASE POINT IT OUT - THIS IS CITEABLE OFf WIKI - just an off wiki homosexual promotional tagging group, in a bit they will all go and I will tidy up after them. The fact that a fair few homosexual single purpose users have been around and came from the homoseual chat thread is pretty imdesputable - so whats the personal attack - I would despise such enabling by experianced users if it was related to off wiki five a side football Off2riorob (talk) 00:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not following this at all. Maybe I'm not suspicious or cynical enough, although most of my friends say I was born a cynic, but which editors are you talking about and what homosexual chat thread? Even assuming some editors have an agenda, their motives are immaterial to the issue of whether Evans should be categorized. Personally, I have no agenda, I'm just discussing substance, policy, and guidelines, and I'd rather stay clear of the other stuff, frankly.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:28, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

He's talking about William Bradshaw and AlbionBT, specifically, though there are quite a few other new users and IP addresses that joined the talk page discussion and the other discussion halfway up this noticeboard. Quite a few of them, i'm sure, are from someplace off-wiki where this was announced, but most of them have been using policy based arguments, so it's not a very big deal. Furthermore, as I explained to Rob, William Bradshaw joined back in July, before this whole debate, and has been editing a number of LGBT topics (which is fine, we have a number of experienced users that stay within a single topic area as well). Silverseren^C 00:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for filling me in. How do we know it was "announced" somewhere else? "Tagging group" sounds like a homosexual gang (laughing).--Bbb23 (talk) 01:28, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I dunno. I thought a link had been given somewhere in the previous discussions, but I just looked through all of them and didn't find one, though I did notice that Rob has been repeating the existence of this off-wiki group multiple times throughout the previous discussions, but never given a link to it. I suppose we should just ask him for a link, since he's the one that keeps mentioning it. Silverseren^C 01:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

:* I don't know what "desirous activism" is but calling people who appear to be trying to participate in these discussions in a good faith and productive manner as an "off wiki homosexual tagging group" strikes me as nothing more than an attack on those editors. Saying "in a bit they will all go and I will tidy up after them" is as clear a statement as can be that the editor is unwilling to participate in the consensus-building process in a meaningful good-faith way. Whatever resolution is reached, Rob will "tidy it up" by changing it to whatever he thinks it should be. William Bradshaw (talk) 01:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

William Bradshaw, please assume good faith (think of it as a mantra). I'm not happy with the comment, either, but I think it reflects frustration more than anything else. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:38, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

:::: I'm sorry, but an assumption of good faith in the face of what I consider pretty compelling evidence of bad faith is not warranted. I started my involvement with this article assuming the good faith of everyone involved but one of the people involved has engaged in repeated conduct that makes it impossible for me to continue to do so. Whether he's frustrated or not, saying that he's not going to allow the edits that he doesn't personally agree with to stand regardless of the consensus that's reached smacks of rank ownership issues and a failure to maintain objectivity. Ideally, yes, this should all be about the article and the policies and not about the individual, but at some point when it's the same individual starting fire after fire after fire over the same exact thing all over Wikipedia there needs to be a community statement that enough is enough. William Bradshaw (talk) 01:46, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

This is the same argument you're making at ANI, and it's not going over well there, either. Nuujinn and others are telling you to let go. You're not helping yourself by failing to heed their sound advice.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

He's an actor, his sexuality was mentioned in tangential relationship to his career - but in all the noise no substantial source dealing with the impact/links to his career has surfaced. I am always discomforted by the drives to get people tagged as homosexual (or otherwise) because its usually driven by some personal desire (either to disparage or laud) based on minimal sourcing. --Errant ^(chat!) 02:12, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Evans took roles that pertained to his sexuality. He specifically came out before acting in Taboo because he was going to be playing the sexually confused character. And then, in Hardcore, he played a gay porn star. We've already given the sources that discuss it, but here they are again. The Advocate. QX Magazine. Silverseren^C 02:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

What is your point? River Phoenix played a gay street hustler, Nigel Hawthorne played King George III, Ian McKellen played Gandalf the Grey. John lilburne (talk) 11:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Except the actors you quote did not have reliable sources discussing their roles and the relationship to their own sexuality, including interviews where the subject also discusses as such. Evans' sexuality had an impact on his early play work, as he sought out roles that he was able to attune to due to their relationship to his own sexuality. Silverseren^C 12:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

And? In the first place only two of the three were gay, and in the second place whether they prefer oysters or snails none of it makes one bit of difference as to their notability as actors. John lilburne (talk) 15:38, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The interview with the Advocate clearly that he himself saw a link between his career and his sexuality, "How did you decide you're going to be open about your sexuality? Well it was something that I'd spoken to a lot of people about, including my boyfriend--we've broken up now--but at the time when I just got Taboo, I knew that even though my part was a straight character everybody knew me as a gay man, and in my life in London I never tried to hide it….I knew I was going to have to do interviews with gay magazines, I knew this was going to happen. So I thought, Well, I'm going to have to be open. It's who I am. And if people don't like it, then I don't want their jobs" That does not strike me as a tangential relationship between his sexuality and career--the interview is about his coming out. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As Bbb23 notes somewhere above, these categories (sexual orientation/religious beliefs) are inherently problematic and I would be of the opinion that they need doing away with too. That aside, and relating to this particular case, Evans self-avowed homosexuality was highly notable at the beginning of his career due to the roles/plays he appeared in, the interviews he gave and even the fact that he was quite happy to "out" himself, going so far as to draw parallels with George Michael and the unsavoury way in which GM got found out. He says (regarding his decision to be open about his sexuality) "if that means I'm going to be a poor man at 60, then at least I've lived a happy, open, gay life and not had to hide it from anybody".

As far as I can tell, he never spoke about his supposed heterosexual relationship and the woman only appears to be one of his friends now - recent gq article - I would have thought that if there were a relationship she would have been noted as his girlfriend.

So, the current version of the article with the LGBT cats is suitable in this instance, IMHO. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 13:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I read the two sources that appear to be our sole source of material here - they aren't very compelling. Given they are gay advocacy magazines we have to be a little careful taking their material out. There seems no critical discussion of the impact of his sexuality on his career, which is what leaves me uncomfortable using the categories - he is not notable for being a gay actor. He is notable for being an actor, and at some point in the past has spoken about being gay. He has taken gay roles, yes, but many actors do that (indeed, the sources vaguely mention lots of straight people he has worked with in gay roles!). It happens that in real life he is also gay.. well, whatever. As I said; there is nothing very compelling there. --Errant ^(chat!) 13:52, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I am more than a little tired of gay-interest publications being called into question as reliable sources for gay-related articles. As I have noted in several of the many tedious discussions about this subject already, Sports Illustrated is not questioned as a source for sports-related articles. The Wall Street Journal is not questioned as a source for economics articles. The New York Times is not questioned as a source for New York-related articles. And no non-gay-interest source ever seems to be called into question for any story on the basis of its not being gay-themed. Yet The Advocate and other gay-themed sources are viewed with suspicion based on their having a non-heterosexual perspective. It's rank double-standardism smacking of heterosexism.

We're also talking about a category here, so I'm not sure how compelling the sources need to be. Compelling is not a criterion I'm familiar with in discussions of notability, reliability, verifiability, etc. His notability isn't the issue, the question is whether the cat is appropriate. In the two interviews Evans discusses the relationship between his career and coming out, and that seems sufficient to me. And I'm not familiar with cat policy, do we require that a person be notable for the attribute that ties them to the category? --Nuujinn (talk) 21:57, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

::::::: There has been no evidence presented that any gay-themed source has fabricated, misrepresented, misquoted, distorted or otherwise taken any action by which the reliability of its material related to Evans should be of concern. The sources include information from Evans himself regarding the link he at the time saw between his sexual orientation and his acting career, including both his choice of roles and the potential adverse effect that being gay could have on his career. The sources more than adequately satisfy any policy or guideline for categorizing gay people as gay, or at the very least LGBT. William Bradshaw (talk) 21:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC) FWIW and without taking any sides on the matter: [51] shows a person soliciting others off-wiki:

Please, there is a campaign to pay him back, by vandalizing any page he edits. This is the only way to get him back, because no one will prevent him from editing according to his religon or his politics.

[52] shows another example:

This vile woman really does HATE the gay community. She has spent the entire weekend zipping back and forth to Wikipedia, dropping poisonous homophobic comments, attacking anyone who may be different than she is--pretty much the rest of the world.

Anyone, absolutely ANYONE who says that Rudy was not 100% straight gets it in the neck from this spiteful, homophobic, racist, anti-Semitic, friendless, opinionated piece of trash.

Let us hope, then, that justice will be served today.

Might appear to be off-wiki lobbying on the topic. [53] appears to solicit editors:

Other registered users, such as Vipinhari, have undone the homophobic vandal’s posts, and blocked his/her IP address. Unfortunately, someone committed to such hate speech can continue their activities by switching to another computer at a different location, so continued monitoring of these pages is crucial to Wikipedia continuing to offer helpful and accurate entries.

So it is clear that solicitation of outside editors to edit on Wikipedia on the basis of sexual orientation exists, and has existed for a long time. In fact, editing of Wikipedia articles seems to be a major topic on "anti-homophobia" sites. [54]:

Wikipedia editors are oft-accused of personal agendas, and some users in the ensuing deletion discussion question whether this was another case of "gaywashing"; others say that Wikipedia is just sticking to its policies

[55] even has a comment asking for votestacking overtly.

Crockspot, a homophobic conservative nazi is being voted in as admin as I post this message. This provides the link to the page in question. Having this cockroach transform from an impotent bottom feeder into a person with power would seriously damage Wikipedia’s reputation. Cockroachspot would go on a facist rampage and ethnic cleansing of anyone who doesn’t distort information into his twisted Bush agenda POV. Go by and vote as soon as possible if you’re a member. If not, registration takes about thirty seconds. If you care about not being misinformed every time you google anything having to do with politics-then don’t just vote but email anyandeveryone you can. Trust me, your friends will show up by the dozens–and we only need a few dozen more to put the nail in his coffin.

Seems moderately clear. For fun see [56] [57] has a comment:

A while back I pointed out the clearly anti-gay bias of several editors demanding the deletion of a article about a gay hockey player. They were furious that I dared to speak my mind

So it is reasonably clear that Wikipedia is frequently the topic of anti-homophobia sites, and that such sites frequently encourage members to become Wikipedia editors with the object of defeating the homophobia. Quod erat demonstrandum. Collect (talk) 14:02, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll accept what you say on faith, Collect, as I had trouble with almost every link above. And I guess I'll have to assume that this is what Rob was referring to, although he's never said. Has any editor involved in this discussion been actually tied to any of these off-wiki websites? In any event, although it satisfies my curiosity, it doesn't change my view. The issues for us are still the same, the application of policy to the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• Since none of those articles have anything to do with Luke Evans, I fail to see the relevance of you posting them. As for the idea that they are anti-homophobia sites, most of them are personal blogs, one is a left-wing forum and another is a Toronto local interest site. You can't say Q.E.D. when you haven't proven anything, all you've said is that at some point in time a call was made for people to register to get rid of an editor who apparently had gone on an anti-Semitic homophobic rant at a completely different article. You don't know whether anyone actually took up the offer and you've put forward no evidence to say that this is even what happened here.

Bbb23, the fabled 'off-wiki gay chat thread' that Off2riorob claimed anyone who disagreed with him came from still hasn't been linked to.AlbionBT (talk) 15:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Note that a link to these on-wiki discussions was posted on AfterElton.com. People coming from this site may not be aware that per WP:BLPCAT, Wikipedia requires public self-identification for LGBT categories, and that should be current. It is a fact of life that people may change attributes like their religion or sexual self-identification. For example, if someone publicly self-identified as a Scientologist in 2002, but has since withdrawn that public self-identification, then it is no longer appropriate for Wikipedia to categorise them as a Scientologist today. This is a similar case. His publicist's statement and the reports of his relationship have changed the status of his public self-identification. Wikipedia's BLP policy tells editors to be conservative, err on the side of the individual's right to define their religion and sexual identity, and edit from a clear presumption in favour of the subject's privacy.

The current presence of the LGBT categories in the protected article is a BLP violation in my view, and I have raised an editprotected request on the article's talk page. The Wikipedia default is to exclude BLP-sensitive material, until there is consensus to include it. Cheers. --JN466 14:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

First, there is nothing in WP:BLPCAT that states that the self-identification has to be "current" - talk about a can of worms, are we going to set some arbitrary line in years like words in WP:FILMPLOT? Second, changing one's religion is just a smidgen easier than changing one's sexual orientation. In any event, he self-identified, and he hasn't changed that since.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:37, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

People can and do change their sexual preferences. Although there seems to be an obvious PR involvement in this case, there is cause to question if Evans earlier statements still apply. Unless we have a statement from Evans himself, we simply do not know how he classifies his sexuality at present, which is what we need in order to add the categories. If nothing else, I think the expectation of users is that when the look at the category of "X people" they expect those people to be "X" (which is why we have those "Former X people" type categories). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:47, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:BLPCAT, we need public self-identification, and it is clear that Evans is, for whatever reason – either because his sexual outlook has changed, or because he is just no longer willing to talk about it publicly – unwilling to publicly self-identify as gay. In either case, we no longer have the solid basis for the categorisation that we need. Incidentally, I doubt we would be having this argument if someone who used to be a proud ladies' man announced that he was now in a gay relationship. --JN466 14:57, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I think you're both adding non-existent hurdles to the policy. And, Delicious, although you may think of it as pure political correctness, the phrase "sexual preferences" is offensive to many, and your assertion that people change their sexual orientation is (a) disputed and (b) a little like saying sometimes it doesn't rain in Seattle in December - it's pretty damned rare, to the extent it's even true. But we're all injecting our own views into this, and it isn't necessary. Nothing in WP:BLPCAT requires currentness.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Bbb23, I made no suggestion that it is common for one to change one's "sexual orientation", but we both agree that it does happen. Perhaps part of the issue here is that trying to sort people's sexual orientation into little boxes is ridiculous. Although you are taking offense that I have suggested that people may change their sexual orientation (even though you agree that it happens), I am really just acknowledging that people sometimes find that they have been placed in the wrong box or that the box isn't large enough to accurately reflect how they view themselves. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:35, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I never said I believe people change their sexual orientation. And although it's true that you did not say it was "common", a reasonable inference of your comment is it happens often enough to be relevant to this discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:57, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I took your comment about it being "pretty damn rare" as acknowledgement that it happens. Rare or common, if it happens we end up at the same result so it is relevant to the discussion. Incidentally, what we are talking about here is people changing the labels that are applied to their sexuality, which isn't quite the same thing as changing their sexuality itself although that subtle difference seems to be hard for many people to grasp. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I understand why you interpreted my comments the way you did, although you left out the rather important phrase "to the extent it's even true." That aside, I do agree with your orientation/label distinction. However, whatever Evans has done in his life, he hasn't publicly changed his labeling of himself.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Bbb23, FWIW, the very AfterElton page where the link to this discussion was posted states, Many people have a sexuality that is fluid or realize their sexuality might not be just what it was when they were younger. There is nothing in BLPCAT requiring currentness because it is WP:COMMONSENSE. If someone publicly self-identified as a Buddhist in a reliable source in 2002, and now publicly self-identifies as a Baptist, we categorise them as a Baptist, not a Buddhist. --JN466 15:51, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

In my view, it ain't worth much, Jay. It's one sentence, one view of one person, on a very complex topic. For example, there's a difference between changing one's orientation and understanding one's orientation. There's also a difference between changing from being gay to being straight and changing from being straight to being gay. There's also a difference between changing from being gay to straight, as opposed to from being gay to bisexual, or from straight to bisexual. I'd really rather stick to the facts, the sources, and the policy, and your commonsense view that BLPCAT requires something is not the commonsense view of others, including me.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I've raised the matter at WT:BLP, and proposed a corresponding amendment to WP:BLPCAT, stating that any public self-identification that forms the basis of religious or sexual categorisation in Wikipedia should be current, with no reasonable grounds to assume that this public self-identification has changed. --JN466 17:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, Jay. I've commented there.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

We should never assume anything regardless of whether you feel there are reasonable grounds, doing so is essentially OR. The only statement we have regarding his 'public self-identification' is when he calls himself gay. The later report of his involvement with Holly Goodchild doesn't change that (incidentally, a man can have a relationship with a woman and still identify himself as gay). AlbionBT (talk) 17:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

A man can have a relationship with a woman and still identify himself as an armchair, but that wouldn't make sense to a reasonable person. Just saying. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

It might make sense to a reasonable gay person. :-) Have you thought of exploring your choice of armchair in therapy? Does it recline?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:51, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that oversteps what Evans himself has done. His management issues a no comment statement when they were contacted, and as far as I know, Evans has said nothing on the matter, although I expect that might change. Yes, people do sometimes change sexual orientation, but is there any sourcing supporting that is the case here? And just a hypothetical question--how well would a "former LGBT" cat go down in this case? --Nuujinn (talk) 15:10, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, Nuujinn, please don't suggest even more of these categories - god help us. The distinction between current and former is often missing from categories. Unfortunately, most categories don't even have definitions as to what they are. I guess they think they're self-evident, and as we all know, very little is self-evident on wikipedia. If you want to look at an example of "former", take a gander at an article I nominated for deletion today, List of ex-gay people.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

We do not know if Evans woke up one morning and was no longer gay; has been bisexual all along (but decided it was easier/better to simply say he was gay); is simply playing along with a PR campaign; or some variation on those themes. Without Evan stating that he is no longer gay or bisexual, the "former LGBT" category is equally inappropriate. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

"Equally" nothing. It is completely out of the question. There is a valid argument as to whether LGBT categorization is appropriate or not. There is nothing valid about a former-LGBT cat given the evidence to date. It goes beyond the bound of even OR to being just totally made up. LadyofShalott 15:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. All of these cats related to ethnicity, religion, race and sexuality are problematic at best because the represent a particular slot or box into which the subject is put. What we have is two decent sources in which Evans self identifies as homosexual, and nothing as far as I can that that refutes his self-identification. One editor asked on the talk page whether or not it is expected that people have to 'reup' their self-identification every few years for a cat to apply. If we pull this cat because we think he no longer wishes to be considered gay without any sources, we're just as guilty, I think, of OR as if we make a new "former LGBT" cat. I point out that in the Afterelton aricle, Evans is not quoted, nor his is homosexuality denied--his management simply say that "he has learned not to engage the press in his personal life again." There's no refutation, no clarification, no explanation of motive or desire, and it's not even from Evans himself. So he has self-identifed as homosexual, and has not himself done anything, as far as I can see, to justify our changing the cat or removing it. Given the nature of churnalism, I expect that we may have some additional sources on this before too long, but we have to wait on that. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

No, I disagree with that as well. There's a big difference between not categorizing someone at all and putting on a totally made-up category. I personally think it would be fine to use the LGBT cats because of his previously stated identification as gay. I don't think that leaving them off would be a horrible omission though. If he were out continually making a big deal of his sexuality (whatever it may be), then, yeah, it would matter a lot to have the categories. He's not (now) though, so I don't see why it's such a big deal. LadyofShalott 23:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I understand your point, and it's a reasonable one on its face, but, practically speaking, it opens the door to these kinds of discussions. If an actor publicly announces he's gay, why should he have to continually put himself out (no pun intended) there to justify the original label? In some ways, it's similar to Jay's view that his self-identification has to be current. Why? I can see someone arguing that it might somehow relate to the original notability prong of BLPCAT, but even if that were true, it leads to incredibly subjective (and endless) discussions like the one we're having here.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not opening that gate; that gate's been there from the beginning - this just happens to be a particularly contentious (for some reason) example of what can happen with that notability clause of BLPCAT. The fact is though that we don't encourage people to put articles into every category in which they could conceivably fit. There has always been editorial judgement involved. This case is no different, except that there are some really strong opinions in opposing directions about it. LadyofShalott 23:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The ironic thing for me personally is that I told myself I wasn't going to get involved in this discussion. I've been in other discussions like this one, and I generally find them to be singularly unhelpful and way too long. I should have stuck with my original resolve as I've clearly gone the other way big time. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 00:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Heh! Personally, I don't think we should have cat for sexual preference, religion, race, anything of a personal nature. And if we're going to have them, we shouldn't treat them as either/ors, because that would be an oversimplification. Categories do not apply only to the living, so I find the notion that a cat must be current to be appropriate an absurdity from the getgo. Let's say Author X, 1964-2006, self-identified as red in 1972, and blue in 2001. Which cat is appropriate? If either, then both. But the fact is, people use the cats to push agendas, as unfortunate as that is, and that's why the discussions are so contentious. If we want cat to just be categories, then we have to push the "it's no big deal" aspect, and I have no idea how we'd do that. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

For once an easy question (the red and blue cats): the answer is purple. :-) And no facetious comments about lavender.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

But now you're advocating a category for miscegenation. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

It's just hard to herd cats. -- Avanu (talk) 01:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• I really wish we weren't having this discussion at 4/5 different places. Silverseren^C 19:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Fnatic

I find myself in an incipient edit war which I have bowed out of on the article Fnatic. The article contains lists of names of people for which there are no articles, and not even redlinks. It was my understanding that we should not have articles with names of people if there are no articles about the people. How are we supposed to know that the people in the lists even exist, let alone meet the criteria in the article or WP:BIO requirements? Can somebody point me to a policy or consensus, or even a guideline, on including names of people without articles in lists? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 23:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Given that there was no stated source either, I've deleted the disputed list. Frankly, I can't see much evidence that the article would pass Wikipedia notability guidelines. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The contributor in question (User:Xblackbirdx200), after I deleted the list, wrote a 'history' section based on the same data - again with no sourcing other than the Fnatic website, and seems unwilling to discuss this. After I deleted the 'history section, with an explanation in the edit summary [58], Xblackbirdx200 has reinserted it. I have left a comment on Xblackbirdx200's talk page, but I thin k that other action may now be required. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:12, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Xblackbirdx200 has re-added the history section and re-added the list of nn people. I've issued them a 3RR warning and have removed the list of people, but not the history section. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 19:52, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Anya Ayoung-Chee

A home movie of Miss Trinidad and Tobago/Universe 2008 having sex was leaked (apparently after the boyfriend put his laptop in for repair) and seems to be currently hosted on various porn sites. The event has received sufficient press coverage to establish the fact. Should we include it in Anya Ayoung-Chee? Your thoughts would be welcome at Talk:Anya Ayoung-Chee. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:46, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Ahmed Okasha Addaly

Ahmed Okasha Addaly is self-promotional article of the non-valuable person. Out of project scope and could be nominated for deletion.
--George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

For info: George C. prod'ed this and the article's creator removed the tag which George then reverted, I undid this and have CSD'd it as unambiguous promotion (G11) and unremarkable person (A7) to avoid taking it through an AfD. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 15:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Deleted as A7 and G11. This was a glorified resume consisting solely of original research and POV puffery from an individual not meeting any of WIkipedia's notability criteria. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Quartzsite, Arizona

This is not strictly, or literally a BLP issue, but it does concern a living person mentioned by name, so I'm posting it here. (For the record, I live in Norway and have absolutely no previous knowledge or interest in the case.)

Under the section "Freedom of speech and corruption controversy" a number of very serious allegations are made against Judge Karen Slaughter, some of which are referenced (even though I cannot vouch for the references' accuracy as to the incident), but many of which are not., such as "JP Judge Slaughter failed to uphold the law in the Michael Roth Injunction and should be impeached. First, she is not allowed to make up her own law, but did." and "Again, JP Slaughter failed to uphold the law."

Obviously, I would have made quite a few radical edits in the text as it stands now, (under WP:Soapbox and a number of other guideline violations), but I simply don't know if the incident in itself is notable or should be removed en bloc, so I ask an uninvolved administrator to have a look and take action as required. Asav (talk) 15:49, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

This goes well beyond a BLP issue. The entire section, recently added by IPs, about recent events does not belong in an article about a place. I have removed it from the article and posted a message on the article's Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Although it's not really a BLP issue anymore, I would appreciate other eyes on this article.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:28, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Isak Rajjak Shaikh

Long-germinated proposal. Not only non-neutral with respect to subject, but has become a lengthy sounding board with numerous unsourced negative claims against others, violating WP:BLP. 99.155.206.229 (talk) 13:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The lack of any real sources combined with the fair amount of personal info leads me to believe the creator must have a COI Nil Einne (talk) 17:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

An autobiography [59] that's become a depository for BLP violations [60], [61], [62]. Even though the article is not in mainspace, Wikipedia pages are not intended for the settling of personal scores; the agenda has spilled over into other articles [63]. This will not attain article status, and can only do harm to the subject if any potential employers or associates read it. My request is that it be deleted and salted, with the creator warned that he may not continue in this vein. 99.155.206.229 (talk) 18:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Lauren_Harries

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

Hi can someone have a look at this please. I removed material that was rather attackin and unsourced or sourced to a wiki. An IP is now reinserting it and i dont want to get into an edit war. Both the article and the talk page are subject to attacking material and postings.RafikiSykes (talk) 22:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC) I am also concerned with the Ip accusing the subjects mother of illegal actions regarding her daughters counselling and operatins. RafikiSykes (talk) 22:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Additions seem contentious to me and the citations seem weak - clearly needs discussion and consensus to include - removed for now and provided the IP that is desirous of adding the disputed content a link to this discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 22:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, I would have also posted a 3RR warning as the IP has already reverted three times.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

For good measure, the controversial additions appear to be copied or closely paraphrased from other sites. 99.155.206.229 (talk) 23:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the help everyone. I will discuss things on the talk page though I expect her gender history will make her a continuing target of questionable additions.RafikiSykes (talk) 00:27, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Rinat Akhmetov

I kindly ask you to help me to resolve disputable situation with user Львівське: recently I have thoroughly reviewed and restructured the article Rinat Akhmetov, removed poorly sourced statements having put proven facts in chronological and logical order. Львівське is now systematically restoring his version though it includes statements violating WIKI policies about Verifiability, Biographies of living persons and gossip. Kindly assist on the matter. --Orekhova (talk) 10:48, 16 August 2011 (UTC)