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.

Animal X

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

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: [1]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

It looks like a well-referenced fact, to me; it's widely reported in numerous reliable sources [2] - 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The Washington Times says this. [3]

“

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Zara Phillips

Resolved

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

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)[reply]

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

Adam Levine

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Here we go again, fanatical scrubbing of all mention of Jewish ancestry... this was the source:[4]. Fences&Windows 22:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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." [5]

"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."[6]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. [7], [8], [9] show current news articles using the term. Need more? Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

CaptainScreebo—This is off-topic:

"…let's start handing out the yellow stars again shall we?"[10]

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

"…you are doing the work of the anti-semitic brigade…"[11]

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…"[12]

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

"…this behaviour is demonstrated by both pro- and anti-semitic povs…"[13]

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."[14]

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."[15]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

AndyTheGrump—you ask:

"If he had accepted [a Bar mitzvah] instead, would he be Jewish...?"[16]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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…"[17]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I do not understand why there should be a problem with the facts, this is supposed to be an encyclopeadia. If I was born into a **** family but am not practising, just say the facts. If my grandmother or second uncle removed was a ****, that is a fact, whether you agree with it or not! The reason people come to wikepedia is to ascertain the facts, not to be told what to make of those facts or for someone to decide what facts should be made available. 188.220.186.57 (talk) 12:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

188.220.186.57—really you can add about Adam Levine's ancestors. But the article is primarily about Adam Levine, and sources are telling us that Adam Levine is Jewish, and Adam Levine is telling us that Adam Levine is Jewish:

1. ) "Levine, an alarmingly self-assured, caustic, 28-year-old middle-class Jewish boy, is booming the word 'extraneous!' during a lengthy argument over a forthcoming video."[18]"

2. ) "Sitting at a ginormous conference table covered in what appears to be silver–painted snakeskin, Levine talks about growing up just a few minutes from the Roosevelt Hotel. He was born at nearby Cedars–Sinai Hospital — 'like all the other Los Angeles Jews,' he quips."[19]

3. ) "Look for me out there on 'the PCH'. I will be the skinny Jew on a motorcycle. Can't miss me."[20]

4. ) "Dear early bird sandblasters at my neighbor's house. Fuck off. Love, your cranky Jewish neighbor and future mayor."[21]

Feel free to weigh in at the article's Talk page.[22] Bus stop (talk) 02:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tawana Brawley rape allegations

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

I want a reply to my query, Off2riorob, you cannot possibly adopt different stance for me and someone else. Also, you cannot undo my work in its entirety without bearing the two debates cited above. For example, how could you remove the autograph/ signature of Tudor Arghezi from his biographical article when he died in 1967? Also, what about the valued contributions of people like Connormah? You did not scissor his work on similar grounds.Hindustanilanguage (talk) 05:47, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jared Bernstein

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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[reply]

I think that would still be original research. As Wikipedia editors we take our content from existing published works. So, we would need for one or more secondary sources to explicitly state that he had not published in a peer reviewed economics journal. And we do not want to engage in synthesis by pulling data from several places to draw an independent conclusion. This is especially important since the independent conclusion you are drawing could be seen as undermining his work in economics. I hope that helps. FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 18:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Revisiting the labelling of David Ogden Stiers as gay

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
  - 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)[reply]
    - 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I just looked at the blog source which is at the heart of this.[24] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I see that it was also reported in several newspapers.[25][26][27][28] 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)[reply]

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. [29] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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? [30] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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: [31] & [32]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

You posted a message to Red Act over 48 hours ago. They have made edits since, so I presume they saw your message. Are you still waiting? I would like to let this discussion close, if you are just arguing for the sake of arguing, but if you intend to reinsert the material, I do not wish to have the discussion prematurely archived. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there's no more information available then I would restore the material in some form, as it is widely reported and undisputed. Will Beback talk 21:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

What you are saying, in so many words, is that you don't care how obviously unreliable an original source is, so long as a reliable source republishes the information. As an aside, and please don't mistake this for anything other than a personal observation, I can assure you that none of the reliable sources that republished the interview checked any facts or sought any corroboration, because they did not have to. They were not responsible for the content -- Gossipboy was -- and any liability was Gossipboy's. This is entertainment gossip, not politics or business, and is not generally subject to the same level of fact-checking, in part because much of the content comes from PR people and is likely to be fabricated anyway. That said, I find your position to be somewhat ridiculous, but also a valid interpretation of Wikipedia policy. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'm relieved to know you find it a valid interpretation of policy. I suspect that if I were to devote considerably more time and effort to explaining my reasoning, and you were to devote sufficient time to reading my explanation, you might find my position somewhat less ridiculous. Since all that is unlikely to happen, it behooves us to stick to policy as closely as possible. That is what I have tried to do here. A couple of further points in response to what you've written. First, your paraphrase "in so many words" doesn't accurately reflect my view. It's not that "a reliable source" is republishing the information; it's that multiple reliable sources are doing so. To me, that is a meaningful distinction, particularly in BLP articles. Also, it is worth noting that even sources we deem to be unreliable may be reliable on some topics, some of the time. As an (imperfect) analogy, consider those anonymous tip lines that law enforcement agencies set up. Most of the calls they get are irrelevant or even misleading, but once in a while they're on the mark. At reputable news organizations, some editorial control and discretion are exercised; reporters don't just decide to reprint rumors and put them online. At ABC News and those other sources, someone found the content credible enough to make the decision to post it. Whether they actually verified it, we cannot know—but then we don't need to. All we need to know is that our reliable sources trusted it enough to run with it, and ideally that's what we should say about it in the article. Rivertorch (talk) 04:30, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]

Our policy does not say that we unequivocally trust the reputation of these news organizations without question. If you believe that is what it says, you need to go back and read it again. I'll quote part of it for you again:

The word "source" in Wikipedia has three meanings: the work itself (a document, article, paper, or book), the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work (for example, The New York Times). All three can affect reliability.

Go back and read the entire Verifiability policy, and you will see that it is much more than blind trust of a news outlet with a big name. Only a completely oblivious person thinks the media is perfect or unbiased. People work on deadlines and often many stories get published with barely any factchecking or oversight. Since we can't confirm anything beyond the story that is sourced by the blog, we don't have any verifiability unless we ask the man directly and get an answer in a form that will be accepted here. Continuing to argue for something because you want it to be in the article, without having any way to really prove or verify it is just silly. -- Avanu (talk) 05:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great, now we're arguing about what Wikipedia:Verifiability is. To quote the policy itself, it is defined as: "whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." This material meets that. "ask the man directly" has nothing to do with it. --GRuban (talk) 18:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]

You say there are multiple sources, yet when we subject these sources to scrutiny, we see that they clearly are basing the entirety of their story on the blog material, not on independent reporting. So we really have 1 source - the blog. The story sounds very plausible, and it could very well be true, but it isn't verifiable, and that is the standard here. -- Avanu (talk) 05:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By that logic, if WP had existed several decades ago, we'd have had to exclude quite a lot of content from the Richard Nixon article because, although it appeared in multiple reputable newspapers, it originated with anonymous informants. Washington Post and New York Times as reliable sources? Nope, the real source is Deep Throat, and we can't verify that. Rivertorch (talk) 10:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what is wrong with your analogy - the defunct blog Gossipboy is not the Washington Post or the New York Times. If the interview with Stiers had appeared in either of those, we would not be having this conversation. On the other hand, we have guidelines for dealing with anonymous sources quoted in reliable sources both in WP:VERIFY and WP:BLP. I think you may have a rather incomplete understanding of the role that Deepthroat played in that particular episode, but I'll leave that for you to deal with on your own. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:26, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Instead it appears in ABC News and MSNBC. You're drawing a mighty fine line, that if an unidentified person is relied on by a national newspaper, that is reliable, but if an identified person is relied on by a national television network, that is not? --GRuban (talk) 18:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I say that an unidentified person should be relied upon by a national newspaper? Please try to read more carefully and I will try to be more careful with my wording. The interview did not appear in ABC News or MSNBC. The interview appeared in Gossipboy and that blog posting was reported by the ABC News and MSNBC. If ABC News had originated the interview we would not be discussing it here (which would be nice, because explaining the same point over and over is getting pretty tedious). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I never claimed my analogy was perfect, but what you identify as wrong with it actually isn't one of its deficiencies. In both cases, reputable news sources (ABC News et al ≈ Wash Post et al) reported infomation that could not be verified by looking at the primary source (Gossipboy ≈ Deep Throat). Very likely neither of us has a complete understanding of that episode, but that's neither here nor there. It was a rough analogy intended to illustrate a point, and apparently it only confused you. Sorry. Rivertorch (talk) 21:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What part of this do you not understand? The Stiers interview was not with ABC. ABC simply reported that Gossipboy had interviewed Stiers. The "primary source" would be Stiers, not Gossipboy. There is no equivalence in what you are suggesting. Clearly I am wasting my time discussing this with someone who cannot even grasp what the primary source is. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We rely on secondary sources. ABC is a reliable secondary source. It reported this. Will Beback talk 22:20, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Absolute rubbish. ABC reported that Gossipboy had reported X. The ABC did not report X. This is not a complex journalism construct. If you do not understand the simple, but profound difference, I have real doubts about your ability to edit any reference work.101.118.53.225 (talk) 00:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To repeat the analogy: If a newspaper prints an story on a bank robbery and it quotes an eyewitness saying the robbers fled in a red car, who is doing the reporting? Would we refuse to include this information since we don't know how reliable this witness might be? No, because the source is the newspaper, which is responsible for everything they print. Will Beback talk 00:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You won't be the first to have thought that. John lilburne (talk) 00:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly limit your snide remarks to Wikipedia Review. Here on Wikipedia, we have rules requiring civility. Will Beback talk 02:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a really long thread and, as far as I can tell, editors are simply repeating the same positions they adopted early in the discussion. Unless someone objects for a good reason, I'm going to close the thread.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will Beback has stated, more than once now, that he will be restoring the deleted material back into the BLP in some form. The is little point in closing this now, as the discussion is likely to be re-opened as soon as that happens. I have urged Will Beback to either make his edits or change his mind and allow the discussion to be closed, but he has done neither. While this is frustrating, and has allowed for even more illogical nonsense to be posted here, there seems little we can do if someone chooses to delay doing what they have said they will do. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I don't consider your objection to be based on a "good reason", but, at the same time, I am uncomfortable overriding it and archiving the discussion. The original problem here was whether to categorize Stiers. You're against doing so. Will is in favor. Currently, Stiers is NOT categorized. If Will chooses to add the categories, you could open another discussion (as you say above). Why continue to argue about it here if it hasn't happened? Anyway, having said that, I'm bowing out because all I'm apparently accomplishing is making this topic even longer.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:23, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've been proposing restoring the text, not the category. As for this thread, I don't see any consensus that this is problematic material. Will Beback talk 23:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but what is left to discuss here?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think everyone has stated their views. I don't see anything left to do here. Will Beback talk 00:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except close the discussion, but DC won't let me. If it weren't for the language in {{cot}}, I'd do it anyway.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I also propose restoring the text and not the category. As far as I'm concerned, this thread has run its course—and then some. Anything else I say is liable to be misunderstood, just like the last thing I said. Rivertorch (talk) 18:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Ramadan

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Luke Evans (actor)‎ - disputed BLP sexual categorization

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

* 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

~~::::: 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)~~[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

:* 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

:::: 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

::::::: 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: [33] shows a person soliciting others off-wiki:[reply]

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.

[34] 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. [35] 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. [36]:

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

[37] 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 [38] [39] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

I really wish we weren't having this discussion at 4/5 different places. Silverseren^C 19:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. So I'll be brief, I don't believe that the category is appropiate. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 03:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [40], 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

And once again, User:Xblackbirdx200 has readded the list of non-notables:[41]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

This is still smouldering after a couple of years, and more views would be appreciated in the hope of arriving at some kind of conclusive resolution. The RfC thread is relatively short, clear and civil, with two editors arguing for inclusion and three against. It seems to have come down to this: Is this noteworthy enough, given its limited coverage and impact, to justify any hurt inclusion may inflict? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:15, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

An autobiography [42] that's become a depository for BLP violations [43], [44], [45]. 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 [46]. 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)[reply]

Since there's virtually no response to this, I have to conclude that I'm off the mark. My question: Can a user freely post disparaging or libelous claims on Wikipedia, as long as they're not in mainspace? Because that's my takeaway from this. 99.155.206.229 (talk) 02:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summary caught my attention. I agree that this page is seriously problematic. I anticipate deleting it in the next couple of days if the page is not improved significantly and the concerns you have raised aren't addressed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well I do write for money, and know that every once in a while one must practice the craft rather more bluntly. But my frustration was real, and your answer is really appreciated. I know this AFC is just someone ranting in a byway, but it's not right, and is an abuse of Wikipedia. Thank you. 99.155.206.229 (talk) 02:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren_Harries

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/92.7.18.204 < IP has changed and has reinserted the things sourced to tongs wiki and is going against MOS by using male pronouns for post transition Lauren on the talk page.RafikiSykes (talk) 12:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a request to WP:RFPP to have this semi-protected due to the repeated vandalism and BLP issues. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:48, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection is now in place for a week. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:21, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Michael Ledwith

- Contributions/Neil80123

I think I need fresh eyes at Michael Ledwith, if anyone can spare some. A new editor, User:Neil80123, has been rewriting the article to focus on a series of sexual abuse allegations. Initially I was reverting due to the presence of extensive copyvio, although I also had concerns with undue weight and original research. The copyvio is now less of an issue after discussions on the user's talk page, but I suspect that the latest additions continue with reduced undue weight concerns as well as problems with what looks like OR, although the explicit commentary has now been removed. As a quick summary of the case, there are four points in regard to the abuse allegations:

Michael Ledwith was President of a major seminary in Ireland, and resigned suddenly before his term expired. It was later revealed that he was being investigated in regard to a sexual abuse claim against a minor, with Ledwith denied. The investigation did not come to a conclusion, as Ledwith reach a private settlement that included a confidentially clause, preventing progress.
A second abuse claim emerged from the time after he resigned as President but before he left the college. That claim was dropped after the claimant changed his story and stated that the incident was consensual. Ledwith denied the allegation, consensual or otherwise.
There were claims in the media that Ledwith had previously been accused of sexual harassment by students at the college, but that the college had not acted properly. The college initiated the McCullough Report, which was unable to find any students who had made claims about harrassment. It did find that they had complained about his propensities - particularly that he might be homosexual and had focused to much on worldly goods.
The Ferns Report looked into Ledwith, and could not substantiate the first claim, due to the confidentially agreement, and questioned the reliability of the second. It was critical of Ledwith, though.

Anyway, that's the background. As it stands the article now has extensive coverage of those issues, and I'm not sure what would be appropriate for the article. So it would be valuable if someone else could look into what the proper weight and tone should be. - Bilby (talk) 13:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted his recent additions - for "large reliance on primary reports" - and left the user a link to this discussion thread and asked him not to replace without discussion and some degree of support for the expansion. Off2riorob (talk) 19:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken the criticisms into account and have balanced the primary source material with valid newspaper linking and backing them up. I have also take Bilby's critique into account and removed entirely the 1994 allegation of rape by a semanarian in order to achieve balance. I have also noted that no conclusions have been reached on Msr Ledwith's behaviour, but noted the newspaper commentary and the account of the Ferns report, and noted that Ledwith fully co-operated. I have rebalanced to say there are no conclusions, but the matter remains controversial in Ireland and have noted newspaper editorial on this. I think, in this case, it is very important to air the objective facts. I have also reinstated Bilby's section on his post clerical career and taken into account that this is necessary to achieve balance. On that basis I must insist that I am contacted directly before any further edits are made to this article, particularly the removal of the Ferns report section which throws light on the various allegations and is very balanced in its findings for and against Fr Ledwith. I think on this basis we need to leave these facts in as this report forms the basis for most of the newspaper coverage. Also in order to have credibility as a scholarly source then Wikipedia needs to incorporate primary source material, and I have, in my edits, noted the WP policy on Primary sources which have not been breached in this article. Finally this article needed to be substantially rewritten as that the facts were poorly listed and considered and it was the victim of the most god awful turgid prose I have ever seen. For God's sake if people are going to volunteer to be editors could they at least learn the skills of writing?

I am publishing this entry into the discussion forum of the article history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neil80123 (talk • contribs) 10:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Murphy (broadcaster)

Unsourced BLP with identifying personal information about family and others. causa sui (talk) 17:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even with the tag you added, at least some of the unsourced information should be removed. What is a "veteran broadcaster"? Do they mean former broadcaster? And what does "fronting television shows" mean? It sounds vaguely sinister.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right or wrong, I decided what both terms meant and tidied up the article. Now I'll wait a while to see if anyone sources the remaining material (based on the tag). Otherwise, the article will have to be gutted.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Linda McMahon

A slew of edits have been made to this article. One claim in the lede specifically read:

As President and later CEO of the company, she negotiated business deals, launched wrestling merchandise, and signed wrestler contracts.

And is referenced by [47] The only problem is that absolutely none of the sentence is found in the cite given.

One editor has repeatedly re-inserted this, and added other rather "iffy" material. Can people kindly examine the cites given and emend the article? Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that the cite doesn't back the claim. It does mention that she signed one contract, but did so "on behalf of Titan Sports" which may have been a precursor of the WWE, but not quite the same thing. That said, though ... why is this a BLP issue? Yes, McMahon is a living person, but what she actually did as CEO doesn't seem particularly derogatory or controversial; surely there can be sources found that say what the job entailed? --GRuban (talk) 18:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here. [48] This is the official WWE bio of McMahon as published on the NYSE, circa 2004.

Mrs. McMahon negotiated and implemented the first licensing deal in the wrestling industry with a toy company called LJN, which produced the WWE line of Superstar action figures. She also managed the development of WWE publications, and, at the start, wrote most of the articles. This foresight was a harbinger of multi‐million dollar business centers for the company. Today, Mrs. McMahon oversees and guides the strategic direction of this integrated media company...

That says nothing about wrestler contracts, but seems to back the first two points all right. Is there something controversial about her having signed wrestler contracts? --GRuban (talk) 18:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me like it's a bit of a variation on a coatrack. The statement itself is fairly benign but serves to link an inflamitory article as a citation.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um -- 880 edits by one single editor out of just over two thousand total by every editor <g> and lots of similar stuff in the article. Thanks for noting this. Collect (talk) 18:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so Collect, you visited this noticeboard and found your answer. I don't know why this is an issue. It certainly wasn't contentious, and there was no reason for you to delete it twice. Now, we have another source, which is already linked to the page. I have no issue with linking that footnote to the statement in question. Does that settle the issue, Collect?--Screwball23 talk 22:29, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And the answer was: the cite did not back the claim. Meanwhile, please stop the personal stuff - it is getting a tad tiresome. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. You see, the main difference between me and you is that you are a problem-focused person and I am a solution based guy. I am willing to put the footnote to the statement in question. Not a problem. I was even willing to discuss it with you on the talk page, and I did until your logic broke down and you started "hoping for another person to spot the issue". Even now, there is no issue and you continue to insist that the cite was no good, when you agreed earlier that it did prove she signed wrestler contracts. I mean, talk about wishy washy. You really need to stop the personal stuff, and stop being so sensitive about losing edit wars.--Screwball23 talk 17:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Edit wars"?? I would like to point out that your edit summaries read like:

come on, man why do you have to be this way? she did the deal; i don't know who drafted company contracts, but it probably wasn't her) and

Undid revision 438742994 by Collect (talk) - untrue : there are multiple sources that state magnate ; Collect, I thought you changed your games and the like

and your "posts" on my user talk page after you were disinvited read like:

but I had watched the page because it was related to Gaddafi, and when I saw your damage, I'm lucky I was able to stop you in your tracks and

It's sad, but I recommend you read the articles before you make a decision as to whether someone is relevant enough to delete off a page. and

And for a person who is making up nonsense about how I do not have reliable sources to support what I've said, you seem to have an eager zeal to delete all my content from any type of discussion. I have yet to see a rationale for why you think the material you deleted needed to go. But then again, it seems that asking for rationale or even some level of conviction in your edits is too much to ask. and

Collect, your lack of integrity is making your editing some of the most destructive I've ever seen. and

you did not have the guts to simply admit your mistake - you wanted to save face, and could not. and

Grow a pair of balls and admit you have no rationale for your edits. I know it and you know it. Give up the game, because you are wasting your life right now. There are a lot of other things you can do besides vandalize wikipedia and fight edit wars

I suggest that the claim of "personal attack" coming from you is like the claim of "edit war" coming from you on an article where your edits outnumber mine by a ratio of 25:1. And of course your CANVASSing of another editor at [49] saying:

User:Collect is going nuts again. I want someone to moderate this, because he's on Linda McMahon deleting things again.]]

Which some might even feel is a violation of WQA, I would think. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:57, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Everything I said was true. Your edit wars have been founded on a refusal to read the references. And don't even get started with your canvassing stories. You and I both know that you came to this board because you were wishy washy and knew you had no idea what you were talking about, so you decided to come here and have other people make sense of your issues.--Screwball23 talk 04:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem. I hate to interrupt this wonderful catfight, but is the question that started this resolved? Any objections if I replace the source in question with the one I found, and remove the "wrestler contracts" bit? Will that solve this particular problem? --GRuban (talk) 20:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gwen Shamblin

It was recommended by another editor to place my concerns here. If someone could help me with this. I have been attempting to edit this biography due to concerns with the following:

Misuse of Primary Sources - There are two users who appear to have accounts created only to edit this wiki that have been inserting an unnecessary number of links to both negative content and court documents that were part of a libel suit by Mrs. Shamblin against another party.
Self-Published Material - Most of the court documentation linked to are motions filed by the defendant and attorneys and not the official court decisions. Maintaining an Impartial Tone on this description is also called into question. In addition, a number of these links are to documents stored on a site that has had links previously removed for bias and original research.
Undue Weight - These same users have also added content and undone edits I have made to consolidate some of the negative discussion resulting in one of the larger sections of her bio. They have also added content and undone edits to content about another case that already has its own wiki page and I believe does not need to be duplicated on Mrs. Shamblin's site, but only briefly referenced and linked to. This activity has created undue weight on these items that I feel is not appropriate to their significance to the subject (for example, in the court case section, the defendant's name (Martinez) is mentioned 7 times in the same section).

If anyone has time to take a look at Gwen Shamblin's wiki page and recent history and comment on these concerns and provide suggestions, I would be very appreciative. Thank you. MarcD2010. —Preceding undated comment added 19:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Boris Said

Someone apparently put some pretty rude, personal comments into the entry for Boris Said in the past day. I hope I am doing this right - here is the diff [50]. I am not a NASCAR follower and had never heard of Boris Said before, but I heard his name mentioned because of "what he did" at Watkins Glen yesterday and wanted to know what it was. I was shocked when I saw the entry since it definitely attacks the person it is about. Hopefully someone with the right permissions will edit this to remove the insulting comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.59.18.126 (talk) 03:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted those negative comments, and protected the article for a month from unregisterred users. --Jayron32 03:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boris Said

This article is personally biased and libel. Please remove. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.67.37.73 (talk) 03:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This has already been fixed. See above. --Jayron32 03:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Chilean Pen Incident

(partly copied from my talk page)

The article 2011 Chilean Pen Incident apparently meets our criteria for inclusion, however, I have serious objections to the presence of this article on Wikipedia. It is not a matter of WP:V or WP:NPOV, the root of the problem lies somewhere else.

There's no important information for this encyclopedia. The president's stupid blunder was caught by people on Internet and after the video became a hit on YouTube, it was interpreted and researched by the media as an embarrassing error of a highly visible politician. What is the result for this encyclopedia? Our article intentionally presents the politician in the role of a thief or kleptomaniac, and I'm afraid it is the only purpose of the article. Of course, it is possible to object to my argument on the ground that the article simply explains the situation and provides a broader context to an uninformed reader. However, I can't find any encyclopedic significance of the event itself.

Now some comments regarding the ethical aspects of the issue:

This whole hullabaloo over a really unclear and unimportant event has been grossly inflated by the media from the very beginning. I pause the term unclear, as to me it is quite shocking how quickly was the president's unwitting gesture called in the media worldwide a 'theft' or 'stealing'. Do they think the president is such an idiot to steal (deliberately) protocol pens in front of cameras?? The situation could be interpreted in various ways (as an unintentional and distracted gesture, as a deliberate theft etc.), but they have chosen the most shocking and disparaging interpretation. It tells something about the careless and frivolous attitude of the media, which is — I thought (!) — typical mainly to tabloid newspapers. However, it was rightly pointed out that the event has caught more attention than anything Klaus has ever done before. In my opinion the article has a very little informational value for this project and serves only to disparage the subject. Of course, it could be preserved as a monument and memento of the idiocy of today's world.

Please, note that I'm not a supporter or defender of the Czech president, I would protest against any effort to discredit anyone. I'm aware that this is only my opinion, and I'm willing to accept any sensible explanation of the encyclopedic importance of this topic. I just follow my common sense.

My questions are:

How important is the information/article for the global media portrait of the Czech president?
How important is the event for president's career/work? Is there any significant influence on his career/work?
Is there any encyclopedic value for this project?

Thanks for any consideration.

Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 12:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I would be willing to accept any significant criticism regarding president's political decisions, but this is a cheap way to discredit him. It is unworthy of serious encyclopedic attention. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 13:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely agree. There is nothing encyclopedic on this topic. How about nominating this article for deletion? - Darwinek (talk) 15:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is an overworked anecdote of zero lasting impact on anything at all. Take it to AfD. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Collect and Darwinek, this is in the same bucket as Bush and the pretzel, Bush walking into a door in China, and Bush falling off a Segway (not to pick on GWB, lest anyone think that was my intent). – ukexpat (talk) 19:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated for deletion now per unanimous comments here. FuFoFuEd (talk) 20:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wellesley Aron

Until a few weeks ago (before July 2011) the information on the early life of Wellesley in Wikipedia was poorly written and inaccurate. I suspect that it was based largely on the book "Rebel With A Cause" and that the author of this book and the writer of the article too, both had little direct connections with Wellesley or even poor indirect connections. This situation does not promote good copy! The corrections that I have been introducing are based not on that book (which I have little regard for) but on what I have found in the Habonim Archives in Yad Tabenkin, Ramat Gan, Israel. Wellesley was one of the founders of Habonim Jewish Cultural Youth Movement, which started without its present socilaist and zionist attitudes and is now algamated as Habonim Dror. Variuos interviews, letters, minutes, memoranda and reports of those early days 1928/9 enable one to build up a picture of Wellesley and his nature, achievements and problems, which is lacking from that article. Other members in Habonim can help too, so if someone wants to ask questions and improve on the article, I at least will be glad to oblige. Macrocompassion (talk) 13:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This forum is intended for issues and questions regarding the biographies of living persons, Macrocompassion. It looks that Wellesley Aron died in 1988. You are free to fix the article with correct and verifiable information. You can also ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jewish history. Thanks for your understanding. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 13:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sandi Thom

Article is being edited using direct qoutes and whole sections of artists promotional blog on her official website including facts that cannot be verified including promotional aspects that have not happened yet but are due for press release. Despite my editing they are being put back asap. 23:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[skinnylizzy] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skinnylizzy (talk • contribs)

I agree and have posted a message to the article's Talk page in support of your reversion of the additions. For the moment, your last reversion has stuck. I will watch the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy DeVito

I recently corrected the birth year and the incorrect notion that Tommy DeVito was the twim brother of Nick DeVito. Nick DeVito's date of birth listed on the Social Security Death Index makes it completely impossible for Tommy to be his twin brother. Somebody keeps changing it back to the previous wrong information which appears in the internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.170.160.9 (talk) 23:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits are unencyclopedic and not based on reliable sources. The only thing I've changed is to remove the allegation that Nick is Tommy's twin because the source in the article says only brother, not twin.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tukufu Zuberi

Could someone please take a look at the International activities section of this article? It looks like a résumé to me, but I'd like to have some other eyes look at it and determine what to do with it. Appreciate the help. 75.13.69.27 (talk) 00:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. It's been around a long time, though, and my guess is there'd be push-back if it were simply removed. You've tagged it. I noticed that someone objected to it on the Talk page in November 2010, but it never gained any traction. Why don't you start a new topic on the Talk page recommending removal of the table, integrating anything noteworthy into the prose, and getting rid of the rest completely (many entries don't need to be there at all). I've put it on my watchlist, but I'm too tired to tackle it at the moment. I'll try to look at it again tomorrow.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nevin Shapiro

The newly-created Nevin Shapiro article will probably need more eyes on it. Shapiro was apparently involved in a massive Ponzi scheme (to which he has pleaded guilty), and also heavily involved with the University of Miami football team. Though the article is sourced, I think that someone should look into it further - I think there may be problems with some of the things that Shapiro 'allegedly' did for the team, which may lack proper sources, and thus have BLP concerns. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Gee

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

Needs to be on more watchlists because drive-by spas have been adding entertaining nonsense such as "Celebrity Nutritionist, spoonwright ... does not hurl rocks" to the intro, "Died London, because, as has been stated, the transition between life and death would hardly be noticeable" and "Known for large smelly feet encased in rubberized foam" to the infobox (version link), etc. – Athaenara ✉ 03:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kris Jordan

I am disappointed to find the article on Kris Jordan locked, as there is plenty of new material that's being ignored because of the lockdown. The page has been locked twice because of alleged sock-puppetry, but there appears to be little evidence of both sock-puppetry and the information posted by the culprit being inaccurate. That makes me wonder if people doing the administrative work on the article are trying to shield Mr. Jordan rather than uphold Wiki rules.

Specifically, there are local news reports (easily verifiable) that Jordan's wife called 911 and accused Jordan of "pushing her around, drunk, for what she said was one of "numerous times" over the last two years." Earlier, the city prosecutor announced he won't file charges against Jordan. Jordan offered an explanation for the tiff: "She got a little upset. Girls do that." This is only the latest news item on Jordan, but there have been more developments in Ohio that are not reflected in the current piece. But no updates could be made to the article in the past month and a half because someone too exception to changes made over the previous year. It makes no sense. --Alex.deWitte (talk) 05:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Go to the talk page of the article, and use the {{editprotected}} template to request changes. Make sure to include your proposed changes, and links to reliable sources which verify the changes you want to make. When you do so, please be sure to link to actual sources, per WP:BURDEN, no one is going to do your homework for you, if you want changes it is up to you to find and present sources that support them. But use the article talk page; that is what it is for. --Jayron32 05:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leonel Fernandez

In this talk page message I explain the issue.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the paragraph that you find disturbing, but, as I commented on the article Talk page, it's not completely unsourced. However, there are too many troubling issues with it to allow it to remain as it was worded. I've also commented on the article's Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Reeves

A user Shakehandsman keeps changing content on this page so that it is non-neutral. For example "She again contested the seat in the 2006 by-election following the death of sitting MP Eric Forth and finished fourth. Reeves' support reduced from 10,241 votes to 1,925 in what was described as a "humiliation" for Labour". The references that he uses after this point do not state this, or even use the word "humilation". Shakehandsman's language makes it appear that Rachel Reeves result alone was considered a "humiliation", yet this is not the case and the articles cited are about how, overall, the national election result was not good for Labour and the Conservatives. When somebody attempted to change the text to reflect this, using the content of the cited articles, Shakehandsman simply changed it back, to what is clearly a non-neutral, non-factual, un-cited comment. For some reason they also keep changing the place where Rachel lives from 'Leeds West' to 'Leeds' and flagging this as non-neutral, when it is simply fact. He has also removed factual citations from the article and seems to be deliberately targeting the page, changing the language so it is non-neutral and adding incorrect references, whilst taking out accurate ones. The user describes themselves as dealing with 'vandalism, particularly COI editors and sockpuppets', yet they seem to be the one breaking Wikipedia policies of NPOV, Verifiability and Tone.

I am concerned that this users persistant changing of comments could result in an edit war, which is not helpful to anybody. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suadehead86 (talk • contribs) 14:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One of the two cited sources uses the word "humiliation" in connection with the Bromley seat (the one Reeves ran for). Although it's true that the language in the article combines Reeves's results with the overall problem for Labour, it's not as badly written as you make it out to be and is probably sufficiently neutral to pass muster.

The lead (heh) and infobox say Leeds West. I assume it's just the sentence in the body that says she moved to Leeds to run for the Leeds West seat. The cite for that sentence says she lives in Kirkstall and moved into the "Leeds West constituency". Where is Kirkstall? Does any of this matter that much?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- User:Shakehandsman again... I would ban him from editing any BLP articles on wikipedia - can a couple of experienced BLP editors please add him to their watchlist for additional assessment of his contributions - user has been the focus of multiple OTRS reports on multiple BLP articles - user is focused on attacking women - usually labour political BLP articles - his usual position is to claim, ow look at all these sockpuppets coming to neutralize the BLP after I have edited it.Off2riorob (talk) 23:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have an impeccable record at Wikipedia and there is absolutely nothing wrong in my contributions to the Reeves article and the dispute from the ticket you mention were very minor and trivial issues such as the location of Shahid Malik's residence (which was fully sourced using reliable publications and something you have simply deleted from the article and simply left blank for no good reason). None of the above points by a brand new editor who has just appeared today have any real basis in fact as highlighted above. I've worked hard greatly improving the Reeves article removing a great deal of biased, unsourced and problematic content and all my edits have been supported by multiple respected and longstanding Wikipedia editors. The false claims above are by a brand new account with zero edits, yet as with every other occasion you take their side just as you always have reported every single sock in the past who've made false allegations against me or hurled disgusting insults my way. Your conduct toward me and numerous other here on Wikipedia is a disgrace, it's little wonder Wikipedia is losing contributors. My record on gender equality is second to none and I've added material to practical every single MP involved in court cases regardless of gender or party. If this nonsense continues any longer continues I'll be seeking a formal ban on you having any interaction with me rather than the present informal situation. I will concede that you're quite right that an very good at catching sockpuppets and COI editors and I'm very proud of this. I won't be stating what action I feel should be taken against Off2RioRob as is really isn't the place for such things, I will say that I very much the views and concerns of many other editors. --Shakehandsman (talk) 21:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to rebuff any of the points above, all neutral sources say she lives in Leeds, not Leeds West hence my changes. If a user has a relaible source stating Reeves lives in the constituency then go ahead and add it. Any points about the Conservatives are totally irrelevant as Reeves is a Labour MP. The fact that a different party didn't do quite as well as expected on a particular election night in a constituency where Reeves no longer plays any part has no relevance to a BLP about a Labour MP and such information would belong in the article about the constituency in question or the particular Conservative MP. The complaint has no merit whatsoever and is very strange.--Shakehandsman (talk) 22:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mette-Marit, Crown Princess of Norway

Has repeatedly had Breivik COATRACKED therein - removal of said COATRACK was labelled "rv vandalism" which I trust is not the opinion of those here [51] . I ask that anyone interested in the Breivik "attach to every article possible" COATRACK note this. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's only marginally coatrack, but I agree it doesn't belong in the article and have reverted the latest attempt to reinsert it.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I just did not believe "she was personally affected" was a sufficient connection <g>. Collect (talk) 20:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that phrase is probably because it was her stepbrother who was killed, but I thought it was too attenuated to justify inclusion, not necessarily an obvious call in my view.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

lou jones (photographer)

Hi, I work for Lou Jones (photographer) as his studio manager and I am trying to make his page not have a "C" rating anymore. It has also been labeled as biased, but I went through and tried my best to present information in a very dry/neutral way. I also provided links for every fact. How can I receive a new rating so that the page is not flagged? He is not a controversial figure, but he has many accomplishments from being a photographer for so many years. Please help! :-) Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lkcornwell (talk • contribs) 20:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have a clear conflict of interest in having created and then editing the article. Don't conflate the quality rating by the project with the maintenance template in the article itself. I suggest you focus on the article first and start a discussion on the Talk page about the template issues and why you think each criticism is no longer supported. You should clearly declare your relationship with Jones at the beginning of the discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned up some of the stuff for you and removed two of the multiple issues from the maintenance template. The two remaining issues can probably be removed, but I would need to check all the references in the article before being able to comfortably remove them.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bethel Church, Mansfield Woodhouse

Bethel Church, Mansfield Woodhouse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Ok, this ones a zinger. Some living persons mentioned in the article in a not-very positive light. And all of the sourcing is to a couple of authors for one local newspaper :S which is more than concerning. It looks like some sort of internal dispute gone bad - eyes on would be good --Errant ^(chat!) 22:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was involved in this one - Article was created/largely expanded by User:Cirt as I remember. User:Cirt created this version all by himself. Off2riorob (talk) 22:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hailey Dunn

I am seriously concerned that the entire "Investigation" section is full of unproven allegations against various people suspected of having had a role in Hailey Dunn's disappearance and likely murder. I would propose that the "Investigation" section should be removed (in its entirety) and revdel'ed or oversighted. This article is currently the subject of an AfD, but there doesn't currently appear to be a consensus to delete it. Richwales (talk · contribs) 00:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and removed the "Investigation" section myself. If the ultimate consensus is that I'm overreacting, my action can easily be reverted (and I'll apologize), but WP:BLP says we need to be aggressive and take the initiative with stuff like this. Richwales (talk · contribs) 01:37, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree with you - I almost did the same thing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, the article has been deleted. Does anything further need to be done to expunge the material in this now-deleted article which most likely constituted a BLP violation? Richwales (talk · contribs) 15:19, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ferdinand von Prondzynski

This article has a hotly debated "Controversy" section, which the subject considers highly problematic. The subject has posted at Editor Assistance/Requests about it. There has been massive edit-warring on the article over these issues; it being semi-protected (yesterday) may not make much difference, and certainly won't fix the problem permanently. There have also been assertions that the remainder of the article is unduly promotional. There are also hugely lengthy discussions about the issues on the talk page (some of which possibly shouldn't be there either; includes various people's email addresses and other similar material.) I've removed a weakly sourced half-sentence from the Controversy section, but more help would be appreciated. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cal Robertson

This article is missing sources, incoherent and potential slander. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnsgoat (talk • contribs) 04:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the article; there's very little there, and nothing I see as slanderous. The person is only borderline notable, but I can't see anything in the article now which could possibly be objectionable; it is just an actor with a list of roles and a brief synopsis of one of them. --Jayron32 04:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was some negative information that has been removed ("struggling actor" and on academic probation).--Bbb23 (talk) 04:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to split Fiona Graham article

An editor has suggested to split the Fiona Graham article to separately report on her life as anthropologist and as geisha. The discussion can be found here. (Since the article has been brought up on this board several times before I figured it would be the most appropriate venue to ask for input - if you think there's a better place for that, please feel free to move this section.) --Six words (talk) 10:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is there to discuss? Unless I'm missing something, we don't spilt BLP articles in that way, so regardless of what you decide on that page it will not be allowed. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many people would have lives which could be so split - Wikipedia does not do it - the person remains one person. Collect (talk) 11:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The other problem with the discussion over there, it mentions write the second article accords to the 'cultural traditions' of the Geisha - which is a complete and utter no,no. Otherwise, where do we stop - changing Muslim articles to reflect their cultural traditions, the christian articles ? Etc etc. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The split proposal is absurd and I've said so on the article's Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KSM

People using his photograph in these boxes. Okay?

This user feels that letting oneself be struck with terror by terrorists means actually doing most of their job for them.

One persons terrorist is another persons freedom fighter and revolutionary. I would support removal simply because its inflammatory with no added value to article creation.. - Not sure its a BLP issue really - he confessed to terrorism, confessed to being a mastermind of the 9 11 plane attacks - although he has not been convicted yet. Off2riorob (talk) 12:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would need an MfD - but I doubt it would be deleted considering the wide range of political userboxes extant. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Undent)A more limited goal than deletion would be replacing the word "idiot" with a different word. Here's what WP:Userboxes says about it:

All userboxes are governed by the civility policy. Userboxes must not include incivility or personal attacks. Userboxes must not be inflammatory or divisive. Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise, opinion pieces on current affairs or politics, self-promotion, or advertising. Simply: If content is not appropriate on a user page, it is not appropriate within userboxes.

Per WP:BLP, "The BLP policy also applies to user and user talk pages. The single exception is that users may make any claim they wish about themselves...." I think that characterizing KSM as a "terrorist" is something that's arguably supported by reliable sources, whereas characterizing him as an "idiot" is not. Per The New Yorker:[52]

Insofar as we know Mohammed, we see him as a brilliant behind-the-scenes tactician and a resolute ideologue. As it turns out, he is earthy, slick in a way, but naïve, and seemingly motivated as much by pathology as by ideology. Fouda describes Mohammed’s Arabic as crude and colloquial and his knowledge of Islamic texts as almost nonexistent. A journalist who observed Mohammed’s appearance at one of the Guantánamo hearings likened his voluble performance to that of a Pakistani Jackie Mason. A college classmate said that he was an eager participant in impromptu skits and plays. A man who knew him from a mosque in Doha talked about his quick wit and chatty, glad-handing style. He was an operator.

He's far from an idiot, though some of his ideas may be idiotic.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - as per the WP:Consensus and concern expressed here I have made a small alteration to the text in the box - I removed idiots'. 194.138.39.59 (talk) 21:26, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Floyd Gadd

I am Floyd Gadd. I do not consider it appropriate for the article on me to continue to appear. For my comments on the article, please see http://www.floydgadd.com/wikipedia.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.81.12.85 (talk) 15:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I read your comments, and partly guided by them, I've removed all of the unsourced material from your article, although some based on archived material still remains. At this point, there's almost nothing in the article. Most third-party coverage of you is very dated, which coincides with what you say (that you've been inactive for "several years"). As a result, I've nominated your article for deletion as not meeting wikipedia's notability guidelines.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article nominated for deletion. FuFoFuEd (talk) 17:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Caylee Anthony: Alleged defamation by WP:RS

In Death of Caylee Anthony, one editor keeps alleging that you can’t link “to an article which contains otherwise personal information about a WP:Non Notable Person.” I.e., one cannot use WP:RS news sources (no matter how many notable references there might be from high quality sources) that state even the tiniest negative thing about a "non-notable" person - even if that info is not used in the article itself. I’m quite sure s/he is wrong, but feel free to help correct the miss-impression so I can stop getting reverts on the article and lectures on the talk page! A couple examples:

This Orlando Sentinel article referencing an important widely reported factoid because it talks about the officer possibly being up for firing. (Even though that information is NOT used in the article, so this is not a WP:Undue issue.)
An article referencing an important widely reported factoid (which he does not identify but would be a major FL news outlet) which has “personal information” about “Mr. Kronk's sealed police record, or his being behind in his child suppot.” (Even though that information is NOT used in the article, so this is not a WP:Undue issue.)
Any of the hundreds of WP:RS that describe Krystal Holloway’s July 1st trial testimony that she had a relationship with George Anthony, he took money from her and he told her that the whole Caylee incident was an accident that snow-balled out of control, or that After Holloway left the courtroom, Perry instructed the jury that it should only use the witness' testimony regarding George's statements to her to discern whether or not they believe George's previous testimony, and not as a basis for their verdict for Casey. (Per this mainstream news source. And two sentences about that definitely do belong IMHO and this is not at WP:Undue issue. So is it defamation to even link to those articles or mention Holloway's trial testimony?

[Added later: Under this criteria, most articles that mention a living person would be deprived of a good portion of their content because many sources - including especially books - contain some negative info about some non-notable person, even if unrelated to the article.] Comments? CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Added later to answer her comment added later) We are not talking about negative information. We are talking about a lie which accuses George Anthony, a living person, of covering up the death of his grandaughter Caylee. This is an alleged criminal act we are talking about, not "negative information".

My reply to CarolMooredc is to the Krystal Holloway information she added to the article.

As to the Krystal Holloway's testimony, CarolMooredc, has once more mistated it. What CarolMooredc initially put in the article was that George Anthony stated to Ms. Holloway that "it was an accident that snowballed out of control" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Death_of_Caylee_Anthony&diff=440142272&oldid=440140363 which as stated, means that George Anthony knew about Caylee's death and covered it up. A crime. What actually happened is that Ms Holloway recanted that version at the trial. The paragraph CarolMooredc put into the article was factually inaccurate and accused him of a crime, i.e., covering up a

the death of Caylee Anthony. What Holloway said to the Enquirer for $thousands of dollars is not what she finally admitted to in court. When Prosecution showed Ms. Holloway in court her sworn signed statement that she made to the police, she finally admitted that what George Anthony actually said was that "I really believe that it was probably an accident that snowballed out of control". A completely different meaning. Krystal Holloway tried to say the statement the first way but when shown the truth of what she had said under oath to the police, she recanted. CarolMooredc was explained this on several occasions. What happened then was that the Judge struck her back and forth statements (from Defense to Prosecution) as "prior inconsistent statements" and told the jury to ignore ALL of her statements as is done in trial under such circumstances. I even showed CarolMooredc the video of the trial but she maintains that she can use the version which was proven untrue. CarolMooredc argued and refused to correct what she said so I took it out because, as I said, it was factually inaccurate. As CarolMooredc stated it in the article, it accused George Anthony, a living person, of covering up a suspicious death. The video of her complete statement at court is here: http://caseyanthonyisinnocent.com/trial-videos-3-casey-anthony-trial-witness-video-and-witness-testimonies/krystal-holloway-june-30th-2011/ There are SEVEN videos I believe the pertinent testimony and attorney and judge conversation is in 2, 3, and 4 but they are all there for a complete version of her testimony Mugginsx (talk) 17:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As to the defamation issues and the WP:BLP issues: Yes, I believe that it can be considered defamation to even link to a site that contains personal defamatory information about a non-notable person which may adversely affect his livlihood and reputation. First let me list the references used by CarolMooredc in the Death of Caylee article that are in dispute:

Ref# 28 http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2009-01-14/news/casey14_1_kronk-sheriff-office-angelo-nieves is supposed to reference Roy Kronk but mainly contains information about a Florida police officer as "failing to properly investigate a threatening telephone call in March 2007, and was being investigated... and it goes on about the police officer, a non notable person, leaving only a very few lines about Roy Kronk, the man CarolMooredc is supposed to be referencing. A BLP issues, since the officer is not a notable person and is not part of the Death of Caylee Anthony article except previously mentioned only as an "officer". http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2009-04-11/news/cain11_1_cain-kronk-caylee-remains

Ref #29 - http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2009-04-11/news/cain11_1_cain-kronk-caylee-remains mentions the police office again by name and states that he is "is facing being fired" (which he was) it goes on and in the entire article which is almost entirely about the police office there are only six lines about Kronk in the entire article - stating the office was "rude" to him. This too is supposed to be referencing ONLY Kronk.

Ref #30 - http://www.wftv.com/news/18530178/detail.html contains information about the "heart shaped sticker" which Kronk does not describe but was attributed to him. It seems that CarolMooredc has revised the paragraph about Kront which contains NO mention of the heart-shaped sticker contained in the article she uses as a reference to Roy Kronk. It was actually the police who mentioned it.

Ref #31 - http://www.cfnews13.com/article/news/2011/june/259603/ is about Casey Anthony crying in court when seeing the pictures of the skull and the fact that court had to be adjourned early. It has two lines and three words about Kronk making a 911 call.

As a paralegal I have always believed and was made to believe that "repeating a defamatory or libelous statements is making the statement again", meaning that the new statement is libelous to the person who speaks it, or reprints it. http://www.dba-oracle.com/internet_linking_libel_lawsuit.htm Linking to a defamatory web page is republishing the web page is one site. There are others: http://www.bitlaw.com/internet/webpage.html#defamation and this one that is Canadian but refers to the suing of Wikipedia and this one whch is admittedly more about general liability: http://carnahanlaw.com/nl/webliability.html

For the definition of defamation it is found here: Defamation These statements are clearly defamatory toward the policeman involved and Roy Kronk as to their personal lives which have absolutely nothing to do with the article or the trial. They are negative statements which CarolMooredc has in the past, used as an excuse to remove other editors references and now she has linked to even more negative statements about non notable living individual

As to Wikipedia BLP concerns they are listed and I think everyone know them but I will be happy to cite them here if anyone wishes.— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

As usual Mugginsx (I assume until he signs) does not provide us with the time on the video the judge allegedly made a ruling, so what Mugginsx says he says is not easily verifiable. Meanwhile two more sources say:

This WP:RS KVIA (ABC/CNN report) writes: After Holloway's testimony, Perry told jurors her testimony may be used to impeach George Anthony's credibility, but told them that her testimony is not proof of how Caylee died and is not evidence of Casey Anthony's guilt or innocence.
And Toronto Sun/Reuters] writes: Over Baez's objection, Perry instructed jurors to consider Holloway's testimony only in terms of how they feel it reflects on George's credibility, and not consider it as evidence of how Caylee died.

So all three WP:RS got it wrong? I have a feeling they did not. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carol - to answer ask to where exactly the testimony is recanted by Krystal Holloway: You must listen to the end of the tapes.

The actual “recanting by Ms. Holloway” can specifically be found at http://caseyanthonyisinnocent.com/trial-videos-3-casey-anthony-trial-witness-video-and-witness-testimonies/krystal-holloway-june-30th-2011/ Tape Number 4 as to George's statement about the death of Caylee, it begins at 7:30 and continues to the last tape. Holloway is also impeached on her prior statements at trial to Baez that she was his mistress when Prosecution shows her the sworn statment to the Police and whether George thought she was married, but that is not important as it does not relate to her criminal accusation that George Anthony "knew about the crime of Caylee's death". They are just considered more prior inconsistent statement. But, putting the three together, she had lied three times before finally admitting the truth about what George Anthony said about the death of Caylee, so the Judge threw out all of her testimony.Mugginsx (talk) 18:37, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Insert) The details of what testimony changed can be worked out later, what is important is that per 3 High Quality Reliable Sources the judge said that her testimony could be used by the jury as a test of Anthony's credibility. And, for the umpteenth time, please try to find text sources as references since there doubtless are dozens and use videos for backup references. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Inserted here to answer Carol's insert) It does not matter what sources say. They video tells it all. That is what you refuse to understand even today.

Carol, as to your remarks on my talk page about a possible conflict of interest there are many lawyers and historians, etc on Wikipedia. Do they have a conflict of interest when editing a historical or legal article? I am retired so there is no conflict of interest. I have told you that many times. Also, YOU have mention that you worked on many legal cases yourself, including a Supreme Court Case. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Death_of_Caylee_Anthony/Archive_6 Section entitled: PLEASE LEAVE THE REFERENCES ALONE. I will reprint you complete statement to me here since you made a bad faith suggestion:

You didn't disprove one thing I said and just made a lot of unspecified allegations. Having been a legal secretary at some big DC law firms for 20 years and personally on my own time and found representation for and aided a winning case at the Supreme Court, I have some idea of legal matters. So stop chastising me in a WP:Uncivil manner, which as others have commented repeatedly smacks of WP:OWN. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Does your statement above mean that you have a conflict of interest? Mugginsx (talk) 18:51, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have now gone to my Talk page and accused me of misrepresentation. There is no misrepresentation. Please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. I am now retired. Though I am STILL a paralegal. I could go to work TOMORROW as a paralegal. Just as a retired nurse is STILL a nurse, doctor, historian, teacher, etc. etc. Please address your comments here and not on my talk page as it is inappropriate and not an honest representation as to what is being discussed here. As to your charge that I intimidated anyone, it is a joke. I have been out-voted many times on different issues. The editors that have engaged with me know that I always obey Consensus that is why I am in good standing with Wikipedia and editors. Mugginsx (talk) 19:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would be incredibly far reaching to accuse either of the participants to this discussion as lacking good faith or even to have demonstrated a conflict of interest. All collaboration I have observed seems to convey differing interpretations with mutual respect and foremost with the quality of the article in mind. The only thing which seems relevant for discussion here is the broader issue of potentially defaming a non-notable person through source linking. I personally find intrigue within these parameters and am keenly interested in seeing where consensus emerges regarding the issue. Respectfully - My76Strat (talk) 20:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this back on topic. An avalanche of links, explanations, accusations and even personal talk page discussions may confuse and discourage non-involved editors so they don't opine. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carol it was YOU that engaged and accused me on my talk page. Remember? I did NOT answer you there on my talk page but answered you here. It was YOU that initiated this discussion. It was YOU that accused me of a conflict of interest. It was YOU that went to my talk page and insulted me. All that being true and provable, it is YOU making unfounded accusations which anyone can see by simply looking here and at my talk page. Wow! Mugginsx (talk) 20:49, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you also My76Strat. I agree that it is a worthy topic.

Rick Perry

On the Rick Perry talk page, there has for a while now been a dispute going on as to whether or not to include information about Rick Perry attending the 2007 Bilderberg conference in the article. User:Sheilakissane, a single purpose account, has repeatedly pushed for the inclusion of this, and for the most part the discussion has been relatively civil. Recently, however, he has broken WP:BLP twice by posting comments on the page that are libelous, where they were promptly removed by User:Dougweller; and WP:NPA twice, where he was warned by User:N5iln. See [53], [54], [55], and [56] for specific instances. While I agree that consensus has not developed yet on the material presented, Sheilakissane has proven to be purely a single purpose account and a WP:TE, and seems to continue base most of his argument on WP:IDHT. He has refused to even address most of the concerns laid out by those editors opposed to adding the material, instead talking about the process as "yellow journalism" (see [57], [58]) or a conspiracy (see [59]).

Relevant sections of the talk page: Talk:Rick Perry#Bilderberg - Moved from WP:RFPP, Talk:Rick_Perry#Bilderberg.2FGlobalist_or_not.3F, and Talk:Rick_Perry#Should_his_biography_include_the_fact_that_he_was_a_Bilderberg_attendee, including its subsection Talk:Rick_Perry#Seeking_Compromise.

I had originally posted this on the wikiquette noticeboard, however I was recommended to try here. Help on determining the next step would be greatly appreciated. Kessy628 (talk) 17:12, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doug may take care of it himself, but if you want to do something, you could either post a final warning on Sheilakissane's Talk page, or you could request a block now if you think a final warning is unnecessary. I would go through WP:AIV as it's much easier than going to WP:ANI, for example. I didn't check the dates and times, though, so if Sheilakissane has not posted BLP violations since Doug's last warning, I would wait.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Steinberg

Several accounts persistently deleting sourced content involving legal unpleasantness--appropriate or censorship? 99.155.206.229 (talk) 23:07, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Steinberg

People who disagree with my columns insert an arrest charge that was dismissed six years ago at the end of my bio. I believe it is irrelevant, vindictive, already mentioned the reference to my book, and should not be the last sentence of my Wiki biography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newzpaperman (talk • contribs) 23:14, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editing of articles about subjects you are closely related to is highly discouraged. Additionally, your repeated reversions of the material constitutes edit warring (WP:3rr). If you disagree with the material's inclusion, start a discussion on the talk page. Do not continuously remove it. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 23:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than edit warring to remove sourced content with which you're uncomfortable--a violation of WP:COI, and unusual practice for a journalist--it would be preferable to use this page and the article's talk page to discuss...the latter of which, I notice, was also blanked. By the way, I'm not from Chicago and am unfamiliar with the subject, so the charge of vindictiveness is in this instant irrelevant. As for the placement of the cited arrest and dismissal of charges, a consensus would be appreciated. With respect to personal life, I'm not big on seeing the information included, but it was covered by a major paper, and it never looks good when someone aggressively tampers with their biography on Wikipedia. 99.155.206.229 (talk) 23:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I agree with Newzpaperman -- placing the paragraph about the arrest at the end, and even including it at all in a short bio (when it's mentioned in the context of the book) gives it way too much weight. Antandrus (talk) 23:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I think he does have a point. The article shouldn't end with that, especially not without any context. People keep shouting "COI, COI," but there is a legitimate undue weight issue. Zagalejo^^^ 23:25, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree, but the problem is the edit warring and obvious conflict of interest. Multiple editors re-added the material, indicating that discussion is needed. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 23:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And the cited article in Chicago Magazine, now minimized to the point of removal, was devoted primarily to the arrest and related personal difficulties [60]. Given what Mr. Steinberg candidly discussed in that interview, I think we're moving from undue weight to a bit of censorship. The issues surrounding the arrest have received expansive coverage, not the least by the subject himself. It's not vindictive to include them here. 99.155.206.229 (talk) 23:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But even if something in an article is verifiable, it can still be problematic if presented in an amateurish manner. A short, throwaway comment at the end of the article isn't particularly fair. A magazine article provides all kinds of extra context, and lets you hear things from the subject's perspective. Zagalejo^^^ 23:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The point is it was well-sourced and factual. The world would not have come to an end had it stayed in the article while being discussed. Also, to say that putting it at the end is undue is a bit much when we have a stub article. Finally, putting it in the middle buries it. I'm not weighing in at the moment on where it belongs, but Newz should not have been permitted to remove it, and yet we are effectively rewarding him for doing so rather than sanctioning him for edit-warring and COI.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I reported him on WP:AN3 before this discussion, so he will likely be blocked for edit warring, as he should be. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 23:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's an overreaction. We shouldn't assume that everyone knows about the three revert rule or other internal procedures. Like it or not, edit warring is probably the best way for a new user to draw attention to problems in an article. Zagalejo^^^ 00:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I agree with Falcon, but I'm big on following procedures. If the assertion that Newz was removing was an actual BLP violation, that might make his behavior acceptable. Otherwise, he should be blocked. Try looking at this diff, for example.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further troubling is this: This was discussed on the article talk page in 2007 [61]; that page was recently blanked. The attempts to whitewash this don't gibe with Wiki policy, nor with Mr. Steinberg's previous candor in discussing the issue. Perhaps the article generally would profit from expansion, but I disagree with the subject-driven removal of content, and find his edit summary promise to remove such until doomsday unacceptable. 99.155.206.229 (talk) 23:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, try to look at things from his perspective. It's not a question of whitewashing; from what I can tell, it was the manner in which the fact was presented that was bothering him. Zagalejo^^^ 00:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything that bad about "the manner" in which it was presented, although I understand the argument in favor of giving it less prominence. On the other hand, I do see something pretty bad about his behavior here.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not our business whether the subject approves of the way the information is presented, unless their concern falls under WP:BLP guidelines. And given the blanking of the talk page as well, I surmise that the only acceptable presentation would be that of which the subject himself approves. I rather think he compromised 'his perspective' when he made it clear that he would exercise final word on his biography. And frankly, I don't find the problematic passage undue--it was terse as the rest of the article. 99.155.206.229 (talk) 00:09, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards