Jump to content

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 68.180.101.240 (talk) at 15:42, 11 September 2013. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.
    Shortcuts

    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:

    Narendra Modi

    In the article about Narendra Modi, There is a section "Uttarakhand Controversy". This section has neither any verifiable authentic primary source nor citation about any authentic claim by the party concerned. It clearly violates the policy about BLP.

    Policies about what articles should say Three main policies cover content:

    1) neutral point of view (all articles must take a fair, balanced and neutral stance), 2) verifiability (facts in articles must be verifiable from reliable sources), and 3) original research (users' and editors' opinions and "popular knowledge" are not suitable for encyclopedia articles). A fourth core content policy on biographies of living persons states that biographical articles must be written to the highest standard using only high-quality sources, and provides for more drastic handling of errors or problems in such articles.

    The Uttarakhand controversy is poorly sourced, includes unverified statements (unreliable sources of Times of India which mentions as "sources in BJP"; name of no big leader/ press statement cited), without any original reserach/investigation. This was even clarified by the newspaper later.

    Hence this section needs to be deleted as it is in clear violation of Wikipedia policies(policy no 2, 3 and fourth core content policy) stated above.

    The section is purely an act of vandalism.

    And since the article is protected, one cannot edit it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.212.144.141 (talk • contribs)

    Lists of "Rampage killers"

    If you manage to wade through Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of rampage killers you will see that I am having a bit of trouble communicating with User:Lord Gøn, a single-purpose account whose focus is "rampage killers". Note that we currently have no article on Rampage killers although we have several sortable lists of them. One BLP issue with those lists has now been fixed (the editor was including people on the lists of "killers" who had not killed anyone because they "intended" to kill people) but one question remains problematic.

    WP:BLP could not be clearer that "A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law" but Lord Gøn insists on the rightness of including people who references only say have been "arrested". In some cases, the perpetrator of such a crimes may be found not responsible for the crime because of mental disease or defect, but that is not the situation we are discussing here. These are people who have been arrested for the crimes but we do not know if they have stood trial and been found guilty, are awaiting trial, have been exonerated, or have been diverted to a mental health facilty - all we know is that they were arrested.

    It seems like a blatantly obvious violation of WP:BLP to include these people in lists of "rampage killers", but perhaps wider discussion is necessary. I will invite Lord Gøn to participate. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:58, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    One comment... I've asked Delicious carbuncle to tag or remove the BLP violations but, as yet, there's been no activity. Perhaps someone can convince this editor to do something about the problem, rather than just forum shop at Jimbo's talkpage, or AFD, or here. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Not much point in removing them if the main editor of these lists is adamant about putting them back and/or adding more in the future. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Another bad faith accusation. Looks like you're trying to collect 'em all... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I can only go by what Lord Gøn says, but I didn't start this discussion so that you could continue being a WP:DICK, I started it to get other opinions about the specific question that has been raised. You know where my talk page is if you aren't going to comment on that topic. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, by now it's clear you have some kind of DICK obsession, I'm not interested in that. You have identified an article with one, two (how many?) BLP violations, but instead of fixing the violations, you've run to Jimbo, run to AFD, run to this noticeboard to get someone else to do the work. Good effort! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:38, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    1) The fact that we don't have a "rampage killer" article is completely irrelevant. We have articles about topics that are very similar, and if you wish, you could try to get the article renamed to one of those. This is a reason to rename the article, but not to delete it.

    2) All rules, including BLP, are subject to IAR. There are several reasons why someone might be an unconvicted killer, such as being not guilty by reason of insanity, being incompetent to stand trial, having diplomatic immunity, or being in a country where such killers are tried in secret. Rampage killers generally kill in an extremely public manner leaving lots of witnesses and evidence such that there is no doubt that the person accused did the killing, even if they escaped conviction because of insanity or some other such reason. If BLP is phrased such that we can't call them killers, that's just a badly worded rule that should be ignored. Furthermore, the fact that it is possible for the law to decide "this person killed, but has not committed a crime" implies that *we* can likewise say "this person has killed" without accusing them of committing a crime, so the policy isn't even worded badly--you're just misinterpreting it. Ken Arromdee (talk) 01:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Ken, I twice explained to you that you are discussing a completely different scenario (here & here). Perhaps someone else can try to explain the difference between what you are describing and simply having no information other than someone was arrested. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:15, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since you are referring me here to continue our discussion, here I am. Though I really don't know in how many different places this discussion has to be started, because imho one would've been sufficient, and that is Talk:List of rampage killers.
    Anyway, you are selectively quoting BLPCRIME, and I ask you to read it again, in its entirety, including the footnotes, because after your quote above it continues to say that we should seriously consider not to include material suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured. That does not mean "never do that", but "consider if it is necessary and well sourced". Please take notice of footnote 6, which states, quote: "BLPCRIME applies to low-profile individuals and not to well-known individuals, in whose cases WP:WELLKNOWN is the appropriate policy to follow." And then take a look at WP:WIALPI what constitutes as a low profile individual, quote: "Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable." Now you tell me that someone running into a mall, shooting a dozen people is not actively seeking media attention. As the Westroads mall shooter wrote regarding his upcoming shooting spree: "I'm gonna be fuckin famous." Anybody going on a rampage is doing so either with the clear intention to, or at least with the knowledge that he will become the focus of media attention, and therefore BLPCRIME does not apply and your argument falls flat. (Lord Gøn (talk) 12:48, 3 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]
    First off, the discussion is here because so that editors other than you and I will weigh in. Secondly, you are misreading why WP:BLPCRIME exists in the first place. It suggests that if someone has a WP biography but is not a widely-known figure, don't include accusations of crimes in their biography. Thirdly, you cannot assume the intentions of the alleged perpetrators. In the case you cite, we can rely on his words, but it is not reasonable to assume that this is true of all cases. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    As I see it, there are no restrictions for other editors to post at the talk-page of list of rampage killers, or the AfD, so anyone wanting to weigh in and state his, or her opinion could as well do it there, too.
    And no, I am not misreading BLPCRIME, you are. BLP applies to any person still alive, not only to those who have a WP article. Any living person mentioned in an article is subject to BLP, no matter if he/she is notable enough for an entire article. But any person that is actually notable enough for his/her own article, is probably high-profile enough to not be subject to BLPCRIME, because it is very specific in that it does only apply to low profile persons.
    The victim of a mass shooting, for example, would be a low profile individual, because it did not actively seek out media attention, but just happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time, so to add that said victim had defrauded 100,000 dollars from his employer, that would be covered by BLPCRIME, and should be removed, if it is unsourced, or irrelevant in the context the person is presented.
    But the shooter himself? No, never. There's probably no more drastic way of attention seeking than to shoot up a public place, so the act alone is enough that the perpetrators cease to be low profile. But if you want to say that we don't know if they did it, as long as they have merely been arrested, then you have severe misconceptions of how a rampage killing is generally executed. These are not crimes where the perpetrator walks in, does his deed and then escapes, with the police arriving some time afterwards, doing its investigation and then arresting a suspect days, weeks, or maybe months later due to circumstancial evidence. No, what they do is walking in, attacking people until they are either overwhelmed by their victims, or until police arrives, whereupon they either commit suicide, get shot by police, or are arrested. It rarely even happens that one of them flees his killing grounds, they just stay there, and kill, until they are stopped, so there's almost never any question who did it, and in those very few cases where it is so, I refrain from adding the perpetrator's name, or the entire cases, e.g. the Glynn County Mass Murder. (Lord Gøn (talk) 18:33, 3 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]
    Adding an unconvicted living person a list of rampage killers because you 'know they did it' is a violation of WP:BLP policy, plain and simple. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    What if the sources clearly state he did it, with no ambiguity whatsoever? Ain't Wikipedia about verifyability, not truth? (Lord Gøn (talk) 18:53, 3 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]
    If what you say about these kinds of crimes is true, and I believe it is, then there will be very few cases where this issue comes up. If they have committed suicide or have been killed, then it isn't a BLP issue, since they are no longer a living person. If they have only been arrested, then you cannot add them to a list of "killers" (or "attackers" if the list criteria get changed). There would be more leeway in a full article where you could discuss what has been reported by credible sources, but there's no way you can put someone's name in a list of killers without the reader drawing the conclusion that they are a killer. And, despite your opinions, we wait until the courts have decided if they are killers or not. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:17, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, let's agree to disagree on that matter forever. You say, naming the arrested person can never be done, I say common sense demands to state the obvious, and not naming someone like Anders Breivik as the perpetrator, with or without conviction, will make us look like complete buffoons. As I have previously stated there have been edit wars about naming Jared Lee Loughner and James Eagan Holmes in the list, and they were eventually settled by adding that they were suspects. Anyway, no matter if we name the arrested person or not, any reported rampage killing that corresponds to the list's terms of inclusion should be added, and then we have to write something into the perpetrator-cell. (Lord Gøn (talk) 23:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]
    If you write the name of an unconvicted person into a column marked 'perpetrator', you violate WP:BLP policy. If you violate WP:BLP policy you are liable to be blocked from editing, regardless of whether you disagree with the policy or not. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:16, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I know that you see it that way, you've said so several times. I know that others see it the way I do. Also this is not a matter of disagreeing with the policy, just with the interpretation of what it actually says. (Lord Gøn (talk) 23:29, 3 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]
    I have yet to see anyone agree with your interpretation. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:18, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BLP policy is entirely clear regarding such matters - there is no room for 'interpretation': "A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law". AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:26, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • DC asked for new opinions. I'll be one. It looks like the AFD is quite clear, the list/article is needed, if possibly under a different name. I agree with DC's point that we need to be quite certain that anyone we call a rampage killer is one, this is a very highly derogatory claim; if there is any reasonable chance that someone isn't one, they should not be in this list. But I also agree with Ken's point that this does not mean they have to have been convicted of murder; one obvious example besides the one he mentioned is that many of these folks died at the end of their rampage, and the state didn't go through the bother of trying their corpse. So we need to go case by case. If there is any case that is still in doubt, it should not be on this list.--GRuban (talk) 18:44, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • From the discussion here, it sounds like the guidelines would be something like:
      • If a suspect has been arrested, but not convicted, we can't list them there. There's no deadline, we can wait until they are convicted or plead guilty. We wouldn't want to be complicit in a case like Richard Jewell, and that's exactly why we have BLP. Yes, that may mean some dead obvious listings will be delayed for a bit, but that's not the end of the world. If the event is in itself notable, we can have an article on it, explaining the situation in enough detail to satisfy BLP.
      • If a suspect has been found incompetent to stand trial or not guilty by reason of insanity, but it's beyond doubt that they were the killer, I think inclusion would generally be appropriate.
      • If the killer committed suicide or was killed during the attack, and it was certain that they were the attacker, inclusion is acceptable.
      • Obviously, those convicted of such an attack may be included.
    • Anyone else's thoughts? Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:33, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this contradicts itself--the first says they must be convicted but the second lays out cases (incompetence, not guilty by reason of insanity) where they don't need to be convicted. Ken Arromdee (talk) 14:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't "not guilty by reason of insanity" a court finding? And in the case of incompetence to stand trial there never can be a court finding, although the facts may be clear. On the whole, I think Seraphimblade's criteria make sense. If editors want, I could create an WP:Editnotice for the articles concerned, laying out the inclusion criteria. This would show up whenever anyone clicks one of the Edit tabs. Andreas JN466 15:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    So, what's the difference between the many mentions of the "accused" in the 2012 Aurora shooting and a note saying that the "accused" is still accused in the list? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:39, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The difference is that the list is labelled 'killers'. And before anyone asks, you can't Wikilawyer around inclusion by saying that 'the list only states that they are accused'. If they haven't been convicted, they don't meet any reasonable criteria for inclusion in the first place. If the criteria includes 'alleged killers', the list title would have to be 'List of alleged rampage killers' - which would still violate WP:BLP policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:14, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    So the article on the Aurora shootings uses "alleged" many times, any reason why this shouldn't apply to the list? After all, the article is called "2012 Aurora shooting" and if there's an implication that someone did it (i.e. did the "shooting"), as described therein, there's no difference, right? In fact, this "alleged" killer has his own article. So, once again, why would we remove him from the list if it was adequately noted that he's still only accused? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:32, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It is reasonable and likely that a reader will assume that anyone in a list called "List of rampage killers" is a rampage killer. That is not true of the article about the event. We also treat things in list articles differently from articles devoted to a particular subject. This seems a good time to point out that renaming the list to something like "List of alleged rampage killers" is a non-starter. Media reports may identify people as the "alleged" or "suspected" perpetrator, but going from that to "rampage killer" becomes an exercise in original research. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:12, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, eventually you are mentioning the one point that actually may apply, and if I were you, I would've constructed my entire argumentation around it. Yes, it is true that BLP demands to treat lists differently and to not add any information that may suggest a person has committed a crime, but I have addressed this part in a previous comment already, and still think, that if there is no reasonable chance that the arrested was not the actual offender, which is the case in most rampage killings, then the rule should be ignored, because it is an immoderate impediment to the addition of relevant information.
    You probably see this issue entirely from the point of rigidly enforcing Wiki policies, whereas I see it from a more scientific point of view, asking myself, what kind of information would I want to have present in such a list, so it helps me to find more on the subject. And the name of the arrested is doubtlessly of great value in this regard, so to me this is an obvious case of WP:IAR.
    Also, there are apparently people who agree with my pov, because, as I said, there have been edit wars about the removal of names on grounds of BLP, and their eventual settlement was to add "suspect" either after the perps name, or in the additional notes, so it's not as if there wasn't some sort of community consensus already how to handle this. (Lord Gøn (talk) 11:38, 5 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]
    Please read and absorb what people here have said. This isn't a case where "ignore all rules" is going to work for you. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I did read what the others have to say about it, and if the community comes to a different conclusion than I do, so be it. I simply wanted to say that it may be detrimental to the providing of useful information. (Lord Gøn (talk) 15:28, 5 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]
    It may well be just easier to remove the "alleged" rampage killers in this case, although Delicious carbuncle's assertion that list articles are treated differently from articles is ignorant of current editing behaviour. Lists are articles, just a different type. They should be referenced just as an article should be referenced. They should stand alone. Just because some editors don't follow this, it doesn't make it right. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:04, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Since I'm already in complete agreement with Seraphimblade's assessment and criteria, thereby considering this discussion done, I just want to say I have a problem with the word "killer" being used when we're then using criteria from the judicial system, which btw "killing" is not a crime. Murder and manslaughter are crimes, requiring more to the facts than just someone "killed" someone, you have to reach certain criteria to be indicted, even before you ever have the chance to be convicted. You can kill in self-defense, and never be brought to trial but technically you ARE a killer. You can kill a deer, you're a killer, but did you commit a crime? (depends on the season I suppose). I guess it's part of the reason I get upset when someone says "Thou shall not kill" instead of "Thou shall not murder" (there's a difference and only one is found in the Bible).
    As a further aside "innocent till proven guilty" technically doesn't occur under the US Constitution, it's one of those "exists in the penumbra" rights, drawn forth from the 5, 6, and 14th amendments and the common law heritage of the US; though as a signer of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights the US is bound by its statement of "presumed innocent until proven guilty" which per the US Constitution all treaties have full force as the "supreme law of the land" as if they were a part of the US Constitution, regardless of any conflict with state or federal law or even the Constitution itself.Camelbinky (talk) 19:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The US constitution is a red herring: "A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law" is WP:BLP policy. And no, you can't Wikilawyer round it by claiming that calling someone a 'rampage killer' isn't an assertion that they have murdered. It clearly is. Anyway, this discussion has gone on quite long enough, and it is entirely clear that inclusion of an unconvicted living individual in a 'list of killers' is a gross violation of policy, regardless of attempts to suggest otherwise. Frankly, I'm astonished that anyone remotely familiar with Wikipedia policy should suggest otherwise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:01, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's not be too categorical, and take it case by case. In general I agree with you, but being categorical that way leads to, for example, needing to delete most of the FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives list as evading arrest is a crime, and yet many of them have not actually been convicted of evading arrest... There will be cases, as discussed above, when people who have not been convicted for various reasons will still be fine on that list. --GRuban (talk) 21:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that's a bit apples to oranges. If we say someone's on the FBI's 10 Most Wanted list, and they in fact are, that's a simple factual statement. It's not saying they're guilty of a crime, it's saying they're wanted by the FBI and on the Most Wanted list, and they verifiably are. On the other hand, saying someone is a "rampage killer", when they are only accused of a rampage killing, is not a correct statement. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:51, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Since it seems we're at a pretty good place here, unless anyone objects, I'll go ahead with Andreas' suggestion of an edit notice. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Kidnapping of Hannah Anderson

    Two different IP addresses and one seldom posting user, most certainly the same person just using different accounts to not break the three revert edit war rule, keeps adding the word "allegedly" before the word "abducted", despite the police already concluding he did kidnap the girl. Discussion on the talk page has not convinced this person. Talk:Kidnapping_of_Hannah_Anderson#allegedly_abducted_is_slanderous_horrible_BLP_violation Some familiar with BLP issues, please look into this. To accuse the girl of lying, saying its only "alleged" she was kidnapped, and insinuating she was part of the murder of her family members, I believe is slanderous and a BLP violation. Please join the discussion there. Dream Focus 18:48, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    My sense is that the editor(s) who are proposing to insert/have inserted the words "alleged" and "allegedly" have done so because they are being legalistic and exercising what they see as an abundance of caution, since the sole suspect (now deceased) has never and will never be tried for and/or convicted of the crime. I do not think that the inclusion of these qualifiers impunes the integrity of the victim (and only remaining witness to the events), and so I do not think they violate guidelines for WP:BLP. There has been much debate in Talk about whether these qualifiers are necessary or even appropriate given the facts of the case. I think they are not, but I don't see their insertion as a BLP issue. If someone tried to explicitly introduce the theory (which exists, in some limited circles) in the article that the victim is lying and that no kidnapping took place, I would oppose it since many authorities have concluded and stated to media that that one did (WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE). That is not the case here. Dwpaul (talk) 17:37, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Saying the victim was "allegedly" abducted implies she may have been a willing accomplice. There is no credible claim to that effect in reliable sources. The investigators categorically repudiate the idea. Including "alleged" just gives credence to wild unfounded speculation that arose between the first sighting of the abducted girl and the shooting of the abductor, and adds to her victimisation. I have removed it from the article, and I'd appreciate it if admins could keep an eye on the article and issue appropriate warnings if yesterday's edit war starts up again. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:31, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • And he is now changing the infobox to say the guy was the "suspected perpetrator" instead of just "perpetrator". [1] Is it a BLP violation to report what the police report says? Do they need to go to trail to prove he was responsible for the double murder and the kidnapping? Dream Focus 21:09, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "He" is me; I am not the person responsible for the original edits that prompted your BLP submission; I've been the one walking the middle ground. And yes, he is the suspected perpetrator. And yes, they would need to go to trial to "prove" that he is responsible for the murder, fire and kidnapping, but that will not happen, since he is dead. So he will remain the suspected perpetrator, with strong circumstantial evidence to support the suspicion but without a finding (unless and until there is an inquest, which is relatively uncommon here in the US, and which officials may not initiate since there are no other suspects). Let the reader draw their own conclusions; we don't need to alter the known facts to force an outcome. Dwpaul (talk) 21:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    And the term "suspected perpetrator" doesn't imply any doubt that a crime occurred, only that the criminality of the suspect is unproven (a fact in this case). This is no longer a discussion of a potential BLP violation, since nothing about the current article has the prior effect. Dwpaul (talk) 21:56, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a bit like what DiMaggio's sister is doing at the moment, attempting to soften up the image of of her brother and lay some culpability onto the kidnap victim. I'm not surprised at all to see this creep into the Wikipedia. Tarc (talk) 21:58, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, one of the editors who prompted this discussion by inserting "allegedly" before "kidnapped" cited comments by the sister as basis, which prompted me to point out to that editor that the family of the (now dead) suspect doesn't get to dictate the terms used to describe him. However, I don't see that "suspected perpetrator" is image softening, or has the effect of blaming the victim, it's simply the fact of the matter at this point in time. Dwpaul (talk) 22:04, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User Anthonyhcole has reverted my edit [2] and I'd like additional opinions because I strongly disagree. I carefully cited basically every sentence. It's one thing if he had an issue with my wording, but there's no excuse for removing valid citations and just editing the text that referenced them. ThVa (talk) 16:59, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The two citations of reliable sources included information which has already been widely reported, specifically about 13 phone calls between the suspect and the alleged victim prior to the crime. The editor then proceeded to discuss unofficial theories about potential complicity of the victim not supported by the citations, and in fact are discredited by them. One included an unequivocal statement from a law enforcement officer at the center of the investigation that no complicity was suspected. The editor also introduced theories about the victim faking her injuries, citing a non-reliable source (blogger) who speculated based on two photographs of unknown origin or authenticity and no official information. The reversion was based on WP:RS, WP:BLPGOSSIP and WP:AVOIDVICTIM, and I fully support them. Dwpaul (talk) 20:45, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Although the title of the article has not (as yet) been changed, the narrative and headings now refer to abduction of the subject rather than kidnapping. The distinction (by my reading) is that legally, the crime of child abduction doesn't hinge on lack of willingness of the victim to accompany their abductor, whereas kidnapping generally does. This should resolve the debate here on WP about whether a crime was committed in Miss Anderson's removal to Idaho, a source of much of the BLP controversy concerning this article. Seeking consensus in Talk now about changing the page title to match. Dwpaul (talk) 17:44, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Though not finding it, nor many new opinions on the subject. Please consider weighing in on the Talk page. Dwpaul (talk) 20:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Privacy of youths personal info

    I guess this would have been better posted here.. sorry for any confusion pls see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Privacy of personal information -- Moxy (talk)

    Deepak Chopra

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

    Hi, all! I'm coming here for a quick question.

    I'm an OTRS agent, handling ticket:2013071510009944. The person who emailed is a representative of Dr. Chopra, and the doctor himself was in on the email thread. There were several changes that they requested someone make to the article, and I made a few at [3]. This change was reverted, and discussed per WP:BRD (tread at [4]).

    Which brings me to my question. Because I'm an OTRS agent in direct contact with the doctor, do I have a COI? Is there a policy that allows me to make edits on behalf of the subject (following consensus of course), or should I make edit requests? I assume this isn't the first time this has happened for BLPs, that's why I'm asking here. If this is the wrong place, my apologies. ~ Matthewrbowker Make a comment! 00:47, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think you have COI since you are interpreting Chopra's wishes without benefit to yourself.
    Business Wire is a terrible source; just PR fluff, not independent reporting.
    The Ig Nobel prize should stay. It was widely reported.[5][6][7]
    I don't think Chopra will ever be completely happy with his biography on Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 01:15, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think you have a COI as long as you are applying your independent judgment (as appears to be the case from the talk page discussion) on which edits to make, and take responsibility for the changes. If, hypothetically, an OTRS agent were to instead act as a direct proxy for the subject that would raise COI concerns, which wouldn't forbid article editing per se, but would suggest that talk page would be the better venue.
    As the situation currently stands, you can simply discuss the changes on their merits. Just be sure to be clear when you are mentioning your own views versus informing what the subject's representative say through the OTRS system. Abecedare (talk) 02:19, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't have a COI at all, unless you have one (because you're a big fan of the man or whatever), in which case you should recuse yourself from handling the ticket. But if that's not the case, you are simply acting as a go between - addressing the (possibly valid or not) concerns of a subject and our policies. As long as you edit the article following the letter and the spirit of those policies and guidelines, you're OK. This is not about giving the subject what they want, but rather ensuring that the article is neutral and well sourced. As a side note, often subjects dislike the fact that criticism that would otherwise be scattered around the internetz is suddenly in a centralized place, easily accessible and distilled down to its basics. Part of your "job" is to make sure they understand that's inevitable, but at the same time ensure that the negative stuff doesn't drown out everything else. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 05:34, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, thank you for your input!
    And thank you, Binksternet, for making the changes to the article. Those were actually three of the changes the doctor requested. Judging by the latest email, you're totally right. I got asked why BRD trumps BLP , go figure.
    Thank you everyone once again. ~ Matthewrbowker Make a comment! 16:09, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You are welcome. I reduced the article from the stance of strict BLP considerations. In my real world audio engineer job, Chopra has spoken over my sound systems several times, for various audiences such as venture capitalists or Indian entrepreneurs. Whether you admire him or not, he is a very interesting speaker in person. He and I have no direct personal or business connection—he has spoken to thousands of groups and I'm sure his sound has been managed by hundreds of audio engineers. Binksternet (talk) 16:28, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Bhabaniprosad Mazumdar a legend in Bengali Literature

    Bhabaniprosad Mazumdar , is a king of rhyme in the realm of Bengali literature. He was born in 1953, at Dakhsin Shanpur, near Dasnagar, Howrah , West Bengal, India. He is a retired teacher, and still creating Hundreds of Thousands of Rhyme in Bengali , He is popular writer at the age group of eight to Eighty.He has got numerous prizes in Bengali Literature. Some of His popular books are : Chhande gora mohan Jara, Mojar Chhora, Chhorachhori gora gori, Jachai kora Bachai Chhora,Mithe kora Abritir Chhora,Chhorar vir Abritir, Jiban Surya Bajay Turya,Sadyo Gora, Podyo Chora,Rinik jhinik khusir finik ,Uluk jhuluk, Chhorar Muluk,Tapur tupur Chhorar Nupur,Bhut Petni Jindabad,Mon kore maat Rabindranath, Chhande Gantha ae kolkata,Akash vora Graho Tara, Jader bole somaj Chole,Nao Phool Nazrul etc. He has written his books with everything in life."Chhora Chhori Goragori", the album with his rhyme, recited by Soumitra Chattapadhayya.http://www.google.co.in/imgres?imgurl=http://www.satinath.com/images/a4.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.satinath.com/discography — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.45.67 (talk) 06:46, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Paul Gilding

    I am the subject of this page. What do I do to correct errors or suggest further information as the current "stub" is a bit limited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulgilding (talk • contribs) 07:46, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The best approach is to declare your interest on the article's talk page and then, with care to be as disinterested and neutral as one can be about one's self, write on the talk page there with precision the changes you would appreciate being made. Since you are the gentleman concerned it is vital that you only suggest changes that are verifiable in reliable sources, and give those references.
    The problem you face then is that you await another editor's pleasure to make the changes.
    It tends to be accepted that one may correct factual inaccuracies one's self. Great care is still required here to ensure that such changes are supported by sources and that one gives those sources.
    An issue you will find hard to get to grips with is that WIkipedia concerns itself only with verifiable facts, and is wholly unconcerned with the truth unless it is confirmed in reliable sources. For example, you may know you have three heads, but, unless this is cited in reliable sources, the prior fact (which we shall say is cited for this bizarre example's sake) that you have five must remain in the article.
    If you want to, ask me on my own talk page to help you. I'm happy to be a guide.
    One thing you need to understand, too, is that the text you suggest may be altered by any editor at any time. That is the way of WIkipedia. Fiddle Faddle 10:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Deepa Miriam

    User Antopandeth is constantly inserting unsourced claims in this BLP article even after several editors objected to it. Request some admin to look into the issue. Salih (talk) 14:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Unsourced personal information in a BLP may be reverted without discussion. Nonetheless, I left a warning on the user's talk page. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 16:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Paul Attanasio

    Calling for additional eyes on this article. It was semi-protected for a day due to repeated additions of gossip about the subject's son. However, it was also recently radically rewritten by an editor who has now identified himself in an edit summary as the subject himself. I had already contacted that editor on his talk page; I rewrote the article incorporating elements of his version; and I've now opened a section on the article talk page; but I would welcome the involvement of better diplomats, particularly with the topic regarding the son sitting there on the talk page just above my new section. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Hussain_Najadi#The_Assassination_in_Malaysia

    The above section needs a cleanup by a defter hand than mine. Blow by blow details of the very recent murder & investigation followup, replete with weighty quotes from the bereaved son. WP:NOTNEWS 78.105.23.195 (talk) 08:45, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Eszter Balint

    Hello,

    I am the subject of this article and I see that an inaccurate birth year has been repeatedly inserted and then even more inaccurately re-inserted. I just removed it for the second or third time. I I have a fairly good idea of the source of this posting, and I believe this is done with malicious intent, and in any case, it is inaccurate. I have just removed it again and left the birth year blank. Please be on the alert for any new re-insert of a birth year from the same source. I believe it has been under username WIlliam DFG however the same user could change usernames. Thank you. Eszter Balint — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bardybardy (talk • contribs) 13:24, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Graham Fitch

    Most of the actually cited content in the article is related to a now-debunked series of accusations of personal misconduct for which the subject was never charged and has been thoroughly vindicated. As a result of an OTRS request, I cleaned up the page to remove details of the accusations and put more weight on emphasizing that he was cleared [8]. But there is still a slow-moving edit war over whether this section should be included at all, and I think we have to take the subject's interest in having the record purged seriously.

    causa sui (talk) 19:05, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The allegations themselves are noteworthy due to the fact that Graham Fitch's complaint against SABC for the SABC Special Assignment episodes "Prelude For A Paedophile" and "Finale For A Paedophile" resulted in the largest ever fines levied by the Broadcasting Complaints Commission of South Africa (BCCSA). The BCCSA found the SABC guilty of negligence and defamation. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Melanie Griffith

    I've just removed some information from Melanie_Griffith#Personal_life per WP:BLPCRIME. I think the sentences about Don Johnson (source: People.com) need looking at as well. -- Hillbillyholiday talk 22:15, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Dunno how long that information was in the article. I suspect had this BLP been of a male actor, things would be different. -- Hillbillyholiday talk 04:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Good deletion, its salacious cherry picking from a memoir. Not a reliable source for such serious allegations IMO.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:04, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I've tidied up the Johnson section. I think its OK now. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Keithbob. -- Hillbillyholiday talk 18:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Mark Latham

    Mark Latham is an ex-Australian politician who still spends quite a bit of his time talking about (and being interviewed about) politics in Australia. During the last election cycle, he made some comments either about the judgment of Tony Abbott, or about his negative perceptions of the attractiveness of another candidate (depending on how you interpret the focus of the remarks). User:OSX has added information about this interview to the article, (see Mark Latham#2103 federal election) and I've objected and attempted to remove it pending an establishment of consensus...but OSX has repeatedly reinserted it. My argument is that one particular interview that Latham made during a campaign in which he was not a candidate that got are time mainly in articles about "Gaffes of the 2013 election cycle" is not something of lasting importance that belongs in the subject's biography--that is, that it's not WP:DUE. OSX disagrees. Could we get some outside input, please? Qwyrxian (talk) 22:27, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, the truth is that probably the whole article needs to be reviewed for excessive commentary, but focusing on just this section is a good start. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:29, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:68.180.101.240 and lobbyists

    User:68.180.101.240 has edited a large number of articles of living American politicians to identify them as "lobbyists". This is fine, even in the introduction, but this user is placing it as the first piece of identifying information (i.e. "Bob Smith (born 1942) is an American lobbyist and former President of the United States"), even before their primary reason for notability. And this user is edit warring when editors attempt to relocate this identification to later in the introduction. In the case of Howard Dean, it was added cited to a source which contradicts this identification, a source that says he works for a lobbying firm as an advisor but is not registered as a lobbyist. IANAL, but doesn't this accuse him of an illegal act, unregistered government lobbying? This whole matter strikes me as having some serious BLP implications but I'd like some more thoughts before I start mass reverts. Gamaliel (talk) 03:04, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Agree. Looking at the bulk of these edits together, they seem to be made with a single purpose. The editor is moving through dozens of biographies and changing the lede to state that a person is a lobbyist (often erroneously), usually without providing refs. At the very least, the ones that incorrectly characterize someone as a lobbyist are clear BLP violations, but the other ones are also problematic. "Lobbyist" often has a pejorative connotation when referring to someone otherwise notable for public service. If it's not their career, just a consultancy or whatever, it shouldn't be in the lede. --Loonymonkey (talk) 03:46, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, my source for almost all of the un-reffed inclusions is the Center for Responsive Politics: http://www.opensecrets.org/revolving/top.php?display=Z. The distinction between being formally known as an "advisor" to a lobbying firm versus being a registered lobbyist is, as the Howard Dean source itself notes, "largely illusory". Simply stating that someone is a lobbyist doesn't necessarily mean that person needs to be registered. And many more of them are in fact registered as lobbyists. Before I made these edits, almost every page of politicians-turned-lobbyists beared no mention whatsoever of their lobbying activity. Every single politician whose page I've edited - aside from a couple that have since been reverted - is in fact engaging in K Street lobbying as a part of their career. I believe I have thus made significant improvements to the precision of such articles. If you have any more objections to particular pages, state them and I will assess their merit.68.180.101.240 (talk) 05:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    We have very strict rules about factual sourcing in articles involving living individuals. It doesn't matter if you or I agree (which I do) that the distinction is "largely illusory". We can't eliminate that distinction and factually assert in Wikipedia's voice that he is a lobbyist unless the source explicitly says so. The matter of Dean aside, the issue isn't that you are mentioning that these individuals are lobbyists, the issue is the manner in which you do so and the placement of that information in the articles. For the record, I do think this information does add value to these articles, I'm just taking issue about where it is placed. Gamaliel (talk) 17:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I've only checked about less than a dozen of these articles, but I've already found three major errors where people have been labeled "lobbyists" when the cited source specifically states that the person is not a lobbyist, and in one case, says they are legally forbidden from lobbying. I'm going to revert en masse. Gamaliel (talk) 17:34, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    What's incredible and pathetically disingenuous is that not only did you remove the placement from the beginning of the leads, but you also indiscriminately reverted without bothering to insert any mention of their work for lobbying firms anywhere in the articles, let alone the leads. So much for merely taking issue with where the information is placed. If you have any credibility, you'll go article-by-article and correct your mistakes, but I have so little faith in you that I'll be doing it. 130.91.142.1 (talk) 18:23, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I did it for the reason I stated above, the large number of factual errors. If you wish to correct these errors, you can restore this information to the article. You can't insert a bunch of factual errors and then complain about how they were removed. Gamaliel (talk) 18:28, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, you can. Indeed, 68.180.101.240 did. You just can't do it expecting for your complaint to make much of an impression. David in DC (talk) 20:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right, point taken. I guess that sentence of mine ended with an implied "...and expect me to take your complaint seriously." Gamaliel (talk) 21:23, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    He has continued to make similar edits as User:68.180.29.133. These are a great improvement, but there was one significant error and they do require some tweaking. We should keep an eye on this. Gamaliel (talk) 03:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Significant error? Go take a look at Paul G. Kirk and come back to me. The only error was yours for failing to look at other sources. Also, protip: when you make an edit explaining that information should be moved elsewhere in the article, then move the information yourself instead of waiting for others do it for you. 68.180.29.133 (talk) 04:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The error is mine because I didn't clean up your mess the way you wanted me to? That doesn't even begin to make sense. Gamaliel (talk) 04:40, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll be simple for you: go edit the Dirk Kempthorne article right now and add to the body the specificity about lobbying that you claim you desire. Do not simply remove the edit for the purpose of telling someone else to add it when you can do it on your own. 68.180.101.240 (talk) 15:42, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Sophie Anderton

    A lot of sourced, but derogatory, info has recently been added to this article. I'm concerned about WP:WEIGHT. To me, the "Personal life" subsection is starting to read like an attack piece. I've started a talk page thread on the topic. I'd appreciate some additional eyes on the article. David in DC (talk) 10:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    This article has some serious BLP issues IMO. English tabloids are being used as sources for slanderous text. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:01, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Dearie me. On a page under 'pending changes' protection no less! Those sources should be nuked on sight. -- Tabloid Terminator (Hillbillyholiday talk 20:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]
    Its all cleaned up now. Nice work folks! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Best known for

    I often see the phrase "best known for" in the first sentence of the lead of BLP's. To my way of thinking, this is an editorial judgement we can do with out. (Unless there is a reliable source that says "he/she is best known for XYZ".) Instead of saying: Mr. Jones is best known for his role in XYZ film, why can't we just say: Mr. Jones starred in XYZ film? Why the value judgement "best known for"? I see this so often that I thought I would ask here for other opinions in case my thinking is way off track. Examples are Bruce Springsteen, Hector Berlioz, Peter Buck, Nick Mason, Steven Stills, Roger Moore and many more. Any thoughts from others? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    And a follow-up question: In the case of an actor, does inclusion of particular work(s) in the "Known for" feature of IMDb.com[9]] constitute a reliable source for this judgement by an editor? This information is helpful to the reader to quickly establish familiarity with the subject, which is the purpose of the lede (and may be all the information the reader was looking for). Dwpaul (talk) 20:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Drop the "best" and we're fine, in my opinion. Nothing wrong with saying "Johnny Smith (born April 31, 2013) is an American janitor known for his janitor work at Billy Nobody's mall." Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 20:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Bhanwari Devi

    There's an OTRS ticket that is requesting what is essentially a POV check (although not worded that way of course) on this article. Looking at it I see a lot of emphasis placed on the "allegedness" of the crime against this person, and we'd be well-served if we make sure that's indeed the case and not a bunch of POV warriors trying to diminish the incident and the effect on the subject for whatever reason. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 22:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, the verdict is supposed to be released today (I think), and there's a very good chance we'll be able to remove all of the "allegedly" results; perhaps just waiting a little will be easier. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:53, 11 September 2013 (UTC) Wait, that's someone different, ignore that; I'll check the article more carefully. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Follow-up: I've just cut major chunks of purely offensive material from the article based on no sources and intended solely to defame the subject of the article. Could you follow up with the filer of the OTRS ticket and see if this gets at what they wanted? Qwyrxian (talk) 02:26, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Neon Genesis Evangelion and Anno

    @Folken de Fanel: continues to reinsert an inaccurate comments from an unreliable source on Hideaki Anno's interview in Newtype Magazine. Another editor removed this and I agreed with its removal, Folken reinserted it anyways. I removed it countering that the book was unreliable and it was not accurate and lacked appropriate context. Folken reinserted it to an questionable editorial in Protoculture Addicts, which also was not an accurate translation and the information he inserted did not match the text he reinserted. Also, the Protoculture Addicts source is an allusion, not a direct quote and is out of context. The comments are a response to the "Anno is dead" and other death threats the director had received. I removed it again and gave a lengthy post on why it was wrong. After correcting them misinformation and cited the actual source, Folken removed it as "RV unsourced non neutral edit and reinstate perfectly reliable content" which is false.[10] The information is inaccurate and being used to advance a position that was not in the source. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I also notified the user of this discussion, and he removed it.[11] ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:56, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether or not a source is reliable is not a BLP matter.—Ryulong (琉竜) 14:24, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    In this case the reliability of the source is being used to justify a BLP violation by drawing a conclusion unsupported by the original document. The well known translation on the site is, "For example, someone mentions my name, saying, "Anno is dead". If that person were next to me, perhaps I might hit them. On the message boards someone can still make a rebuttal, but this remains at the standard of toilet graffiti." Translation matter aside, the context is important here, taking something out of context to arrive at something not said in the source is wrong on numerous accounts. RS typically deals with the publication, not the individual articles or their content as being "right or wrong" and since this is a novel interpretation by someone aware of the materials, I rather have it be handled at BLP where the root matter can be analyzed. Though the article's reliability which is both dubious and not preferred by Wikipedia's measure, the original source is the best and not some editorial "telephone" discussion. Furthermore, the round table discussion was and is all we need for Anno's rebuttal to actual criticism and not this derived double comment Folken advances. Given the events surrounding it, the Evangelion documents alone paint a pretty good picture of the context and give ample reason why its usage is questionable. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:15, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    ChrisGualtieri has not read either my source or my edit, therefore he acts upon an outdated and inaccurate representation of what he thinks is my edit. This has happened before, and unless he decides to carefully read all of what he is discussing, I can't see where this discussion would go. Because there is absolutely no difference between what he says, what my source says, and what my edit in the article says.Folken de Fanel (talk) 15:38, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    George Zimmerman

    Newly spun off article from the Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin. Subject is in the news again recently in regards to a domestic dispute. soon-to-be-ex-wife made a 911 call saying he had a gun and was threatening her. wife has now recanted, saying she never saw a gun, police say no gun found. Although Zimmerman probably qualifies for WP:WELLKNOWN at this point, I believe this is a violation of WP:BLPCRIME and WP:TABLOID as at this point there is not even an allegation of a crime anymore, yet we are saying "On September 9, 2013, in Lake Mary, Florida, police responded to a 911 call by Zimmerman's estranged wife, who reported that Zimmerman had threatened her and her parents with a gun and had punched her father in the face. Zimmerman was detained and questioned by police.[28] His wife refused to press charges and recanted some of her story. No gun was found at the scene. Police were investigating a broken iPad for video to determine if they would press charges."

    I don't want to get in an edit war as I have reverted some of this content twice now (removing the detail of the allegation, and just saying she called 911), but I believe this could use additional eyes. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:27, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&oldid=572498492"