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 Davebc1980 (talk | contribs) at 01:01, 3 January 2015 (→Franco Debono: new section). 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:

    Archive of blp articles

    Hi, Can the archives of the blp pages be used as reference pages for citation on blp articles ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.137.197 (talk) 17:17, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia can't be used as a source, so unless you're using the Archive to retrieve a reliable source, I would say No. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:24, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia can not be used as a reference for anything other than what prior discussions occurred, and results thereof. There is no circumstance under which any Wikipedia article can be used as a "reference" on any mainspace article, including BLPs. Collect (talk) 21:27, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Joshua Clover

    I have been trying to improve this Joshua Clover entry, which had a lot of problems and was spottily or incorrectly sourced. It seems, however, that the subject of the entry--Joshua Clover--is editing the entry. He uses a variety of pseudonyms, including Janedark and, most recently, Janeplain.

    In a 2007 exchange with another editor, recorded in the "talk" section of his entry, Janedark says, "I won't edit this page, as it has been explained to me that this would be poor form." But Janeplain is now doing just that. As you can see from one of the most recent edits by Janeplain, Joshua Clover sometimes writes under the pseudonym Jane Dark. Here is what Janeplain added to the Joshua Clover entry:

    "Under the pseudonym "Jane Dark," Clover has written a number of film and music reviews for various outlets."

    The main issue right now is that Jane/Clover keeps taking out reference to the fact that he studied with Jorie Graham while at the Iowa Writers' Workshop. I don't know why this is being taken out, since Jorie Graham is a notable American poet and Jorie Graham is also quoted earlier in the entry saying very positive things about Clover's poetry.

    Thank you for looking into this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JCBerkeley (talk • contribs) 06:28, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    You're not Mr. Clover, but you're impersonating him with your username? I think this warrants an ANI report. Afronig (talk) 08:49, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm sorry, I don't know what that means. That I should make a report? I don't know where to do that. I'm just trying to get some help. Is it acceptable for subjects to edit their own entries? My additions to the Joshua Clover entry are factual and plainly stated with ample citations and yet the subject keeps taking them out and saying they're irrelevant. Thank you for your help.JCBerkeley (talk) 18:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, I have been on the wikipedia since 2002 and have been a Wikipedia Ambassador at UC Berkeley. I do not have a vested interest in the Joshua Clover page per se except that I have been informed by several people IRL that JCBerkeley is a pseudonym used by the estranged father of Joshua Clover and the edits are a form of harrassment. The Joshua Clover entry is the only entry JCBerkeley seems interested in editing and he has used other pseudonyms in the past to edit the page. It's an ongoing problem and I have no idea how to solve it when the dispute is a family matter. I know the user who calls herself Janeplain and she is not related to either. Thanks Saudade7 06:08, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello Saudade7: Thank you for your note. I am not Joshua Clover's father. I do not know him. Nor have I edited the entry before, using other usernames. As a Wikipedia Ambassador, do you have thoughts about whether subjects should edit their own entries, as Clover is here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JCBerkeley (talk • contribs) 16:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Breitbart (website)

    Currently has a section on an article from that site which mistakenly conflated two Loretta Lynches.

    The writer of the article is identified by name, which I rather think means claims about his writing fall under WP:BLP

    Two editors are changing:

    On November 8, 2014, Breitbart.com posted an article headlined "Obama's attorney general nominee Loretta Lynch represented Clintons during Whitewater." The article, written by Warner Todd Huston, said that Loretta Lynch, President Barack Obama's nominee for attorney general, had been part of Bill Clinton's defense team during the Whitewater scandal. The two Lynches are, in fact, different people. After this mistake was publicized, Breitbart initially did not withdraw the story, but rather posted a correction which noted that the two Lynches were different people. This correction was criticized by several media outlets.[1][2][3][4]The New York Times editorial page editor Andrew Rosenthal noted, "The appended correction didn’t really do justice to the scope of the misidentification."[3] Breitbart deleted the story from its website.

    To:

    On November 8, 2014, Breitbart.com posted an article headlined "Obama's attorney general nominee Loretta Lynch represented Clintons during Whitewater." The article, written by Warner Todd Huston, said that Loretta Lynch, President Barack Obama's nominee for attorney general, had been part of Bill Clinton's defense team during the Whitewater scandal. The article was untrue, as the two Lynches are, in fact, different people. After this mistake was publicized, Breitbart initially did not withdraw the story, but rather posted a correction which noted that the two Lynches were different people. This correction was criticized by several media outlets.[5][2][3] PolitiFact rated the claim "Pants on Fire" and noted that the false claim had "already spread to other conspiracy, opinion and conservative news websites," as an example of how fast false information can spread on the Internet[4] The New York Times editorial page editor Andrew Rosenthal noted, "The appended correction didn’t really do justice to the scope of the misidentification."[3] Breitbart deleted the story from its website.

    The section already states that there are two Loretta Lynches, but the addition of "The article was untrue" is SYNTH as placed in the revision, implying a deliberate untruth from a living person. The Politifact article is specifically about the spreading of the story, and has nothing to do with the original error by a living person, other than to be used to imply that no article ever written for Breitbart is true at all (editors saying the website has a 100% "Pants on Fire" rating as a website)[1] Media Matters has a 100% "True" rating while Breitbart.com has a 100% "Pants of Fire" rating , The RS standard isn't "just as bad as this arbitrary set of examples", the standard is a reputation for factchecking and accuracy. It's clear from the evidence linked above and the 100% Pants on Fire rating from Politifact that it has the opposite reputation. Gamaliel (talk) 16:48, 24 December 2014 (UTC) , scroll above to see the links offered by TRDOD and the discussion of the 100% Pants on Fire rating from Politifact. Gamaliel (talk) 16:08, 25 December 2014 (UTC), etc. The NYT cite is now used twice for a single paragraph, seemingly only to criticize the original correction, but which has little to do with the actual article. The main point is that since we mention a specific living person, the entire section must conform to WP:BLP and the use of SYNTH to make an implicit statement that the author deliberately wrote a falsehood is a contentious claim under WP:BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ Dustin Levy and Katie Takacs (November 12, 2014). "2 Amusing Corrections and a Confession on Common Mistakes". American Journalism Review.
    2. ^ a b Breitbart News attacked the wrong Loretta Lynch . McDonald, Soraya Nadia. The Washington Post, 10 November 2014
    3. ^ a b c d No Comment Necessary: The Wrong Loretta Lynch. Rosenthal, Andrew. The New York Times, 10 November 2014
    4. ^ a b Breitbart gets the wrong Loretta Lynch in Whitewater claim. Sharockman, Aaron. PolitiFact, 10 November 2014
    5. ^ Dustin Levy and Katie Takacs (November 12, 2014). "2 Amusing Corrections and a Confession on Common Mistakes". American Journalism Review.
    A statement that the article in question is "untrue" or "false" does not in any way state or imply that the untruth and falsehood was deliberate. The English language simply doesn't work that way.
    Nor is it in any way SYNTH to state that the article is untrue or false, as a wide number of reliable sources, helpfully linked here, directly state that the article was substantially false. The New York Times and PolitiFact (published by the Tampa Bay Times) are indisputable reliable sources and their discussion of the article's falsity (and what it may say about the publication's journalistic reputation) are highly relevant. Collect's statement that editors saying the website has a 100% "Pants on Fire" rating as a website is a non sequitur as no such language appears in the article, nor has any editor proposed to insert such language into the article. It is an accusation fabricated from whole cloth. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:24, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict)I don't see this as a BLP issue. "The article was untrue" is not the same as "the author lied". That said, the wording is a little awkward. Rather than say that "the article was untrue", perhaps it could say "The article incorrectly stated that Loretta Lynch, President Barack Obama's nominee for attorney general, had been part of Bill Clinton's defense team...".- MrX 21:32, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree as well that there is no BLP problem here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:31, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    "Untrue" does not equal "a lie", and even if it were a lie, if the content is properly sourced, we can use it. BLP does not prevent properly sourced information, claims, and opinions from being used. When in doubt, just attribute the content. Breitbart as a person (now deceased), his friends, and his website, have been exposed as deliberate fabricators of lies many times. They were willing to "punk" opponents all the time, and they were caught with their pants down. That source is good for documenting its own opinions in its own article here, and that's about it. It's beyond dubious. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:12, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Collect, your over the top exaggerations really destroy your credibility. Here's the actual statement: "PolitiFact rated the claim "Pants on Fire"". The "claim" was rated, not the "website". I agree with NorthBySouthBaranof, who wrote: "Collect's statement that editors saying the website has a 100% "Pants on Fire" rating as a website is a non sequitur as no such language appears in the article, nor has any editor proposed to insert such language into the article. It is an accusation fabricated from whole cloth."

    Based on that, I suggest this dubious thread be closed and Collect be warned and possibly topic banned. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I suggest you look at RS/N On Politifact Breitbart.com appears with a 100% "Pants on Fire" rating [2], [3] Media Matters has a 100% "True" rating while Breitbart.com has a 100% "Pants of Fire" rating , The RS standard isn't "just as bad as this arbitrary set of examples", the standard is a reputation for factchecking and accuracy. It's clear from the evidence linked above and the 100% Pants on Fire rating from Politifact that it has the opposite reputation. Gamaliel (talk) 16:48, 24 December 2014 (UTC) , scroll above to see the links offered by TRDOD and the discussion of the 100% Pants on Fire rating from Politifact. Gamaliel (talk) 16:08, 25 December 2014 (UTC), etc. The editors made the comments I said they made - and no one can gainsay that fact. Kindly note the actual statements before leaping off a cliff <g> Collect (talk) 01:36, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I can see how confusion might reign when you take informal and ambiguous language on a talk page (it doesn't have to mean what you think) to object to actual content on the article. An objection to the actual content would have gotten you nowhere. I guess we're objecting to your attempt to conflate the two. You'd make a good employee at Breitbart, because that's a typical tactic of theirs. It's a straw man argument you're making, and we're not buying it.
    Since you are obfuscating by objecting to your critics' comments, rather than dealing with the actual content (thus getting into forbidden violations of TALK), how about discussing the actual content? We'll do that with you, otherwise we won't play your word games. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:54, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I was accused of lying. I cited the actual comments. Cheers -- Breitbart was accused of doing essentially the opposite of what I did, and I would make a hell of a poor liar on such stuff. The other editors agreed to remove the individual's name (which was where the major BLP issue was) and we already agreed not to use a comedy show as a source. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:59, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Your objection to using The Colbert Report is a bit ironic, since it has won many awards for telling the truth better than actual news agencies and politicians. Why? Because it is serious satire, IOW using comedy to tell the truth, unlike Fox News, where they present GOP propaganda and lies with a straight face. They use different tactics to get their messages across, but never make the mistake of thinking that Colbert wasn't a deep thinker or telling profound truths. Fox is Roger Ailes creation to publicize GOP policies and act as an unofficial GOP media arm. Look at his history, his previous position in the GOP, and his declared reason for starting Fox News. It's no secret, except to its fanbase. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:14, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    My political slant is far more labile than yours is - I accept positions from everyone from the Trotskyites to the ISIL (who are basically Mahdi supporters reborn in the 21st century) as being of interest to readers here - eliding those one does not agree with is, last I looked, not embodied in any policy here. Nor ought it be. Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:23, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The BLP claim here, insofar as it is comprehensible, seems extremely weak. As best I can tell, Breitbart published something untrue (not exactly an isolated occurrence); reliable secondary sources covered Breitbart's error (and lackluster response); and we use these reliable sources to describe the incident. It looks like Wikipedia 101 to me, but maybe I'm missing something. What exactly is the supposed BLP violation here? Could Collect attempt to describe it more concisely and coherently? MastCell Talk 06:23, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Snark noted. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:01, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    None was intended. I'm trying to be direct. As an experienced editor and admin, I see no evidence of any BLP violation here. You presumably do. I'm trying to understand the basis for your concern. As I found your original post rambling and unclear, I am asking you in good faith to clarify. If you prefer not to do so, then just say so, rather than being evasive. MastCell Talk 23:25, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Katrina Kaif

    If anyone has some time, going through to de-gossip page Katrina Kaif would be appreciated. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:50, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Stitches (rapper)

    page is totally inaccurate — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.136.26.41 (talk) 20:54, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    It was also entirely unsourced, and I've accordingly removed almost all the content. Given the lack of evidence that this individual meets Wikipedia notability guidelines, I've also proposed it for deletion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:06, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    List of state and local political scandals in the United States

    [4] with the edit summary scandal implies immorality and/or impropriety, illegality is not required. There is certainly enough notability re-adding people who were mentioned but not implicated in any illegal activity.

    The lead of that list states: A good guideline is whether or not an action is, or appears to be, illegal. Since everyone, particularly a politician, is expected to be law abiding, breaking the law is, by definition, a scandal. The finding of a court with jurisdiction is the sole method used to determine a violation of law—though not all scandals reach a court.

    I rather think that implying anything remotely illegal or improper requires stronger sourcing than "someone mentioned them." [5] is an insufficient source for saying " Christie's Deputy Chief of Staff was fired" in a list of people involved in scandals - noting that the NYT piece stops well short of that claim.

    Nor does [6] make claims sufficient to say "Christie's No. 2 appointee at the Port Authority — who attended high school with Christie — also resigned" as a link to a "scandal". And so on.

    Lists of "people in scandals" is not a carte blanche of being able to shame people who have not been implicated in anything illegal as far as any legal claims are concerned, in my opinion. I invite others to determine whether that list should be restricted to those who have been actually implicated in any illegal acts, not just any vague "scandal" where the investigations so far do not make implications that these people violated laws. Other opinions? Collect (talk) 22:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    If something is illegal, that might well be sufficient to be scandalous for a politician -- but I do see the point that it might not be necessary. Something could well be a scandal even if not illegal. As with other elements of Wikipedia, what matters is how it is treated in reliable sources: if it is commonly referred to as a scandal, then that's how it should be portrayed here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:42, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Where a person is a relatively minor functionary (not an elected official), investigation reports have been released, and those reports do not accuse the person of any crime, ought a list of scandals then in Wikipedia's voice implicate that person as though she had committed a crime? This is not about deleting all information about something which has been called a "scandal" but about whether we link people to it who have not been alleged to have committed a crime and who are not elected officials. Collect (talk) 23:13, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    isaac tigrett

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

    Sathya Sai Baba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    [Isaac Tigrett] the username (TruthHunterForFun) who has control of this page. We have tried to change the text however (TruthHunterForFun) keeps changing it back.

    [Tigrett] stated that he believed that there was truth to the rumors of Sai Baba's actions of pedophilia and sexual abuse towards some of his young male followers. this is a false statment. [Tigrett] made no such clam the reporter made those clams, and we ask for this to be correct to the following:

    " Tigrett stated that he believed that there was truth to the rumours of Sai Baba's actions" He also stated that such behaviour would not change his belief in Sai Baba. (This is taken verbatim from BBC programme.)[2]

    As this is a Verbatim from the BBC however in keeping with the original then, which is out of contexts and is seen as misleading and Defamation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Divinepurity (talk • contribs) 23:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • This feels like a SPA proxy fight. As it stands now, I don't understand why Sai Baba is mentioned at all. I am removing mention of him pending consensus - there's never been discussion of the issue on the talk page that I can see. Because this has been going on for over a year on this lightly watched article, I'm applying pending changes protection. I will not be participating in the substantive discussion, this is purely an administrative action due to BLP ramifications. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 16:40, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Raj Chowdhury

    More eyes on this one please. I recently made significant edits to depuff/despam, to remove POV and some flowery crap about mother Teresa and the woman who rented him a room and to remove excessive detail about his companies that does not belong in bio. The article's creator reverted my edits, and I have unreverted. Yes I know WP:BRD, discussion now on talk page.--ukexpat (talk) 13:59, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I just did some cleanup and project tagging. It read like a badly written resume/cv. It could still use expanding and I made a suggestion of adding information about his inventions assuming they are patented on the Talk page. We'll see how long it stays stable and/or non-promotional. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 22:17, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Steve Scalise

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

    Currently has:

    In 2014, controversy arose after Scalise acknowledged that in 2002 he had spoken at a white supremacist group founded by former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke.
    EURO Controversy[edit]
    In 2014, Scalise acknowledged that, while serving in the state legislature in 2002, he had spoke at European-American Unity and Rights Organization (EURO), a white supremacist group founded by former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke.[23][24][25][26][27]
    Louisiana politicians such as Republicans Roger F. Villere, Jr. and Bobby Jindal, and Democrat Cedric Richmond defended Scalise's character.[28]
    Many Democratic members of Congress, as well as Mo Elleithee, a spokesperson for the Democratic National Committee, criticized Scalise, and challenged his assertion that he was unaware of the group's affiliation with racism and anti-Semitism.[29] Additionally, the Southern Poverty Law Center called upon Scalise to step down from his leadership position as Majority Whip.[30]
    After news of the EURO speaking engagement came out, the Huffington Post reported Scalise accepted $1000 from white supremacist David Duke's adviser, Kenny Knight. The money was given to Scalise in 2008.[31]

    Note the absence of any balancing points of view, and the use of sources which relate third-party accounts, rather than using direct factual reportage. (Sources are: 23. Costa, Robert. "House Majority Whip Scalise confirms he spoke to white nationalists in 2002". Washington Post. Retrieved 29 December 2014. 24. Jaffe, Alexandra and Walsh, Deirdra (December 31, 2014). "GOP leadership stands by Scalise after white supremacist speech". CNN. Retrieved December 31, 2014. 25. Sarlin, Benjy (December 29, 2014). "GOP leader Steve Scalise may have addressed supremacist conference". MSNBC. Retrieved December 29, 2014. 26. Reilly, Mollie and Grim, Ryan (December 29, 2014). "House Majority Whip Steve Scalise Spoke At White Supremacist Conference In 2002". The Huffington Post. Retrieved December 29, 2014. 27. "House Majority Whip Steve Scalise Was Reportedly an Honored Guest at 2002 International White Supremacist Convention". Retrieved 29 December 2014. 28. O'Donoghue, Julia (December 29, 2014). "Steve Scalise attended white nationalist event, but says he wasn't aware of group's views". The Times-Picayune. Retrieved December 29, 2014. 29. http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/democrats-demand-answers-steve-scalises-ties-david-duke 30. http://splcenter.org/blog/2014/12/30/steve-scalises-denials-are-not-believable/ 31. Lavendar, Paige (31 Dec 2014). "Longtime Adviser To David Duke Donated To Steve Scalise". Huffington Post. Retrieved 31 December 2014.

    Which include some sources likely to be regarded as "opinion sources" in general for contentious claims.

    The following was removed:

    (Louisiana politicians such as Republicans Roger F. Villere, Jr. and Bobby Jindal, and Democrat Cedric Richmond defended Scalise's character). Richmond said "I don't think Steve Scalise has a racist bone in his body. Steve and I have worked on issues that benefit poor people, black people, white people, Jewish people. I know his character." [1]

    References

    1. ^ "Steve Scalise attended white nationalist event, but says he wasn't aware of group's views". The Times-Picayune. Retrieved 29 December 2014.

    I fear the article is being used as a political football here (and it is not even Silly Season yet), and suggest that the third-party link to the KKK is weak, and that reasonable balance in the section be sought. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:22, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Are you serious? This controversy is being covered extensively in the media. You will note that I removed both a quote supporting Scalise as well as one criticizing him. I also explained my rationale in both the edit summary and on the talk page.
    You say "Note the absence of any balancing viewpoint". It's in your own post above: ""Louisiana politicians such as Republicans Roger F. Villere, Jr. and Bobby Jindal, and Democrat Cedric Richmond defended Scalise's character". In what way does this not follow our sources?- MrX 20:31, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The major issue is the linking of Scalise to the KKK - where the only such "link" was a third party saying he was a friend of a friend. For some odd reason, I consider linking a person to the KKK in the lead to be a "contentious claim" and the removal of a comment from a Democrat who happens to be black and who basically points this out is, indeed, a removal of a balancing claim. Cheers. And I see no way in hell that the KKK mention in the lead is appropriate. Unless you think guilt by association is the right way to do things, of course. Collect (talk) 22:56, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]


    This article now has a reference to a quote from Scalise with an editorial opinion inserted into it - and thus is a gross violation of how quotes from living persons are handled per policy:

    Stephanie Grace recounted that during her first meeting with Scalise two decades ago, he had told her that he was "like David Duke without the [racist, antisemitic, KKK] baggage".

    Note the editorial insertion of "racist anti-Semitic, KKK" into the quote from Scalise - which is rather a blatant violation of WP:BLP and tries to link a living person to the KKK implying his own words made the statement. Collect (talk) 20:42, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    SOFIXIT.- MrX 22:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Karen Ashe

    Old article for deletion

    Dear Cirt,

    I am fairly inexperienced in making contributions to Wikipedia. I was looking at the edit history of this article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_Ashe) and noticed that when the page was created it was for a different person but now it refers to a professor at University of Minnesota. I am wondering if that is an accepted policy on Wikipedia?

    Thank You! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heimdallrorschach (talk • contribs) 21:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    An editor posted the above to my user talk page.

    I'll respectfully defer to users here, about what to do about this.

    Thank you,

    — Cirt (talk) 02:41, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Offhand the original person (the criminologist) doesn't appear to be all that notable. I suppose that we could delete the original article history in order to keep people from reverting, but nobody has really tried to do that since about 2008 so that may not really be overly necessary. Still, I suppose it would help people from mistaking one for the other, which I would guess has probably happened with other articles. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:10, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Do we know what her notability or importance is to the Criminology community? That would seem to be the relevant factor in this case. Any Criminologists in the house? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:29, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Shooting of Michael Brown

    Shooting of Michael Brown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    A Volokh Conspiracy news blog post [7] is being used as a source here [8], I believe it violates BLPPRIMARY, OR and FRINGE (since it implies that the grand jury was only involved to investigate the incident without investigating possible crimes), though a violation on any one of these grounds should be sufficient to remove it. Any thoughts? --RAN1 (talk) 19:27, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Relative to what the source says, it looks like a fairly innocuous statement about an observation made by a former judge, Wikipedia's voice is not being using to state an opinion as fact. That said, I think the scrutiny regarding the content should be focused on the judge, Paul Cassell. Are his comments noteworthy in this case or not? It helps that he has an article, but is this his area of expertise? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:37, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to have a fairly large misunderstanding about what those policies mean.
    • Sources, by definition, cannot commit WP:OR. Only we editors can.
    • Since it is a secondary source making the statement, it clearly isn't BLPPRIMARY
    • There is no science or fact involved here, and there are opinions all over the place. Picking this one and calling it fringe is without basis.
    • the opinions expressed are largely about a process, and not a person so claims as to BLP are weak, and in any case the claims are not defamatory.

    Gaijin42 (talk) 19:43, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict)The Volokh Conspiracy is a group blog. Although it's hosted by the Washington Post, it does not fall under their editorial control: "We are not Washington Post employees, and we have sole editorial control over the blog" and may not be used as a source regarding living people. See WP:SPS for more information. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:44, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @Scalhotrod: @A Quest For Knowledge: - The Volokh Conspiracy is hosted by the Washington Post, so it contains full editorial control over its content. The Blog exerts its own editorial controls and it is one of the extremely few important blogs because its content is by recognized experts. This is a case where the "blog" format belies its true impact, reliability and authority. Cassell, as his Wikipedia article correctly states: "is a former United States federal judge, who is a professor at the law school of the University of Utah. He is best known as an expert in and proponent of the rights of crime victims." Cassell has written extensively on the case for The Volokh Conspiracy. Cassell has argued cases relating to crime victims' rights before the United States Supreme Court, the 4th through 10th, and D.C. Circuits, and the Utah Supreme Court. Cassell is one of the most prominent and well-respected figures discussing the case and has been performing a key role for over 30 years in this very part of the legal system. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:59, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChrisGualtieri:, I was not discounting the Volokh Conspiracy because it is a blog, I was trying to get to the heart of the matter. I would prefer that the Cassell article was better developed so we had more to go on, but it is what it is. IMO the content is sourced and contextually used properly. Beyond that, I don't consider myself expert enough in legal analysis to know if this is WP:UNDUE or something similar. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:20, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Because he's mostly published in a self-published source, Cassell's work should have been published by reliable third-party publications before he may be considered an expert. Otherwise we should scrap it. I'm looking at his statement about McCulloch, and that should definitely go since it's a statement about a BLP by an SPS. His opinion regarding the grand jury is also suspect since he has no experience in MO law. --RAN1 (talk) 20:25, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair points, how uniquely do MO grand juries operate versus the other 48/49 states? I'm taking into consideration that Lousiana's legal system is based on the Napoleonic code. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:33, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The relevant sections are Missouri statute (specific operations) and the Missouri constitution (general characterization). They're convened to try and determine felonies, but can indict on all crimes. They also can ask questions of witnesses and subpoena for information. While they definitely can investigate, they have both that and the ability to indict. My complaint is that Cassell implies the grand jury isn't meant to investigate possible crimes, but to investigate based on the premise that there may be no criminal conduct at all. Compare to Utah, where grand juries are convened only if a panel of judges sees fit or it finds the actions of prosecuting attorneys to be inadequate. --RAN1 (talk) 21:09, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    VC is not self published, it has its own editorial control - the Washington Post republishes it without further editorial. Cassell is widely cited in the media and other sources on this issue, including the New York Times. As a whole, grand juries are secret proceedings, even Louisiana which 'is unique, is still secret as stated in the article. "A policy of secrecy exists in regard to grand jury proceedings. Various purposes are served by secret proceedings."Page 9-10. Cassell has gone forThis is no different and Ran1 seems to be keen on ignoring the fact that the citations and proceedings to Missouri law which Ran1 so pounded actually assert the same rights as Cassell's "opinion". Ran1 is trying to shift the burden of evidence because their own argument has no weight. Cassell actually has argued in the 8th district, which is part of Missouri. He may teach at Utah University, but has even gone before the Supreme Court. But even if the specific tiny details of the differences between jurisdictions - they are all secret and share a common reason for doing so which has been well-established for over 200 years. Ran1 is trying to shift responsibility and introduce doubt when there is none on whether or not grand juries are secret - as for Ran1's questionable legal knowledge of "investigative" this is purely the user's own inability to comprehend the material. There is so much misguided notions injected into Ran1's statements that even a week of trying to inform the user has been all for nothing. Prosecuting Attorney Jean Peters Baker, from Missouri, says "The difference between a regular grand jury and an investigative grand jury is that the investigative grand jury is the decision maker on the charge." Ran1 decided to argue this as well. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:33, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    My argument is that the Volokh Conspiracy self-describes itself as a group blog, which is explicitly defined under WP:SPS as a self-published source, regardless of editorial control. Also, the method behind grand juries is established in public law, as the links to government websites I've provided demonstrate. As for that last source, who is the decision maker in a regular grand jury? I thought all indictments were based on the vote of the grand jury. --RAN1 (talk) 21:45, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That "blog" is republished by WaPo, which is exactly how WaPo handles all "op-ed" commentary, just in case you missed it. "Op-ed" are not fact checked by WaPo etc. It is written by notable experts in the field, whose opinions are notable as such. A blog written by experts in a field is generally allowed as a source for their opinions in their field of notability. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:48, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. Even then though, we did have consensus for not including expert opinions that were biased. This should probably be taken into account. --RAN1 (talk) 23:09, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Self-published sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications and does not involve third-party claims about living people. It is not a reliable source in this context. Please see WP:SPS for more. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:17, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, many of the contributors are indeed notable, thus within their field of notability, the blog is indeed usable. WaPo republishes those opinions much as it does op-ed columns, which are also not separately fact checked. Cheers. Collect (talk) 05:52, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a blog hosted by WaPo, not a republishing. Op-ed news blogs are under WaPo's editorial discretion, not Volokh, which has its own editorial discretion, so it's effectively a self-published source. The Volokh Conspiracy should not be treated as a law review. --RAN1 (talk) 06:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    RAN1 please stop making false statements around even after they have been pointed out. The Volokh Conspiracy retains its own editorial control and its own functioning site, the content is republished on WaPo. Cassell is a contributor, not the owner or operator of the site. Though it is also widely respected and even acclaimed by the American Bar Association Journal. As @Collect: confirmed, twice now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't made a false statement. Volokh's original site is a meta-tag redirect to WaPo. They're hosted by the WaPo, which the link you've provided verifies. Hosting is not republishing. It's an SPS, and there's no indication that it's a reliable source (seriously, being in a top 10 list of "favorite legal blogs" from ABAJ is not an accolade). --RAN1 (talk) 08:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The "blog" is physically on WaPo's site - thus it is "republished" by WaPo and is not a "personal web site" by a mile. WaPo quite apparently pays for this right (VK specifically gets a share of the WaPo ad revenue at least per LA Observed - if a publisher pays to carry something you wrote, it is clearly republishing what you wrote. Thus the "SPS = personal web site of a non-notable person" argument fails, as it has always failed. It is widely cited by lawyers, scholar.google.com shows it as being mentioned and used in many law journals including Virginia Law Review, HeinOnline , Washington University Law Review, Alabama Law Review, Drexel Law Review, Georgetown Law Review (actually a slew of law review journals), American Association of Law Libraries, and roughly one thousand other sites (scholar.google.com stops at page 100 of results). With such stature, the cavil that it is a "personal blog" fails with a resounding thud. Consider this from the ABA Journal[9]. "Volokh Conspiracy" is not a trivial "SPS blog" it is a major resources cited in over a thousand scholarly articles. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:34, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @Collect:Self-published sources fall under two categories:

    1) If authored by an established expert who has been previously published third-party reliable sources, they may be considered reliable as long as they don't involve claims about living people. However, if such information is truly worth including in a Wikipedia article, other non-self-published reliable sources will have published it. For more information, please see WP:BLPSPS
    2) Otherwise, the following conditions apply:
    1. The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim.
    2. It does not involve claims about third parties.
    3. It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source.
    4. There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity.
    5. The article is not based primarily on such sources.
    For more information, please see WP:BLPSELFPUB

    Can you please indicate which conditions this source should be considered reliable in this particular instance? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:10, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @A Quest For Knowledge: Perhaps next time you could read the responses the sources and check basic facts before you make such a rebuttal. It makes you seem foolish when you forget that it is not SPS, that the content is not about a person, and so it cannot possibly be BLPSPS. Also, Ran1 misrepresented the source and its content and you are continuing to be ignorant of the discussion. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:34, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Glen Edward Rogers

    I removed uncited details that further explain such counterargument. Should I have done that? Also, the article is poorly referenced. --George Ho (talk) 20:03, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Good call IMO, a lot of posturing with almost no support unless the whole thing was lifted from, of all things, the Entertainment section of the New York Post. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:30, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed the section hinting that he is the real killer of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman, based on a sleazy cable TV "documentary". Even convicted murderers deserve better than that. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:10, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well... the issue with that is mostly that the movie (My Brother the Serial Killer) did gain enough coverage to where it'd probably be worth mentioning in his article somewhere. I have to agree with you in that the documentary was sleazy and suspect, somethign that I'd initially included in the article for the documentary when I'd first created it. (I noticed that it'd been redirected to the article for GER, which I've since reverted.) If this is included, it should center around the fact that the allegations were really only raised when the documentary aired and that the claims were pretty much universally condemned by the Goldman and Brown families. A few sentences would probably suffice for that. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:04, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That article also should adhere to BLP policy. You can expand it to establish a greater notability. --George Ho (talk) 10:39, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Dorothy_King

    Last time I removed the problematic issues before creating a report, but this time I left them.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/91.178.216.67 is a user in Belgium who keeps adding the same unsuitable comments to her page again and again and again ... I believe it is a "former" art smuggler Michel van Rijn whose web site was taken down after he made libelous attacks on various people in the art world. My understanding is that he is the man who tried to claim she looted Baghdad Museum (she does not name him): http://phdiva.blogspot.co.uk/2009/03/i-looted-baghdad-museum.html

    "Dorothy King (1975) is a self-proclaimed American archaeologist and historian who lives and works in England." he keeps adding self-proclaimed, when clearly she is not.

    "King is the author of a 2006 controversial book on the Elgin Marbles" not sure citing a few left wing blogs makes it controversial when there are as many real reviews that praise it.

    "In November 2014, Kind denounced the findings regarding the Amphipolis tomb (also known as the Kasta Tomb) first entered earlier in August." she was on the excavation until 2014, so she's hardly likely to have "denounced" the findings - explained, on her blog and on the evening news in Greece almost every night ... ie the opposite of this.

    "The Guardian described her as: "Blonde, glamorous and a fearless hunter of treasures" and also mentioned that she refused to pose for Playboy Magazine, being too old to expose her wrinkled curves. [8]" - again I would point out that posing for Playboy might be notable, refusing to is not (99.99999999%) of women would not, and this point is irrelevant. Also the Guardian wrote nothing about ""being too old to expose her wrinkled curves" - and that ridiculous insult is constantly being added by the Belgian man.

    "King goes by the nickname "Dick" and states that she spent some of her childhood in Florida.[1] She lives alone with her dog." Really? This was changed from Dee to Dick ... I very much doubt anyone calls her that, so again the Belgian with an axe to grind. Also if you follow her on Twitter it is clear she does not live alone although she has a dog so what is the point of this?: "She lives alone with her dog." - it is not factually accurate and even if it were it would be irrelevant.

    This page is constantly being vandalised by someone with an axe to grind, and I can't keep checking it every day to stop some misogynistic idiot writing untrue and offensive comments, so can we do something about this please? 86.187.151.31 (talk) 11:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Watchlisted - the IP seems to be non-utile in intent. Collect (talk) 12:40, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Franco Debono

    This BLP needs a lot of work.

    Besides the fact that it refers to a relatively minor personality (backbencher who since retired from politics) the article's tone is inappropriate (eg "in fact", "whatsoever") and much of the content is inaccurate and unsourced (eg haiku writer?).

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&oldid=640732663"