Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard
Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here. | ||
---|---|---|
This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input. Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem.
Additional notes:
| ||
Irene Taylor Brodsky
Irene Taylor Brodsky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Unverified source information has been included in Irene Taylor Brodsky's page as well as the page of her film Beware the Slenderman, regarding her and HBO's supposed unauthorized usage of copyrighted material in the Beware the Slenderman film. No sources seem to exist that back up this information beyond possible first-hand research.
["Beware the Slenderman" uses footage from other filmmakers without their permission while she and HBO continue to refuse to credit the original creators.]— Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.72.153.8 (talk) 23:05, February 24, 2017
Fabio D'Andrea
Fabio D'Andrea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Biography is hugely inaccurate and quotes unrelated press articles.
1) By the time he was 12 he had taken the Grade 8 of Associated Board of the Royal Schools of Music exams and had also sung before the Queen and Prince Phillip at the Royal Albert Hall.[1]
There is no evidence to suggest he reached this grade at 12 and the news article does not relate to him singing for the Queen.
2) and continued his education, studying music at Kings College London and The Royal Academy of Music, specialising in composition
The references only cite him studying at Kings College London
3)D'Andrea released a debut solo piano album Reflection in 2012[2] which became album of the week[3] on Classic FM in the UK and subsequently a top ten classical album.[4] The reference does not cooborate that he was album of the week on classic fm
4)D'Andrea had his debut commission for a ballet production premiered at the Royal Opera House[6] in 2013. The commission by Ballet Black, an associate company of the Royal Ballet, was composed for Royal Ballet dancer and choreographer Ludovic Ondiviela and the orchestral piece, Perpetuum, featured in the dance Dopamine which toured both in the UK and internationally.
There is no record of Fabio D'Andrea composition being used in this performance. http://balletblack.co.uk/history/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.247.237 (talk) 12:39, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
- You may want to double-check some of your claims. Just checking your statement that " the news article does not relate to him singing for the Queen" overlooks the fact that that page does include the statement "Fabio [...] has played for the Queen", so it can be used as a source for that statement (although, well, Daily Mail is not our favorite source of biographies.) This appears to be a column of news bits, not all of which are reflected in the title. Some of your concerns may be handled better by using the Template:citation needed tag rather than deletion. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:17, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Operator873 has consistently added information on the biography of Carlo M. Croce that violate the guidelines of wikipedia's BLP. His entries on Croce's personal are not written from a neutral point of view and are based on gossip. Operator 873's entry is not written conservatively and has absolutely no regard for the subject's privacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Telemachos1 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
- The edits in question cite the New York Times and Smithsonian; neither is noted for basing content on gossip.
- That said, this article probably does need extra eyes on it. A number of editors—some with declared conflicts of interest, some single-purpose accounts—have been removing the controversy-related material from the article. —C.Fred (talk) 17:55, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Steve King
Steve King (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Representative Steve King of Iowa's wiki entry should be updated to include his most recent public thoughts on ethno-nationalism ASAP. He is threat to American Democracy, a White Supremicist, and Wiki should share the following with readers:[1]
"Wilders understands that culture and demographics are our destiny. We can't restore our civilization with somebody else's babies."
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:1280:c0a9:c79:d3a1:8c2e:1f33 (talk) 06:16, 13 March 2017 (UTC+9)
- Big NO on that. Twitter fails as a reliable source. It he really said that it would be sourced reliably already. BLP's need to be written conservatively, so without a reliable source, it would need to be removed. ƘƟ SĦ 14:12, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- Twitter makes a perfectly fine RS for statements that a verified individual has made on their official twitter account, the same as an individual's blog or other online presence. However, in this case, we can sort elsewhere, as the tweet has gotten substantial coverage - in New York Times, Newsweek, CNN, etc. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:28, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- More important here: if the Tweet itself was the only thing, it would be improper to use it to try to justify anything about King's political position, because it would be a statement out of context and edge on original research (much less BLP) to include, particularly if one takes the attitutde that this thread's OP had. However, with the amount of discussion and criticism it received as covered by the sources listed above like NYTimes, which also establish context, there's no question of referring to the tweet in the article (and it already is as far as I can tell). --MASEM (t) 14:35, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- Twitter makes a perfectly fine RS for statements that a verified individual has made on their official twitter account, the same as an individual's blog or other online presence. However, in this case, we can sort elsewhere, as the tweet has gotten substantial coverage - in New York Times, Newsweek, CNN, etc. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:28, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- Big NO on that. Twitter fails as a reliable source. It he really said that it would be sourced reliably already. BLP's need to be written conservatively, so without a reliable source, it would need to be removed. ƘƟ SĦ 14:12, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
There is only one citation for the article, to a CUNY site that is no longer active. I found several other sources with information about Small but they do not contain all of the information referenced in the article.[1] [2] [3]
References
- ^ http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20111009/sub/310099968/expanding-higher-ed-gillian-small
- ^ http://www.newjerseyhills.com/florham_park_eagle/news/fairleigh-dickinson-university-names-new-provost/article_8be707b3-8b8e-5b65-965d-8289d07e93d2.html
- ^ https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/07/06/new-presidents-or-provosts-beaver-county-fdu-finger-lakes-maricopa-ouachita
Is it best to rewrite the article so that is now only includes information in the still active sources?
Thank you!
Unapersonacuriosa (talk) 03:12, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- Archive.org has a snapshot from 2016. [1]. --MASEM (t) 03:24, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
may i ask you to please delete the highly aggressive, politically motivated reference to my novel about walt disney
dear ladies and gentlemen, may i ask you to please delete the highly aggressive, politically motivated reference to my novel about walt disney: this is the wiki re. my bio: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Stephan_Jungk, and this is the reference in question: References[edit] Jump up ^ "What's New" Archives: February 2012 – "The Imperfect Perfect American", blog by Michael Barrier
thank you very much in advance,
peter stephan jungk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.51.117.64 (talk) 13:41, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- Content removed per WP:BLPSPS. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:53, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- Note – this doesn't solve the (many) other problems with the article: too much of a PR-job to my taste, and total lack of references. Not even too sure this would pass WP:GNG (if the only independent source would be an unusable blog...). --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:07, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- One of the external links is useable as a reference for his novel being turned into an Opera, and from a quick googling there are others out there (It looks like quite a few are in German). Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:32, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- The NYT article (if that is what you mean) covers about half of the sentence that is in the article about that topic (the first staging of the work apparently having been in another continent as what was is mentioned in the NYT article). A BLP with a potential reference for half a sentence doesn't cut it.
- The same NYT article doesn't do much in terms of WP:GNG: the author (subject of the BLP) is mentioned in passing without other biographical data than that he wrote a book of which the title is mentioned. Is there any article in a reliable independent source which has Peter Stephan Jungk as main topic? If so, please add it as a reference to the article. Currently the article doesn't assert notability in the intro, and there is no reference in the body that demonstrates notability. The whole content is now presented as deriving from thin air, or, at best, from sources closely related to the subject. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:58, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- I dont speak German :) From what I can tell the majority of the English sources are related to the novel being made into an opera. Everything else I find about him appears to be a German source - which I cant judge how much is about him, what its about, and am generally not happy using Google-Translate to answer those questions. From his body of work that I can see, I think he *should* be notable, I just personally cant reference it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:16, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- This (German) article mentions a favourable (German) recension of his 1987 Franz Werfel biography (which, in its 1990 English translation, is used as source in the English Wikipedia article on that author). Let's say that I assume, too, that there is probably more, and enough for a solid GNG – but not apparent in the article yet. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- I dont speak German :) From what I can tell the majority of the English sources are related to the novel being made into an opera. Everything else I find about him appears to be a German source - which I cant judge how much is about him, what its about, and am generally not happy using Google-Translate to answer those questions. From his body of work that I can see, I think he *should* be notable, I just personally cant reference it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:16, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- One of the external links is useable as a reference for his novel being turned into an Opera, and from a quick googling there are others out there (It looks like quite a few are in German). Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:32, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- Note – this doesn't solve the (many) other problems with the article: too much of a PR-job to my taste, and total lack of references. Not even too sure this would pass WP:GNG (if the only independent source would be an unusable blog...). --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:07, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- I think me and Francis both went at that at the same time. Either way its gone. Just to lay out a few problems with it. 1)Self-published blog. 2)No indication as to why this SPS is reliable for his opinion on this subject (animation historian, not an opera critic, and I dont hold he magically becomes better at being an opera critic because the subject is Walt Disney). 3)Its factually wrong in any case, as he was describing the novel, not the opera. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:58, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- I added a ref from an international literature festival, which supports some, + a 2011 prize, I also added authority control - will not understand how any article about an author can do without, and duplicated the entry for the German National Library. No time for more, but I am sure he's notable, for example a FAZ review of his Werfel book is mentioned in the ref. (I see I am not the first to say so.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:17, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- His books are used as a reference, example [2], [3] [4]. - Can't fint the university entry, but these. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:26, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Steve_Hillier
Steve Hillier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) There is a "Steve Hillier" British Musician page, I can see it has been used blatantly for self-promotion as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Roger_8_Roger points out. The fact is that the page subject is not notable enough in it's own right, the bulk of it is duplicated on the Dubstar band page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dubstar, and this individual page in itself is of no merit to us as a comunity.
Delete recommended, since anything we need to know is available on relevant band pages, this person is not a solo artist and not worthy of a wikipedia page, the self-publicity is clearly the only motivating factor (even their personal web site http://www.stevehillier.net/ is dead reflecting the need to delete the Wikipedia)... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.175.137.102 (talk) 18:03, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- Submitted to AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Hillier --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:42, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Floyd McKissick Jr.
Floyd McKissick Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Re. "Professional misconduct charges"
I would like further opinions on whether this section is WP:UNDUE, whether it should be trimmed-down or removed.
Background: Delphine63 (talk · contribs) had tried to remove this, and other sections, from the article - but due to them "blanking" and not explaining why, their edits were reverted. I have removed some uncited negative info from the article, but left this part for now, pending further opinions.
Thanks, 86.20.193.222 (talk) 20:30, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- I would agree that this case is not only undue weight; but really is not notable enough for inclusion. It was only covered locally (and not that in-depth). If it had received expansive coverage in more prestigious media outlets, I would say: yes, include. But under these circumstances; no. Furthermore, the lede does not mention this one specific case; which implies that the subject is not notable on WP for this life event. In addition, the undue weight occurs in mentioning names that are not notable and should not be mentioned in this article; as the case itself is not note worthy. I would support reducing this to a single sentence in Education and Career or removal altogether. IMHO Maineartists (talk) 23:56, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I agree.
I'm going to remove it altogether for now, explaining why on the talk page, and if anyone objects we can discuss it further there.
Thanks again, 86.20.193.222 (talk) 01:03, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- Good luck. Ping me or at least reference this discussion on the talk page. I'll be happy to support. Maineartists (talk) 01:14, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Annica Nsiah Apau
Annica Nsiah Apau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I'm concerned about this new article, but I'm not sure how to deal with it.
It seems to be tabloid crap, but I guess it has a 'credible claim of significance', and it does have references; however, I do not think that her having sex every day, or having a large bottom, is encyclopaedic. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 21:56, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- Boldly redirected to Okyeame Kwame as I think he - rather than his wife - is the notable party here. Fyddlestix (talk) 22:11, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- Seems like a good idea to me, thx 86.20.193.222 (talk) 23:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
@Fyddlestix: Well, that hasn't worked out [5]. Should we PROD it? Or AfD or something? 86.20.193.222 (talk) 22:40, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- Prod template was removed, so I have sent it to AFD. Please comment there. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:48, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- Oh wow; I was just now trying to work out if I could nominate it. Good stuff, thanks. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 17:58, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- Prod template was removed, so I have sent it to AFD. Please comment there. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:48, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Melanie_Chandra
Continuous vandalism of birth year.
WP:RS found in Chicago Tribune corroborating 1984[1][2] birth year.
Melanie (née Kannokada) was 17 (HS Junior) in 2001, per cited source, and HS Sophomore in 2000, per 2nd source.
References
- ^ Phil English. "Buffalo Grove Junior Again Wins Spot In Nationals". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved March 22, 2001.
- ^ "HONOR ROLLS Buffalo Grove High School". The Daily Herald. March 28, 2000.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by BillieReed (talk • contribs) 14 March 2017 (UTC+9) (UTC)
- @Sarah thas: has removed the sources and birthdate, claiming that those sources are somehow outdated.--Auric talk 12:22, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Michael Karkoc
Michael Karkoc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I've just reverted what I think is a BLP vio here and in another edit at that article. Extradition for war crimes has not actually been requested and, worse, the person has not in fact been officially identified by name, only by Associated Press "inquiries". I am no expert regarding the nuances of BLP/BLPCRIME etc so some additional eyes would probably be useful. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 09:27, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Actually, I am not even sure we should be mentioning a possible link between the alleged war criminal and some guy in Minnesota who bears the same name. All our sources for the connection seem to originate with the Associated Press. - Sitush (talk) 09:39, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- The Associated Press is a reliable source. We should of course take care in what we write on the basis of what that source offers -- but there's no reason to reject the source itself, nor to reject other sources that use the AP. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:59, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- It is generally considered reliable but it is in practical terms the only source here. That is what concerns me. Even two reliable sources - The Sunday Times and Der Spiegel, for example - get things terribly wrong when it comes to events surrounding the period in question, so relying on a single source for such a BLP allegation doesn't sit well with me. - Sitush (talk) 10:03, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- It was AP investigative reporting. So generally we would take it as reliable and attribute it to them (as has been done in most of the article). Is the specifics you have linked a BLP violation? I would say probably not. Its a long-standing allegation that has been covered by numerous press organsations, has been taken seriously enough by the German and Polish governments to the point where they actively want to put him on trial.... BLPCRIME is iffy in this situation as it applies only to people who are relatively unknown. Karkoc is only well known due to the high profile allegations. The relevant guidance here is at WP:CRIME Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:33, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- I've cleaned up some other stuff since filing here. Someone may wish to review my edits - no problem with them being reverted and I'll pop back here later today to see if there are any queries re: what I have done. - Sitush (talk) 11:36, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- BTW, the opening diff is most definitely wrong. The sources do not say what we claimed. Could be reworded, though, if the consensus is that this is not a BLP issue. - Sitush (talk) 11:38, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- Sitush this is from the Washington Post
Poland announced Monday that it will seek the arrest and extradition of Michael Karkoc, a 98-year-old U.S. citizen who suffers from Alzheimer's disease.
. [6]. There is reliable source coverage for the intent of the Polish government to seek extradition, and I think it probably should be included in the article. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:35, 14 March 2017 (UTC)- No. That report is also rehashing the AP report which specifically says that the Polish government have not identified him by full name. AP says that their own sources indicated the govt's "Michael K" is in fact Michael Karkoc and, yes, I realise that the likelihood is high. But for whatever reason, AP is fluffing up the substance of what the Polish govt have said. Your source is just another variant on the ones I removed in the diff I provided in my opening post here. - Sitush (talk) 19:24, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- The original source, which I removed per my opening post, said
Prosecutor Robert Janicki said evidence gathered over years of investigation into U.S. citizen Michael K. confirmed "100 percent" that he was a commander of a unit in the SS-led Ukrainian Self Defense Legion. He did not release the last name in line with privacy laws but the AP has identified the man as 98-year-old Michael Karkoc, from Minneapolis.
And therein lies my concern. I suspect we could say something provided that we clearly attribute the naming to AP, not the government. - Sitush (talk) 19:33, 14 March 2017 (UTC)- WaPo byline is different and doesn't cite the AP for the quote I cited above, which they are normally good about. I get the point though. I've made a BOLD attempt at attributing it to the AP per your suggestion above [7]. Please feel free to edit or revert, but I thought it would be easier to work off of something rather than keep discussing the framework for what we can cite. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:50, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- Sitush this is from the Washington Post
- It was AP investigative reporting. So generally we would take it as reliable and attribute it to them (as has been done in most of the article). Is the specifics you have linked a BLP violation? I would say probably not. Its a long-standing allegation that has been covered by numerous press organsations, has been taken seriously enough by the German and Polish governments to the point where they actively want to put him on trial.... BLPCRIME is iffy in this situation as it applies only to people who are relatively unknown. Karkoc is only well known due to the high profile allegations. The relevant guidance here is at WP:CRIME Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:33, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- It is generally considered reliable but it is in practical terms the only source here. That is what concerns me. Even two reliable sources - The Sunday Times and Der Spiegel, for example - get things terribly wrong when it comes to events surrounding the period in question, so relying on a single source for such a BLP allegation doesn't sit well with me. - Sitush (talk) 10:03, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Mike Godwin dead?
Can anyone verify whether Mike Godwin has died? An IP made this edit to the article, but I have not been able to find a corroborating source. The same IP made the same edit before, but it was reverted as well. Not sure if this is some just messing around or some other death hoax. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:59, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- Seems unlikely. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- He tweeted 52 mins ago.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:08, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- Definitely not dead. Alive and well and eyerolling on Facebook. Guy (Help!) 14:12, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- OK. The IP who added the information is claiming that Godwin is his uncle. Most likely they will be back, so is there anything to do but warn them once again. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:17, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: Your diff is broken; you meant [8]
The clue that this is plain vandalism is, the death-date of January... no way it'd take that long to be reported.
The user tried to post it several times in January, and had an 'only warning'. So, I've reported them to AIV; admins may or may not decide to block; it's been several weeks since that 'only warning', but OTOH, it's serious vandalism.
If it was more than one IP/user, then protection might be worth it, but if it's 1 person, it's easier to block them.
I wouldn't worry too much, I'm confident a lot of people have that page on their watchlist, so any vandalism is unlikely to remain for more than a few minutes.86.20.193.222 (talk) 22:17, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- Update, the IP has been blocked for a couple of weeks. Oh, also, Hitler. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 22:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
William Dunlap Cannon, III
Hello. I have just put a CSD tag on this page. I'm posting here in case the tag is removed. The page should be deleted asap. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 14:39, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Scone. 15:06, 14 March 2017 Edgar181 deleted page William Dunlap Cannon, III (G10: Attack page or negative unsourced BLP)
Also, the author has been indefinitely blocked. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 22:22, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
The daily mail
Regarding the singling out of this newspaper for carpet banning as a reliable source. Can we not create some kind of NEW standard for WP:BLP controversial or possibly contentious additions - for all tabloid style publications? None of them are instantly wp:reliable for any controversial or possibly contentious additions and as such a talk page discussion is a great idea anyway. They are all imo generally reliable for basic reports. We could remove the blanket banning of any publication and replace it with a new standard that covers all publications. We do regularly use sources in biographies of living people that are no better or no worse than the Daily Mail. Suggestions welcome, such as if there is a better location for such a discussion. Thanks for any input. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- Your proposal builds upon an incorrect premise, i.e., "the singling out of this newspaper for carpet banning as a reliable source." There are many prior and ongoing discussions of this matter (some of which you already have participated in); the benefit of adding yet another discussion thread on this matter is not obvious. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:10, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- thanks for the input User:Shock Brigade Harvester Boris - I have requested you provide links to these previous discussions I have participated in, thanks Govindaharihari (talk) 20:17, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- You are completely right. I apologize abjectly and profusely for having made any suggestion that you were previously aware of the issues around the l'affaire Daily Mail. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:29, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- The Daily Mail was singled out because it had the rare distinction of being both widely considered an unreliable source and widely cited on Wikipedia. During the RFC, and subsequent discussions, various similar sources were brought up, and I found at least some of these to essentially never be cited on Wikipedia. There is no shortage of sources that have been so thoroughly concluded to be unreliable (either here, or at another noticeboard, or an article talk page), that we never needed to have an RFC at all. We needed an RFC on the Daily Mail precisely because it was an edge case. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:31, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- You are completely right. I apologize abjectly and profusely for having made any suggestion that you were previously aware of the issues around the l'affaire Daily Mail. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:29, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- thanks for the input User:Shock Brigade Harvester Boris - I have requested you provide links to these previous discussions I have participated in, thanks Govindaharihari (talk) 20:17, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- This is based on the incorrect notion (which, unsurprisingly, appears to come from the Mail itself) that DMG has been "singled out". This isn't the case; all that RFC has done is determine that Wikipedia will from now on treat the Mail in the same way other tabloids are treated, as a valid source for opinions and commentary but not to be trusted as the sole source for facts. The only reason the RFC is specifically about the Mail is that Wikipedia doesn't suffer a serious problem with other tabloids being used inappropriately. What makes the Mail a special case is that Mail Online—which is really what's in question here—has the superficial look and feel of a legitimate news site, so readers (particularly outside the UK who may not be familiar with it) assume that it's on a par with the Telegraph or Guardian websites, and use it to cite stories without double checking if the stories are actually fabrications or distortions.
In an ideal world, we wouldn't be using newspapers as sourcing for anything other than opinions and commentary, but as long as Wikipedia continues trying to cover current events, it will inevitably include facts sources to newspapers. If no source other than a British tabloid can be found for any given statement, then that's prima facie evidence that the statement shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. ‑ Iridescent 16:39, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- Iridescent, it would be nice if you were right, but that's not what the RfC discussion and closing summary said. No exception was made that the Daily Mail will be treated "as a valid source for opinions and commentary". The statement that The Daily Mail is "not to be trusted as the sole source for facts" is singling it out; others are still subject to the guideline that context matters. Your belief that Mail Online is really what's in question here is borne out by the fact that dailymail.com and dailymail.co.uk were the subject of most or all of the anecdotes, but the RfC subject was The Daily Mail and the closers stated it applied to both The Daily Mail and dailymail.co.uk. And your statements about what Wikipedia editors do with Daily Mail stories was not actually discussed in the RfC, as far as I could tell, except in two cases -- where a WP:BLPN RfC ended up with an administrator confirming that The Daily Mail was okay, and where an incorrect Daily Mail Headline was trusted. I do not agree with Govindaharihari if the implication is that the RfC result should be negated already; however, Govindahari's description is correct. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:24, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- Are you actually reading what you're writing? "As a valid source for opinions and commentary" and "not to be trusted as the sole source for facts" aren't at all contradictory. To take a trivial example, citing the Mail as the sole source for "Ed Sheeran's new album is released on Monday" is now unacceptable, given their history of not bothering to fact-check; citing the Mail as the sole source for "a review in the Daily Mail called Ed Sheeran's new album a work of genius" remains acceptable, because we're explicitly identifying it as "opinion and commentary", not facts. (What is this thread doing at BLPN, anyway? Have we run out of appropriate places to forum-shop?) ‑ Iridescent 17:44, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- We disagree, but you're right that this doesn't look like a WP:BLPN issue. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:45, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- Are you actually reading what you're writing? "As a valid source for opinions and commentary" and "not to be trusted as the sole source for facts" aren't at all contradictory. To take a trivial example, citing the Mail as the sole source for "Ed Sheeran's new album is released on Monday" is now unacceptable, given their history of not bothering to fact-check; citing the Mail as the sole source for "a review in the Daily Mail called Ed Sheeran's new album a work of genius" remains acceptable, because we're explicitly identifying it as "opinion and commentary", not facts. (What is this thread doing at BLPN, anyway? Have we run out of appropriate places to forum-shop?) ‑ Iridescent 17:44, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- Iridescent, it would be nice if you were right, but that's not what the RfC discussion and closing summary said. No exception was made that the Daily Mail will be treated "as a valid source for opinions and commentary". The statement that The Daily Mail is "not to be trusted as the sole source for facts" is singling it out; others are still subject to the guideline that context matters. Your belief that Mail Online is really what's in question here is borne out by the fact that dailymail.com and dailymail.co.uk were the subject of most or all of the anecdotes, but the RfC subject was The Daily Mail and the closers stated it applied to both The Daily Mail and dailymail.co.uk. And your statements about what Wikipedia editors do with Daily Mail stories was not actually discussed in the RfC, as far as I could tell, except in two cases -- where a WP:BLPN RfC ended up with an administrator confirming that The Daily Mail was okay, and where an incorrect Daily Mail Headline was trusted. I do not agree with Govindaharihari if the implication is that the RfC result should be negated already; however, Govindahari's description is correct. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:24, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Colleen Ballinger
I think the article on Colleen Ballinger is ridiculously long and repetitive. It has 158 refs. I want to try to work on it, but I see ownership issues by Ssilvers. I also want to work on the article, Miranda Sings, as it has the same, if not worse problems. The Miranda Sings article has 182 refs, and the same ownership issues by Ssilvers. If you read the talk pages on both articles, Ssilvers shows ownership of the articles. I looked at the archives of Miranda Sings talk page, and Ssilvers has been dominating the page for a long time. Can someone look at the Colleen Ballinger article and the Miranda Sings article and comment here? I'm curious as to if it's only myself that think both articles are very long and very repetitive. . Thank you 2601:483:100:CB54:808E:3128:BEAC:2B97 (talk) 03:20, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- Without looking, they must be about Broadway ... or singers, correct? I have in the past run into said editor; who is one of those on WP that, though their intentions are in Good Faith in trying to build/create a better article, they also tend to stick to one subject matter and closely monitor every activity that occurs within it -- thus, excluding and minimizing others and their contributions. This goes against the principle that "no one owns Wikipedia"; but still, some can't really grasp that concept because they become too close to the subject/situation. In my case, I simply moved on; it wasn't worth my time or effort. Bringing them to the Talk Pages didn't really help (unless what you had to contribute met with approval) -- you may need intervention from a third party; depending how large a contribution your edits are. Good luck. Maineartists (talk) 11:31, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- My only comment, try enforcing WP:ELNO and see how far it gets. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Colleen Ballinger is a YouTube personality that invented the character YouTube Character Miranda Sings. I'll try some edits, but I think I left a comment on the Miranda Sings talk page On June 16, about the length of the article, and Ssilvers wrote "Can you be more specific? Several reviewers, including The New York Times, called the Miranda character "endearing", even though the character is designed to be comically unpleasant in many ways, so the description is, IMO, very helpful." among other things. I guess I'll try a few edits and see what happens. Thanks for taking the time to answer me. 2601:483:100:CB54:808E:3128:BEAC:2B97 (talk) 20:56, 15 March 2017 (UTC)