Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

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

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)

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)

Gilad Atzmon

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

I am concerned that a sentence in this biography is in contravention of several wikipedia guidelines, and that a stalemate has been reached in resolving the issue, as can be seen in the talk section.WP:Talk:Gilad_Atzmon#Atzmon_.22hates_Judaism.22.

The sentence reads:

""Atzmon has defined himself variously as a "secular Jew",[3] a "proud self-hating Jew",[52][53] an "ex-Jew"[54]"a Jew who hates Judaism"[55] and "a Hebrew-speaking Palestinian."[3]""

As the claim is that Atzmon has defined himself in these ways, one should expect that the sources provided will back the claims:

With regard to the claim that Atzmon has defined himself as a secular Jew, the passage from which the claim is extracted appears to be:

"He agrees, however that he has, in effect renounced his Jewish identity, although, he adds, he grew up in a secular Jewish environment: "So I'm probably very loud and rude at times. You can take the Jew out of Israel but you cannot take Israel out of the Jew."

In effect the claim is wrong because Atzmon stresses that he has renounced his Jewish identity despite growing up in a secular Jewish environment. The source does not back the claim.

More worrying is the claim that "Atzmon has defined himself as a "a Jew who hates Judaism".

This claim is taken from an hostile article in Ynet, published by Yediot Aharnot - which is described thus in it's Wikipedia article WP:Yedioth Ahronoth: " It is published in tabloid format, and according to one author, its marketing strategy emphasizes "drama and human interest over sophisticated analysis."

BLP guidelines note: "Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism"

Furthermore, when the article was published Atzmon immediately disputed the claim, writing <ref: The article in English contains some gross mistranslations and misquotes. It seems as if Yediot's writer failed to translate 'self hatred' into Hebrew. He has managed to come up with with some very creative ideas, such as ‘a Jew who hates Judaism’, and ‘Jew Hater.’ - the article fails to acknowledge that Atzmon has specifically refuted the claim - and that therefore it is bordering on weasel words to claim that he has defined himself thus.

It is also a guideline of BLP that: " an editor who is involved in a significant off-wiki controversy or dispute with another individual, or who is an avowed rival of that individual, should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person, given the possible conflict of interest."

The edit was reverted by WP:User:RolandR whose own page makes it clear that he and Atzmon are rivals - see the pink box headed ""Reliable sources: where he quotes Atzmon thus:

"One may be surprised to discover that chief amongst ‘Wikipedia Jews’ is alleged ‘Anti Zionist’ (RolandR)... a London based Jewish Marxist who spends most of his time peppering Wikipedia entries with Judeo-centric context." Gilad Atzmon, 20 August 2010 [2]

BLP guidelines note that: "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons (or in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[2] Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing." and that "The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material."

The whole sentence is in need of rewriting in order to ensure that the claim that Atzmon has defined himself is backed by clear and undsiputed evidence that Atzmon has indeed defined himself thus.(Roy Bard (talk) 06:28, 22 September 2013 (UTC))

There are a number of points in dispute here. The easy one first: Yedioth Ahronoth is an eminently reliable source. It is Israel's most widely read paper, and although tabloid in format, its content is not in the least comparable to the gutter-press tabloids prevalent in Britain and the US. The paper must be cited in several hundred Wikipedia articles, and I would strenuously oppose any attempt to disqualify any content solely on the basis that YA was the source.

Secondly, this dispute appears to be about translation, not content. This was an interview in Hebrew of an Israeli musician, by an Israeli journalist, appearing in a Hebrew-language newspaper. In the article talk page, I have linked to and cited the original text. Atzmon has made no objection to the Hebrew original of this interview, only to the English translation. Any other Hebrew-speaking editor can easily refer to the original, and see that the correct English translation is indeed "a Jew who hates Judaism", not "a self-hating Jew" (for which there is a widely-used and well-known Hebrew equivalent). So the complaint itself would appear to lack weight: this is an accurate English translation of an unchallenged Hebrew original.

Roy Bard then proceeds to insinuate that I should be disqualified from making such edits, since I am a "rival" of Atzmon. What he neglects to report, however, is that he is himself a close ally of Atzmon, publishing articles on his website and collaborating with him on a blog. He has also attacked me, while defending Atzmon, on several sites. So his strictures apply at least as much to himself as they do to me.

In sum, this is an invalid claim of unreliability, made by a person closely allied to the subject and publicly hostile to me. The claim should not be accepted, and the well-sourced edit should be allowed to remain. RolandR (talk) 12:59, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

My concern is that the article is distorted by claiming as fact that Atzmon self-defines as a "Jew who hates Judaism", when he has issued a specific denial that he said those words: - I don't know how it has been established that "This was an interview in Hebrew of an Israeli musician, by an Israeli journalist, appearing in a Hebrew-language newspaper" but Atzmon clearly states that it is a mistranslation - noting "The article in English contains some gross mistranslations and misquotes. It seems as if Yediot's writer failed to translate 'self hatred' into Hebrew. He has managed to come up with with some very creative ideas, such as ‘a Jew who hates Judaism’, and ‘Jew Hater.’", "Clear mistranslation here. the reference is to 'self hatred'. accordingly Jesus was a 'self hater'. Instead of "Asked why he hates Jews" it should be "Asked why is he a self-hater'. it should read "Jesus was a self hater, and so were Spinoza and Marx." His comments are copnsistent with statement he has made elsewhere regarding Spinoza, Jesus and Marx eg: "Yet, it is hardly surprising that intelligent and creative assimilated Jews indulge in self-hatred. History teaches us that the most universally inspiring Jews, I mean, those who contributed something to humanity rather than merely to their own people or even just themselves, were motivated by some form of self hate. The first names that come to mind are Christ, Spinoza and Marx." , “When you try to think of the biggest humanists ever, Spinoza Marx and Christ were basically proud self-hating Jews also.” . The only source for the claim is that article, and the fact that it appears on wikipedia as fact that he defines himself thus is wrong.

WP:User:RolandR states: "What he neglects to report, however, is that he is himself a close ally of Atzmon, publishing articles on his website and collaborating with him on a blog. He has also attacked me, while defending Atzmon, on several sites. So his strictures apply at least as much to himself as they do to me." - however what strikes me is that I am asking for a contested distortion of Atzmon's views to be edited out. According to the guidelines is ""The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material." and furthermore to avoid a conflict of interest (and there clearly is one here) "an editor who is involved in a significant off-wiki controversy or dispute with another individual, or who is an avowed rival of that individual, should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person, given the possible conflict of interest." The meaning of "should not edit" seems to me to be unambiguous. I personally became aware of the problem when I received a tweet which stated " Atzmon "hates Judaism", do you as well? Yes or no is fine" - It was through trying to verify the source of that, that I discovered the claim on Wikipedia. I do not agree with everything that Atzmon says, but I do believe that he should be allowed to explore his ideas, and I am opposed to the campaign run by a group of which RolandR is a key member, to silence/censor him. It is no small irony that a key opponent of Atzmon is editing an article on Atzmon, which distorts Atzmon's views whilst claiming to be presenting Atzmon as self-defined by Atzmon, and which fails to acknowledge that there is a refutation of the attributed words in Atzmon's own words, on his site..

I am clear that we cannot resolve this between us - it needs other editors who do not have a conflict of interest to examine the source and the evidence and to decide whether: (1)the case that Atzmon has defined himself as a "Jew who hates Judaism" is made, and should be allowed to stand without any reference to his own words which dispute that definition, (2) and further whether that claim is important enough to be included in a BLP, bearing in mind that it can be used against Atzmon, (3)and whether or not an avowed rival of Atzmon should or should not be editing a BLP of their rival.(92.24.173.188 (talk) 17:19, 22 September 2013 (UTC) (edited for clarity (92.24.173.188 (talk) 17:30, 22 September 2013 (UTC))) Further edits made to typos and I have logged in as I realsied that I hadn't been logged in before (Roy Bard (talk) 17:48, 22 September 2013 (UTC))

Response

Some points in response:

• RolandR has taken the translation from a WP:RS, and has independently confirmed the translation as accurate. As such it should stand, along with Atzmon's dispute.
• The disputed word: [[1]]
• Atzmon is known for his silent, retroactive edits when he has said something unsupportably anti-Jewish on his site and is caught out. It seems likely that this translation dispute is his attempt to do something similar, having once again been caught out. If you are familiar with Atzmon's tendency to aim for the intentionally outrageous anti-Jewish attack, including recently a winking flirtation with Holocaust denial, the WP:RS translation does not seem at all out of character. We are after all talking about someone whom even his best-known blurber, John Mearsheimer, happily concedes is "a self-hating Jew."
• It should be noted that Roy Bard is a WP:SPA with easily discoverable WP:COI problems on this topic of at least the scale of that of which he accuses RolandR. It's not unusual in the late stages of a career arc like Atzmon's that the last handful of loyalists are the most dogged.

Frizzmaz (talk) 14:14, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

"See you on the streets"

It is true I am not a Wikipedian, I am far too anarchic for that - there's so many rules and side alleys in this wikipedia system that it might actually be worse than Westminster (Imho)BUT if Wikipedia is about NPOV and all those other VIP acronynms - then the rules seem clear enough - onus on the one editing IN to provide burden of proof, who should not be an avowed rival of the subject. I am not editing in, but I am concerned that wikipedia presents as fact that Atzmon is a "Jew against Judaism" , in fact claims he defines himself thus, when it is blatantly clear that Atzmon has gone to great pains to say exactly the opposite. And so despite all the rules and the NPOV ,Wikipedia by allowing this sentence to stand, allows itself to become a tool in the dispute and damned be the truth. This is why I think direct action gets the goods.....- I am not really willing to spend hours of my life doing it your way when you disrespect the truth so much.(Roy Bard (talk) 17:13, 24 September 2013 (UTC))

'I am not really willing to spend hours of my life doing it your way when you disrespect the truth so much.' — A reasonably accurate paraphrase of what most said to you when leaving Indymedia it seems. But that is a topic for another day. Frizzmaz (talk) 20:01, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea who Frizmazz is, but I do know that Frizmazz inadvertantly revealed itself as a WP:COI by pretending this is about me, and not about the claim that weasel words are being used by an Arch-rival of Atzmon in order to wilfully misrepresent him as a self-defined "Jew against Judaism" when he is nothing of the sort, and that immediately on publication of the hostile article in Yediot Aharonot which s/he says is a WP:RS, and which I say is a Zionist rag he made clear that he does not define himself as much and says it is a translation problem. I had hoped that a Wikipedian who didn't have a 'conflict of interest' and who valued the stated core values of Wikipedia would resolve the matter, but the weasel words are still up there. In the talk section of Gilad Atzmon's page WP:Talk:Gilad_Atzmon#Why_remove_neutral_bio_info.3FUser:Carolmooredc wrote: "Like I always say, I do believe that Wikipedia eventually could face a class action lawsuit charging Wikipedia Foundation malfeasance if some creepy-assed lawyers ever decided to put one together with 30 or 40 aggrieved subjects of bios. All they have to do is search throughout the BLP policy, BLPN and its header, ANI and other relevant pages and they could do a real big case based on copious written evidence." Wikipedians should ask themselves why she would write this. If anyone is interested in the 'Truth' of the matter about my relationship with Atzmon, this whole issue finally motivated to write an article in which I offer a frank account of my relationship with Atzmon and his work. (Roy Bard (talk) 01:56, 27 September 2013 (UTC))

Ray Bard, you self-describe as anarchic, "with no controlling rules or principles to give order", but you want us to follow your interpretation of our rules and what you think is a Reliable Source; even though you can't be bothered to read all our rules about what makes a source reliable? Then, you hint at using the legal system to enforce your edits. Sounds like a lot of giving orders based on some sort of self-guiding principles to me. I saw you were a new editor, left you a kind hello and an easy to navigate guide about our rules; and you replied with unkind words. I'm sorry Wikipedia isn't everything you want it to be, but trying to get complete strangers like myself to help you out on the biography of a person I didn't know existed until today, doesn't start with unkind words for the project I commit a considerable amount of my free time contributing to. This post isn't about hurt feelings, I don't know you enough for your words to hurt. I'm trying to help you understand why you might not be getting the support from Wikipedia editors you seem to think you are entitled to. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 06:11, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

many BLPs

The claim is made that, notwithstanding prior BLP/N discussions in the past and prior RS/N discussions in the past, that any source published in a tabloid format is a "tabloid" and its use is automatically verboten on any BLP whatsoever, and to that end a great many BLPs have had such sources (apparently chosen selectively - as most British newspapers are published in a tabloid format as opposed to traditional broadsheet) excised with strong comments that such sources are forbidden. Does a tabloid format automatically bar a source from being used on Wikipedia? Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:05, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

See my comment above,[2] which relates to this. RolandR (talk) 13:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLPSOURCES says: "Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources." There are an extremely limited number of facts for which a true tabloid can be used as the sole source. However, there is currently an ongoing discussion here about People and what constitutes a "true tabloid". You might want read the comments there to get a better idea of the debate. --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 16:33, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Like I stated in the #Proposed wording for RFC section regarding People: "As the Tabloid (newspaper format) article points out, tabloid format does not [necessarily] equal 'tabloid.' Many valid newspapers use that format." Flyer22 (talk) 17:21, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I have previously opined on the absurd claim that People magazine is a "tabloid." I further tend to abide by prior RS/N and BLP/N discussions on the proposed banning of some specific newspapers and media sources - where such bans have never been approved for the Daily Mail etc. Where such decisions are clear in the past, they ought not be lightly disrupted, IMO. My positions on BLP are, I suggest, quite strong and evident to anyone examining my posts thereon. As I understand it, a huge number of British newspapers are in tabloid or Berliner format rather than broadsheet. Collect (talk) 18:01, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Collect, 'tabloid' refers to the style of journalism, not the page format... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:06, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, as shown in his 18:01 reply, Collect knows that. But the editor he's been in dispute with about it (John) doesn't seem to know that. Or that editor is rather ignoring the fact that "tabloid format" doesn't always equal "tabloid." Flyer22 (talk) 05:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I reverted an Editor who excised content he thought was unacceptable because of its tabloidy-like source. He re-reverted me and said he did it "in an admin capacity" and I should go find better sources for the article (putting the burden on me). I thought it was B-R-D, not B-R-R-D. It's the person who has been reverted who is tasked with discussing the validity of their edit. At least that's how I thought it was supposed to work. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:36, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a link to that? I don't think reverting good faith edits about disputed sourcing is "an admin capacity" thing for admins to do. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 05:00, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

People throw that word around and have no idea what it means. I've seen the Village Voice frequently referred to as a tabloid and thus ineligible to use as a source, until I remind editors that it has three Pulitzers. Gamaliel (talk) 05:12, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

It all depends upon what is being sourced, and how People came about that information.Martin451 (talk) 17:57, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Christopher Langan

Christopher Langan An editor has inserted some speculative and contentious material into the article and talk page. I have reverted the article (again) and was hoping that someone could come in and post a notice that the article is being monitored, as well as encourage sensitivity and adherence to Wikipedia's policies regarding living persons. NightSky (talk) 14:45, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

NightSky, you might want to go to Wikipedia:RPP and make your argument that the page should be protected. There should be evidence that it is the target of vandalism. If this is a content dispute between two Editors, you should talk it out on the Talk Page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:42, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any need for PP it's just a content dispute between two editors about some off topic content. I did some clean up there and gave my 2 cents on the talk page to break the deadlock. It's also on my watchlist (if I and when I check my watchlist).-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:32, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Louisville teen sexual assault case

The names of the two 16-year-olds convicted in this case have been suppressed by the Kentucky court. An IP has just inserted them into the article. Does en.Wikipedia have a policy or normal practice when it comes to identifying juvenile offenders in general, or in cases where the name has been suppressed by a court order in particular? With some exceptions, news sources don't seem to be reporting the names, though they're all over the net, and the victim tweeted them. I've reverted the edit for now, as a precaution. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:25, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

For those coming fresh to this discussion: It appears from comments below that in Kentucky it is routine for the names of juvenile offenders to be protected from publication by law. The suppression by the court I refer to was an order for the victim not to mention their names. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 23:33, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

More like protected from release. Once the media finds out the name, its another matter entirely. Monty₈₄₅ 23:43, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

That is curious. The victim's name is public but those convicted of sexual assault's identities and privacy are protected? Strange court decision. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:32, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

The names of the assailants are key to the article. If the assault is newsworthy/worth of a Wikipedia article it is because the victim was brave enough to out herself to name the assailants, (redacted). If you do not know of a specific rule the names violate then they should not be suppressed. Save that for someone that is aware of a specific rule. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.162.72.34 (talk) 18:51, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

If you have multiple reliable sources that specifically name the subjects then you may insert their names into the article. Until then, no. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

How valid is the word of the victim? She identified them...and they were convicted of assaulting her, so her identification was seen as valid by the courts. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:39, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

The victim is a primary source, and therefore whatever she says about the perpetrators is not considered acceptable for verifiability purposes. Coverage about what she says may be, but it depends on the source and whether or not the material would violate WP:BLP in some way. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:22, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

First, I knew the word of the victim would be rejected. Secondly, I understood that primary sources aren't forbidden, they are just not preferred sources. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:49, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

It is more than a question of sources. I raised this here because it is a BLP issue. While a BLP issue is being discussed, we leave the information in question out of the article until consensus forms. I've just read the BLP policy again.

• WP:BLPNAME says, "When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context."
• Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Restoring deleted content says, "When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first..." --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 20:30, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree, that's what the policy says. There are cases where the names of convicted perpetrators of a crime have been widely disseminated by the media, at which point we normally allow that information to be added to the relevant article (e.g., Murder of James Bulger). My point is that this is more a WP:V issue than anything else - if the suspects have been named (and it seems they have), has that been reported by multiple, reliable sources? If not then we should not include them in the article, period. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:47, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

The article is not about the victim, the article is about the sexual assault, the crime. I think omitting the names of the criminals is a "significant loss of context". If this was a shooting and not a sexual assault, there would be no question that the criminals names should be included in an article about the crime.

The question to me is not whether it should be included but a) are there reliable sources for this information and b) does this state court's gag order cover the multinational Wikipedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:49, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I just read the original Tweet that is circulating about this and apparently, the gag order covers the victim, not other people. So while there are other concerns, that is not an issue with publishing their names on WP. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

There are two different issues: (a) the legal one (and yes, Wikipedia is bound by US law - individuals are also bound by whatever laws apply to them individually, depending on their location), and (b) the WP:BLP policy one. Even if we can legally name the individuals, we can chose not to do so - and there is certainly a case to be made that we shouldn't name minors in such circumstances. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:00, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

First, I'm discovering this whole business about the victim Tweeting the names of her rapists occurred in July 2012 so I'm surprised it wasn't discussed last summer. Second, AndyTheGrump, as I said, would you still think WP should protect a minor's identity if they had been convicted of a shooting?

Reading the comments from the boys' lawyer after the victim mentioned their names last summer just makes me sick. He claimed that she, the victim of their assault, "had ruined their lives" but "somehow, they will overcome these obstacles." What gall! Here's a tip for him: His clients wouldn't have these obstacles if they hadn't assaulted a woman and shared photographs of the assualt. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:21, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

We must obey the law. This is not optional. As for what we should do, we have policies - one of which is that we protect the privacy of individuals. As to whether that policy applies here, I'm open to persuasion if it can be shown that the individuals have been named in mainstream media. And no, irrelevant crap from their lawyers isn't, um, relevant... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:28, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

As I said in my comments in this thread, the gag order was issued to the victim. Plenty of other people are talking about it. So, the "law" isn't an issue. WP:Crime victims and perpetrators would seem to apply here. As for protecting "the privacy of the individual", that concern doesn't seem extended to the victim, just to those who were convicted of assaulting her and distributing photos of the assault. #Ironic Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:02, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

The law is an issue here until we have evidence that it isn't. And no, there was no 'gagging order' issued to the victim specifically - "juvenile proceedings in Kentucky are confidential". [3] AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:09, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

If the Wikipedia article is not naming the assailants because of their age then the Wikipedia article should not name the victim either. This article should be named "Sexual assault of [Redacted]" On the other hand, if the issue is sources for content in the article, the article references the victim's tweets, and the victim's tweets have been reported nationally. The reason this sexual assault has national attention is the tweets, but Wikipedia does not even contain the content of the tweets. Which, as mentioned, have been published nationally. See: <-REDACTED - if this is added again, I will call for the person responsible to be blocked for editing - this is NOT a reliable source for such matters -> People ask for sources for content to be added to the article, but then redact the sources when they are provided? Glamour and Cosmopolitan are "NOT" reliable sources? Since when? As a guy I can see why women say Wikipedia has a women problem.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.162.72.34 (talk) 21:12, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

To the scope of Judge McDonald's "gag" order and applicability to Wikipedia, I have been looking for it but this<http://www.juryverdicts.net/SavannahDietrichJuvenileFilesPartThree.pdf> is as close as I have gotten (a memorandum filing with the Court requesting a hearing on her contempt charge). Since I cannot be 100% sure of its authenticity, this is not a source for publication, merely to inform the editors discussing this issue here. Dwpaul (talk) 21:54, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Yup - we certainly can't rely on primary-source documents like that to determine the legal position. And until that is clear, any further discussion as to what WP:BLP policy allows is rather pointless. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:59, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Savannah Dietrich outs her rapists article indicates that the gag order was placed on the victim, not to the media or the general public. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:06, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

It indicates nothing of the sort. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:13, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

According to the memo filing linked above, the judge refused to lift the "gag order" (in response to a petition by both the local paper and Ms. Dietrich) on the basis that no such order was ever imposed. See p. 32 of the PDF. Dwpaul (talk) 22:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it does - because there never was any need for a specific order - as it goes on to say "all juvenile court records of any nature... shall be deemed confidential...". And until someone can show that this doesn't apply to Wikipedia, we have to assume it does. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:22, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)OK. Kentucky courts have no jurisdiction in Florida (where the servers are, IIRC). See Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714 (1878). I can go through all sorts of other reasons too. Was Wikipedia served with an order of the court? If not, no contempt or other violation. Finally, has anyone even seen the purported gag order? The court records may be confidential, but nothing in Kentucky law stated that the facts of the assault, the identities of the assailants, etc., were protected. If there are sufficient sources, such as [4], [5], [6], and [7]. You've got two from local media, and two from nationally circulated magazines. GregJackP Boomer! 22:56, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Both Glamour and Cosmopolitan have provided the full quotes of Savannah Dietrich's tweets, which are what make this crime newsworthy, including the names of the assailants. I would be happy to provide the Glamour and Cosmopolitan sources, but someone keeps redacting them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.162.72.34 (talk) 22:38, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• Hold on a second. I think the burden is on the one arguing a law prohibits us form doing X to show that the law does actually prohibit us from doing that. A vague reference to confidentiality rules, or a potential gag order against one person, definitely falls short in that regard. Generally, such laws at most apply to those who had special access to the pertinent information. Once it gets out, the only recourse is to find out who let it out, not go after republishes. Until someone can explain what law our inclusion of the names would break, as far as I'm concerned, we should get back to discussing the information in light of Wikipedia policy and editorial judgement. Monty₈₄₅ 22:40, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

There never was "a potential gag order against one person" - it is routine for the names of juvenile offenders to be protected by law, and it was those laws that were under consideration. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:43, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

It is perhaps routine for court personnel and the lawyers involved to be subject to confidentiality rules. It is extremely rare for a law to purport to limit the publication of information acquired by a third party, such as a newspaper, or Wikipedia. Monty₈₄₅ 22:48, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

We can't rely on what one Editor believes is "routine", especially when evidence is shown to the contrary. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Mainstream media WDRB link with attacker's names [8] NE Ent 23:02, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Another report stating that the court released the files to the public, here, after the controversy began. GregJackP Boomer! 23:14, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Huffington Post have published the names, too. In many civilised societies, we don't publish the names of juvenile offenders for ethical reasons. Because we accept that developing juveniles are more susceptible to bad influences and more likely to make moral errors, and that people usually improve with age, we don't think their adolescent misdeeds should follow them into adulthood. I agree with this policy, and don't think, as a rule, that we should be publishing the names of juvenile offenders regardless of the local legal situation. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 23:53, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Both the rapists and the victim were 16 years old. I have a problem with immortalizing the names of any of them on Wikipedia. The victim doesn't apparently qualify for Category:Rape victims even regardless of her age, so I support striking all their names from the Wikipedia article. Some idiotic jurisdiction in Outer Mongolia may insist on publicizing all names of rape victims, but that doesn't mean we have to do that. I don't see any indication that the victim wants to be publicly known as a rape victim for the rest of her life. If wikipedia were in the business of punshment, then I could support using the attackers' names, but do we want Wikipedia to be in the business of punishing teenagers? Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:19, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia only recognizes US Federal law and Florida state law as having jurisdiction over its content. (Though, Kentucky does have jurisdiction over the behavior of editors in Kentucky). This same debate regularly comes up with Canadian minors involved with crime, in that they have the same censorship laws on names of minors. And some Canadian will now and then trie to enforce it on Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not engage in censorship becasue of arguments like this: "Because of such-and-such law, Wikipedia must do so-and-so".

The two minors convicted of the crime have no protection from publication of their names on Wikipedia as long as it is properly sourced. Also, we do not engage in censorship based on how it makes editors feel. Now, WP:AVOIDVICTIM may apply to the victim, however, as far as I can tell, she broke anonymity herself which means we publish her name, even if we the editors have "a problem with immortalizing the names". If you feel this policy wrong, the proper venue would be to take it up with Wikilegal. Trying to achieve it through consensus here would not stand, even if achieve. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 04:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand Wikipedia policy, and the role of editorial judgment. We are under no obligation to republish everything about this case that has already been published elsewhere. For example, we may choose to state that the victim's vagina was only penetrated digitally, and not by anything else such as a penis. But we don't have to say that. We may choose to say that the prosecutor went to the same high school as the attackers. But we don't have to say that. Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy, so we have considerable discretion, and perhaps even a duty to omit stuff that we are legally allowed to include.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

How exactly am I the one misunderstanding Wikipedia policy when consensus has been reach multiple times on the inclusion of names of minors based on the same policy? (See Amanda Knox Elizabeth Smart or any number of young victims of notable sexual assaults). As for understanding Wikipedia policy, isn't your argument a bit of a WP:Other stuff exists argument? Given that you are comparing vaginal penetration facts to given names. Using given names has a clear and undeniable search and find advantage for articles. Including facts about vaginal penetration would need their own valid reason for inclusion, but would not be censured if such a reason was present. You're the one arguing against the grain of past consensus on this. If you have an argument why this case is different, let's hear it, otherwise if you are against the inclusion policy in general, this isn't the place to seek consensus on that Dkriegls (talk to me!) 06:21, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Knox was an adult (not a child) when she allegedly committed murder, and you're referencing other Wikipedia articles, not me. The present article is about an incident, not a person, so I don't see a need to name names of children. This opinion is not based upon similarities across the project, and I don't know which side of the argument would be assisted if we took into account similarities across the project.

In this case, it's important to look at why the names became public in the first place. What happened is that the judge told everyone that Kentucky law requires confidentiality. The victim got pissed off at the leniency of the judge, and therefore broke the confidentiality in a successful attempt to get harsher treatment of her attackers by the court. Confidentiality was not waived because anyone involved wanted more notoriety.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Per a comment above by Anthonyhcole, "While a BLP issue is being discussed, we leave the information in question out of the article until consensus forms." Accordingly, I have moved the article to "Louisville teen sexual assault case".Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:06, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The move was inappropriate, there is clear consensus to include the victim's name (who released it herself) and the rapists' names (which were covered by multiple reliable sources). Please revert it instead of re-victimizing Dietrich. GregJackP Boomer! 11:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

"Re-victimizing Dietrich"? That's wildly inaccurate. I suggest that people look at the facts, and wait until this BLPN discussion is completed before further jeopardizing the privacy of children.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it is dead-on accurate. Savannah stated in a Courier-Journal interview how the attorney for one of the defendants tried to paint her in a bad light, mischaracterizing penetration as "touching" and generally speaking out about how she was ruining the assailant's life. She has repeatedly stated how shutting her up and covering up what happened made her regret reporting it in the first place. Re-victimizing is exactly what is happening here. GregJackP Boomer! 12:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

That's absurd. What's going on here is making sure via reliable source that she's okay with being very publicly known this way as an adult. That she went public as a child, in order to obtain stiffer penalties for her attackers, does not necessarily mean that she wanted forever to remain public as an adult, even after having achieved stiffer sentences for her attackers. In any event, the point is now moot, since I found a reliable source indicating that she's okay with continuing to be a public activist on this issue as an adult.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:01, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Elizabeth Smart (mentioned above), she has a dedicated wikipedia article, and has become a famous activist and television commentator. In contrast, the victim here went public to obtain stronger sentences for her attackers, and has not become an activist or shown any desire to remain in the public eye, AFAIK. For many women, it's traumatic to go public against rapists, and it would be all the more so if Wikipedia increases the publicity. I would have no objection to using first names of both the child victim and the child attackers in our article, but I don't see any value in using full names, which can only diminish privacy. The attackers have definitely tried to keep their names private, most sources have respected that wish, and it would be very weird for us to exclude their full names while including the victim's. Incidentally, this essay Wikipedia:Youth protection is interesting: "No editor (of any age) should post personal identifying information about a self-identified child....Without other information, a first name is not considered personal identifying information."Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:27, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

See below section. GregJackP Boomer! 16:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Break / Louisville teen sexual assault case

As an aside, we seem to have two articles on this now: Louisville teen sexual assault case and Sexual assault of Savannah Dietrich. 217.36.84.105 (talk) 09:04, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

No, Anythingyouwant took bold action and renamed Sexual assault of Savannah Dietrich to Louisville teen sexual assault case plus removed the victim's name although there was no consensus yet that this should be done. I'm not sure whether all names should be omitted or included but the editing decision should not have been made at this point in the discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:29, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

After the page move, the name of the assault victim still appears on the page, but only in the titles of the refs. How far do we need to go? Should the name appearing in the titles be replaced with [Redacted]?

Correction: Victim also still listed by name in the Infobox. Dwpaul (talk) 12:23, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, this is more of a mess than I thought. Time to revert and go back to the version that was being debated? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:32, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is time to revert. GregJackP Boomer! 12:37, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Revert due to lack of consensus on the move. Dwpaul (talk) 12:40, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Keep - There is no need to have the 16-year-old victim's name plastered all over this Wikipedia article. I stand by the page move because BLPN discussion is continuing. Since when do we include the name of a teen victim but not those of her attackers?Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Note however that the change made did not have the effect of completely removing the victim's name from the article; there is more to be decided/changed. We are at a fork in the road, often the best place to go is the place from whence you came when this happens. Dwpaul (talk) 14:25, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The issue, Anythingyouwant, is that you went ahead with this renaming while the discussion about the page was still ongoing. No consensus had been reached on what names to include or not include. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Is it the norm at BLPN to remove controversial material which can be restored at the conclusion of discussion? There is no rush here, no deadline, to restore this stuff. For the time being, privacy concerns outweigh other concerns. Omitting the info is clearly 100% consistent with BLP, and the only issue is whether including the info is consistent with BLP.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Since all of the preceding edits did not have the effect of removing the victim's name entirely, I carried to ultimate (if absurd) conclusion by redacting name from the titles of the cited refs. Dwpaul (talk) 14:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:Point, I recommend not making edits that you think are "absurd".Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:49, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't think my edits are absurd; only completes the removal of the victim's name. Without this change, all of the others are superfluous since they do not have that effect. Where we are now is what's absurd. Dwpaul (talk) 14:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

There are many things in the cited articles that are not repeated in our text, and I don't view that as absurd. I already gave an example above: we don't detail what penetrated the victim, whereas the cited sources do detail it. Analogously, just because the cited sources use her name doesn't mean we have to. I do think that you've edited the BLP contrary to WP:Point.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:07, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

By reproducing the name in the titles of the refs, we are publishing her name. Absurdity would be removing her name also from the URLs (breaking them, of course), but not having done so, her name still appears, just not in the visible text. I am only taking your action boldly to the logical extreme, not being POINTy. Dwpaul (talk) 15:12, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant, there was also no rush to remove the names. This crime occurred in 2011 and the court verdict was in 2012. This article wasn't just created this week, it has been on Wikipedia since January 2013. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:22, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

My edit was motivated by the comment above by Anthonyhcole, "While a BLP issue is being discussed, we leave the information in question out of the article until consensus forms".Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:29, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

(Outdent) I do not see a problem with including the name in the titles of footnoted articles. That is vastly less weight than plastering the name all over the article. Here is some pertinent policy:

“ When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories. ”

If scholarly articles use the name, that's more relevant for us.

“ When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic. This is of particular importance when dealing with living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. ”

Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:18, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Then please revert me, if you think it's necessary to conform with policy. I was only completing the work you started, which in my mind was incomplete. Dwpaul (talk) 15:22, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, lets look at sources (keeping in mind that the victim published her own name, and is now 18):

• Mildenhall, Maren (2013). "Soft-Power Triangulation for the Reclamation of a Prodigal Free Press". BYU Prelaw Review. 27: 91–92. Retrieved 23 September 2013., names the victim, peer-reviewed.
• Krein, Anna (2013). Night Games: Sex, Power and Sport. Black, Inc., names the victim in four places.
• Pesta, Abigail (Dec. 10, 2012). "'Thanks for Ruining My Life'". Newsweek. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help), extended article on the victim, by name.
• Barrouquere, Brett (September 14, 2012). "Savannah Dietrich Confronts Attackers While Testifying In Kentucky Courtroom". Associated Press. The Associated Press does not generally identify victims of sexual assault, but Dietrich and her parents wanted her story public.

Note the last source, where the article explicitly states that the subject of the article wanted her name to be public. You don't get to out yourself and then claim that privacy is required. GregJackP Boomer! 16:47, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I just don't see what purpose it serves for us to use her full name, except in the footnotes. It strikes me as WP:Undue weight. We don't say that the sexual assault consisted of fingering her vagina, and we don't say lots of other stuff. The notability of the case arises from an alleged order to the victim to be silent, and her disregarding that order in order to protest leniency to the attackers. All of that can be explained fine without putting her full name in the article title. Kids do dumb things all the time, but we needn't take the attitude that they therefore deserve whatever they get.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that, since the victim has outed - and continues to out - herself, it is reasonable for us to use her name (See below). The juvenile offenders did not out themselves. I'm open to persuasion, but nothing above yet persuades me that it would be reasonable or ethical (and I'm not convinced it wouldn't be illegal - though that's a separate issue) for us to publish their names. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Could you please elaborate on "continues to out herself"? Outing herself as an adult could change my mind, but Google News indicates otherwise.[9]Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Not since 10 December last year, so I've struck that. You may be making sense, Anythingyouwant. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:22, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The most important thing about the case is specifically that the victim outed herself and her attackers. That's what all the coverage is about. It's not that a teen was raped in Louisville - though tragic, I suspect a dozen, if not a hundred, teens are raped in Louisville every year. That makes news, but not international news. It also makes the current title, Louisville teen sexual assault case, meangingless and ridiculous - no one refers to it by that name. I think that we need to follow the sources here; the main source is Newsweek, a highly respected news publication.[10][11] It names Savanna Dietrich. It does not name the the attackers. Same for the Courier-Journal, a respected local paper.[12] The Daily Mail, a less respected news publication, but one in another country, follows that pattern.[13] --GRuban (talk) 18:05, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Notice that Newsweek does not put her name in its article title. Nor does USA Today. USA Today[14] discusses the fingering of her vagina; why do we exclude that from both the article title and the body of our article? Because it's unnecessary, perhaps? Why is it more necessary for us to include her name than her attackers'?Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:12, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

If the most important thing about the case was exactly how she was raped, we'd need to write that. Since it isn't, it's a matter of editorial judgment. Here, the most important thing is that she outed herself, she published her name, she gave interviews giving her name. It's possible to write a story without mentioning exactly how she was raped. It's not possible to write a story without giving her name. Oh, here's a quote from the USA Today story you linked to, explaining the line that all the sources follow. "Dietrich and her parents gave permission to use her name. While the assailants' names have been made public in court records, The Courier-Journal has not identified them." If your objection is that Dietrich was a minor, so didn't have the right to release her name, here are her legal guardians backing that up. --GRuban (talk) 18:22, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. The controversy that erupted was not about her outing herself, but rather her outing her assailants. In any event, I have no objection to having her name appear in the footnoted article titles. It's mainly a matter of WP:Undue weight. Putting her name in the article title seems grossly excessive to me. Additionally, the reason she went public was very limited: to protest leniency. I see no indication that she wants to remain famous as a child victim of sexual assault.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:29, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Our sources have demonstrated that it's perfectly possible to write about the case without naming the assailants, and have given the reasons why they name the subject and not the assailants. As to your second point, I don't think anyone has ever gotten up in the morning and decided - "I think I want to be famous as a victim of sexual assault". (Well, with the possible exception of Tawana Brawley. Let's just say that none of the actual victims we write about are there by choice.) However it's clear that she - and her parents, since the being-a-minor issue concerns you - have weighed the price of the fame or notoriety against their goals, and have decided it worthwhile. They have decided there is no way to achieve their goals without her name being known. Therefore, it's not for us to overrule them in a misguided attempt to protect them. We might make that decision for other reasons, but not for the "don't harm the subject" reasoning of WP:BLP. The subject has made the decision, and the sources we use have followed it. We might decide we aren't going to write about the case at all; but we can't write about the case without giving her name. "Louisville teen" just doesn't suffice.--GRuban (talk) 18:43, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

This [15] Courier-Journal article specifically states: "Dietrich has already consented to being named and having her case opened."Dkriegls (talk to me!) 18:39, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

No one disputes that.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

That sounds pretty definitive to me. Suppose it depends on whether she was an adult when she did so. Dwpaul (talk) 18:56, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

She wasn't. But her parents agreed to it, as linked to above. --GRuban (talk) 19:00, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

A basic principle to be considered here is that you can't un-famous yourself. You can sue if someone libels you (subject to the standards that apply to those who are famous), but you can't remove yourself from the corpus of public visibility just because you accomplished your goal in becoming known. Dwpaul (talk) 19:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Dietrich did not "out" herself, she publicly came out as a sexual assault survivor. She's done interviews on Nightline, CNN and other TV shows and has a quite public facebook page and twitter account. Naming the article some euphemistic "Louisville assault" nonsense isn't respectful of her decision, it's condescending; substituting our judgement for that of her / her parents. Article show be restored to prior name and her name resinserted into the text. NE Ent 03:01, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

She turned 18 in January, and subsequently gave a number of interviews, supported legislation that would prohibit gag orders on victims, etc. Telling her that Wikipedia knows "better" than her is just re-victimizing her, as I stated above. She has publicly stated that if she knew she was going to be silenced, she would not have reported the sexual assault. I'm also sure that the relative wealth plays into this article, both rapists come from wealthy families (each in a home of over $600K), private school, lacrosse players, etc. We certainly can't report what reliable sources have already reported - why it might affect which Ivy League school they can go to, and effect their chances to medical school! GregJackP Boomer! 11:49, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Public testimony in March 2013

I found a news article behind a pay wall about her testifying publicly in March before the Kentucky legislature. I have added this to the Wikipedia article. Therefore, since she has very publicly (and courageously) indicated being an activist now as an adult, rather than someone who expects her privacy back, I favor more prominently including her full name in the Wikipedia article. That does not extend to the males who were minors at the time of the attack.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:08, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

So ... ? As you were the one who removed the name, and moved the article, and the only one defending it, are you going to undo your actions? Or does someone else have to do it? --GRuban (talk) 14:17, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to do it, either now or when the BLPN discussion is resolved. I absolutely stand by my actions, because no one produced any evidence that --- as an adult --- she was willing to remain publicly connected with this incident, rather than wanting to recover her privacy..Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:22, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Since a number of us have castigated Anythingyouwant for performing the page move without consensus, we should probably wait until we have re/gained consensus on moving it back before the move is undone. The challenge will be sorting out the multiple ongoing discussions here to achieve consensus. RfC anyone? Dwpaul (talk) 14:26, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Anythingyouwant. Dwpaul: Not RfC, RfM, rather, and even that only because we need an admin to move the page back over the redirect. We've got unanimity, you can't get a better consensus than that, even the original mover has changed his mind. Since we need an admin to move it back over the redirect, so I'm requesting it at Talk:Louisville teen sexual assault case#Requested move 24 September 2013, and referring back to this discussion. The "should the article name the assailants" issue is ongoing, but shouldn't affect the article being moved back to the stable name. --GRuban (talk) 18:37, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, defer to your better knowledge of the appropriate procedure in this situation. Dwpaul (talk) 18:52, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Louisville case: Should the article name the juvenile offenders?

Just to separate it from the victim naming issue. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:19, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, well cited public knowledge. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 20:58, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
• Yes, well cited knowledge and information. GregJackP Boomer! 21:01, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Can you point to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources that give that knowledge and information? The main newspaper stories about the case seem to work hard not to. --GRuban (talk) 21:18, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

This Daily Beast article states: "The court records were unsealed at the request of Dietrich’s team" (pg 3).--Dkriegls (talk to me!) 21:30, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Four sources, all mentioning the offenders' names, including two that are national magazines. [16], [17], [18], and [19]. GregJackP Boomer! 21:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, consistent with other Wikipedia articles on youth crime, e.g. Steubenville High School rape case and Columbine High School massacre. 67.162.72.34 (talk) 00:14, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
• No. None of the children juvenile offenders involved in the incident need to be named in the Wikipedia article title or in the main body of the article. We can just say that the attackers have been named by a small minority of reliable sources, and provide links in the footnotes. The reason this article was not deleted is because it was an interesting situation in which a child victim publicly named her child attackers in order to protest the leniency of the judge, and was then reprimanded for breaching confidentiality. All of that is easy enough to explain without giving WP:Undue weight to the full names of the minors involved. There's just no need, and the potential harm is great for both the victim and the attackers. I am assuming that we could name them all. Could is not the same as should.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:11, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

By my math, none of the involved parties are "Children" anymore.Dkriegls (talk to me!) 22:54, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

"Most legislatures have made provisions for disposing of a juvenile's legal or social record."[20]. The idea is that people should have a second chance, and the mistakes they made, the mishaps, the misfortunes of childhood should not necessarily haunt them for the rest of their lives.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:08, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

We are not in the business of rehabilitation, we are in the encyclopedia business. We report what reliable sources report. The story is also unique in the connection between the prosecutor and the school, and the Z. family and the school. One of the families was more concerned about a possible scholarship than the victim in this case, which is why the names of the rapists were published. GregJackP Boomer! 23:39, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

We are in the business of protecting peoples's privacy, per WP:BLP.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:12, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

That's not what WP:BLP says. It does say, however, that we should avoid prolonging, or in this case, re-victimizing the victim. GregJackP Boomer! 14:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

"Biographies of living persons ('BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy".Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:07, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• No. The individuals involved in the case were juveniles at the time of the incident, relatively unknown and certainly not public figures. We can still convey 99% of the relevant and pertinent information for encyclopedic coverage without having to name them outright in the body of the article. As another editor suggested, we can say that the defendants were named in some reliable sources and provide links in the footnotes for those readers who wish to pursue their identities. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• No. Unlike, apparently, the assault victim, neither of the boys involved have voluntarily given up their right to anonymity under the Kentucky juvenile statutes. Additionally, their actions, while the reason for the case, are not the reason for its notability. The record here will get along just fine without their names, which are available in the refs if anyone cares to look for them. Not so the name of the victim and the publicity they generated, which I think we have agreed is key to the existence of the article here in the first place. Dwpaul (talk) 00:05, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

None of the sources indicate that Kentucky law gives criminals under 18 a right to anonymity. The sources only refer to Kentucky law at least sometimes keeping court records sealed. That is a significant difference. I would argue that the assailants choose not to be anonymous by committing sexual assault, while the victim was forced out of anonymity to obtain justice.67.162.72.34 (talk) 00:27, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

KRS 610.340(1)(a), 610.320(3) and 610.070 make all "juvenile court records of any nature" confidential except to those engaged in the case unless a court orders otherwise. See page 33 in this PDF [21](not suitable for citation). This is what I meant by right to anonymity. Perhaps confidentiality is a more accurate word, but in this case confidentiality would imply anonymity. Dwpaul (talk) 01:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

The court unsealed their names, this law doesn't apply. If they wanted to remain anonymous, they shouldn't have filmed themselves raping a girl and then shared said footage. They lost anonymity when they shared the footage. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 01:26, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• No until they are actually convicted and sentenced. If they are proven innocent, including the names is harmful, but if the court convicts them, that's a different story. --MASEM (t) 00:19, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

They've been convicted. They plead guilty. They were children at the time of the assault. Should we publish their names? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 00:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

FYI, at the web site of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press the attackers' names are redacted.[22]Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• Yes -- not being in Kentucky, I don't give a fig for Kentucky law or Kentucky judges, and Wikipedia certainly should not care about it. The idea that they were "children" derives entirely from ignorance about the peculiar American notion of childhood and can safely be set aside here. What drives me nuts about arguments like this is that most participants have no idea what sort of assumptions are going into their arguments; as a matter of (American) law the perpetrators were minors, but they certainly were not children and don't deserve special consideration as such. It's fine to follow normal Wikipedia conventions here in regard to RS, V, etc. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:51, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
• Legal opinion. Though I think the main issue here is an ethical one, there are also some concerns about the legal position, so I've asked for advice at the talk page of the WMF's legal liaison.[23] --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:42, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• Philippe's not a lawyer. GregJackP Boomer! 13:12, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• I've asked him, as liaison, to "pass this on to somebody qualified to offer that advice." --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:32, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Just a note to indicate that I have received the request and have passed it on within the Office of the General Counsel. Because I'm currently on limited availability due to travel, I'm asking James, from my team, to monitor this situation. Please note that James is not an attorney (nor am I) and that WMF's attorneys represent the Wikimedia Foundation, not the individual editors, and as such can not give specific legal advice to community members, though they can frequently discuss broader principles. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 16:11, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

In a way, this may have the effect of complicating things, since conventional wisdom is that once you contact your (in this case the Foundation's) attorney for advice, you are ill-advised to act until you receive it. But I think this discussion pertains specifically to naming the convicted assailants, not the victim/activist, and I assume that is the question on which we are seeking advice. Should not delay action on the question of reverting the page move and naming the latter. Dwpaul (talk) 16:19, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I've only asked for advice on publishing the names of juvenile offenders. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 18:52, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

At this point, there clearly is no consensus to include the names of the juvenile offenders, so the legal question may not make any difference.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:29, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

See First amendment, and similar court case [24]. No opinion including names or not, but it's obvious to me it's legal. (include not a lawyer yada yada disclaimer here) NE Ent 22:19, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your question, Anthony. I apologize, but, as a budding attorney, I must first start with the following disclaimers before addressing your question:

■ This response is not legal advice or a representation of the viewpoints of the Wikimedia Foundation. ■ The legal team can only represent the Wikimedia Foundation on legal matters, so this is not official advice to you or the community. ■ The legal team cannot provide consultations, and contacting the legal team does not create any confidential relationship. ■ This posting is not intended to address a specific factual situation. ■ Furthermore, I am a recent law school graduate awaiting admittance to the California state bar, not a lawyer, and you should not rely on my work as legal advice. Publishing the names of juvenile offenders is not, by itself, unlawful. Liability will turn on whether the names are obtained lawfully. Some states have laws that specifically shield the identities of juveniles convicted of crimes from public disclosure. However, a number of states are moving away from this practice. Even where such laws exist, if a journalist obtains the identity of a juvenile offender by legal means, the Supreme Court has held that the journalist’s First and Fourteenth Amendment rights take precedence over the interest in protecting the privacy of the minor, thus allowing for the information to be published. Conversely, where identities are obtained by unlawful means (trespass, secret surveillance, misrepresentation) journalists may be exposed to liability for invasion of privacy, intrusion upon seclusion, or similar privacy-related torts. Additionally, from an ethical standpoint, the Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics maintains that journalists should “use special sensitivity when dealing with children.” With the foregoing in mind, it is up to the community to decide whether a particular juvenile's name should be disclosed on Wikipedia. However, as an editor, you are ultimately responsible for your edits, and you may be subject to liability for the content of your posts. As with any subject written about a person, please be mindful of the BLP policy and of potential defamation or invasion of privacy claims. DRenaud (WMF) (talk) 23:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC) Thank you, DRenaud, that was very helpful. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC) I'm glad to have been of assistance! DRenaud (WMF) (talk) 21:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC) People should also take note of this example: Jamie_Bulger_murder_case#Appeal_and_release, where the final paragraph of this section makes useful and interesting reading. One breaks that injunction at one's own personal peril. Fiddle Faddle 21:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC) No, per WP:BLP policy, and by the norms of civilised society. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC) Actually, the norm of civilized society is that sex offenders, including juveniles, have to register so that the community is aware that these sexual predators are loose in their neighborhoods. See 42 U.S.C. § 16911, juveniles over the age of 14 required to register as sex offenders. Kentucky has not implemented this apparently. GregJackP Boomer! 01:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC) Suppose that Joe Perv is on the federal register of sex offenders. And suppose I put "Joe Perv" into the Google search box. Will Google automatically look at the federal register of sex offenders, and tell me that Joe Perv is listed? Or does someone actually have to go to the DOJ website and search for "Joe Perv" there? I don't know the answers to these questions, but they seem pertinent.Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:32, 25 September 2013 (UTC) I'm not sure I understand how it's relevant, but I'm almost certain that all such sites (certainly federal) exclude SE indexing bots so one would need to go to the specific site to initiate a search. (Or should.) Dwpaul (talk) 17:12, 25 September 2013 (UTC) Kentucky my not have implemented that law, but their courts did unseal and release the names of the rapist to the public...for the apparent goal of making the names public. Reliable sources agree their names are notable. Who are we to pass judgment on what Kentucky courts and some news sources deem "civilized society". We're writing an encyclopedia, not dictating the "norms of civilized society" based on our personal beliefs. WP:NOTCENSORED. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 05:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC) "Reliable sources agree their names are notable". No they don't - the majority of sources commenting on the case have not named the offenders. And WP:NOTCENSORED doesn't override what WP:BLP policy states - as WP:NOTCENSORED itself makes entirely clear: "Content that is judged to violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy, or that violates other Wikipedia policies (especially neutral point of view) or the laws of the U.S. state of Virginia where Wikipedia's main servers are hosted, will also be removed". AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:01, 25 September 2013 (UTC) No. I think that in this case we should be conservative and follow the widely- (though not universally-) held principle that juveniles' breaches of the law should not be reported. (What are the American media on the whole doing? Are the Huffington Post and the few others cited here exceptions, or are all publishers and broadcasters reporting the boys' names? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC) Louisville case: Should the article name the victim/activist (implies reverting page move)? To further differentiate the two questions and keep us moving on this separate issue. Brevity is a virtue. Dwpaul (talk) 16:27, 24 September 2013 (UTC) Yes - The article now details that, as an adult, she has become an activist on this issue, and is willing to continue to have her name associated with the issue. Moreover, a majority of reliable sources that discuss the incident use her name. Note too that the article already uses her name in the footnotes, but it should use her name more prominently. Another important factor is that the judge in the case has publicly used her name.[25]Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:37, 24 September 2013 (UTC) Yes. The victim/activist has voluntarily given up her right to anonymity under the Kentucky juvenile statutes (and continued to seek attention for the issue and herself as an adult). The publicity generated by the victim/activist, including widespread publication of her name, is key to the existence of the article here in the first place. Dwpaul (talk) 16:41, 24 September 2013 (UTC) Yes, we should quit re-victimizing her, follow her wishes, and move past this idea that somehow we have to protect her from her own wishes. GregJackP Boomer! 18:56, 24 September 2013 (UTC) Comparing other editors (like me) to the people who attacked her is grossly offensive and uncivil. If, as an adult, this person consistently desired her privacy back, rather than to be tagged for life as a child who was sexually assaulted, then it would be our obligation to not plaster her name all over the article. Finding out the truth of the matter was all that I asked.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC) Yes - no one supports the opposite any more. --GRuban (talk) 20:05, 24 September 2013 (UTC) Probably true, but it doesn't hurt to document consensus (which otherwise would require reading the voluminous discussion above to confirm). Dwpaul (talk) 21:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC) Yes (again) NE Ent 23:45, 24 September 2013 (UTC) YesDkriegls (talk to me!) 05:35, 25 September 2013 (UTC) Brandon LaFell Brandon LaFell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Just read the page. A jokester has been at work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.131.165.45 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 22 September 2013‎ I have reverted the edits. GB fan 21:07, 22 September 2013 (UTC) I've left a warning on the IP's talk page. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)  Done Dwpaul (talk) 17:05, 24 September 2013 (UTC) Harry Mattison Dear Wikipedia, I'm writing in reference to Harry Mattison. In about 2009, I created a Wiki page for my husband, Harry Mattison, as a surprize. He is an American photographer, winner of the Robert Capa Gold Medal, who worked as a war photographer for nearly twenty years. I was not aware of the rule that a person close to the subject shouldn't be involved in the creation of such a page. Soon after a warning notice was put up about "conflict of interest." The page was minimal then, but I stopped immediately. But I noticed that others began working on the page. I refrained from further input. People said that you would eventually edit the page and take care of problems. My husband is embarrassed about the warning having to do with "conflict of interest." He has no other problems with the page. I apologize for being the one to start it, in ignorance of the rules. Please help? Thank you in advance, Carolyn Forche Carolyn Forche — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.150.236 (talk) 12:58, 23 September 2013 (UTC) Propose removal of COI element of issues tag. There have now been 28 contributors to this article, assume 27 have no COI. Editor who originally placed the issues tag in 2009 appears to be offline, ask a more experienced editor reassess whether is needed at all. Dwpaul (talk) 13:23, 23 September 2013 (UTC) I went ahead and removed the four year old tag. It doesn't seem warranted any longer. If an even more experienced Editor disagrees with me, revert with an edit summary of what additional clean-up is required. Liz Read! Talk! 14:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)  Done Dwpaul (talk) 15:47, 23 September 2013 (UTC) Adele I'm involved in an edit war regarding the insertion of 'tabloids' (The Sun and Daily Mail) which is getting seriously out of hand. Can someone else remove these non-RS sources from the article, I think I've done it seven times already. -- Hillbillyholiday talk 01:37, 24 September 2013 (UTC) I was not notified on my talk page about this, as Wikipedia suggests. I was personally attacked at least twice by the above editor. I followed the BRD cycle, I replied to them on my talk page, on the article's talk page, and on their talk page. There has been zero response or collaboration so far, only a tendentious edit war and a string of name calling and threats. My response in a nutshell: most local newspapers in the UK are in tabloid format, which doesn't make them tabloids. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 01:45, 24 September 2013 (UTC) Maybe I'm wrong, but this looks more like an issue of WP:RS than WP:BLP. The disputed citations are merely reporting a fact of certain awards being won by the subject, not something that would be inappropriate under BLP policy. If you're objecting to the inclusion of any link to those sources, that would be a matter concerning the reliability of those sources (or other reasons to deem them unsuitable). Have you taken this to WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard? Dwpaul (talk) 01:50, 24 September 2013 (UTC) Sigh. Hearfour has a history of this sort of nonsense, there's virtually no reasoning with them. The gutter-press sources were being used to support all kinds of personal information not just the awards. -- Hillbillyholiday talk 01:52, 24 September 2013 (UTC) Yet another personal attack. I'm not the one who's repeatedly insulting and threatening while refusing to engage in discussion that was initiated on three different platforms. Dwpaul has a point here – take this to the RS board and have them dismissed once and for all (if you're so concerned). Hearfourmewesique (talk) 01:59, 24 September 2013 (UTC) I initiated the "discussion" on your talk page after your first edit, and have responded both on my page and in edit summaries. You seem to be claiming that Daily Mail and The Sun are only tabloid in format. You are wrong. You have been told you are wrong. Please stop now. -- Hillbillyholiday talk 02:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC) It appears to me this has already been dealt with at WP:RS/Noticeboard/Archive 151#Daily Mail (UK): use in BLPs (and others). Has something changed since this was addressed there? Dwpaul (talk) 02:08, 24 September 2013 (UTC) Here?Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:18, 24 September 2013 (UTC) Yeah. Dwpaul (talk) 02:19, 24 September 2013 (UTC) Wow, I was completely unaware of that discussion despite being the cause of it. I would most certainly have commented in the strongest terms. It should be blindingly obvious that The Mail is unsuitable for a reference for any article, except in extraordinary cases. Many editors (including Jimbo) have expressed similarly strong opinions regarding The Mail. I've seen far more opinions against it than were expressed in that RS discussion, which can in no way be considered a consensus. (Here's a recent illustrative example: Compare the Mail's reporting with the Telegraph's). The Sun is obviously not a suitable source. It's high time this issue was sorted out properly with a clearly worded policy. -- Hillbillyholiday talk 02:25, 24 September 2013 (UTC) It should be a blocking offense to use the Daily Mail - and similar sources - to add negative information to BLPs. It's really really really bad...The Daily Mail is not a valid encyclopedic source in most cases. (There are a few rare exceptions, but even those should be subjected to the strictest possible scrutiny.) In particular, relying on a single tabloid source of known low quality to post outrageous accusations of salacious personal details of people's lives is wrong, wrong for Wikipedia, a violation of BLP policy, and not something that anyone should accept cavalierly. It is easy to solve this. Jimbo Wales, 10 May 2011 Text reinserted by Hearfourmewisque: In May 2011, Adele caused some minor controversy with critical statements about high taxes. Jenna Good (10 June 2011). "Adele triggers online backlash after her recent comments on how much she has to pay in tax | Mail Online". Dailymail.co.uk. Retrieved 29 June 2012. These sort of political statements sourced to contentious tabloids are exactly the sort of thing that needs to be avoided removed. Anyway, the argument that The Mail is okay for some things is misleading, they exaggerate and flat out lie regularly. -- Hillbillyholiday talk 02:42, 24 September 2013 (UTC) Wow, and here for a minute I thought Jimbo was participating in our thread. However, it looks to me like there was consensus at the link I mentioned above that Daily Mail (for example) was RS for some information, and for others it should be considered on a case-by-case basis, not blanket-removed. I sense too that Jimbo's comment needs to have been read in context (whatever it was). Unless Hearfour was posting "outrageous accusations of salacious personal details of people's lives" sourced to DM (in which case it should be easy to challenge on BLP policy, regardless of the source), I would suggest reviewing the rest of the discussion of these two sources at WP:RS/N and if need be opening a new discussion there. Dwpaul (talk) 02:46, 24 September 2013 (UTC) Especially if you're looking for something to be "sorted out properly with a clearly worded policy" about sources, versus BLP which is what we're about here. Dwpaul (talk) 02:54, 24 September 2013 (UTC) There was barely any participation in that discussion. Read some of the many other comments that I linked to. Consensus site wide is against the Daily Mail. The information in the Adele article about her opinions regarding taxes could be considered contentious, as could the price of her house. It was correct to remove the tabloids. The Mail is a particularly egregious offender with regards to accuracy. Tabloids should not be used in BLPs except in special circumstances (and this is not such a case). It's that simple. As I have been doing for several months, I will continue to remove tabloids wherever I see them on Wikipedia. -- Hillbillyholiday talk 03:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC) If you disagree with the July 2013 consensus at WP:RS/N, you should probably revive the discussion there. Moving it here is probably not going to get a different or better result. But I've already been too wordy here, and want to save room for other (probably better-informed) editors' opinions on this issue. Dwpaul (talk) 03:11, 24 September 2013 (UTC) How many editors spoke for The Mail there? Five or six? Many, many more here would totally disagree. So, a small bunch of editors (seemingly with no concept of a what makes a reliable publication) can settle such an important policy like that, with disregard for the numerous times this has been discussed before (..with comments like: "The Daily Mail is not a reliable newspaper. It's a fascist and populist journal and encyclopaedic resources shouldn't use Daily Mail articles as their source.." or "I support the withdrawal of any and all support for the Daily Mail as a reliable source...Pathological liars. Any publication can get things wrong occasionally, but all the evidence suggests that the Mail just doesn't care. Print what people want to hear, and ignore reality...") I'm outta here. Twelve years and still this place can't decide whether The Mail is suitable for BLPs. What an utter joke. -- Hillbillyholiday talk 03:26, 24 September 2013 (UTC) Note that I didn't say the matter was settled. I said that IMHO the matter would be more likely settled at WP:RS/N, which seems to have taken a stab at it previously, than here, if you were to bring it up for discussion there. Dwpaul (talk) 03:50, 24 September 2013 (UTC) Hillbilyholiday, if you're "outta here" because Wikipedia is "an utter joke" to you then leave this matter to those who are not entirely selfish in their pursuit of agenda against sources they personally dislike. That... or start embracing the idea of discussion/consensus. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 10:46, 24 September 2013 (UTC) I meant outta this thread. I can't leave Wikipedia—utter joke though it is—not when there's my 'agenda' to pursue (and bills to pay!) -- Hillbillyholiday talk 11:13, 24 September 2013 (UTC) Also see this current discussion[26] at WP:RS/N, which seems relevant. Dwpaul (talk) 15:28, 24 September 2013 (UTC) Nice thread, Dwpaul... everyone is against Hillbilly (who keeps coming up with lists from the top of their head as if that were sourced from somewhere...) on that one as well. Coincidence? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:44, 24 September 2013 (UTC) Not meaning to seem to be lecturing anyone, esp. editors who (I think) have a much longer tenure and are more accomplished than me, but I would offer a reminder of the principle discussed at Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Dwpaul (talk) 16:16, 25 September 2013 (UTC) Danica Novgorodoff Article reads as though it has been sourced from various writer bios on websites, book jackets, etc. Neutrality? also, relevancy? not convinced this needs its own wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.27.206.13 (talk) 03:40, 24 September 2013 (UTC) I don't know, looks to be a pretty decent Start-class article to me. If an editor doesn't think so, an editor can nominate for deletion via the procedure outlined at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Dwpaul (talk) 03:59, 24 September 2013 (UTC) Not really a WP:BLP issue, no mistreatment of the subject is suggested. Possibly to be considered at WP:AFD, but I will mark this section done.  Done Dwpaul (talk) 17:14, 24 September 2013 (UTC) Samantha Lewthwaite Germaine Lindsay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Samantha Lewthwaite (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Samantha Lewthwaite wife of one of the London Tube bombers is rumoured to have been involved in the recent Kenya massacre. These rumours reported in the Daily Mail and Daily Mirror seem to stem from a short lived twitter account, and "Unconfirmed sources claimed that 29-year-old Lewthwaite may" The BBC article even has someone claiming to represent the terrorists denying any western involvement. I have removed the rumours three times now.Martin451 (talk) 07:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC) I see also a new article has been created for her.Martin451 (talk) 07:33, 24 September 2013 (UTC) The current revision[27] seems to me to present information on the speculation appropriately, with RS cited both pro and con. Are you proposing that some kind of protection is needed? Dwpaul (talk) 14:36, 24 September 2013 (UTC) (not an admin) By "new article" I assume you are referring to the new dab entry at White widow. Dwpaul (talk) 15:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC) By new article I meant that the Samantha Lewthwaite article. The original edits I saw were to Germaine Lendsay which were based upon the Daily Mail's take on a twitter feed, which did not have the con part of it. Her links to the recent incident are very tenacious, but seem to be covered by a lot more sources.Martin451 (talk) 03:19, 25 September 2013 (UTC) Ah, sorry. Since the heading here was Samantha Lewthwaite I assumed that was the page where the activity was occurring. Since this is currently (just in the last 24 hours) a very hot topic, with lots of fact-finding and (seemingly mostly constructive) page editing underway, one might give it a little time to settle. I wonder though if the page(s) could use a Template:Current related tag to indicate that this is occurring. (Though that might tend to add weight to the rumors.) Dwpaul (talk) 03:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC) Or better still Template:Controversial, which inserts this text: The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Please supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing unciteable information. (Intended to be added to the Talk page, not to the article itself.) Dwpaul (talk) 04:47, 25 September 2013 (UTC) Irreligion in the United States Irreligion in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This revision of Irreligion in the United States has an image array of "irreligious" people. These image arrays are usually used for cultural, rather than religious groups, though Islam in the United States is an exception. My chief problem is making people "poster children" for irreligion. WP:BLPCAT says "Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources." This explicitly applies to infoboxes as well. With many of the people in the image array, (Zuckerburg? Wales? Pitt? Jolie? Gates?) their beliefs are not "relevant to their public life or notability". Am I over-reacting here? Is there a BLP concern? StAnselm (talk) 21:17, 24 September 2013 (UTC) Yeah, the images aren't appropriate, unless those people's main notability stems from the fact that they have no religion (which it doesn't in these cases). Not to mention that those people's religious convictions would have to be very well sourced, which I'm guessing that most of them aren't. Black Kite (talk) 21:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC) Oy. This whole article seems to me to create a bundle of issues, but specifically as to the photos I share your concern and your rationalization. Dwpaul (talk) 21:34, 24 September 2013 (UTC) That article has huge problems. It seems to make no distinction between organized religion and other forms of religion. There are many deists, for example, who are very religious even though they subscribe to no organized religion. For the article to imply that all the pictured people are "nonreligious" or "irreligious" just because they may reject organized religion is just false.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:26, 24 September 2013 (UTC) I checked a few that I was somewhat familiar with, and based on their articles, their religious beliefs were either not a key par of their notability, or in most cases, were sufficiently ambiguous (It wouldn't be wrong to call them irreligious, but their positions are more nuanced) that their inclusion in the array seems inappropriate. Monty845 22:40, 24 September 2013 (UTC) The pages title goal to be overly inclusive makes it difficult to allow anyone to be identified as part of this group without violating BLP. If it was Atheists in America or Deist in America, but you would be hard pressed to find someone publicly talking specifically about their irreligion. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 05:31, 25 September 2013 (UTC) Adding a link array to this section for convenient access to the article's Talk page, where there is additional ongoing discussion of this issue. Dwpaul (talk) 15:10, 25 September 2013 (UTC) clara maria lovett Clara Lovett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Having just looked up my Wikipedia biography, I found a completely false reference to my having attempted to censor or discredit the work of Christy Turner on cannibalism among ancestors of the Hopi tribe in Arizona. Please remove this sentence, which is a complete fabrication. Also, note that my husband, Dr. Benjamin F. Brown IV, died in November 2011 and that I now reside in Chevy Chase MD, just outside Washington D.C. and no longer reside in Arizona. Thank you. Clara M. Lovett President emerita Northern Arizona University — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.96.96.182 (talk) 13:07, 25 September 2013 (UTC) While WP doesn't take directions from anonymous people claiming to be a BLP subject, I have no problem removing unsourced personal and controversial claims and have therefore deleted the content cited by the IP above.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:29, 25 September 2013 (UTC) Clara Lovett have almost no references, should we just delete it? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:50, 25 September 2013 (UTC) I'm adding sources but not sure if there is enough to justify notability. Opinion welcome.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:51, 25 September 2013 (UTC) The IP (or authorized account if any) cannot dictate more info for the article that would improve notability without COI, but I assume they could point out published sources an editor could use to improve the article, if they are so inclined. I assume they should do so on the article's Talk page. Dwpaul (talk) 16:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC) Yes, pointing out sources is always helpful. It seems Lovett has written several books too.[28]-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:06, 25 September 2013 (UTC) Article looks much better now, well done! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:49, 25 September 2013 (UTC) I've fleshed it out a bit and it may meet the standards for an academic BLP. Thanks! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:11, 25 September 2013 (UTC) Brandy Alexandre An old, contentious issue is about to flare up. Please see here, here,here and here. David in DC (talk) 20:17, 25 September 2013 (UTC) Since the real name apparently is a privacy concern then we should keep it off. I found an old ticket regarding this, and it looks like the discussion in the talk page predates the more stringent BLP policy now in place. Watching. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:24, 25 September 2013 (UTC) Deepak Chopra Deepak Chopra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Potentially Libelous wording in Deepak Chopra article. There is currently discussion in the lede of the article about wording of criticism of Chopra derived from a Time article. Here are the 2 sentences from Time article "New Age Supersage" 14N08 : "Chopra's extravagant claims for Ayurveda and other traditional healing techniques can, some have argued, create false hope in genuinely ill people and dissuade them from seeking medical care and guidance. Chopra has weathered all such claims, either with smiling equanimity or, on occasion, a call from his lawyers." Time is careful to not say "critics accuse Chopra of creating false hope," which could be considered defamatory and libelous, but rather says, some argue his claims can create false hope. The present line in Wikipedia states: "His critics accuse him of creating a false sense of hope in sick individuals which may keep them away from effective medical care.[12]" This suggests critics are accusing Dr. Chopra of unethical medical practice keeping patients from effective medical care. This wording in Wikipedia should either convey the accurate meaning of the source or use the wording of the source itself. Vivekachudamani (talk) 23:27, 25 September 2013 (UTC) Please watch out that you do not violate WP:No legal threats, that you do not imply that you or Chopra will take legal action against Wikipedia. If you violate this guideline your account will be blocked. Regarding the issue you bring up, I don't see it as very serious. The lead section should summarize the body of text, and it does so satisfactorily. Binksternet (talk) 01:31, 26 September 2013 (UTC) Perhaps revise the subject sentence to read "His critics accuse Chopra of creating, through his claims for Ayurveda and other traditional healing techniques, a false sense of hope in sick individuals which may keep them away from effective medical care." This makes it more clear that it is (per the cited source) Chopra's claims, not Chopra himself, that may inspire false hope. Just a thought. Dwpaul (talk) 04:12, 26 September 2013 (UTC) Ah, I see Binksternet has already contributed a similar (though much more concise) rephrasing, using "advice" in much the same way I was thinking. Dwpaul (talk) 04:19, 26 September 2013 (UTC) Binksternet's reedit reinserts the potentially libelous statement. " His critics say his advice may bring "false hope" to people who are sick." The article does not mention Dr. Chopra's medical advice. This reedit asserts critics are saying his medical advice may bring false hope, when no advice is mentioned in the article. In his 40+ years as a physician Dr. Chopra has never given medical advice that anyone has claimed led to a false sense of hope and thereby a poor outcome. I am not implying legal action, I am only pointing out that the statements are potentially libelous and defamatory.Vivekachudamani (talk) 05:05, 26 September 2013 (UTC) The more you mention legal consequences, the more likely it is that you will be blocked. Binksternet (talk) 05:59, 26 September 2013 (UTC) Attempting to suppress all criticism (even unfounded criticism) of the subject on the basis that the subject or his attorneys might be able to advance some claim of libel is also counter to Wikipedia policy, see WP:NOTCENSORED. As long as the statement is properly and reliably sourced, it can and probably should remain in some form. Dwpaul (talk) 12:52, 26 September 2013 (UTC) As an afterthought: The statement proposed by the editor raising the complaint here, "Chopra has weathered all such claims" in context to the above criticism, is not WP:NPOV and mostly meaningless. The fact that the subject has not chosen or been forced to address the criticism does not mean it is unfounded, which the statement seems to imply. See also WP:OPED. (The citation is behind a pay wall so I cannot determine if it made any similar statement.) Dwpaul (talk) 15:46, 26 September 2013 (UTC) Well said. The bit about "weathered" has no real substance; it does not say anything about the truth of the claims made. Binksternet (talk) 18:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC) Nor should the article, unless the citation (or another cited reliable source) does. Dwpaul (talk) 19:47, 26 September 2013 (UTC) WP:FRINGE also applies WP:FRINGE/N cross-posted. It's worth noting with not a little understatement that the sources generally have a very low opinion of Dr Chopra's work. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC) Yes, and in fact Wikipedia is being very restrained in its use of them. The passage from Time that sources this criticism is Chopra has been a magnet for criticism—most of it from the medical and scientific communities. Accusations have ranged from the dismissive—Chopra is just another huckster purveying watered-down Eastern wisdom mixed with pseudo science and pop psychology—to the outright damning. Chopra's extravagant claims for Ayurveda and other traditional healing techniques can, some have argued, create false hope in genuinely ill people and dissuade them from seeking medical care and guidance. It simply will no do to turn the lede into a criticism-free zone: that would strike at the heart of Wikipedia'a policies on neutrality. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 20:08, 26 September 2013 (UTC) Chopra is a best-selling writer who naturally attracts both praise and criticism. It would be completely inappropriate to leave out commentary in such a serious source as Time magazine. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC) It's not just TIME though is it? The criticism section needs to be properly sourced to appropriate multiple sources. Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:11, 26 September 2013 (UTC) Yes - there's a bunch of critical stuff in the body, and I think the lede was slightly under-representing it and so giving a non-neutral (i.e. overly-positive) impression of the reception of Chopra's wares. To rectify this, I have just slightly beefed it up. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 05:51, 27 September 2013 (UTC) Alexbrn has declared a conflict of interest on this page and according to WP:COI should not make controversial edits himself. He can discuss them but should not make them. He can make general edits. This is the second time his COI editing has been mentioned, but his controversial editing persists, and even increased. It is disruptive and needs to end. Vivekachudamani (talk) 15:10, 28 September 2013 (UTC) Kip McKean and International Christian Churches Pages Kip McKean (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) International Christian Churches (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) File:KipMcKeans sig.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Godsedit is in violation of copyright laws by illegally using an image of kip's signature, which was taken from either www.caicc.net or www.usd21.org without our authorization. This flagarant violation displays bad faith and puts all other edits by this user into question. Please remove all of this users edits from this page and the International Christian Churches page [[29]] the Kip McKean page [[30]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronaldcharding (talk • contribs) 07:57, 26 September 2013 (UTC) An assertion of a copyright violation by insertion of an image (which belongs at WP:Copyright problems for which a procedure exists at [31], not here, and which if sustained by consensus would result in its removal from these articles) should not be used to discredit and remove all of an editor's contributions to an article. If there are reasons to consider other edits a violation of Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policies, please detail them here. Dwpaul (talk) 15:58, 26 September 2013 (UTC) I did leave a suggestion for the editor who uploaded and appears to claim personal copyright on the image at File_talk:KipMcKeans_sig.png. Dwpaul (talk) 16:46, 26 September 2013 (UTC) Copyright on signatures is an iffy topic at best, but there is precedent of removal of these images on privacy grounds (e.g., Stephen King). If you are requesting the removal of the image from the article out of privacy concerns, fine. The deletion of the image itself is better discussed at the Non-free content review board. Finally, please assume good faith on the part of other editors. If you have evidence of disruptive editing of any kind, report it to WP:ANI where administrators can evaluate it. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:20, 26 September 2013 (UTC) The image in question is no longer linked to the current version of these (or any) articles, due to action by other editors. But it does remain in the image database and Wikimedia Commons (has been since 3 July 2012). Thanks. Dwpaul (talk) 19:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC) Social Security Death Index Editors are invited to comment on the use of this index as a source in BLP articles at WP:RSN#Social Security Death Index.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:12, 26 September 2013 (UTC) Daniel Squadron Daniel Squadron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The current subject is running for office and it's obvious that someone is editorializing his page. Secondly, some of the information is factually untrue. The article suggests that he lives off a trust fund referencing an article that was published in 2008. However, the subject lost all his money in the Bernie Madoff scandal which happened after that time. Going further into the Bernie Madoff mention, the article references two articles that mention that the subject lost his money to the scandal, however the information they've put in to the Wikipedia entry actually suggests the exact opposite. the above comment is unsigned. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC) This article could use more eyes. Looks like some POV pushing going on there.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:27, 26 September 2013 (UTC) There's an IP there who seems determined to editorialize despite my efforts to create NPOV. [32][33]-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:57, 26 September 2013 (UTC) That liquor license stuff probably doesn't belong in the lead and could possibly be removed as undue.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC) I moved it to the body of the article but the IP is reverting all of my edits one by one. I'll let the community here decide what to do.[34]-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:05, 26 September 2013 (UTC) That IP is from http://www.linkedin.com/company/wenner-media so they may be paid COI edits. Admin may wish to ask them not to edit the article anymore.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:14, 26 September 2013 (UTC) · User at IP 96.246.162.18 continues to remove added information and to replace with inaccurate statements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.43.168.250 (talk) 00:11, 28 September 2013 (UTC) White Widow (terrorist) The above was created at White Widow here. I do not believe she is a convicted terrorist and this should be deleted. The White Widow is a NPOV alternative at least until she is convicted or killed. Tommy Pinball (talk) 00:14, 27 September 2013 (UTC) There is no question that she is an alleged terrorist, the allegation having been by multiple law enforcement agencies.[35] Perhaps all that is needed on that dab page is the addition of that word. (Though I see the entry that included the term terrorist at White Widow has already been removed.) Dwpaul (talk) 01:09, 27 September 2013 (UTC) mykel hawke Mykel joined the US Army in 1982. He served on active duty for a total of 12 years; he also served in the Reserves and Guard for another 12 years. He was a Sergeant First Class (E-7) before he took a commission as an Officer, 18A. This is obviously a lie because you can't directly commission into Special Forces, even if you were prior enlisted Special Forces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.15.99.68 (talk) 03:42, 27 September 2013 (UTC) The place to bring this up is the article's talk page. If discussion there isn't productive, feel free to bring it to a noticeboard. I have reverted the commentary you placed in the article itself. Btw, a "lie" is a deliberate falsehood, and you might consider whether it's constructive to suggest such a thing in this instance. Rivertorch (talk) 05:59, 27 September 2013 (UTC) Craig Titus I semi-protected Craig Titus earlier. Just wanted to get a few more eyes on the article. It seems to have several editors who are claiming to be in contact with the subject. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 07:50, 27 September 2013 (UTC) Looks like a borderline BLP1E. Probably a good candidate for AFD. That conviction section is seriously undue weight. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 05:35, 28 September 2013 (UTC) Dimitris Melissanidis Yesterday I did a thorough rewrite of the article with references etc, as the were missing almost completely or were misleading. An anonymous ip user undid all my changes. Could an administrator assess the situation and block ip users from editing if necessary? Kind regardsHurricate (talk) 08:11, 27 September 2013 (UTC) What a mess. Your version fixes a lot of clumsy prose and grammatical errors and it does seem more comprehensive, but in both versions I'm seeing some pretty weak sourcing for negative content about the subject. Sources appear to include blogs, as well as various Greek-language sites whose content it's hard for non-speakers of the language to evaluate. Rivertorch (talk) 05:12, 28 September 2013 (UTC) Klaus Oeggl This article is not automatically sighted (no autoconfirmation). I can't see why, Please help.Ventus55 (talk) 21:21, 27 September 2013 (UTC) Do you mean it hasn't been patrolled yet? If so, please give the new page patrollers a chance. I rarely do that task, but if I were to patrol this article I'd first want to confirm that the subject meets notability guidelines—in this case, Wikipedia:Notability (academics). In looking over the article now, I'm not confident that the subject's notability has been established. Take a look at the guideline and then make sure there's an independent source to help it meet at least one of the criteria. Additional sourcing is required, as well; there are only three references at present, and they're all primary sources. Rivertorch (talk) 05:29, 28 September 2013 (UTC) Thanks for answering. What I mean is that an not loggedin user doesn't see the last version I see. I'm not a new user having edited more than 30000 articles, How can this problem be solved? Ventus55 (talk) 10:13, 28 September 2013 (UTC) Harok family murder This article seems to jump to a lot of conclusions, and to portray the guilt of the accused as not in question. It also seems to be written almost entirely by one editor. I don't read Czech, which is what most of the references are in, so I know very little about it other than that, but I think this article could benefit with some additional eyes on it. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 09:52, 28 September 2013 (UTC)