Talk:Jimmy Gulzar

Untitled

Removed material that violates WP:BLP. This person is a non-notable individual. Please do not re-add. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's let the AfD decide that, shall we? Ravenswing 04:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just removed most content again per WP:BLP. My edit summary and this post on the talk page constitute the second warning (Jossi's was the first). Do not reinsert without consensus; that would be a blockable offense. If I count the warning I gave here, there have been three warnings altogether. Avb ÷ talk 18:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS Ravenswing, please (re)read the discussion on the AfD page and this part of the WP:BLP policy. Avb ÷ talk 18:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite familiar with WP:BLP1E, thank you, and demonstrably quite familiar with the AfD. The latter has no bearing on the content of this article, merely upon its continued existence, although removing sourced biographical information certainly would prejudice the AfD discussion. Your reading of WP:BLP is quite incorrect. For one thing, the information that you've been deleting is heavily sourced and splashed all over the media; very little of it mentions, or is related to, the subject's marriage. For another, I'm curious where you get the impression that WP:BLP requires us to say nothing negative about a subject. This is flat out false: it requires us to avoid at all costs saying anything negative about a subject without reliable sources. "Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space."

While you feel that the material is contentious, its sourcing is from some of the most highly regarded sources in the world. Finally, if you're going to invoke consensus, you should have done that before unilaterally deleting sourced material. Ravenswing 20:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong on all counts. (1) Unlike other content, content removed under WP:BLP should stay out without a consensus to include. You haven't even tried to obtain a consensus. If you (correctly) don't count the AfD page, two editors (Jossi and I) who happen to be quite familiar with WP:BLP are against including. You stand alone here. (2) I have not argued that the material is contentious -- straw man. (3) I have not argued that the material is unsourced or poorly sourced -- straw man. (4) I have not argued that the material has to go because it is negative -- straw man. (5) I have not argued that the AfD is a factor (6) I have argued (per BLP1E) that the available sources are much too one-sided to write a biography. You have not addressed that argument. Please ask yourself if it is possible that you misunderstand, or ask others. (7) I have argued that this is not a biography. You have not addressed that argument. The proper course would have been to delete the article straight away but apparently Jossi did not want to do that when an AfD had already been started. (8) One of the arguments I have not mentioned: if you want to include this content, the burden to show that it complies with WP:BLP is on you. And you haven't done that either. (9) You seem to be arguing that the subject is now also notable due to reports on the extremes of his behavior. That is not the case. The subject's only claim to notability is his marriage with Mel B. Avb ÷ talk 21:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me there are two separate issues here. The first is potentially libellous unsourced material. That is objectively identifiable; to be removed on sight; and, if you look at WP:BLP, that is the class of material the re-introduction of which is identified as a blockable offence.

The second question is whether the subject of the article as a whole is notable. That is the issue currently in process at the AfD. Some might argue that an AfD is the wrong process for such a question; others would contest that, and say an AfD is absolutely the right process. I'm not taking any view here as to whether the subject is or is not notable. Nevertheless while the AfD is running, it is extremely poor form to substantially diminish the article under discussion, so that the AfD appears to be on an article less than it was. The material in question here is sourced and not libellous; there is no legal imperative urgently to remove it. IMO for the time being it should stay, to give a fair view of the article under discussion as it is, warts and all, while the AfD process is running. Jheald 21:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly; if the AfD result is Delete, it's moot anyway. That being said, a few comments for Avb. (1) First and foremost, an argument doesn't automatically become "wrong" because you oppose it. The quote I gave from WP:BLP is, in fact, a verbatim one, BLP does, in fact, specifically enjoin poorly sourced or unsourced material, and does not enjoin sourced material, however contentious. (2) I've met the BLP burden of proof, thank you; each and every one of those statements is linked to a copper-bottomed source. (3) There is nothing in Wikipedia policy or guidelines enjoining all negative material from an article. (4) There is nothing in WP:BLP or policy enjoining the restoration of material deleted under claims of BLP, and the mere statement "I'm deleting this because of WP:BLP!!" isn't some magic bullet that prevents reversion. (5) Get your threats right: "Editors who repeatedly add or restore unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons may be blocked for disruption." None of those statements were poorly sourced, never mind unsourced, and you haven't actually challenged their accuracy. Do you claim that Gulzar was not in fact arrested and found guilty on a couple of occasions? Was Gulzar not in fact divorced? Did he not in fact receive 1.25 million pounds in the settlement? Was he not the subject of a documentary? Ravenswing 22:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) -- response to Jheald

(1) In practice (see also WP:BLOCK) "persistently posting material contrary to the biographies of living persons policy" is a reason to block. This applies to the entire policy, and is not limited to libellous material and not even to poorly source/unsourced material (see e.g. BLP1E). The latter gets special mention since it can be blocked by involved admins and since 3RR does not apply. See also here and here.

(2) An AfD allows all kinds of arguments, including notability and BLP, and is the correct venue unless an admin decides to delete the article per WP:BLP. This is a special case in that the AfD had already started before an admin (Jossi) determined that it was a BLP violation to be deleted. I see paring it back per WP:BLP as a good interim action under the circumstances. Also please note that most of the "warts" were added after the AfD had started, in a genuine attempt to improve the article. I could say more about this, but it's bedtime in Europe. Avb ÷ talk 22:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ravenswing, it should be obvious that straw men don't impress me much. G'night everyone. Avb ÷ talk 22:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'That' Material

having read the above - i agree with avb and jossi that this material not suitable for the article at present.

Also - my reading of the guidelines is that a consensus of editors supporting its inclusion would be necessary to put it back - at the very least, i think it would be a good idea to find a few editors in favour of that material, and willing to discuss it here, before popping it back - thanks... Petesmiles 23:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some responses to this, and to Avb as well.

1. BLP1E is about the deletion of the whole article for asserted non-notability, not the blanking of sections. It's relevant to the AfD. It would be relevant to an admin deleting the article on his own cognisance. (The appropriate parameters for which are quite controversial, and do not appear to have consensus, judging by recent dispute at WT:CSD). But it's not relevant to stripping facts from the article.

2. With regard to "paring the article back", the criteria are to reduce it to "a version that is sourced, neutral, and on-topic". It does not seem to be in debate that the material is sourced, nor does there seem to be any POV question. That leaves whether or not it is "on topic". It seems to me that if Mr Gulzar is notable, then this is what he is noted for, so the material is on topic. For reasonable discussion at an AfD, it is desirable that the article shows the state of the article if the AfD decision was to "keep".

3. With regard to reversions and consensus: the language of the BLP section "Disputed deletions", with its focus on 'undeletions' and 'administrators' rather than 'editors' and 'reversions', is surely directed at admins undeleting whole articles. I'm not sure it's strictly speaking relevant here. Against the questionable relevance of that section should be weighed the clear principle of not skewing an AfD. -- Jheald 00:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A brief reply; - I don't think the longer version of the article is neutral - that's the crux of why i believe it should be trimmed, as a bio of a living person... Petesmiles 02:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely.

Jheald: When an entire article has to go due to BLP1E, but it can be saved by removing parts of it, that should certainly be preferred over outright deletion. Not that I think this article can be saved... I pared it back to a temporary stub pending the outcome of the AfD.

Some more points regarding the opinion that BLP1E applies to entire articles only: As mentioned at the top of the policy, the policy equally applies (mutatis mutandis) to entire BLPs and BLP content in parts of articles; BLP1E is not an exception. In addition, the spirit of BLP is more important than its letter and BLP1E contains important arguments that clearly apply to parts of articles.

I think BLP1E is not fully understood by some editors here. I've been there too so I understand why this can be difficult. But you don't have to take this from me; I would advise editors who don't agree, to follow (or take part in) some of the discussion at WT:BLP and perhaps the e-mail list, as well as a number of similar cases at the BLP Noticeboard. The main point made here, neutrality, goes to the heart of NPOV. A neutral biography can't consist of a 2-year marriage with a celebrity and two incidents, one overturned by a court and another unrelated to the marriage. That gives undue weight to those events in the context of the subject's life. The only real content here (mainly courtship/marriage/child/divorce) was duplicated from Mel B, the rest (quote from questionable imdb source asserted as fact, two incidents) was severely skewed towards portraying the father of Mel B's child as greedy and violent without giving the reader anything else.

As to skewing an AfD, like the new additions, this deletion has also been reported there so that editors know that the recent history of the article is relevant. It's a natural consequence of having a policy that requires removal of content in case of doubt. Avb ÷ talk 10:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]