Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to the biographies of living persons noticeboard
This page is for reporting issues regarding biographies of living persons. Generally this means cases where editors are repeatedly adding defamatory or libelous material to articles about living people over an extended period.
  • This page is not for simple vandalism or material which can easily be removed without argument. If you can, simply remove the offending material.
  • Familiarize yourself with the biographies of living persons policy before reporting issues here.
  • You can request a revision deletion on IRC using #wikipedia-en-revdel connect, where only administrators will be able to see your concerns.
  • Important: Do not copy and paste any defamatory or libelous information to this noticeboard. Link to a diff showing the dispute, but do not paste the information here.
Sections older than 5 days archived by ClueBot III.
Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
Shortcuts:

Search this noticeboard & archives

Additional notes:

To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:



Contents

Should we name the student accused of rape in the article Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)?[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is qualified support for inclusion IFF his full defence is also discussed. The The wisest course is to ensure full attribution, as in "the accused, identified by <source> as <name>". Best practice would be to wordsmith any content on the Talk page prior to inclusion, and to err on the side of caution always. Several people note, quite correctly, that this is pushing the limits of what is permissible per WP:BLP, and the presumption of innocence must be rigorously demonstrated. Guy (Help!) 13:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Should we name the student accused of rape in the article Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)? He has not been convicted, nor charged with any crime, and a university tribunal found him “not responsible”. He has given public interviews, which appear to be an effort to clear his name after the Columbia Spectator (university newspaper) controversially published his name online as Sulkowicz’s alleged rapist in connection with Sulkowicz’s high profile performance art project, Mattress Performance: Carry That Weight. This issue was actually discussed previously at BLPN: [1] The thing that has changed, is that now, in addition to the public interviews, he has filed a Title IX sexual discrimination lawsuit against Columbia University. [2] (Note: information about the lawsuit is not currently in the article because following recent disruptive editing, the article has been locked down and restored to prior version (before the lawsuit))--BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

No. Per WP:BLPNAME, because he is an otherwise low-profile individual of interest only because of a single event and per WP:CRIME because he is accused but not convicted of a crime and is otherwise unnoteworthy. Adding his name to the article will add nothing to anyone's understanding of the article subject. The filing of a lawsuit is not relevant because Wikipedia is not in the business of punishing people for attempting to seek legal remedies. Formerip (talk) 00:51, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
'Disruptive editing'? As in pointing out that even the article name is a violation of NPOV policy? Yeah, right... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • In addition to the reliable English-language sources that name the student, German newspapers (the accused student is German) mention him by name as well (e.g., [3], [4]). His name is as public as the name of the alleged victim. --SonicY (talk) 00:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
His name being public is not a relevant consideration. Obviously, if it wasn't public it would be impossible for us to name him anyway. The policies I linked to are quite clearly-worded. It's about whether he is otherwise notable and/or whether his identity is important, not simply whether is name is out there. Formerip (talk) 01:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
The policy you linked says that caution should be applied in cases when the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed. This is not the case here; his name has been widely disseminated and not concealed. --SonicY (talk) 01:19, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I linked to two policies. For BLPNAME, it may or may not be that his name has been intentionally concealed. Perhaps it was initially, which would certainly count. But what's your objection to applying CRIME? Formerip (talk) 01:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
WP:CRIME says that a person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article. But the student isn't the subject of a separate article and he isn't only known in connection with a criminal event. Now he's also known for inspiring a famous performance artwork and for suing an Ivy League college for gender discrimination (among other things). --SonicY (talk) 01:46, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I linked the wrong policy. It should be WP:BLPCRIME, as discussed lower down in the discussion now. Basically, he has not been convicted of any crime and his name is unimportant in terms of understanding the subject of the article. There's no reason to include it beyond "because we can", which is not a reason. Formerip (talk) 22:09, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
I am not sure that he is "known for inspiring a famous performance artwork". Bus stop (talk) 02:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, if it improves the article - For the same reason I stated in the discussion a few months ago. His name has already been publicized and he has given interviews. I don't think that WP:BLPNAME applies in this case.- MrX 01:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
A compelling focus resulted from the filing of the lawsuit against the university. I think his name is as important as her name at this point. No longer is there a presumption that the artwork should be considered unanswerable to anyone. The lawsuit is saying that the university in its zest to let creativity be unfettered has failed the other student. The focus now is not as much on rape as it had been prior to the lawsuit. The strange and interesting situation now is that freedom of creativity is pitted against another person's claimed right to peacefully pursue education. The interesting thing now is that the university campus is a microcosm in which freedom of expression is pitted against another person's right to not be harassed by what is claimed to be a wayward work of art. Bus stop (talk) 01:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Sure, so long as we point out that three separate investigations (by the university, the police, and the DA) all cleared the accused student, leading one to believe that Sulkowicz's report, seven months after the alleged incident, may have been less than truthful. That and the fact that two additional follow-on investigations also cleared him. That would probably take up as much space as the mattress-girl's propaganda show. Or you could just leave the guy alone. There is no indication that he is anything but a victim of this girl's unsubstantiated attacks. GregJackP Boomer! 01:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
The question is how do we write the article—the accused, the accused, the accused? Bus stop (talk) 01:52, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes As other users have pointed out, stating his name in the article is not breaking any Wikipedia guidelines (I won't repeat them, just look at the discussion), and he is an important figure in the subject of the article. We can name him and state that he is the alleged abuser but he has been found innocent by whoever. The question at this point surely isn't that we shouldn't name him for libelous reasons, as - as it has been extensively discussed here and on the articles talk page - no rules are being broken in doing so, and including his name would improve the article as Wikipedia is an accumulation of facts and reports from reliable sources if nothing else. He himself has put his name out there, he's notable, there should be no problem. - RatRat- Talk    02:12, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
@GregJackP: Sulkowicz's report... may have been less than truthful... mattress-girl's propaganda show... victim of this girl's unsubstantiated attacks. It's ironic that you suggest that his name should be excluded under WP:BLP but have no qualms about uttering thinly veiled accusations of criminal misconduct (false rape charge) against the alleged rape victim and, by extension, the other other two women and one man who also accused him of sexual assault. --SonicY (talk) 10:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Sonicyouth86, I have made no accusation that Sulkowicz has committed a criminal offense in New York or elsewhere. I have said that her allegations were "unsubstantiated" and that she may have been "less than truthful," neither of which meed the elements of the New York,s "False reporting an incident" statute, see N.Y. Penal Law § 240.50, nor the elements of § 210.45 (Making a punishable false written statement), nor the enhanced versions (§§ 210.35-210.40), nor the elements of any level of Perjury (§§ 210.05-210.15), and so on. If you're going to accuse me of something, make sure that you understand what the criminal law is, and what it is not. I chose my words very carefully so as not to accuse her of any criminal act. Additionally, the individual who you want to name has been cleared in each and every one of the investigations that he has gone through, and the mere accusations do not make him fair game for us dragging his name through the mud. GregJackP Boomer! 15:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
You did choose your words carefully and your accusations are veiled albeit thinly. You didn't outright say that she and the other alleged victims fabricated the crime, you said that her report "may have been less than truthful", "propaganda" this and that. My point was that your inconsistent application of BLP is ironic. It's okay to use her name and impugn her character (less than truthful, "propaganda", attacked the poor guy) but it's not okay to use his name (let alone suggest that he's anything but an innocent victim). No, the accusations do not "make him fair game", but his many interviews, his lawsuit and his role in the performance piece allow Wikipedia to use his name which has been in the headlines for over a year. --SonicY (talk) 16:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
So I guess we should also put the information that she has a history of allegations of sexual assault (pl. br. ¶45.f), none of which have ever been substantiated; that she made statements threatening that he was not safe on campus (pl. br. ¶¶85, 87), etc. Should we find all of the negative issues about her and include them in the article, so that it's balanced? GregJackP Boomer! 18:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
You missed the part that says that the women have a history of wearing short skirts and the alleged male victim wears super tight pants (pl. br. img. bs. ah. ¶¶45, 1067). If I weren't such a kind fellow I would probably say something about your idea of "balance" or your bleeding heart for some people and contempt for other. I believe that we've established that [redacted]'s name is widely disseminated and that his interviews and lawsuits had something to do with that. --SonicY (talk) 20:19, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Exclude the name. The name is public and many of the sources we link to as references will it include it, so we're not suppressing the name. However, I don't see that including the name will improve the article. As a piece of performance art the name is irrelevant. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Are you saying the article is only about the artwork? That is what the title implies. But I think the scope of the article would include the lawsuit, would it not? Bus stop (talk) 02:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the article is supposed to be about the performance art but that doesn't mean it shouldn't have context and further developments. Reliable sources have reported on the legal developments in the context of the performance art. Why should Wikipedia censor the context, particularly when it is so important to the articles subject. - RatRat- Talk    02:15, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I think the subsequent developments are important. Bus stop (talk) 02:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I have yet to waver on my view that we should be using his name, there's no point in trying to shove the genie back into the lamp. This would be akin, in some ways, to attempting to pretend that everyone doesn't already know Trisha Ellen Meili's name in the Central Park jogger case and rewriting the article in horrifically mangled English and awful circumlocutions to avoid using Meili's name; Meili also had her name outed against her will, and like this man chose to start doing interviews under her own name in response. I'm not attempting to equate his situation with Meili's, only that his name is already out there and no amount of shoving our heads in the sand will change that. If you really want to see a situation where a person's name should be kept out you can check my contributions, you'll find this situation is quite far removed from that one. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:34, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes. WP:BLPNAME doesn't preclude us from coming to a consensus to mention [redacted] by name here. His identity has been widely disseminated in the media and his actions are not those of a low-profile individual. He spoke to the New York Times for a story in December 2014 and gave an interview for The Daily Beast in February. He further raised his profile with the filing of [redacted] v. Columbia University and his lawyer is giving quotes to the press like “He’s become the poster boy for something he didn’t do.” gobonobo + c 05:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Include name - Name is public enough and the individual has contributed to that publicity by interviews and lawsuits. Don't see an issue with WP:BLPNAME here. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}}
  • No. Until there is a conviction on the rape charges, the presumption is that he is a victim of bullying by the alleged victim and by the university. Our policy clearly forbids us from participating in such bullying. The fact that his name became public when he filed a lawsuit is irrelevant. Unlike her, he didn't seek publicity. I just redacted his name from the article talk page because we shouldn't name him there either. You can expect an edit war over my decision :( but I won't be participating in it. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Wait wouldn't the university and the artist be presumed innocent until proven guilty as well since there's a lawsuit against them? We can't assume bullying either. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:36, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
That's a flawed comparison. Beyond the civil/criminal distinction the allegations in the civil suit aren't disputed by either party, the question for the court is whether they constitute Title IX violations. If plaintiff and defendant agree on the "facts" of the case I see no reason to exclude those facts from the article. 169.57.0.213 (talk) 16:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
If you wouldn't support removing Meili's name from Wikipedia, I'd be interested as to how you'd resolve that dissonance with this situation. Shoving our fingers in our ears and pretending we can't see what's right in front of our faces is a completely untenable way to write an article. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:42, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
"Presumed innocent until proven guilty" relates to criminal cases and this man's lawsuit is a civil case. I see no need to mention this man's name in our article and strong reasons to refrain from mentioning it. He has not been convicted of a crime, though the woman says he committed one. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:50, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Three women and one man have accused him, to be precise. And the alleged victims also haven't been convicted of a crime (false accusation of rape), so by that logic, their names shouldn't be mentioned either. She/the accuser/the alleged victim, he/the accused/the alleged rapist – that's what we would be stuck with. Using [redacted] and Sulkowicz's very public names would clearly improve the article. --SonicY (talk) 10:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
And every investigation has cleared him of the accusations. Every single time. GregJackP Boomer! 15:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
You missed the point that I was trying to make. Btw, at least one alleged victim's case is still pending. And please please please let's not get into a discussion of who get's cleared sometimes and how many rape reports lead to convictions. --SonicY (talk) 16:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
No, I understand completely. More than one person has accused him, therefore Wikipedia should publicly join the effort to permanently humiliate him, despite the fact that not a single investigation has substantiated any of the charges. As far as reports and convictions, I dare say that I have investigated far more rapes and know much more about the decisions inherent in a rape prosecution than most—but that's beside the point. Wikipedia is not the place for SJWs and we need to protect people's privacy. We omitted a lot less sensitive material in order to protect figures who are still alive, just because this is an alleged campus rape doesn't change the moral thing to do as to the male victim's privacy. GregJackP Boomer! 17:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Nobody is trying to "humiliate" him, please ease up on the emotion. We're trying to determine whether there's a policy-based reason to censor his widely disseminated name. Wikipedia is not the place for SJWs – interesting choice of bogeyman and lingo right there. Had you remained silent, some people would not have realized what this was about. I'm out. --SonicY (talk) 20:19, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: This somewhat reminds me of the Belle Knox situation, where she initially did not want to have her name (Miriam Weeks) used. This isn't entirely the same scenario (his name has been confirmed as the suspect although he has been cleared of the charges), but there is the question of whether or not the person himself would want his name used in the Wikipedia article. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 05:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Also somewhat related is that the person who outed Knox was named in several media outlets and he confirmed this himself, but it was ultimately decided that his name did not add anything to the article and was removed. Again, the scenario here is not identical but this does somewhat set some sort of precedent here. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 06:06, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I mean he can't have it both ways, @Tokyogirl79:, once he's publicly outed himself in the news and in a lawsuit, wikipedia should name him. if he wants to be named in public, he can't avoid being named on Wikipedia.--Shibbolethink ( ) 15:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Suggestion. I suggest that someone email the accused's lawyer and ask whether the accused has a preference about being named. If he doesn't want to be named, I think we should respect that for now. Whatever we decide for the article should apply to the talk page too. Sarah (SV) (talk) 06:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
That wouldn't be a great precedent... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it's that bad of an idea, however any email should state that a statement would not guarantee the name's removal. It would surely impact the debate, but it wouldn't be a guarantee. An alternate thing to take into consideration is that the lawyer may state that the guy has no problem with his name being in the article as long as we state that he was cleared of charges (which it is/would be), which would make this entire debate somewhat moot. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 07:12, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree, no guarantee, just to give us extra information that we can factor in. For example, he might be quite willing to be named, which means we're wasting our time dicussing it. But if he'd prefer not, at least we have a pointer BLP-wise. Sarah (SV) (talk) 08:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I've sent an e-mail to the lawyer via his website and I've asked him, but I made sure to stress that there was no guarantee that a formal statement for its omission would guarantee anything. I did make sure to state that the article did have that the guy was cleared of the accusations. I directed him to Wikipedia's official e-mail, so if he decides to respond (no guarantee there) then we'll at least have that. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 11:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Name Calling him "the accused" continually invokes thoughts of rape accusations, and associates those with his character (his part in the story, not his moral character). InedibleHulk (talk) 12:31, May 4, 2015 (UTC)
  • Only if his defense is given full treatment - Sulcowicz allegation of rape is from a primary source only (her allegation), which is accepted in the article. For starters, it should be made clear from the outset. Instead of saying "allegation" alone, it should be "unfounded allegation" per the findings of both the university, as well as the police who declined to pursue a criminal case after an investigation. Then his defense should be given full hearing - just saying he denied it does not balance a rape accusation.Mattnad (talk) 13:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, but Only if his defense is given full treatment and we actually adhere to NPOV. I think there definitely were some shenanigans going on in that article, though subtle. Such as the inclusion of "Cathy Young, who has a history of reporting critically on sexual assault." That clause only made sense if we also clarified that every other journalist involved also had a history of reporting this way or that way on the topic. That kind of clause is more suited to Gawker or Jezebel than Wikipedia. That was just one example of a few subtle NPOV things, but nothing that I think should preclude including the accused's name. His name is a now a matter of public record, and therefore, it's fair game. --Shibbolethink ( ) 15:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
That was actually supported by The Washington Post because they specifically commented on Cathy Young's history of reporting critically on campus anti-rape activism, in the context of discussing Sulkowicz's case. Moving The Washington Post reference away from the statement, and tagging it as citation needed seemed like "shenanigans", but perhaps accidental and that's probably a topic for the article talk page.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes; widely disseminated name, including due to his own actions. --GRuban (talk) 16:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes He's named himself, he's even suing the school. It's out there, we're censoring it for a hodgepodge of reasons, none of which are good, and none of which are grounded in policy. GraniteSand (talk) 17:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, done carefully. His name is universally reported by the sources and is a matter of public record, his identity is a relevant and significant part of the story, and he himself is not keeping his identity private. Removing it creates a moderate disservice to readers, does not serve BLP or any other purpose, and frankly, is rather weird and makes the encyclopedia appear as such. We would not report his name merely as a person named but uncharged and unconvicted of a crime, because that does fit WP:BLPCRIME. Rather, he is an active central participant in a notable event. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Whilst his name is in the public domain, it is there because his accuser (or one of her sympathisers) has pushed it into the public domain by naming him. Also the lawsuit exists because he believes he is being publicly bullied, he claims to be the WP:victim of harassment. Do we normally name victims when they take legal action? Martin451 19:52, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Probably we would if they did a huge interview with The Daily Beast and the New York Times that was reprinted by dozens of other news outlets.--Shibbolethink ( ) 20:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
When he did the Daily Beast and NYT interviews, his name has already been released. I believe she gave his name to an article in the university newspaper, which was also published online. He may have felt an interview about his side was the only way to reduce the attention, and since his name was public anyway, felt no option to use it. Another option here would be to remove all mention of his first name, and just go by surname. I have great reluctance in using his name, but as pointed out above, what else would we call him "The accused" would violate BLP when he has been cleared. Martin451 21:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes with caveats. First we have to be clear that this was an allegation, then that the allegation was investigation, and subsequently the findings of the investigation. If he hadn't came back with a lawsuit saying this performance art was harassment, I would say no. But the lawsuit itself is relevant to the article, and our coverage of the lawsuit would be rather ridiculous if we can't use his name. --Kyohyi (talk) 21:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes as long as there isn't WP:UNDUE. This article is about the performance piece, not the incident itself or even the creator of the art or the accused. His name is on the public record, in New York newspapers. But we aren't trying the case on Wikipedia and have to present both sides of a dispute. We talk about the art and its creation and reaction to it. That was the original intent of changing the name of the article from the name of the article from Emma Sulkowicz to Mattress Performance. It reflected that the article was about the art, not the incident. Liz Read! Talk! 21:51, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Question for everyone insisting on keeping his name out: It's not a perfect analogy, but is there any policy-based reason to keep Steven Pagones' name out of the Tawana Brawley rape allegations article? Imagine for a second what the article would look like; "Sharpton and Maddox then accused a white man living in Duchess County... the accused denied the allegations and then filed a defamation lawsuit... Sharpton then had to pay X dollars to the accused..." If that seems like a completely unreasonable way to write an article, explain how this situation is different. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:17, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Why do you keep bringing up other articles? And WP:BLPCRIME is far more important than the subjective opinion of how an article looks. ― Padenton|   15:28, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)But don't you understand?!? THIS is different. It is a SJW issue, and the accused (who has been repeatedly cleared of any wrong-doing) MUST pay! </sarcasm> GregJackP Boomer! 15:32, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
No, BLPCRIME doesn't say anywhere that we shove our heads in the sand and scream "LALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" to the obvious; that's anathema to writing an informative encyclopedia article, as by definition we are supposed to include such things as all of the 5 Ws. I bring up another example to show a similar situation where people haven't lost their minds and tried to hide a name that's already out there in the national news. The question still stands; what policy-based reasoning allows us to leave in Pagones' name and not his (and do you think the Tawana Brawley case wasn't SJW? You obviously don't know what I think about the case, I suspect you'd be quite surprised). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
@GregJackP: Please stop with the disinformation. He has not been "repeatedly cleared of any wrong-doing." He had earlier been found "responsible" for another sexual assault, but had appealed after the woman graduated and didn't want to argue her case out of fear to alienate her new employer. The fourth alleged victim's case is still pending. Not everyone who supports using [redacted]'s name is a "SJW", just as not everyone who opposes using his name is a GamerGate supporter or men's rights activist. --SonicY (talk) 19:08, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
@Sonicyouth86: You seem to be arguing that he might be guilty when you're supposed to be assuming that he's not. I know you think he is, but try to imagine you think otherwise. Do you still want his name in the article? --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Which is why the SJW comment is appropriate. Especially since, lack of assertions to the contrary, the male victim has been cleared of all of the accusations. GregJackP Boomer! 20:00, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
  • NO. This is a very clear example of where WP:BLPCRIME should be applied. The person is not notable in any way except for this incident, and due to the nature of the accusation (a campaign against him arguing that universities the justice system are inadequate in catching rapists), mentioning his name inherently casts suspicion on him, even if a full explanation of his side of the story is made. The article is perfectly fine the way it is, and making it arguably slightly prettier is not nearly as important as protecting an individual's right to be presumed innocent. --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
And exactly how is continually calling him "the accused" doing any favors for the presumption of innocence? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:26, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
The Blade of the Northern Lights, I think the difference between this article and the article you mentioned above, is the Mattress Performance article doesn't contain the text "falsely accused" (and it can't if we respect our policies). Even if the accused student wins his lawsuit, that doesn't speak directly to his innocence or guilt, considering he's not even suing Sulkowicz, he's suing the university. His lawsuit is actually arguing that allowing Sulkowicz to receive course credit for a senior art thesis which is based on an allegation of rape against him, is sexual discrimination prohibited under Title IX. It seems the ethical question here is should we link him by name to a rape allegation, for which he has not been charged, and likely never will be, but that in all likelihood will never be deemed officially a false allegation of rape?--BoboMeowCat (talk) 17:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
There is no point to keeping "John Doe's" name out of the article. We are discussing an article that has a person bringing a lawsuit. That person has a name. The lawsuit challenges a university's acquiescence to another student's harassment. This is an important legal case. John Doe could just as well not brought a lawsuit. The fact that he took legal action to in essence curtail unfettered artistic activity sets him apart from a minor character whose name should not be given wider exposure in our article. There is nothing tawdry or sensationalistic about referring to him by his proper name. I think he is taking an idealistic position on a troublesome question. Bus stop (talk) 18:24, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
So in your view, if a non-notable person is defamed and harassed, it is inappropriate to publish the name and thus contribute to the defamation and harassment. But if that person files a lawsuit about being defamed and harassed, then it is appropriate? Kind of a catch-22, don't you think? --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:01, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
The moment he filed a lawsuit and outed himself in public via the Daily Beast, he became notable.--18:06, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
We need to appreciate the oddness of the work of art. Works of art can have a variety of subject matter. But I don't know of any other work of art that targets another person. According to our article Emma Sulkowicz vows to perform the work of art "until a student she alleges sexually assaulted her is expelled from or leaves the university." According to our article "She has said she plans to continue until the accused student is expelled from or otherwise leaves Columbia, and that she will take the mattress to her graduation ceremony if necessary." The name of the alleged rapist was of lesser importance prior to the lawsuit and the name of the artist was of greater importance, but after the lawsuit the name of the artist is of lesser importance to our article—she is not even named in the lawsuit—and the name of the alleged rapist is of greater importance. He is challenging the university. That is arguably an important role in the outline of our article. His lawsuit if successful would inevitably curtail the scope of art in the setting of that university's campus. His stature has increased in our article consequently his name warrants mention. Bus stop (talk) 21:01, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
This is crystal-balling. If this develops into a landmark legal case and/or a case that makes national front-page news, then at that point in time it would undoubtedly be right to take a step back and consider what that means for the article. At the moment, we have a case being filed, which may or may not ever end up in a courtroom. It certainly should feature in the article and possibly even be mentioned in the lead, but it doesn't change the basic dynamic of the article, which is about a work of performance art. The name is still not important. Formerip (talk) 22:05, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
So by that logic we should pretend Al Sharpton accused "a guy from Duchess County" and Dominique Strauss-Kahn had "an allegation from a hotel maid". I see no cogent argument that would allow the quite rightful inclusion of those names and not the equally rightful inclusion of this one, especially in Nafissatou Diallo's case. Identities should really only be hidden in very extreme cases (check my contributions for one), and in this case the guy has quite readily identified himself. BLPCRIME and such exist to protect people who aren't already out there, our job isn't to sing "TRALALALALALALALALALALALA" and be a group of 1 on this issue. Every reliable source uses his name, and we at Wikipedia are supposed to be following sources, not deliberately going against them by writing tortured circumlocutions so we can pretend we're doing anyone (not the least of whom are our readers who are looking for information and readable prose) a service. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:23, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
FormerIP—do you think you could tell me in your own words what you think we would be accomplishing by leaving out the name of "John Doe"? We know his name is not "John Doe". He has an actual name. He is not always referred to as "the accused". Why would we want to substitute "John Doe" or "the accused" for his actual name? What do you think we accomplish by sidestepping use of the actual name? Are there any alternative locutions to the phraseology "the accused"? Bus stop (talk) 06:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
You're thinking about it backwards. There are obviously good reasons for the policy and it tells us to err on the side of caution in this type of circumstance. So, the default is that we don't include the name, unless we can think of a good reason why we need to. Whether I can think of any special reasons to exclude it, beyond our general duty to living people, is the wrong question. In terms of a positive reason to include it, I see none, and your idea that he has somehow made legal history by filing some court papers so that changes everything is completely wrong.
Alternatives to "the accused"? I'd go for "he" for most of the article, and we don't need "the accused" at all, because he is not facing a criminal trial. Formerip (talk) 09:40, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Have you seen some of the sources discussing the topic on which we are writing an article: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. Our article at present is not addressing most aspects of "John Doe's" lawsuit. And of course he is referred to by name in all of these sources. By the way, once again we see what an odd work of art this is: "John Doe claims that Sulkowicz breached a confidentiality agreement regarding the disciplinary hearing multiple times and that she defamed him with a targeted campaign to push him off campus. Sulkowicz herself said as much to the media: 'Get my rapist off campus,' she told a school publication, about the purpose of her art piece."[11] Can you tell me of any other work of art that has as its aim the causing of another person to vacate premises? Art generally addresses ideas. They may be aesthetic, political, or other. But how often do we see art target another individual? She is not being sued. John Doe happens to be an important person in this story. Bus stop (talk) 12:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Bus stop, the current article goes beyond not addressing "most aspects" of the lawsuit. It doesn't mention any aspects of the lawsuit. Doesn't even mention it at all. This is because after User:AndyTheGrump blanked the whole thing and things got crazy, the article was frozen at its March 2 version, prior to the lawsuit. Before that the article addressed the lawsuit significantly. [12]--BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Bus stop, you don't seem neutral. Your page says you're an art lover.--82.113.99.53 (talk) 14:54, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Happily, Wikipedia is not an art criticism site.
I think everyone participating here is aware that the name has been published in the media. This is not the point, though. AFAICT, no-one has come up with even the vaguest reason why including it would improve the article (beyond giving the reader a name they don't really need to know).
If you think there are aspects of the lawsuit that need to be mentioned in the article, you can make an edit request on the article talkpage. Formerip (talk) 13:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Including his name in the article serves to humanize him, present both sides of the case as neutrally as possible, based on facts, and it allows us to expand on his background in the case and the piece in a way that allows readers to draw their own conclusions about the circumstances. Leaving it out makes him a faceless and nameless "accused" that is /very/ easy to straw man in one's mind. How's that?--Shibbolethink ( ) 18:09, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
"Art lover"? I don't know about that, but you shouldn't post in the middle of someone else's post, as you do here. Bus stop (talk) 15:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
The inclusion of the name facilitates writing about the subject. Bus stop (talk) 13:36, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
But she doesn't allege theft of her lollipop, she accuses him of raping her arse. Would you want to read your name in an wikipedia article related to this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.99.172 (talk) 15:05, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
I tend to prefer propriety therefore I will not be engaging in base banter such as this. Bus stop (talk) 15:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  • No. In local Berlin newspapers he is named "Adam K.". The Berlin neighborhood could otherwise easily identify him and his parents - it's not a very common surname and his mother is a public character of the Berlin feminist movement.--82.113.99.184 (talk) 09:35, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Related issue: should we name the student accused of rape on the talk page Talk:Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)?[edit]

See [13], [14], and User talk:Guy Macon#Mattress --Guy Macon (talk) 05:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Cullen does make a good point that it's not a criminal case but a civil case. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
To be specific, she filed a police report, the police interviewed him, and shortly afterwards the district attorney's office decided not to pursue the case. That's a criminal case -- a criminal case that went nowhere.
She also filed a a complaint with the university and the university inquiry found the student not responsible, but that was neither a civil or a criminal case.
His harassment/defamation lawsuit against Columbia, its president, and the professor who approved the project is a civil case, and our policy against revealing the names of the accused unless there is a conviction applies to criminal cases, not civil. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Redacting [redacted]'s name from the talk page was unnecessary. His name appears in multiple reliable sources[15] and he has spoken publicly about the situation.- MrX 12:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
This guy gets it--Shibbolethink ( ) 15:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── "Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages." -- Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons
Including the name of the accused does nothing to improve the article, and violates Wikipedia's BLP policy. This includes naming him on Wikipedia talk pages. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:40, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

How does it not improve the article? While reading the article before we named him, I was continually clicking links to see who he was and what had been published about him. He's done numerous self-pov articles in different newspapers, he's outed himself at least twice, and he's filed a lawsuit against columbia in the public domain, all those court records are public. He clearly has no problem with outing himself now, why would we not reflect that? BLP is only for cases when there's no consensus in the MSM. There is 100%, without a doubt, consensus amongst media sources that he has a name, and it is well documented.--Shibbolethink ( ) 16:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
How does including [redacted]'s name violate his privacy when it has obviously been widely publicized in the media? And how does that same interpretation of WP:BLP allow us to include [redacted]'s name who made (possibly false) rape allegations in the first place? What about her privacy and our conservative, non-tabloid treatment of this living person?- MrX 17:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
"The media did it first" is not a valid reason to violate Wikipedia's BLP policy. And the reason we name her and not him is because she is not the accused in a criminal case but he is. Wikipedia's BLP policy is clear: we do not name non-public figures who are accused of a crime unless there is a conviction. We can (but are not required to) name either party of a civil lawsuit that is still being litigated. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
The violation is imaginary and WP:BLPCRIME does not include the text that you quoted in your comment. It says "... editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime...". No one here is proposing that we suggest in an article that [redacted] committed a crime. By the way, the [redacted] young man is not "the accused in a criminal case" either.- MrX 21:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Re-read what you just wrote. The article, if it were to include his name would indeed not (directly) suggest that he had committed a crime, but it would outright state that he is accused of committing a crime. Formerip (talk) 21:49, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
What part of
"Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages." -- Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons
are you having trouble understanding? --Guy Macon (talk) 05:15, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Why are you freaking out? You have made no assertion, plausible or otherwise, that using [redacted]'s name would potentially harm him. In fact, by omitting his name, there is an implication of guilt, which I would think would be far more harmful. Superficial appeals to policy without reasoning are not helpful.- MrX 19:26, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Here is yet another editor who insists on naming the accused:[16] --Guy Macon (talk) 17:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • No. WP:BLPCRIME is clear in this, and there's no reason to post it. "A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured." That's for any crime. For 'rape', for which accusations can cause far more damage than other crimes, we don't mention it. It does not matter if it's mentioned externally (and I would even hesitate to link to those sources), there's no reason to mention it on Wikipedia. BLPCRIME does not go deep into the issue of if the name is mentioned externally, but take the WP:OUTING policy as a precedent, which is clear that we do not mention an editor's connection to their real world persona on Wikipedia, even if they are publicly connected to their username outside of Wikipedia. ― Padenton|   18:12, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, and let's stop being strange about BLP. For the reasons his name is (arguably) includable in article space, it can be mentioned in talk space. There's no point censoring discussion to play games over a weird policy interpretation. It causes him no harm to discuss him in the context of the article. If it turns out that his name is excluded entirely from article space, which I disagree with, because it is not a complicated scenario where there are multiple people who one might be referring to there would be no particular need to mention his name on the associated talk page, so no particular harm from simply referring to him as the target of the performance. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes My reading of the BLP policy is that we should avoid "outing" people, but [redacted] was outed a long time ago and has since been a willing participant in two profiles with major newspapers. He's named in every single story I can find on the topic at this point, and there appears to be no effort -- on his part or on the part of any media outlet -- to keep his name a secret. This seems akin to refusing to name someone like [Sollecito] Nblund (talk) 21:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
That's not what WP:OUTING says. It says "unless that person had voluntarily posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia." and "The fact that a person either has posted personal information or edits under their own name, making them easily identifiable through online searches, is not an excuse". "Someone else outed him off-wiki" does not allow us to out him. "He outed himself off-wiki" does not allow us to out him.
"Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages." -- Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons
Note that there is no exception for subjects who have received a lot of media coverage. Just as with our WP:OUTING policy, someone else doing it first does not mean that we are allowed to do it. They are not an encyclopedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:46, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
I was under the impression that you were using WP:OUTING as an analogy, not as a literally applicable standard -- he has directly outed himself to the press -- he hasn't outed himself directly on Wikipedia, but he has personally engaged in interviews with nationally circulated newspapers using his own name. Perhaps I'm missing something, but it sounds like you're suggesting that BLP standards would essentially prohibit Wikipedia from naming anyone who didn't personally and explicitly post their personal information directly to Wikipedia. That's not really a tenable argument IMHO Nblund (talk) 23:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
WP:OUTING is about editors -- it has nothing to do with what we write in our articles. The alleged rapist is not hiding behind a pseudonym (like us). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Thus my choice of the words "Just as with our WP:OUTING policy, someone else doing it first does not mean that we are allowed to do it. They are not an encyclopedia." If I had meant to claim that our outing policy applies to non-editors (which it doesn't) I would have written "According to our WP:OUTING policy..." The applicable policy is the third paragraph of WP:BLP and there is no exception listed for individuals who have outed themselves off-wiki. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:20, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
The third paragraph of BLP doesn't say anything about people "outing" themselves off-wiki. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:42, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
This^. It seems like the more directly relevant BLP policy is the portion on the privacy of names. Its fairly explicit in stating that the primary consideration is how widely disseminated their name is in the press. Nblund (talk) 00:20, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes. As long as we adhere to WP:BLPTALK we're well within bounds to use [redacted]'s name on the talk page as it is "related to making content choices". He isn't a low-profile individual and it will be less confusing if we can discuss content that pertains to him without having to censor ourselves. gobonobo + c 13:37, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Related issue: Should we stop lying through our teeth and pretending that an article concerning allegations of rape is about 'performance art'?[edit]

WP:COATRACK may only be an essay, but WP:NPOV is policy, last time I looked, and picking sides in a dispute and accepting as fact the statements from one side - and incorporating them into the article title doesn't really seem that neutral to me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:19, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

If anyone were doing so I'd absolutely agree, I don't see that here. I have quite deliberately not made my opinion known because it doesn't matter what I happen to think is the truth of the matter between the two of them, although I do tend to agree with Bus stop about Columbia's response. The title is a serious issue, but one I really don't know how to resolve. Someone with a cooler head and outside view would be appreciated. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:29, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, this is a rough road. I would think the best course of action would be to rename the article to describe the entire situation and not just her protest, but I don't think the suggested naming of "Emma Sulkowicz False Rape Allegations" is pertinent because it'll be entirely impossible for any of us to know what really happened. I think perhaps a better naming would be something like Emma Sulkowicz and [redacted] Rape Allegations or something like that. It needs to include both respondents, and it needs to not include the word "false".--Shibbolethink ( ) 15:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I wonder why Andy is getting so emotional about this issue. If you've got a suggestion for an alternative title, why not simply propose it and we can see whether it gains consensus? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Andy, the performance art is the key issue. That's why the case gained traction, it's why politicians got involved, and it's why the accused is suing the university and not his accuser, because he maintains that the former had a duty to protect him from it, not encourage it by allowing it as coursework. The issue with the article isn't the title, it's the way the article was being written, and becoming less and less about the art (from one perspective) or bullying-as-coursework (from the other perspective) and more about the detailed allegations. Sarah (SV) (talk) 07:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Andy, I know that I am trying very hard to make this a neutral and encyclopedic article, and so are a bunch of other editors (along with the usual verbal snipers and verbal bomb-throwers) and it sort of annoys me to be accused of "lying through my teeth and pretending". More light and less heat, please. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't see how the article title is NPOV, but perhaps you have an alternative in mind. I agree that most of the content about the accusations should have been removed. It could have been summarized in a short paragraph to avoid the coatrack problem. Andy, with respect, if you're too emotionally involved in this subject, you may want to consider stepping back.- MrX 12:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Whatever sources I've seen weighing in on the question seem to support that Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) is a work of art. Works of art are often transgressive thus stepping over a line of acceptability might not rule out that it is a work of art. Unless some sources can be presented which argue that this is not genuinely a work of art, I think we have to accept that an important element of our article is a bona fide work of art. Bus stop (talk) 12:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm no expert on what is and isn't art, but I know it when I see it, and this isn't it. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:28, May 4, 2015 (UTC)
National Post columnist Robert Fulford said, it isn't art (Robert Fulford: If anything’s art, art’s nothing) --82.113.98.114 (talk) 12:36, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I've recently read up on this, based on sources in a previous version of the article. The creator of the performance is quite clear that she intended it as protest against the university's finding that he was not responsible for sexual assault, and would stop the performance once she graduated or more telling, when he's permanently separated from the college. That suggests it's not simply art, but an attempt to raise awareness of her position on the topic, and to put pressure on him and the university. If she had been designing and publishing posters (arguably art too), it would be no different. It can be both art, and an ongoing political statement. As the latter, it's really about her alleged attack. I'll add that activists on 130 other campuses carried mattresses in solidarity with her. To suggest that this is just about art is not really being honest.Mattnad (talk) 12:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • While I can understand the opinion that this is not art, the reliable sources call it art and Sulkowicz is receiving credit for this as art for her senior thesis as a visual arts major at Columbia University. In terms of neutral point of view, the accused student is not suing Sulkowicz, he is suing the university, specifically Sulkowicz's supervising art professor. Describing this as art seems unavoidable if we follow the reliable sources.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 13:40, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Sure, but if we followed the mainstream reliable sources, "redacted" would have a name. This article seems long beyond that simple approach. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:55, May 4, 2015 (UTC)
I think we can include both his name, and the entire article as an art piece, if users don't hide behind it as a way to block changes to the article. All elements of the lawsuit, the accused's history at columbia, etc. etc. are all inherently related to the art piece, and no one should be able to hide behind the art piece designation to call certain inclusions off topic.--Shibbolethink ( ) 15:05, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Not sure, while I agree that the article had some NPOV issues, I don't think changing the name of the article is going to fix anything. The main notability of the event is garnered via her art piece, like it or not. It's what we build the article off of.--Shibbolethink ( ) 15:05, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Of course not. Rape allegations happen all the time; the performance art is what made this incident notable. --GRuban (talk) 15:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
That is of course the crux of the matter: if this was presented as an article about allegations of rape, it would never be accepted as an article. By coatracking the rape allegations into an article supposedly about 'art' (but in practice almost entirely about the allegations), basic Wikipedia policy can be ignored. The 'art' has no real significance as art beyond the allegations (we don't write articles about things other undergraduate students do as 'performance art') and even presenting it as art, rather than as the harassment that one party in the dispute sees it as is a violation of WP:NPOV. A neutral article on the whole series of events - which didn't permit one party on the dispute to dictate the terms in which it was described - would fail to demonstrate notability. Evidently though contributors would rather violate basic Wikipedia policies than admit that this article is inherently biased. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I somehow don't see how any article version would "fail to demonstrate notability" with numerous articles by the New York Times, the Washington Post, Rolling Stone, and Newsweek. It is my contention that the thing that differentiates this event from the hundreds of other rape allegations that don't get that coverage is the performance art aspect. But either way, it's clearly notable. (And we do document some of those hundreds of rape allegations even so.) --GRuban (talk) 17:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
"Notability"?? That's silly. The basic truth here is that this student's art project has been phenomenally successful in gaining attention -- and I think that means the article is built on solid notability. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:36, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I think early on that was definitely the case, but it became a lot more than that, and it's gone squarely into the debate about equal treatment by the university (the Title IX complaint), as well as the vigilante justice by some on campus. This controversy has evolved from her protest, to a much bigger and broad item that really start with not only her accusation, but the other accusations that followed. To some degree, this has the halmarks of all that is wrong with universities getting involved with rape accusations - both for the accuser and the accused.Mattnad (talk) 16:50, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Notability (local interests pretty much of interest to university students from Columbia University only - Govindaharihari (talk) 18:29, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
You think? Why then did national press like the NYTimes, Time, Newsweek, Washington Post, and many others cover the recent Title IX lawsuit? Their editors don't agree that it's local to Columbia U. I can't reconcile your view, and what I read via a simple google search.Mattnad (talk) 19:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes,User:Mattnad you get a few reports, it's easy press. However, using my crystal ball, there is no long term notability of this student rape claim or the ongoing complaining disguised as artwork either, so , call it what you want, it's important to you and a few of the other associated, interested users here but of no interest or note to the world, on the wider issue, it's irrelevant, sorry Govindaharihari (talk) 19:30, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, User:Govindaharihari, if you're saying this is a niche topic, I agree. But Wikipedia has a lot of those - I'd say the majority of the articles are niche. But that's what makes Wikipedia great.Mattnad (talk) 20:30, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Ignoring the opinionated nature of the way the question is posed in the heading, yes, absolutely, referring to it simply as "performance art" misses the point and the sources widely say. It is WP:SYNTH to argue that just because she calls it art and gets university credit as art, that it is art. The weight of reliable sources don't refer to it in their authoritative tone as protest or performance art, they use their own terms, and then describe how it has been called art. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The performance art made this notable, but the performance art would be nothing without the rape allegations behind it. The rape allegations are central to the case, and are what has propelled this art onto the international stage. The article either needs to be about the whole case, the allegations, the law suit, and the art. Or it just needs to be about the art, with no commentary about (redacted). The latter would not be encyclopaedic, with the former we would need to present both sides equally, and so the article would need to be moved. Martin451 20:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Art can be political whilst still being art. ϢereSpielChequers 20:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Related issue: Should we rename the article "Emma Sulkowicz and [redacted] Rape Allegations"[edit]

Several users have expressed distaste with the current name: Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) because they believe it shows the article is only depicting Sulkowicz's point of view. I think it's probably true, the article had grown far beyond the scope of just the art piece before it was locked. The numerous articles sourced throughout the piece talk more about the situation than the piece itself. Perhaps the solve to this is to rename it something that depicts both parties, and the nature of the situation, but doesn't use words like false. Thoughts?--Shibbolethink ( ) 15:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

No. He is not alleging rape, so that would be inaccurate. We could perhaps name it Emma Sulkowicz and [John Doe's] Title IX complaints against Columbia University, considering they have both filed Title IX complaints at this point, but considering the art project is what prompted all the publicity and the school's support of it is at the center of the lawsuit, I think it might be better to leave the current title--BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:36, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
What prompted the publicity is the protest, but what prompted the protest is the case at columbia. We're only giving our readers part of the story if we name it after the art piece.--Shibbolethink ( ) 15:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
The accused should not be named -- in the article or on any Wikipedia talk page -- while there is an ongoing discussion about whether naming the accused violates Wikipedia's BLP policy. Get a clear consensus to name him first, then decide how best to name him. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Guy, the comment you appear to be responding to called him "John Doe". It never contained his real name. Are you suggesting even an anonymous placeholder name such as John Doe is inappropriate for the talk page use while discussing this case?--BoboMeowCat (talk) 11:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Using the place holder is entirely appropriate while we decide whether to use the name. The assumption here is that writing "We could perhaps name it Emma Sulkowicz and [John Doe's] Title IX complaints against Columbia University" implies using his name in the title while writing "We could perhaps name it Emma Sulkowicz and John Doe's Title IX complaints against Columbia University" would imply using the placeholder in the title. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:35, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
His name should be used in our article. Neither his name nor her name should occur in the title of our article. The artwork is of considerable importance to this article. That artwork is a performance piece, it involves a mattress, and it takes place at Columbia University, therefore my suggested title is Mattress performance piece (Columbia University). Bus stop (talk) 15:24, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Mattress Performance case (see Duke lacrosse case) or 2014 Columbia University rape allegations (see 2011 Libyan rape allegations)? --82.113.99.109 (talk) 15:52, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Oooh, yeah, that's a good alternative. I like that a lot.--Shibbolethink ( ) 15:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I would prefer the first one, Mattress Performance case. It would be appropriate for all facets of the article. Her allegations against him ("art"), his allegations against Columbia ("lawsuit") and the whole discussion ("media reaction, activists, title IX"). --Cyve (talk) 16:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Admittedly, it should probably be partially italicized. Like Mattress Performance case--Shibbolethink ( ) 17:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
The title 2014 Columbia University rape allegations' accurately describes what the article is about - though evidently actually having a title that does that isn't acceptable to some contributors because it demonstrates just how weak the claim for notability is - to quote GRuban above, "Rape allegations happen all the time". Indeed, not only allegations, but charges, trials, and convictions. And rape convictions rarely meet Wikipedia notability guidelines. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
How about a title of Mattress performance art 2014 at Columbia University and subsequent lawsuit? Kind of catchy, isn't it? Bus stop (talk) 17:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I like it. I like it a lot. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • No. The notable subject here is not the rape allegations or the lawsuit, but the performance art piece. Therefore, the title of the article should be the title of the art piece. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
The background to the art piece is important, and is what has made the performance art notable in the media. The background needs to be included, and if included so does (redacted's) lawsuit. This is much bigger than a woman just carrying a mattress around for no reason. Martin451 20:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Listen, Granger, I want to assume good faith. But WHY do you want to make the article about the piece when so much of WP:RSes don't cover /just/ the piece but the allegations behind it? If this goes the way of including only the art piece itself, and none of the allegations and the background, then I will make a new article about the allegations themselves, and it will definitely be notable. It has SERIOUS coverage in WP:RSes. So much. It's absurd how much.--Shibbolethink ( ) 20:29, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps what I said wasn't clear: I absolutely think that the article should give background information, including the allegations, and discuss the lawsuit as well, just as you've argued below. The central focus of the article, though, should be the artwork, which is the notable topic in all of this (I do not think the allegations are notable by themselves). The title, likewise, should refer to the artwork. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:34, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I might be able to support Mattress Peformance case, but as Granger says the notable subject is the performance art and people's reactions to it. The lawsuit is one reaction. It's not really clear what function the word case performs. Sarah (SV) (talk) 18:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
If we don't include the elements of the sexual assault allegations that underly the art piece, we're doing three horribly ridiculous things: 1)A disservice to readers who want to know about why the art piece even exists. 2)A ridiculous song and dance of NPOV that excludes the entirety of the accused's side of the story, and 3)We're writing a completely unnotable and unencyclopedic article. How many WP:RSes cover the art piece, but not the allegations? I would bet very very few.--Shibbolethink ( ) 20:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Why does the article consist almost entirely of material not about the 'performance art' then? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
The current version focuses much more tightly on the artwork. The problem was that people kept expanding the rape aspect, and so counterclaims were added, then counter-counter claims. We should keep the article focused on the art and the response, including the view (via the lawsuit) that it's bullying-as-coursework, and the position of the university. Sarah (SV) (talk) 19:12, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
An article name that includes people's names when describing a controversy may be a BLP violation and is at any rate unencyclopedic. One that calls it art is including POV in the name. Describing it as a rape allegation is unduly narrow. Unfortunately, this may be a case where we end up with a slightly clunky name, like 2014 Columbia University [xxxx] Incident, where xxxx is the most neutral way we can find to inclusively sum up the broader phenomenon, and incident could be replaced by controversy or some other word. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
The rape was alleged to have happened in 2012, and the report filed in 2013. Including the year 2014 would not be good in my opinion. Martin451 20:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Move to a more neutral title. Either XXX rape allegations, or Mattress performance case, or something else where the whole subject can be handled neutrally. Martin451 20:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • No per Mr Granger. We don't have an article for every rape that takes place, or every act of performance Art, but it is the art that makes this notable. ϢereSpielChequers 20:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
But we do have articles about rape allegations that are notable. If it is the art piece that makes this notable, then why are there so many WP:RSes publishing articles about the dispute that only include 1 or 2 sentences about the art piece?--Shibbolethink ( ) 20:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm aware of some articles where either the victim or the alleged perpetrator are otherwise notable; That isn't the case here. Otherwise yes there are plenty of rape cases that get covered in reliable sources. But we are an encyclopaedia with a certain threshold for notability, we don't cover every murder or rape, and we wouldn't have an article on this one if it wasn't for the performance art. ϢereSpielChequers 12:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Following on from Wikidemon's idea, other possibilities are 2014 Columbia University art dispute or 2014 Columbia University performance-art dispute. Sarah (SV) (talk) 20:30, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I know "controversy" is a bit overused but how about 2014 Columbia University performance-art controversy. It can cut many ways. There's controversy in how universities fail to deal with sexual assault (from victim's POV), how they fail to ensure that the accused are protected (due process/harassment), and how overall nobody is happy (victims/accused) with where we are today.Mattnad (talk) 20:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I like 2014 Columbia University sexual assault controversy. Or maybe 2014 Columbia University sexual assault performance art controversy Except that makes it sound like the performance art is based on people committing sexual assault for the purposes of art. Which would probably be notable if it happened, but definitely did not happen. :(.--Shibbolethink ( ) 20:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure about including "sexual assault" in the title that way, because, to me at least, it comes across as implying that the sexual assault allegations are true. "2014 Columbia University performance-art controversy" (Mattnad's suggestion) sounds reasonable to me. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:51, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
That would work for me. Sarah (SV) (talk) 22:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Would we need to include the year? 2014 isn't technically accurate because the controversy has spanned into 2015, but I'm not aware of any other performance-art controversies at Columbia, so it seems Columbia University performance-art controversy might do. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Since this case/story spans several years, it would make sense to drop the 2014. Plus, given the specificity of Columbia University performance-art, it's very unlikely we'd have another article incorporating that portion of the name anytime soon. So dating it may not be necessary. Is there a naming convention that would require a year?Mattnad (talk) 23:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
We don't need a year. Columbia University performance-art controversy is a good solution. It keeps the focus on the art, its causes and consequences, but removes the title of the work. Sarah (SV) (talk) 05:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
  • No. Absent the mattress carrying there would be nothing about this that would merit a Wikipedia article. It's an article concerning an artwork about which there is a controversy, not a controversy about which there is an artwork. The current title is therefore the right one. Formerip (talk) 23:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Columbia University Mattress Performance controversy? To avoid the disputed term "art" (see section above).--82.113.106.143 (talk) 12:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't think the "disputed term" art is really a disputed term. Bus stop (talk) 17:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
I think it could be described as art. Maybe it's a bit boring and ordinary, but it's art. We Germans should be cautious to say what's art and what's not - especially if the artist is of Jewish descent.--Cyve (talk) 14:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  • No. Moving from the name of the artwork to a contrived title would likely invite more discussion of [redacted], a change for the worse BLP-wise. Anyhow, a proper move discussion should probably take place on the talk page, not buried in a subsection of a noticeboard discussion. gobonobo + c 13:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
  • No name neither, delete the article, she wants to be named, so wikipedia is promoting her by continuing publishing the minor reported story and all this discussion by users that support promoting her as an attempt to publish his name on wikipedia are quite tiresome to read, they are both one event living people WP:BLP1E , only of local interest, that will vanish from the horizon in the very near future. WP:NAME AND WP:CRIME both also reject this articles existence within wikipedias own policies and guidelines Govindaharihari (talk) 19:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
This subject has received international coverage for over six months, and the woman concerned coverage for over a year. The allegations at the heart of this matter first appeared in the press in December 2013. If you believe the article should be deleted, then nominate it for deletion You should have an option at the top of the page, and ask a sysop to add the notice to the page. Martin451 21:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
There is a bit of a discussion regarding renaming the article on its Talk page (here). Bus stop (talk) 11:08, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

There is currently a formal page move discussion here: [17]--BoboMeowCat (talk) 19:45, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Maurice Newman[edit]

Maurice Newman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

It appears there is bias being revealed in the Maurice Newman Wikipedia biography by the administrator/author who is not allowing current news reports to be included about Maurice Newman's climate change stance in the Australian media.

In Australia, Mr Newman went on record on the 8th May 2015, writing a controversial article in "The Australian" newspaper about why he believed Climate Change was a conspiracy by the UN, to bring in a New World Order.

As Mr Newman is hired in the capacity of Chief Business Adviser to the Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott and is accountable to the people of Australia, it seems reasonable to have factual information placed on the biography page of Mr Newman. The update today was removed and labeled as slander. How can a current newspaper article describing the controversial stance of Mr Newman, that he authored be considered slander?

Surely this information should be allowed in Wikipedia as a fact and not altered because a author has a difference of opinion. It was my understanding that Wikipedia was meant to be based on factual evidence. How can the administrator possibly claim the Guardian newspaper article by the new author was legally inaccurate and edited because it was described as slanderous? Who is responsible in Wikipedia for bias biography details? [1] ~~Jessica Thompson~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.211.172.137 (talk) 15:55, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

References

I assume you're talking about this edit, and in my view it was absolutely correct to remove such an NPOV personal attack. Newman's highly unorthodox views should be explained in the article, but that can be done without resorting to snide defamation. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:17, 10 May 2015 (UTC).
I believe this biography edit should be reviewed by somebody outside of Australia. Lankiveil If one media source is only being cited as more deserving than other Australian and international media sources it is definitely appearing bias. I intend to raise this issue with Wikipedia management. ~~Jessica Thompson~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.131.200.176 (talk) 15:33, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
I am outside Australia. I also have precisely no time whatsoever for climate change denialists. Lankiveil is absolutely correct, this content is inappropriate. Try to state the case more neutrally drawing on multiple sources. Guy (Help!) 13:22, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Walter O'Brien[edit]

I am concerned about the BLP ramifications of this comment on the Talk page. Seeking this board's wisdome in how to handle it. CorporateM (Talk) 18:18, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:BLP talk page violation - removed and warned the user, he has been blocked previously and has warnings, looking at his edits, he is trolling, on talkpages and could easily and should be blocked for such indefinitely, any admin can see the associated block log https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3AEnchev+EG. Govindaharihari (talk) 18:29, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Muchos grassius. CorporateM (Talk) 19:17, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

help desk issue[edit]

Just removed a major (imo) BLP-issue on the help desk with [[18]]. Just notifying here, if anyone wants to look into the issue more closely, or disagrees with this removal and wants to revert. GermanJoe (talk) 19:51, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. WP:BLPCRIME applies, as well as BLP more generally. Guy (Help!) 14:06, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Judith Butler[edit]

this is not actually about possible libel, but i don't know where else to put this. (possibly on that page's Talk Page, but i thought it might get quicker attention from here, as there isn't an existing Talk Page.)

in the intro part, one sentence jumped at me--"She is also well known for her difficult to understand prose." it's jarring in itself, but it's placement was particularly poor, interrupting the flow so that i found myself thinking, "what theory?" when i read the next sentence. i was going to just edit to move that sentence, but, since it was such a strange thing to write (or say) about a scholar, i went to the referenced source to see just who had made this claim, and why, and how. however, i couldn't find that assertion IN the source. granted, i didn't read the entire thing, but i skimmed it, and then did a search for the following words: "difficult" "prose" "understand" i didn't find use of those words that in any way matched the sentence on the Judith Butler page.

so i deleted it. i saved it, and a screenshot, in case it really was legit, although i also think that one can do an "un-do edit" and it would be back (i'm not terribly familiar with editing articles here--usually i do simple edits). my lack of familiarity leads to my question here--removing that sentence, and its reference, caused the next reference to use the number "4." i went to delete (and save) the actual reference, so that the numbers would again match up, but...i can't. this is all that's in the reference edit area: ==References== Template:Re fli st some sort of style sheet thing, i guess, but i don't know to edit it. (spaces added to the above, in case.)

this is to ask someone to, at least, go to the Judith Butler page and get the reference numbers "correct" again. i have screenshots of the intro part before i took out the sentence; 1 with text, 1 with the reference popped up. but i don't know how to attach them here.

this is what i removed when i took out the sentence: She is also well known for her difficult to understand prose.[1]

oh, i also have never seen "<! --" and "-- >" used before, don't know how to use them, and so wasn't able to do spacing. (note that i put a space in each of those to ensure they weren't active.) i would have started a new paragraph with "She has also actively supported...", for ease of reading, but i couldn't figure out how to do it. i note that those codes aren't used in the rest of the article.

i'm not out here very often, so i may not notice if you try to contact me via this site. yet, i have the screenshots saved, if someone wants them. i'm sure someone here is savvy enough, and "inside" enough, to send a message to my actual email, if so.

thank you for your help in this. sorry this isn't very concise.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Atelic (talkcontribs) May 12, 2015‎

References

  1. ^ "Judith Butler [Philosopher]". The Believer. May 2003. Retrieved 9 October 2013. 
The footnote numbers are adjusted automatically when citations are added or removed, so there is nothing to do.- MrX 04:34, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
she is well known for her convoluted prose. i'll add that back with more citations. Jytdog (talk) 13:20, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
actually i don't have to do anything. the body of the article already says this clearly so it is fine to include in the lead, per WP:LEAD:

Others scholars have been more critical. In 1998, Denis Dutton's journal Philosophy and Literature awarded Butler first prize in its fourth annual "Bad Writing Competition," which set out to "celebrate bad writing from the most stylistically lamentable passages found in scholarly books and articles."[1] Her unwitting entry, which ran in a 1997 issue of the scholarly journal Diacritics, ran thusly: "The move from a structuralist account in which capital is understood to structure social relations in relatively homologous ways to a view of hegemony in which power relations are subject to repetition, convergence, and rearticulation brought the question of temporality into the thinking of structure, and marked a shift from a form of Althusserian theory that takes structural totalities as theoretical objects to one in which the insights into the contingent possibility of structure inaugurate a renewed conception of hegemony as bound up with the contingent sites and strategies of the rearticulation of power.[1]

Dutton discontinued the contest after critics opposed its hostile spirit.[2]

Some critics have accused Butler of elitism due to her difficult prose style, while others claim that she reduces gender to "discourse" or promotes a form of gender voluntarism. Susan Bordo, for example, has argued that Butler reduces gender to language, contending that the body is a major part of gender, thus implicitly opposing Butler's conception of gender as performed.[3] A particularly vocal critic has been liberal feminist Martha Nussbaum, who has argued that Butler misreads J.L. Austin's idea of performative utterance, makes erroneous legal claims, forecloses an essential site of resistance by repudiating pre-cultural agency, and provides no normative ethical theory to direct the subversive performances that Butler endorses.[4] Finally, Nancy Fraser's critique of Butler was part of a famous exchange between the two theorists. Fraser has suggested that Butler's focus on performativity distances her from “everyday ways of talking and thinking about ourselves. […] Why should we use such a self-distancing idiom?”[5]

References

  1. ^ a b Dutton, Denis (1998). "Bad Writing Contest". 
  2. ^ Thorkelson, Eli (April 2007). "The case of the Bad Writing Contest: Literary theory as commodity and literary theorists as brands" (PDF). 
  3. ^ Hekman, Susan. “Material Bodies.” Body and Flesh: a Philosophical Reader. Ed. Donn Welton. Blackwell Publishing. 61–70. Accessed through Google Books on Feb 24, 2008.
  4. ^ The Professor Parody
  5. ^ Fraser, Nancy. “False Antitheses.” Feminist Contentions: A Philosophical Exchange. Routledge. 67. Accessed through Google Books on Feb 24, 2008.

Jytdog (talk) 13:25, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Stacey Dash article[edit]

At Stacey Dash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), 172.250.76.229 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) showed up to change content of the article regarding the name of one of Dash's children and who the father of that child is. I reverted the IP because the material was unsourced, and the edit looked sketchy (the Stacey Dash article commonly gets WP:Vandalized). The IP showed back up with a source. I reverted the IP, stating, "Find a better source than Daily Mail, per various WP:BLP noticeboard discussions." and "Per various WP:Reliable sources noticeboard discussions as well. Anyway, if poor sources and/or unsourced content keeps getting added to this article, I will post a notice at the WP:BLP noticeboard." The IP showed back up to re-add the information without sourcing it, stating, "This information is incorrect as are the sources. Google 'James Maby Lola Maby Stacey Dash' and you will see a number of articles and photographs." So I've brought the matter here. We obviously need to use the best sources for this content. And if sources conflict on this matter, we should either report both aspects if, per WP:Due weight, both aspects warrant mentioning, or not include any of the material. If the WP:Reliable sources overwhelmingly support one side, we should go with that. Since the IP was determined to add the content, and knows how to source the content, I didn't see a need to address the IP on his or her talk page. But I will alert the IP to this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 09:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Unless the child is notable by themselves, we should not be including minors names in articles. Which as far as I know is general practice here. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:42, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
I concur. And I find the practice of including the full names and birth dates of non-notable children to be amazingly foolish -- it's an invitation for identity theft in this era of online fraud. Non-notable children, especially minor children, should not be named unless their names have already been widely circulated in the media. If you have reliable sources for the subject BLP's significant other and non-notable children, it's always preferable to simply state, for example, that X and Y have a daughter and two sons together, or words to that effect. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:54, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
[ WP:Edit conflict ]: I'm fine with removing their names, though I do commonly see the names of public figures' non-notable children included in the Wikipedia articles for those public figures. For example, Michael Jackson. Then again, in Michael Jackson's case, the children are also famous; so that goes to what Dirtlawyer1 stated ("unless their names have already been widely circulated in the media"). Going back to the Stacey Dash case, there is also the matter of the IP changing the father's name. Flyer22 (talk) 11:59, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't see that the "fathered by" text needs to be there either. Flyer22 (talk) 12:01, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
I see that the aforementioned content (and other content) was added by this IP in April; I'd missed that. I have a huge WP:Watchlist, and I can overlook the Stacey Dash article when I see reverts at it and assume that any recent bad or dubious edits have been reverted. Flyer22 (talk) 12:07, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I took a look at this article, and removed the names of the two children, which are unnecessary to paint a portrait of the article's subject. Still, the article says she has a daughter (unnamed) born in 2003, and the father is named. I don't see why not to name the father, except for this: one source says the father is Maby, while another source says the father is Lovell. So should we ignore the sketchy first source (Daily Mail)? Or delete the names of the fathers of both children because of uncertainty about one of them? I have no idea.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Inserted another source into the footnote, so I think we're all set now.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:50, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant, did you follow me here after our discussion at Wikipedia talk:Edit warring? If so, I typically prefer not to get right back into discussion with an editor that I just out of a dispute with. As for the Stacey Dash article, of course we ideally shouldn't use the Daily Mail. That stated, you haven't re-added that source, but the children content is still problematic since the text states one person as the girl's father when the sources report differently. I mean, the first source seems to be stating that a different man is the father. We need to see what most WP:Reliable sources state on that matter and go with that, or report what both sources state if both of the father claims are given the same weight among sources, or not mention those two father claims at all. Flyer22 (talk) 00:33, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
No, I have often edited at BLPN, it's kind of a hub of activity at Wikipedia. Just as you presumably did not follow me from murder to WP:3rr, I did not follow you here. Before you even posted this question, I started busily editing another BLPN-mentioned article, and I'd be glad to describe other BLPN activities of mine within the last month if you would like. However, since you would rather not interact with me now, I withdraw from all involvement in the Dash article, and will try not to interact with you.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:41, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Because of the time span, and how actively I edit Wikipedia compared to how actively you edit Wikipedia, the Murder article aspect is not a good comparison. Otherwise, I would not have asked if you followed me here. I didn't mean to come across as rude. It's common for me to have people follow me/stalk me after I've been in a dispute with them. Anyone can check my talk page at this very moment to see my latest major stalker (his name -- Cali11298 -- appears in multiple threads on my talk page at the moment). And though my dispute with you at the WP:Edit warring talk page was minor, I was simply stating that I preferred a breather. I'm not stating that I never want to interact with you again. Flyer22 (talk) 01:47, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Okay.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:50, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
The father matter is now taken care of; I was going to do that, and I appreciate that help. Flyer22 (talk) 21:45, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Toronto Symphony Orchestra article (talk)[edit]

This page has been the subject of repeated biased edits and the point of view is becoming politicized and polarized. Needs some attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.211.1.242 (talk) 14:13, 13 May 2015‎ (UTC)

@64.211.1.242: This is the Biographies of living persons noticeboard. Unless you can identify how you think that allegedly biased and/or POV editing at the this non-biographical article is in violation of Wikipedia's Biography of living persons policy (which is possible, but you have not done so as yet), this probably belongs at some other noticeboard (which is probably why you have not received an answer for more than two days). Dwpaul Talk 04:04, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

The linked page is a group of persons - I didn't categorize it as such; it was already (see the talk page). There has been repeated editing calling this music group "fascist", and the like. I think it fits. If not, please suggest another place. (64.211.1.242 (talk) 13:17, 20 May 2015 (UTC)) In fact, with sincere respect, this level of complexity surpasses my interest in the issue. I don't intend to revisit this again, so if anyone is at all interested in this feedback, I leave it to those interested to take it from here. (64.211.1.242 (talk) 13:22, 20 May 2015 (UTC))

Karla F.C. Holloway[edit]

I contend that these edits by Rms125a@hotmail.com violate our BLP policy by placing waaaaay undue interest on the subject's membership in the so-called Group of 88 (itself a troubled article). I mean, that she gave up her seat on a sup-group (?) of a committee is of minor importance and seems to serve only as an opportunity to introduce two long quotes criticizing her. Let it be noted also that the section has been tagged as of doubtful accuracy, and that the sup-group stuff is sourced to a book by Don Yaeger, a rather sensationalist sports writer, and Mike Pressler, who is hardly a disinterested party here. I note also that Rms125a doesn't seem to be the most objective editor here, considering the racial slur I just removed from the Holloway talk page as a BLP violation; Rms should be the last one to remove an NPOV tag from the article.

In short, some of this content is fine--note my pared-down version--but what we have now is excessive. I'll gladly take a legal opinion as well; fortunately we have Newyorkbrad on retainer, and Philippe (WMF) tells me the check is in the mail, NYB. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 14:41, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I think your version is about right, although Rms did have a good source in Until Proven Innocent (just finished reading it myself). Maybe another sentence or two based on UPI would be warranted, as it discusses her role in the blatant race-baiting which was so central to the case (one of her comments pertaining to the case that got a lot of attention was "White guilt means black innocence, and white innocence means black guilt"), but other than that I think your version is good. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:28, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
My edits restored some but not all of a large amount of valid text rv by @Drmies. This diff (indicating a desire to delete even more text) shows the difference between his last edit and the current version. The only reason I removed the NPOV tag ("Rms should be the last one to remove an NPOV tag from the article") was because I felt the article as re-edited no longer merited the tag and that it had been redundant to the existing COI tag. I have restored the NPOV tag. Quis separabit? 16:28, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
As far as a "racist comment" on the talk page, I can no longer see what it is I wrote as the edit summaries have been scrubbed (see [19]). I make no apologies. In my opinion Holloway's clear distaste for white men, her ignorance and/or willingness (despite being a "legal scholar") to jettison the cornerstone of American jurisprudence (the notion that one is innocent until proven guilty), her utter recalcitrance even after the bipolar stripper's story was shown to be untrue and the entire case unraveled, and her continuing unabashed presence in academia are, for me, terrifying. Wish I could live in an ivory tower disconnect from reality like some but that's not my lot in life. Quis separabit? 16:39, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
If that comment of yours was so ordinary as to be forgettable, you really need to do some rethinking, dear white person, and it's because of that comment that I said you shouldn't have been the one removing the NPOV tag, since anyone talking like that doesn't have a neutral point of view. I'm not going to repeat what you said, but turn on Fox News and wait ten minutes--or go to the Facebook page of your local news station and read the comments to every other news story. Drmies (talk) 16:48, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
"[d]ear white person ... I'm not going to repeat what you said, but turn on Fox News and wait ten minutes--or go to the Facebook page" -- talk about a "neutral point of view" <redacted> among many others, who cannot be criticised lest they incur a tsunami of odium from the likes of @Drmies. Those My conclusions can be drawn from their actions and/or comments, not alleged violations of political correctness, such as those enforced in academia (Duke University being a part of academia, unfortunately, lest we forget). I thank God for Fox News as the opposition news media, and I don't use Facebook. In case it matters to some, I would be more than happy to have Ben Carson and Michelle Malkin, or Thomas Sowell and Condoleeza Rice, for that matter, as our next POTUS/VPOTUS in whatever configuration. Quis separabit? 17:16, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
And how is any of this relevant to the Wikipedia article on Holloway? I'm all right with your opinions, but the expression of them is derailing efforts to improve the article. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:13, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't recall what I expressed that has since been scrubbed from the talk page, but I never expressed them in the article. I am willing to step back from the article provided you (@The Blade of the Northern Lights), or whomever, agree to watchlist and protect it from those determined to delete massive amounts of text in order to obscure the facts of Holloway's actions and conduct. And perhaps @Drmies should do the same. Quis separabit? 17:23, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
The old censorship argument, I suppose--a lousy, lousy argument. BLP, Rms125a. We could ask any passing admin, left or right or in between, to look at this and see if it violated our BLP. I challenge you, and then you can eat your words with crow-flavored aioli--"political correctness" my ass. But yes, I am more than willing to protect this article from massive and undue BLP violations. Your stepping back would be a step in the right direction; even better would be a revert of your reinsertion of that undue content. Drmies (talk) 17:55, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
I support Drmies' edits in this matter, given the requirements of due weight. Having a section on the "Group of 88" issue that is larger than our entire discussion of her professional career as an academic strikes me as the epitome of what WP:UNDUE proscribes. If someone is interested in building up the article more broadly, there might be space for more details on the "Group of 88" issue. But as it stands, it's piling on a particular negative POV in an unbalanced fashion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
A significant part of the problem here is that so many "reliable sources" with an ideological axe to grind completely mischaracterize the content of the Group of 88 advertisement by stating that it prejudged to guilt of the lacrosse players. Anyone can read that actual text of the ad linked to in Group of 88 and see that this claim is patently untrue. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:16, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
I have a very different outlook on that, and the subsequent clarification statement, but in either event the section currently in her article is clearly way excessive. To save electrons, I won't repeat my earlier comment about the amount of weight it should be given. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:48, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
I have shortened the section about the lacrosse team incident, and expanded the rest of the BLP.[20] After making a ridiculous number of edits, I think it's in good shape now, but we'll see. I have to go get a life now. Must stop editing this BLP. :)Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:55, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Your work is greatly appreciated, thank you. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:21, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

George de Mestral[edit]

I am not familiar with Wikipedia and don't where to post this, so please forward if necessary. The summary for George de Mestral that comes up on a search page has a word missing: "George de Mestral was a Swiss electrical engineer who invented THE hook and loop fastener. He was born to Albert de Mestral...." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akieken (talkcontribs) 18:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Fixed It may take a while for the change to show up on search engines, In the future, just click the "edit" button and make the correction yourself, Akieken. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:10, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Lou Gramm[edit]

In Lou Gramm it is stated in "Late 1980s and 1990s" quoting "Gramm was diagnosed with a type of brain tumor called a craniopharyngioma." a Craniopharyngioma isn't a "Brain tumor" it is a tumor that is in a part of the brain, even the wikipedia stub for a Craniopharyngioma is misrepresenting actually what a Cranipharyngioma is, a a Cranipharyngioma is a Tumor not a Brain Tumor, it is a tumor that is in the brain but doesn't consist of Brain tissue. A Craniopharyngioma is a Neuroectodermal Tumor of the CNS, not the Brain.

Can I fix this the error from "Brain Tumor" to "Tumor in his brain"?

[1] Nervous tissue Tumors, look under- Endocrine/Seller

TimeholderTimeholder (talk) 18:31, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

References

Not really as that would be original research. If you can find reliable sources that describe his tumor as a tumor in his brain, then the content can be changed. Apparently he also calls it a "brain tumor".- MrX 21:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Cate Blanchett[edit]

Cate Blanchett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A recently published interview of Cate Blanchett in Variety included the following:

When asked if this is her first turn as a lesbian, Blanchett curls her lips into a smile. “On film — or in real life?” she asks coyly. Pressed for details about whether she’s had past relationships with women, she responds: “Yes. Many times,” but doesn’t elaborate. Like Carol, who never “comes out” as a lesbian, Blanchett doesn’t necessarily rely on labels for sexual orientation. “I never thought about it,” she says of how she envisioned the character. “I don’t think Carol thought about it.” The actress studied the era by picking up banned erotic novels. “I read a lot of girl-on-girl books from the period,” she says.[21]

On the basis of this, Sandstein added the following in the Personal life section of the article, with a citation of the Variety interview.

In a 2015 interview, Blanchett said that she had 'many times' had past relationships with women.

Sandstein also added Category:LGBT actresses. After reviewing WP:LGBTCAT, I removed the category, explaining on the article's Talk page that both the question as reported and her answer were highly ambiguous and should not be used to define Blanchett as an "LGBT actress". In a discussion I initiated on on the article's Talk page, Sandstein agreed to this removal. I then removed the statement from the Personal life section, since it created an implication not clearly supported by the cited source in context.

Sandstein has now reverted this latter removal, pointing out that multiple sources are reporting her comments,[22] [23] [24] with varying degrees of interpretation to imply that she has had female "partners". Sandstein also asserts that "reliable sources find it interesting, therefore so should we" and therefore that we should include this comment in the article. I continue to maintain that 1) the article does not support the implication that to my mind is inescapable by that statement without more context, 2) that if the quote is included it requires more explanation to avoid an unsupported implication (and should reflect the context that the interview primarily concerned Blanchett's role in a new movie in which she portrays a lesbian, rather than embedded in the Personal life section of the article without context), and 3) that the level of discussion of that one interview and this very cryptic comment required to avoid the implication gives the whole matter undue weight. Dwpaul Talk 19:53, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm as sensitive as anybody to BLP concerns, I hope, but I don't quite understand what the perceived problem is here. This is nothing particularly controversial or disreputable, merely an interesting and now rather extensively reported self-description that I think is appropriate to include – in a non-sensational, matter-of-fact form – in her biography. The wording can be improved, of course, but this aspect of her life (or public image) seems to be of some significance - slight, perhaps, but worth covering. The context in which she made these statements could be mentioned, I guess, but that strikes me as peripheral.

I don't understand the concerns of undue weight, either. These are 16 words out of 788 in her "personal life" section, which also contains such facts of epochal importance as "She wore a pair of Fairmined earrings set with responsibly sourced diamonds by the luxury Jeweller Chopard". So a pair of earrings she once wore is supposed to get more space in her article than her past relationships? Are we now supposed to be writing a fashion magazine rather than an encyclopedia?  Sandstein  20:42, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

The sourced mention is fine, however the category is definitely not. By convention and policy we label people this way only until they themselves have "come out" in one way or another. See Jodie Foster as the most recent example (if I remember correctly). §FreeRangeFrogcroak 20:46, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm not objecting to the removal of the category. I see how it is a bit of a stretch, and we should avoid that in a BLP context.  Sandstein  20:48, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
I would leave both the statement and the category out for now. As The Telegraph article says, "The double Oscar winner, promoting a film in which she plays a bisexual character, suggests she has had lesbian experiences herself" and "It was not entirely clear whether Blanchett was being serious or joking about her sexual past, but the comments have garnered publicity for the film which will premiere at the Cannes film festival on May 17." Yes, we can find sources that don't hedge their statements but after reading the original interview, the foundation of all those reports is too weak IMO. Abecedare (talk) 20:55, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The content itself is absolutely fine, and is an interesting biographical note that probably belongs in the article. The category doesn't meet our strict standards for categorization since she has not publicly identified as L.- MrX 21:02, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

There is no self-description from the actress herself, nor any direct statement or question. It is wholly ambiguous (and as I said in my edit summary, it may have been dry humor / a terse rely to pressing personal question), and should not be on the BLP unless the actress clarifies and confirms what she meant. Lapadite (talk) 22:41, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

One feels inclined to agree that this should be left out. The positioning & phrasing of the content added to the article leads the reader to a conclusion that they would not necessarily make from reading the source. The content that we have included is undue based on only this source. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 23:14, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
As per WP:BLPCAT, we need clear and unambiguous self-identification. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:17, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
NBSB, I think we are primarily concerned now about the insertion in the body of the article rather than the category, which the editor has agreed should not be applied. Dwpaul Talk 23:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

To illustrate the problem, here are a number of headlines from other Web sites, all of which cite the Variety interview, and many of which are generally considered reliable sources:

  • Cate Blanchett Admits To Having 'Many' Sexual Encounters With Women[25]
  • Cate Blanchett reveals she’s dated women “many times”[26]
  • Cate Blanchett's bisexual revelation: Oscar winner admits she's had 'many' intimate relationships with women as she promotes movie Carol about a lesbian tryst[27]
  • Cate Blanchett: I've had 'many' women lovers[28]
  • Cate Blanchett Reveals She's Had Intimate Relationships with Women 'Many Times'[29]

However, none of these headlines accurately reflect the question Blanchett was asked, nor her answer, as they were reported in the published Variety interview. Last time I checked, we had a high standard for accuracy and fairness, especially in biographical articles. I think we should take the high road on this, despite the current high profile of her comments, at least until she has had an opportunity to issue a clarification. Dwpaul Talk 00:09, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Dwpaul on this. The comment, described in the source as "coy", was delivered in the context of promoting a movie with a lesbian theme. Of course, most humans have had "past relationships" with "lots of women". Coy remarks promoting a movie say nothing whatsoever reliable about a person's sexual orientation. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:02, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree with others who say that the source should stay but that she should not be included in Category:LGBT actresses unless she explicitly states something along the lines of, "yes, I'm bisexual" ((Redacted)). Erpert blah, blah, blah... 03:49, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi Erpert. With respect, the reference article does not contain a quote of the subject making the statement included in parentheses. The closest is the interviewer: Like Carol, who never “comes out” as a lesbian, Blanchett doesn’t necessarily rely on labels for sexual orientation. “I never thought about it,” she says of how she envisioned the character. “I don’t think Carol thought about it.” - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 04:12, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Agree with Cullen328 and Dwpaul. It doesn't matter that a million sources are reporting the ambiguous comments - the actress is a high profile individual; a bunch of attention-grabbing, likely sensationalized headlines will naturally follow. There is no clarification from Blanchett herself, who the BLP is about. Until/unless there is, it should not be added. Statements of sexuality/self-identification should be explicitly given by the individual, not implications extrapolated by outside sources. The individual is the only reliable source for the accuracy or truthfulness of their self-identification. And there is none of that yet - no self-identification, and no unambiguity. Need I remind, WP:BLP: Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. Lapadite (talk) 04:22, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree with the others- until Blanchett says something a little more explicit then we shouldn't write that she's had relationships with other women. Blanchett never confirmed any of this and never elaborated on the relationships. She might be bisexual... or she may have just been saying something to promote a film. For all we know Blanchett could be 200% straight and the relationships she's referring to are her college roommates, best friends from grade school, or so on. It could be that she is bisexual or even pansexual and she's held romantic and sexual relationships with dozens of women. The point is that we don't know and all we have to go off of is some extremely vague remark that could be applied to any number of situations. Look at Jodie Foster. Pretty much everyone in Hollywood knew that she held a long term romantic relationship with another woman and that she was a lesbian, however this could not be put in her article at all because there was no official confirmation. Even after she came out about her relationship in 2013 we still couldn't label her as a lesbian because she didn't explicitly identify as such and we had to specify this in her article. Anna Paquin is another person who surprised nobody when she came out as bisexual in 2010, but until she explicitly stated this we couldn't have it in the article. This is the same situation- until Blanchett says something more substantial or confirms this in some way, we shouldn't assume that these relationships were romantic or sexual. Blanchett might just be an actress that is trying to promote a film and/or dislikes that sexuality has to be clearly defined and labeled. What if she comes out next week and issues a statement denying that she's anything other than straight? I dislike that "straight" is the default with articles as much as the next person, but we shouldn't post what is essentially speculation based on one extremely vague comment/quote. I somewhat remember when Tom Hanks accepted the Oscar for Philadelphia, where he thanked his spouse... but did not label her as anything other than "his lover" and never even mentioned her sex, which made some people question his sexuality for a little while. (IE, whether or not he had a gay lover on the side.) At most if this continues we could probably mention something about her sexuality being questioned due to this remark, but I'd like to see a teensy bit more coverage than this just for BLP reasons. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 05:59, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Compromise proposed[edit]

Realizing we can't (and shouldn't) keep all mention of this interview out of the article indefinitely (it has been added and removed several times as the conversation here has progressed), I'd like to offer a compromise position. I propose that we should add both the question and her answer, both exactly as reported by Variety, without embellishment or interpretation (but retaining the context):

In May 2015, Variety published an interview with Blanchett concerning her role in the film Carol in which she plays a woman in a lesbian relationship. When asked by the interviewer whether she'd had past relationships with women, Blanchett answered "Yes. Many times", but declined to elaborate.[30] This led to much speculation in the media concerning her sexual orientation.

and that we should defend this as the least subjective and most responsible way of reporting on this interview. Then it is truly up to the reader to decide what she meant and/or didn't mean. If there are later reliable reports that clarify the question asked or the meaning of her response, they can be added but this text will not need to change, since it does not attempt to interpret either one.Dwpaul Talk 12:18, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

This looks accurate, but I think it still falls foul of WP:UNDUE. It's just an unclear passing comment in an interview. Formerip (talk) 13:52, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
No objection to this approach, but I think we need a secondary source for the last sentence also. Considering the amount of attention this has gotten, I think undue prominence is absolutely not an issue here.  Sandstein  14:28, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I anticipated the second third sentence would be sourced also, with no lack of sources to draw on concerning media speculation (but this way we are calling it what it is). Dwpaul Talk 14:33, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Could I ask for a !vote on this proposal? Dwpaul Talk 14:42, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Support (as the proposer). Dwpaul Talk 14:42, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose This gives undue weight to a single "coy" remark. We wouldn't have a paragraph on every single coy, cute, intriguing remark she has ever uttered in an interview, would we? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 15:33, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Being gay, bi, and the myriad states in between is not a hush-hush closeted thing anymore; we're not in 1980 talking about Rock Hudson here. The subject said what she said, so cover it in the the article and leave it at that. Tarc (talk) 15:49, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose - Agree with Cullen328. And like Formerip noted, it is a passing, ambiguous comment in an interview not remotely about that topic. The media, including all the tabloids, as is to be expected, sensationalized and extrapolated a vague comment from the interview. Why would this be notable if it's not a direct declaration of a sexual identity from herself? The interviewer himself stated it was "coy" and not elaborated on. There is no reason it should be added to the BLP unless Blanchett confirms the true meaning of her comment as per what has merely been assumed; only with her clarification/confirmation would it be a notable statement. The BLP policy is clear. "Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." "Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject." WP:V: "Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion." It is irresponsible to add this in the BLP without clarification from Blanchett herself. Moreover, reminding that consensus isn't a vote count. Lapadite (talk) 16:21, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Agreed that a consensus is not a vote and v/v, but, interestingly, see how a consensus is (at least at the moment) becoming more clear (to me, anyway) when editors are asked to take a position for or against something, versus the open discussion above. Dwpaul Talk 17:13, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes of course; this kind of structure is generally helpful to organize discussion points and identify sides of an issue. Just sometimes it's misused as a merely a vote count, i.e., # of support, # of opposed, without regard to the merit of arguments presented (if they are). Lapadite (talk) 18:04, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppopse. While sexual orientation isn't the big deal used to be, we still need something at least resembling actual evidence before we can insert it into a Wikipedia article. The "take every offhand and possibly joking comment seriously" standard would lead to a conclusion that I am seriously attempting to become the official Wikimedia Dalek Supreme. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:38, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Cullen and Guy Macon. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:52, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. We're not talking third-hand speculation here, people, we're only verbatim reproducing what Blanchett herself said. Difficult to get a more reliable source. The statement may or may not have been meant in jest, but our readers are quite capable of forming their own opinion about that, we don't need to do it for them. And judging by the number of IPs attempting to re-add similar content, and the continued media attention, our readers expect us to at least mention this statement. It seems rather important for her public image now, however it may have been meant, and omitting it would make us appear confused at best, or homophobic at worst.  Sandstein  17:59, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Media sensationalism is not grounds for adding wholly ambiguous comments. And see the BLP policy quoted above. Lapadite (talk) 18:15, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The "continued media attention" is a couple of days. WP:Recentism suggests a longer view. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:26, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  • support She led the interview there. She answered directly. Quote her directly, leaving whatever ambiguity she said for the user to resolve, but pretending she didn't say something is paternalism - shes a big girl, she doesn't need wikipedia to protect her from her own internationally distributed interview statements. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:34, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Adding my comment from the BLP's talk: The interviewer introduced to the topic, and also never stated the exact questions posed: "When asked if this is her first turn as a lesbian...". The interviewer is a Variety editor and reporter who is very present during awards season. It's not about her filmography, it's a personal question, which after a "coy" likely humorous response, leads to pressing questions (as per the interviewer) culminating in a terse reply. Per the interviewer, no elaboration. No, an ambiguous comment (that may have been joking, sarcasm, annoyance, and whatnot) from an interview not about that isn't notable to include in the WP:BLP, certainly with no clarification or confirmation from the actress. We don't include any comment from an interview that may be sensationalized by media outlets. We don't include, for instance, "I tried to drink beer on pub crawls when I was at Melbourne University" from the sensationalized, widely-(mis)reported The Project interview. And just to clarify, I'm not ascribing any particular meaning to the comment, but saying that it is irresponsible to add this on the BLP without clarification/confirmation from the actress. Lapadite (talk) 18:48, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Also, Abecedare pointed out a media source, The Telegraph, that noted: "The double Oscar winner, promoting a film in which she plays a bisexual character, suggests she has had lesbian experiences herself" and "It was not entirely clear whether Blanchett was being serious or joking about her sexual past". Lapadite (talk) 19:06, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
I intended to let those editors speak for themselves about their positions on the compromise proposal, since it had not yet been proposed when they made their comments above. So, no, I don't think we consider them Opposed unless they say so. Dwpaul Talk 19:11, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I was pinging and asking them here, hence the question mark. :P Lapadite (talk) 19:18, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose as accurate but undue. Side comment: (take it for what it's worth) We shouldn't get too worked up about this as a BLP issue either. Blanchett is a seasoned public figure who IMO almost surely, (1) knew the rumors her answer would spark off; (2) doesn't care if she is thought of as a lesbian or bisexual (ie doesn't consider it "disparaging" or a grave insult), (3) is probably getting a kick out of this hoopla. So while I would leave it out of the article, it's mainly out of concern for encyclopaedicity rather than out of fear that we'll be doing the subject great harm in either case. <end opinion> Abecedare (talk) 19:31, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
And to be clear: by (un)encyclopaedic I am referring to including reports about ambiguous remark about ones sexuality. Confirmed (esp. self-reported) information about sexuality can undoubtedly be encyclopedic. Abecedare (talk) 19:42, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Govindhari, best not to speculate on other editors' motives and biases. It is probable that Sandstein simply came across the Variety interview, didn't interpret the answers to be ambiguous, and thus (as we regulars are wont to do) updated the wikibio citing the source. Nothing wrong with that, especially given that they immediately agreed to the category removal and have been participating in the discussions. Abecedare (talk) 20:09, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Alright then, simple mistake in regards to a high profile wiki policy about living people WP:BLP from a very experienced administrator that appears to adjudicate on policy here at the highest level of wikipedia guidelines about other users. Govindaharihari (talk) 20:16, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Given their adminship, their comments here and on the BLP's talk page, as well as their edits on the BLP, I don't think it's an unreasonable conclusion. Nor would it be an incorrect one to make of Tarc, per his comment here. Not that it ought to be made anyway. Lapadite (talk) 20:40, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
I originally added the category simply because I took Blanchett's comments at face value: a person who has had same-sex relationships seems to me to fall within the LGBT category. However, it was pointed out to me that our categorization rules are more conservative in this regard, which is probably a good thing, and so I don't object to removing the category.  Sandstein  08:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support because, given all the coverage of this in top-echelon sources, it's better to cover this accurately than to say nothing. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:48, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
This was reported by every media outlet out there, including the top-echelon; misreported initially by all - should we have included sensationalized quotes from that too because they all echoed each other in reports? We don't include everything that buzzes the media, certainly not ambiguous, "coy" (per the interviewer) comments in a BLP. Lapadite (talk) 21:16, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per previous comments: "phrasing of the content ... leads the reader to a conclusion that they would not necessarily make from reading the source.", and WP:BLP (Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, WP:BLPGOSSIP et al), WP:NPOV(WP:UNDUE). cf. WP:RECENTISM. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 23:22, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  • @Ryk72: How do you think that reproducing exactly what the source says may lead the reader to a conclusion that they would not necessarily make from reading the source? And how do you think that mentioning Blanchett's statement about her past relationships is sensationalist or titillating? People do have relationships, including premarital and/or same-sex ones, that's not particularly sensational nowadays.  Sandstein  08:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi Sandstein, Thanks for your questions. I hope I can provide some answers. In the "proposed compromise" above, we are reproducing only a subsection of the source, not the whole; paraphrasing the question and repeating verbatim the answer; the context of the sentence reproduced is lost.
I concur that people have relationships, of all different types, including premarital and/or same-sex ones. While these may not be sensational in the course of everyday life; they are when the subject is a celebrity.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; people can read speculations on people's sexual or romantic histories, but I'm not convinced they need do so on Wikipedia. If this is a grey area, WP:BLP requires that we err on the side of caution. Hope this explanation helps. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 09:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Re: "Pressed for details about whether she’s had past relationships with women, she responds: 'Yes. Many times,' but doesn’t elaborate." versus "When asked by the interviewer whether she'd had past relationships with women, Blanchett answered 'Yes. Many times', but declined to elaborate." I can't see how we could possibly get any closer to reproducing both the question and the answer verbatim, nor that we will have lost any of the context relevant to the comment in question. If you think there's a way to do it, by all means offer a counter-proposal. Dwpaul Talk 13:51, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi Dwpaul, With respect, we are comparing a subsection of the source with a paraphrasing of that subsection; the context of the subsection from the original source is lost. Notwithstanding this, the other policy issues outlined above are relevant. I do not wish to appear glib, but the counter-proposal that I believe best meets our obligations is in my !vote. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 14:32, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Observation: With due consideration given to Lapadite77's caution that !voting does not by itself establish consensus, it appears that about 65% of editors who have !voted (so far) oppose the proposal. I just want to make sure I understand the alternative they advocate: that we continue to revert any mention of the Variety interview that includes or references this comment, unless and until Blanchett offers some substantive clarification of her answer (or, presumably, unless and until Variety releases a full transcript that resolves any question about her meaning, which I suspect they will not do). Dwpaul Talk 15:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Also, I note that Variety is (now, not sure about earlier) using the Web page title (not the headline) "Cate Blanchett Lesbian Past Revealed: Actress Takes ‘Carol’ to Cannes" for the cited page that describes the interview, so they are apparently going all-in with that interpretation. Dwpaul Talk 15:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose... for now. I don't mind the way this is phrased, but I do think that it's a bit early to include this in her article. I'd say that we should wait a few more months before including this because it can be seen as being just a little too recent. The media is reporting on this now, but it's also fairly clear that they're sensationalizing this up because it makes for clicks and there is a lot of competition for readers. Wikipedia doesn't rely on that and we have to make sure that we're not buying into the same sensationalism. Let's revisit it in 2-3 months and see what Blanchett has said about everything or if this is still being covered. It's likely that it will, but we don't entirely have any way of knowing. If she'd been a little more forthcoming I'd say include it, but what's stopping me is how coy she played everything. We have no way of knowing if this is something she said to gain attention for a film (ie, marketing) or if it's legitimate. I just don't want this to be included if this is just marketing on Blanchett's part. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 03:50, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. We definitely can't put her in the category, but a sentence or two can give it proper context, and I don't feel it's WP:UNDUE weight. In particular, this particular part of the interview is already picking up attention from many, many other highly-reliable, non-gossip-column media sources, including the International Business Times, the Guardian, news.com.au, the Telegraph, and countless more. These are not simply tabloids repeating rumors. I understand that some editors might feel that these sources are drawing too much from a single line in an interview (especially when it comes to sexuality, which is often controversial), but the International Business Times, The Guardian, Time, The Sydney Morning Herald, and so on are not gossip rags, and it seems silly to suggest that they are. There are situations where comments like this become so notable and high-profile that they have to be put in an article (if carefully to avoid overstating them), and this is well past that point. It is one thing to say that we should ignore stuff from known gossip columns, or to avoid citing things like this to anything but the highest-quality sources (which I certainly agree with); it's quite another to turn around when it is being covered by the highest-quality sources and say "we should treat the International Business Times like a gossip column here and disregard the fact that it's covering this, because I, as an editor, personally feel that they're overstating it." BLP requires that we ignore things from tabloids and gossip columns; it does not mean that we can ignore coverage in reliable sources like these simply by stating the opinion that we feel that the topic is gossip or because we don't believe those sources should be covering it. --Aquillion (talk) 05:45, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • For me it's not that they're tabloid magazines or anything like that, just that right now all of the news stories are running off of one line. None of them have received any further statement from Blanchett, so right now all we have is one extremely vague line. We have no way of knowing what type of relationship it was, whether she was serious when she made the statement, or anything to that extent. It's not exactly like when Anna Paquin openly stated that she was bisexual. It should be approached with extreme caution and I think that we shouldn't be so quick to rush in and add this immediately. The one thing we have on Wikipedia is time. If this is going to be mentioned further in the future (and it's likely that it will), then we can re-add this in a few months. I'm just worried that right now all we're basing this on is that multiple newspapers have rushed out to write their own news stories that only rehash what was vaguely purported in an interview with someone else. If any of them had interviewed Blanchett and received a similar remark I'd be more likely to see where we could include it right away, but to my knowledge she's only made this statement to one person. Everyone else is just copying the same speculation/OR that other outlets have made. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 09:35, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Case closed, Blanchett misquoted - See this is why we take precautions and don't publish whatever the media sensationalizes. At the press conference for her film, Blanchett was asked about the Variety quote, to which she said the interviewer did not print her followup to her response - along the lines of: "Have I had relationships with women? Yes, many. Sexual relationships? None.” Reports would be out soon. See this tweet: [31]. Edit: and here's one, from The Guardian: Blanchett, who is married with four children, said her quote had been judiciously edited for effect. “From memory, the conversation ran: ‘Have you had relationships with women?’ And I said: ‘Yes, many times. Do you mean have I had sexual relationships with women? Then the answer is no.’ But that obviously didn’t make it.” Lapadite (talk) 12:10, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Wow. Just wow. If any participating editors ever needed an example case for using great care in labeling the sexuality of our BLP subjects -- in the absence of some sort of declaration from the subject or other definitive evidence -- this would be the one. If Blanchett's account is believed, this is Example 1-A for how some folks in the media have agendas of their own or just might want to cause a stir and sell some more newspapers. Having watched this discussion play out over the past week, I think we should all take a time-out and think on this for a good, long while. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:58, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, we can only be as up to date as our sources, or else we would never be able to cover recent events. We should have covered her comments as quoted in the normally reliable Variety before, and now we should still briefly mention them, together of course with a mention of Blanchett's correction. Whatever we may think about the media as a result of this, it's still an event in her public life that bears mention and that readers may look for information about (especially if they only read the first wave of reports).  Sandstein  16:36, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • But why is it so terribly important to be up to date, especially in cases like this? We're not talking about a specific event such as the Nepalese earthquakes but a single passing remark within the broad sweep of a person's career. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:28, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • It's not important in the sense of, well, anything outside Wikipedia, but our readers do rely on us to have reasonably up-to-date (sourced) information on important developments regarding our article subjects, and judging by the media reaction many people did consider this to be an important aspect of Cate Blanchett's life. Certainly more important than much of what is in her article now, as mentioned above.  Sandstein  18:28, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • User:Sandstein it is hard to see why you are still supporting your position, which basically now boils down to a low level press outlet misreported her statements to assert she was a lesbian, in all ways a violation of so many WP:policies and guidelines. The fact that you were the editor to add the category lesbian gay bisexual and transsexual person is a shame on you. Govindaharihari (talk) 01:09, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • This IS a perfect case to show why editors shouldn't read into comments, try to interpret them and label someone's sexuality. This nonsense about being "up to date" is exactly why we have NOTNEWS. And no, we shouldn't briefly mention them now. As it turns out, the comments were misunderstood and this will drop out of the news cycle, making it more RECENTISM than actually notable material. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:59, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • This is perfect, so perfect to support WP:BLP and conservative additions in relation to living people. Wikipedia has a duty of care to report conservatively about living people. Govindaharihari (talk) 01:04, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Input requested[edit]

The input of editors familiar with the details of the BLP policy is requested at Talk:Richie Farmer#BLP question. There is no ongoing dispute, just a need for information. Thanks. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:46, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Jalen Rose[edit]

NBA career dates listed as the day Kobe Bryant scored 81 on him. This is trolling, not encyclopedic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thewingman5 (talkcontribs) 15:11, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Reverted to 2 May. VandVictory (talk) 18:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Monique Lamoureux-Kolls (Need to drop Kolls from her name)[edit]

Monique Lamoureux-Kolls got a divorce 2+ years ago and would like to go back to her original name removing Kolls but every time we try and remove it, someone adds it back to her profile page. Monique at this point is now engaged to someone else and it is a bit disconcerting that this keeps happening. I was hopeful that the Wiki community can help us change it back to her maiden name.

Thanks SenatorBF ... I am Monique's sports agent. If you go to www.agm.us you will see a full bio on her as well as my other clients. Much appreciated in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SenatorBF (talkcontribs) 16:12, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

@SenatorBF: Yes check.svg Done - further info at Talk:Monique Lamoureux#Name. As her agent you have a clear conflict of interest here, but you did the right thing in raising it as a noticeboard rather than editing the article yourself. GiantSnowman 16:21, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Possible incoming Israeli BLP problems[edit]

The Israeli news website Ynetnews has published a story [32] about how Google's biographical data (taken from Wikipedia) on Israeli president Reuven Rivlin lists his place of birth as Palestine. This is of course correct as Rivlin was born in Mandatory Palestine 9 years before Israel existed. Unfortunately some people have been trying to "correct" the article, and there has been similar activity on the BLP of Natalie Portman. It would be helpful if people could keep an eye on these BLPs. Prioryman (talk) 14:49, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

This might seem crazy, but would the Rivlin article be helped at all by putting a carriage-return after "Jerusalem," in the Infobox, so that "Mandatory Palestine" was on one line, not across two? - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 15:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Good idea. And I semiprotected the article. Guy (Help!) 16:21, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I am J Gopikrishnan, a journalist from India. There is a page on me Wiki. I want to provide more information about me[edit]

I am J. Gopikrishnan, a journalist from India. The Wiki have a page on me : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Gopikrishnan I want to add more information about me. (redacted) Please add the below mentioned information (after the current info) about me in this page. Please also tell me how to upload my photo.

Here is the information about me (please add this after the current info) : ...................... His first report on 2G Scam appeared in ‘The Pioneer”, English newspaper on December 11, 2008, exposing the hidden list of companies floated by the relatives of then telecom minister A.Raja. In “The Pioneer”, J Gopikrishnan had continuously wrote series of reports on various aspects of 2G Scam and Aircel-Maxis Scam and other related reports on the violations of the telecom scandal and the politico- corporate players involved in it for three years. “The Pioneer” had published more than 200 reports on the telecom scandal which shook Indian government lead by the Congress party leading to the electoral drubbing in 2014.

Gopikrishnan’s major reports on the 2G Scam, which rocked the ruling Congress led UPA Government is available at his personal blog : http://jgopikrishnan.blogspot.in/

Important series of reports on 2G Scam were on the midnight letters between then Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Telecom minister A.Raja (http://jgopikrishnan.blogspot.in/2009/11/raja-defied-pm-ignored-bhardwajs-noting.html), expose of phone tapping of controversial lobbyist Niira Radia(http://jgopikrishnan.blogspot.in/2010/05/2g-spectrum-scandal-araja-nira-radia.html), Murky activities in BSNL’s WiMax franchisee allotments (http://jgopikrishnan.blogspot.in/2009/05/wimax-scam-another-murky-deal-of-indian.html & http://jgopikrishnan.blogspot.in/2010/03/bsnls-murky-wimax-deals.html), hidden minutes of the meetings between then Finance Minister P Chidambaram and Telecom Minister A.Raja (http://jgopikrishnan.blogspot.in/2012/03/chidambaram-in-2g-radar.html) and violations in FIPB approvals of Aircel-Maxis scam by former Finance Minister P Chidambaram (http://jgopikrishnan.blogspot.in/2012/06/aircel-maxis-deal-chidambarams.html).

Apart from Ramnath Goenka award for the Journalist of the Year – 2009 (awarded in January 2012), Gopikrishnan had also bagged several prestigious awards like CNN-IBN television channel’s ‘Indian of the Year’ (Special category ) in December 2010 and Rajasthan Patrika newspaper’s KC Kulish International Award for Excellence in Journalism -2010 (awarded on March 2014).

He also presented a paper on ‘Telecom scandal of India” in coveted international journalist’s conference in Norway – SKUP in March 2012. http://nettsidearkiv.skup.no/www.skup.no/Konferansearkiv/copy-of-Konferansen_2012/5502.html

Anti-Corruption Movement

J Gopikrishnan was actively involved in the anti-corruption movements in India started from late 2010, when 2G Scam hit the headlines following the resignation and arrest of then Telecom Minister A. Raja. He was a complainant to CBI and CAG from 2009 about the ramification of the scam demanding probe on telecom scandal. He deposed before Public Accounts Committee (PAC) of Parliament on March 2011 on the telecom scandal and Niira Radia tapes (http://www.outlookindia.com/news/article/2g-journalist-appears-before-pac/714374).

He is an active member of Action Committee Against Corruption in India (ACACI), headed by BJP leader Dr.Subramanian Swamy and Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reform (CJAR) headed by noted lawyer Prashant Bhushan. He associated with Subramanian Swamy and Prashant Bhushan in their legal cases on the telecom scandal and other major corruption cases. Gopikirshnan had participated in several seminars in India and abroad and made speeches mainly on media ethics and corporatisation of media. He is a regular speaker in several media institutes.

Journalistic Career:

After the post graduate course in Public Administration, J Gopikrishnan in early 1994 started his career as Sub-Broker in Stock Exchanges in Kerala and switched over to media field in late 1995 as a Stringer of Doordarshan’s Thiruvananthapuram station. He was Television producer of several documentaries in Doorsharshan and Asianet TV channels. He obtained Post Graduate Diploma in Journalism from Institute of Journalism, Press Club, Thiruvananthapuram from 1998-1999 batch. He worked with several media organisations in Kerala and shifted to Delhi and joined in “The Pioneer” in 2008. He also writes columns in several news organisations in Malayalam language.

Personal Life:

J Gopikrishnan was born in 1970 in Thalassey in Kerala. His father, late K Jayachandran was a Mathematics professor and a well known short story writer in Kerala. He passed away in August 2001. His mother K. Lakshmikutty was an English professor. His brother J Anil Kumar is an engineer. Gopikrishnan is married to Dr.N Nisha Rani, a Ph.D scholar in Carnatic Music in September 2002. They have one daughter G.N. Geethanjali. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgopikrishnan70 (talkcontribs) 19:53, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

  • This article might be a good AfD candidate. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:33, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't think they are? I don't know much about the 2G spectrum scam or the Ramnath Goenka Journalist of the Year Award, but a glance at Google seems to indicate that both are sufficient to pass the general notability criteria for biographies, and a google search for his name seems to turn up more than enough decent sources to support an article. --Aquillion (talk) 05:16, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Ghits don't equal notability. They simply show that the name exists. A reporter will often show up in Google searches because of his job. Having a job as a reporter doesn't make you notable. Significant coverage by reliable 3rd party sources does that. And just reporting a story doesn't get it either. Unless some better sourced significant coverage is demonstrated, this may very well end up in AfD Niteshift36 (talk) 01:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The normal way would be to add suggestions (reliably sourced factual content) at Talk:J. Gopikrishnan. As long as you're writing a draft, better remember that such ingredients as the italicized bits within "important series of reports", "bagged several prestigious awards", "headed by noted lawyer Prashant Bhushan", "a well known short story writer" (however well earned you think they are) will do nothing to show notability and encyclopedia-worthiness and instead are likely to make your fellow editors bristle. -- Hoary (talk) 02:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Mhairi Black[edit]

A report by a US Academic named Andrew Reynolds was published in the New Statesman [33] and picked up by several newspapers. It mentions in passing that Mhairi Black is LGBT, however as far as I know she has never publicly self-identified as lesbian and never made an issue of it during her campaign. Reliable sources and all, ultimately the claim originates from a single person who has no personal connection to her and appears to be making assumptions based on her appearance and manner. Until she publicly self-identifies I don't think this should be included in her article. MaxBrowne (talk) 23:36, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done - Redacted per WP:BLP - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 23:48, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Whether she should be described as LGBT, and whether her nationality should be "Scottish" or "British" are the source of slow motion edit warring by various users and IPs. I debated protecting the page but I don't think it rises to that level quite yet (and semi wouldn't solve anything), but the article could do with more eyes. Thryduulf (talk) 18:57, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Meghan Agosta-Marciano[edit]

Meghan Agosta-Marciano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Good evening, I am the sports agent for Ms. Agosta. She has separated and is getting a divorce. She would like to have her name revert back to Meghan Agosta. I don't know how to do this for the main page as well as the info box that is on the page and thought to ask the community how you could help. My firm has worked for her for 4 years now. www.agm.us you will see more information about her career. Thanks --SenatorBF (talk) 06:18, 16 May 2015 (UTC)SenatorBF--SenatorBF (talk) 06:18, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello SenatorBF. Thank you for posting here and openly admitting your conflict of interest. That is a credit to you. Have any reliable sources discussed her separation and impending divorce? If so, please post links here, and on the article's talk page. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:26, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I think that if she were to issue a statement or be featured in a news story where they mentioned her wish to revert to her maiden name and referred to her by her maiden name, that would help quite a bit. I do need to warn you that there will still be a redirect for her hyphenated married name since that would be a viable search target and this would be mentioned somewhere in the article, probably as something like "also known by her former married name Meghan Agosta-Marciano" or something to that extent. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 09:28, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Eugene Podkletnov[edit]

Eugene Podkletnov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

In the article it states both 1955 and 1965 as year of birth. Which is it? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.51.172 (talk) 07:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

This article from BBC news says that "Yevgeny Podkletnov was born into a highly educated family in the Soviet Union in the mid-1950s." 1965 was just a typo maybe? Fyddlestix (talk) 19:42, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Not a lot of reliable sources available on this guy's personal life or DOB. I changed it to 1955 for now since the BBC story is one of the more reliable sources cited in the article. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:42, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

William Claude Harper, Artist[edit]

William Claude Harper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A friend of mine, Martha Fleischman recently submitted an updated bio on Mr. Harper that was verified by Mr. Harper himself and it was returned. The administrator who reviewed the research is a census taker and the administrator told Ms. Fleischman that it was not as good as what is there. However that bio is incorrect. Please advise why it was not accepted.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.32.95 (talk) 18:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Here is the article before and after the change. It has been restored to its "before" state for now. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:49, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Hamid Dabashi[edit]

At Hamid Dabashi, we've got a user repeatedly restoring a paragraph cited entirely to Front Page Magazine, to an op-ed in a student newspaper from the instigator of a controversy about the subject, and to a small-circulation politically oriented paper (as well as to a primary source by the subject which is being interpreted by this student). I think it's clear that these sources are not BLP-compliant; if the information was verifiable and truly controversial, this user should be able to cite reliable sources in order to add it, not personal rants and conspiracy theorists like Daniel Pipes. I'd like BLPN to help confirm which, if any, sources are available to support the inclusion of this supposed controversy, and - if that answer is nonzero - how it should be included in the article, since the current text appears to be deliberately misrepresenting Dabashi's article for political purposes. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 00:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

FrontPageMag is definitely not a reliable source, and Campus Watch is a polemic site usable, at best, only for its own opinions. I've removed those sources immediately, and will examine the remaining text at further length. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:55, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Campus Watch is neither here nor there - I agree it's unreliable, but it's just reprinting an op-ed from a student newspaper (which, as I said - given that it's not only an op-ed by a student, but that it's by someone with a personal grudge against the subject, it's also not a reliable source.) –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 01:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually, this article is sourced primarily from the New York Sun and this is the first source cited. Frontpagemag was used only as a peripheral source (and yes, while that article was written by controversial scholar Daniel Pipes, it's citation here does not repeat any of his opinions). As to Roscelese's claim that this text "appears to be deliberately misrepresenting Dabashi's article for political purposes", I challenge her to elaborate as too how it misrepresents Dabashi. True, it doesn't portray Dabashi in a particularly favourable light, but that alone does not mean that it misrepresents him.

The primary source of this article is the New York Sun, which was a fully published newspaper in circulation in New York City from 2002-2008 (although it only exists today as an online publication). Yes, it does have a political slant (i.e. it is conservative) but that doesn't mean it is not RS - Conservative and left-wing sources are cited throughout Wikipedia (also note that the New York Sun is cited as the source in the article, although I will try and make this more obvious). Finally, Victor Luria's piece in the Columbia Spectator is only being cited to reflect the opinions of Victor Luria himself. Dabashi was offered the chance to respond to this by the New York Sun, but he has declined.

If the Frontpagemag citation is what is making Roscelese so uncomfortable, than I suppose it can be removed, but the New York Sun (regardless of Roscelese's personal opinion) is a reliable source by Wikipedia standards, and there is no reason why this section should be removed.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 23:23, 18 May 2015 (UTC))

If the event was notable, why was a tiny political paper the most reliable of the sources that picked it up? Why not just try to find reliable sources, instead of removing FrontPage but keeping the material that was cited to it? –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 13:09, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Potential for some abuse in the next month or so on multiple pages[edit]

Per a bit on Last Week Tonight, in the next month we might have vandalism on pages of people listed here that implies they have sex with chickens, to say it nicely. In lieu of that, and the fact that it might occur immediately, does anyone know how this should be disseminated to the community, or does someone want to add all of these pages to a watchlist? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:33, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

  • I think that the best route might be for a group of us to each take a portion of the articles and monitor them, preferably with some overlapping of pages. It's already started, since an edit was made to José E. Serrano along these lines. It was hidden inside of an edit that had other material that could be seen as otherwise benign, if not for the "chickenfucker" remark. Offhand I'll openly say that I support a temporary, brief protection of these articles but I think that we should get a little more consensus before widely applying this to so many articles. In any case, I'll monitor Serrano's article, as well as the articles for Rosa DeLauro, Pete Visclosky, Marcy Kaptur, and Nita Lowey. I'll be back in a minute to list which articles have been vandalized. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 11:01, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Here are the vandalized pages. I'd started blocking some of the single purpose, obvious vandalism accounts, but most of these are IPs and in some cases the vandalism isn't entirely obvious, meaning that there may be some good faith in here. In the case of people who have made other edits but have made clear vandalism or soapbox edits, I've only blocked 'em for 48 hours. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 11:23, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm about to head out so I can't do it, but I think that the vandalism is enough over all of the pages to where a temporary semi protect would be warranted. Can any other admins help out on this? Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 11:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Here is a link to the video if anyone cares to watch it and understand the context of what exactly was asked of the audience. The vandalism seems to have subsided now, but I suspect it will pick up again later today once people wake up and start watching the videos. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 11:52, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Ktr101, the link to the video is now 404... Face-smile.svg
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:28, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I fixed the link, as I apparently never had the right url in the first place. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:33, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
"Subsided" is a relative term, I suppose. Here is what has been going on with these articles this morning. Requesting semi as a given article sees sufficient vandalism to warrant it. Dwpaul Talk 15:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
A thread about this has also been opened here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#.22Chicken fucker.22 vandalism. Be aware that JO actually said that CF should be added to the pages of those who voted no on the amendment to allow the farmers to speak out about the situation so the edits may start again later this week. WP:RFPP may be more effective than "block-a-mole" MarnetteD|Talk 16:00, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I've semi'd a good number for a week.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:29, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Talk pages could be their second target so we could have a time with that.
       — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:34, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm just gonna give a huge thanks to everyone who've looked up the names and reverted the vandalism, etc. John Oliver is brilliant but it's really disappointing that he'd encourage vandalism here, as if we here have endless time on our hands to clean up after all the vandals. Blegh. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 16:44, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Don't be disappointed, to a lot of people shaming politicians is far more important than an online encyclopedia. Without this sort of political mockery we would probably not have the freedom we need to run this project. Chillum 15:41, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Now that the articles are protected, they are starting to hit the talk pages. -- GB fan 16:59, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Yep, should we ignore the rules and place semi-prots there as well? I've done precisely that for Talk:Steve Womack‎‎
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Go for it, as I see no reason that we should allow this stuff at the moment. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:34, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Here is the other side of it, where there are now news articles reporting on his telling his viewers to vandalize the articles. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:37, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I think we need to send Mr. Oliver this special delivery from all of his friends at Wikipedia.Face-devil-grin.svg
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:52, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
A nice shortcut for checking these pages is to use Related Changes on the Appropriations Committee page - click here to check -- Fuzheado | Talk 19:24, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, although that won't reflect changes to the related Talk pages. This (looking at related changes based on the list above, plus a few other related pages) does. Dwpaul Talk 19:35, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
This is why I love this noticeboard. If it didn't exist, I'd have no idea that bright blue two-column list was full of chicken fuckers. After reading the fine print, I know it mostly isn't, but if I hadn't, I'd have made like Kyle Broflovski and learned something today. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:04, May 20, 2015 (UTC)

Bhanwari Devi[edit]

The point of view of this article is not neutral. It makes claims about the motives of the subject that are not verifiable. It describes her in emotive, hostile language (e.g. describing her voice as grating). The Dalrymple book is cited as a source for claims of fact, suggesting that the claims were proven by the book's author, whereas actually he merely reports them as views expressed by some interviewees.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.152.127.10 (talkcontribs)

An IP-hopping user (59.*.*.* socks) has been recently restoring content which is blatantly contrary to WP:NPOV. Some removal of unref and POV-pushing was done. Probably needs semi-protection, and oversight for POV/OR issues. However, article's talk could use more input e.g. no mention yet on the talk page about the suitability of the Dalrymple source. Dl2000 (talk) 23:47, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Wow! What a bundle of POV pushing BLP violations, and (even on a quick check) misrepresentation of sources. Thanks 109* for bringing this to this board, and Dl2000 for the clean-up you did. I have watchlisted it for now and will try further clean up during this week. Will also post at WT:INB for more eyes and hand. Abecedare (talk) 00:25, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Sharron Davies, UK Olympic swimmer[edit]

Good editors of the BLP/N board, please take a look at Sharron Davies#Personal life. There are extremely personal details of engagements, marriages, divorces, fertility treatments, etc., included here, much of it unsourced or unreliably sourced. This woman was an Olympic swimmer, but I doubt she signed on to have these sorts of details of her life published by Wikipedia, and in these less-than-flattering terms. We also have the usual problem of non-notable children's full names and birth dates. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:31, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I've taken a bit out. We definitely don't need unsourced gossip the names of her children or her current address in the article. I've left the bit about her IVF treatment in for now - whether we should have this or not probably depends on how public she was about it, and I don't know enough about her to assess that. So I'll leave it for someone else to have a look. Formerip (talk) 12:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Reference to Davies' first marriage has now been removed stating unsourced (after it was tagged for citation earlier). However just googling her and her first husband's names reveals several links etc. here, (some better than others) so maybe it should be restored. WP:TC possibly refers. Eagleash (talk) 01:21, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Louise Blouin[edit]

Louise Blouin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Concerns have been raised that the information in the controversy section of this article should not be in the article in question. See WP:Articles for deletion/Louise Blouin for more information about this. Do other editors think it is WP:UNDUE or a BLP violation for any reason? (Personally, I think it probably isn't because it's well sourced.) Everymorning talk 16:37, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I closed the AFD. It does look like that's more for the business than the person. In fact I'd say a redirect would be ideal here, given how little bio material there is. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 00:04, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Robert Sears (physician)[edit]

Robert Sears (physician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is no neutral point of view. Any edits made to the page are immediately removed. All of the comments/reactions are negative. There is not a single "reaction" posted in favor or any comments dealing with informed consent. The entire page is an attack on Dr. Sears and those who selectively vaccinate or delay vaccinations. Either the article should include only facts without any opinions or several different viewpoints need to be presented. I am a certificated teacher and will be using this article andmy experience to inform students of why wikipedia is not a trusted source. BookwormAtTheBorder (talk) 19:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

You may want to read WP:FRINGE. In Wikipedia we describe mainstream views when addressing subjects related to medicine. See also WP:MEDRS. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
@BookwormAtTheBorder: "highlights his passion", "fair and objective look", "His appeals for safety and caution in scheduling have led industry lobbyists to wage a smear campaign against him.", "His courage to speak out for the truth has earned him the love and support of millions of parents." As a teacher, you might want to read this. --NeilN talk to me 19:50, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Bill Cosby[edit]

The Bill Cosby article apparently is siding with his accusers, even though he has never been convicted, charged, or any of the allegations proven that he drugged and raped women for years. We pretty much state that he did in the introduction and in a lengthy section. I'm sure the Enquirer appreciates that we are cataloging all this information but given his voluminous career and all this unproven smears have come up over the last six month mainly maybe Wikipedia should put away the torches and pitchforks until any actual new legal ANYTHING happens.

I don't know if he did anything but he deserves fair treatment while Wikipedia is on path to convict him before any charges but tabloid gossip are even made.

This is embarrassing! Georgeivs vid (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:49, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Your deletion of three neutral sentences and removing any mention of the allegations is not the answer. --NeilN talk to me 03:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
The past discussions show that there was a sharp disagreement if ANYTHING should be in the introduction section with many pointing out the fact, not allegation, that it's too soon, and that he is only being accused of a crime and has no charges, and denies all the accusations. i hope when someone accuses you of a crime the jury waits to see actual evidence. Or is that the point? There is no evidence so we try him in the court of public opinion? If you can't neutrally state

1. This is all accusations-only, and mostly whipped up since November 2014 2. He's never been charged and denies all accusations 3. This is wildly out-of-character of his 5-6 decades of work, much of it public 4. Howabout that no charges are likely to ever be brought against him? Etc. then it shouldn't be in the article and the accusation section should be trimmed more. Georgeivs vid (talk) 04:31, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

How about you stop speculating about his character and likelihood of charges and stick to what appears in reliable sources? --NeilN talk to me 04:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
I think that the key question here is whether putting it in the lead gives it WP:UNDUE weight. Given that there was just a RFC that determined that the issue was given undue weight in the article up until now, and given that it was just dramatically pared down, I think adding it to the lead was clearly a mistake. --Aquillion (talk) 06:36, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Related to all this is Autumn Jackson, in her article tabloid sources are claiming all sorts of disreputable things that are reported as fact on Wikipedia. I don't have the desire to go through it all I would like for someone better at knowing which sources are allowed would look at it. Georgeivs vid (talk) 02:54, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

christophe geiger[edit]

Christophe Geiger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

poor influence in IP law and in academia ; only "maître de conférences" (lecturer in law) ; focus on administrative tasks in IP lab (CEIPI) is noticeable and does not pertain to key contribution to IP. no biography required under encyclopedia terms — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.54.145.146 (talkcontribs)

Hard to say whether this guy meets WP:ACADEMIC or not - he's the Dean/Director of a major research center, but is also listed as an associate professor. He's "general editor" of the center's publication, but I'm not sure if that counts as a "major well-established academic journal." Fyddlestix (talk) 14:14, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

William Claude Harper[edit]

William Claude Harper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Mr. Harper's bio is not accurate. A Ms. Fleischman submitted a thoroughly researched bio about him just recently. Unfortunately your administrator rejected it saying it was not as good as the original. How do we correct this situation?

Sincerely, W. Benjamin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bnjmnwllm (talkcontribs) 19:14, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

@Bnjmnwllm: Well, looking at the other thread on this page, it would seem that Ms. Fleischman has a conflict of interest with the subject. While that wouldn't disqualify her from editing the article, it does place her edits under deeper scrutiny, to make sure she's citing secondary sources whenever possible and maintaining neutral point of view. —C.Fred (talk) 19:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Already addressed at this noticeboard, here. The recent revision of the article left it a mess and did not comply with Wikipedia's standards for formatting, referencing or tone. The original version was restored. Dwpaul Talk 19:22, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
To better reply to your question, the best way to correct the situation would be to advise Ms. Fleischman to spend some time learning about Wikipedia, its policies and its manual of style before she attempts to revise this or any other bio. It's pretty clear she did not do so before she prepared the last revision. I will leave a message on the Talk page of the user who submitted the revision with some links to these resources. Dwpaul Talk 19:32, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Also, if you believe there are specific inaccuracies with regard to content in the existing article, please identify them in a message on the article's Talk page so that other editors can either correct them or point out/find sources that support them. Dwpaul Talk

Providence (religious movement)[edit]

Providence (religious movement), which involves all sorts of accusations against the living head, is currently undergoing an upheaval and more eyes would be appreciated. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Giuseppe_Vatinno[edit]

The page seems to be constantly edited by anonymous sources removing pieces and sources considered detrimental. The page was already semi-protected. There is a current legal dispute pending in the italian version of the page, the admin of the Italian version provided to obscure the page and considered it of no enciclopedic relevance, due to the low calibre of the person. Even more so should be of no enciclopedic value in the English version.

For this reason, and the controversy and edit war going on, I propose the page for deletion. Raghnar (talk)

Afd is thisaway --> WP:AFD.--ukexpat (talk) 13:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much, sorry I'm a bit lost sometimes with the nuances Raghnar (talk) 08:15, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Murder of Hae Min Lee‎[edit]

Murder of Hae Min Lee‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have cleaned up obvious BLP issues, but given recent editing activity, I'd appreciate additional eyeballs on this article. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:15, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Frank Kaminsky[edit]

Someone added something about a "little brother from Kentucky Dakota Wilson" to the article. I doubt that is accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.209.123.192 (talk) 17:22, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

David Gorski[edit]

SageRad (talk · contribs) has disclosed at WP:COIN that he has had off-Wikipedia conflicts with David Gorski on Gorski's personal blog. SageRed has tried to edit Gorski's biography to relate the nature of this conflict, without reliable sources. He was warned about a WP:COI arising from his off-Wiki contact with Gorski, so he himself brought the matter to WP:COIN. However, since it was properly pointed out that bringing an off-Wiki conflict into a Wikipedia biography is a serious breach of WP:BLP, the matter was closed at WP:COIN. I am raising it here so that appropriate discussion and action can be taken. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:46, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Whether there is a COI or not is more or less irrelevant. SageRad's personal spat with Gorski is of no relevance to Wikipedia, and wouldn't be even if it was sourced. Nobody has the 'right' to post on someone else's website, whether it is Gorski's blog or here on Wikipedia, and trivial disputes like this are of no encyclopaedic significance whatsoever. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:52, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
If the nature of the conflict does not appear in reliable sources now or in the future, and yet SageRad at some future time describes the conflict in the BLP, then action could be taken, but not until then.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:59, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
SageRad has already twice attempted to bring the conflict into Wikipedia: here and here. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 22:04, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
And he's since had policies (particularly WP:BLP) explained to him in detail - so if he does it again, he can expect sanctions. I suggest we leave it at that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I may take exception with the previous two comments, but i would like to post this statement. There was an editing conflict, so i will post this and then return to the last two comments if i must.

Well. Let us hold a good dialogue here. Let us be philosophically accurate. Let's separate out the issues. I would to not be banned from editing any particular page for the reason that i have had some "contact" if you call it that, with the person.
I would suggest that anyone coming to this place read this discussion for background and for my case.
I ask anyone to take the time to think carefully.
The reliability of my sourcing is a separate issue. This is solely about whether i should or should not be banned from editing that page in the future due to having have some exchange with Gorski in comments on blogs.
I fully grant that the statement was not "reliably sourced". That's ok. However, i do not believe that i should be locked out of editing that page due to having had "words" with Gorski.
Let me also correct one fact in the summary above. The statement "He was warned about a WP:COI arising from his off-Wiki contact with Gorski, so he himself brought the matter to WP:COIN" is not correct. I brought this issue to WP:COIN because i was listed as not able to edit that article. It was not because of a warning, but because of an action. Let's get that clear. I'm not reposting the edit that i did, and i am not edit warring. I simply do not want to be banned from the page on the principle of the thing.
So let's even leave it there. Will you remove the ban on my ability to edit that page?
As to the significance, however, i would dispute that. The information source "Science-Based Medicine" is being presented prominently in the article, and is also cited as a source. However, if that source bans commenting based on differing viewpoints, then it carries a quality that deserves description, as that becomes a feature of that information source.
If there were a quack source that banned people from commenting with science-based evidence, then it would be clear and would be notable that the quack source is exercising comment censorship.
If there is a site posing as exceedingly rational, and yet it prevents some people from commenting because the evidence that they present, meaning such things as peer-reviewed journal articles of high quality written by, for example, Monsanto scientists themselves, then that source may not be quite as exceedingly rational and trusting in the scientific method as it appears to be, and may carry an agenda.
I think it's a fair thing to point out an agenda in an information source, or to characterize it, rather.
Censorship is very important, and transparency is important. These are very notable things that i believe deserve placement in articles about information sources. That is the principle upon which i am operating in terms of judging that to be relevant.
You don't agree that it is censorship because it's a "private blog". If a forum appears to be public and open, and yet some participants are blocked based on an agenda, then that is censorship. If it's clearly a private, invitation-only type of forum, then it's not censorship. To me, a webpage with commenting generally is considered to be open for public commenting, and a pattern of blocking comments or people due to content of the comments or perceived position of the commenter is then censorship. The website in question does not state that people are banned from commenting based upon perceived position.
The ironic thing is that i was using scientific evidence to discuss the topic, and i really looked forward to doing that in a civil way with people there.
Anyway, all that may be moot, as basically i want the ban on my participation at that page to be removed. It's not that i'm wanting to keep that statement in there. SageRad (talk) 22:14, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Ok, now i guess i must return to the last two comments there.
"SageRad has already twice attempted to bring the conflict into Wikipedia: here and here. " -> actually, that is one change, and then someone objected saying it was unsourced, and so i sourced it, not properly, i admit. But it was also making the point that Gorski's claim about his own victimhood of attempted censorship was sourced only to his own blog. SageRad (talk) 22:18, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
So then, the next comment: "And he's since had policies (particularly WP:BLP) explained to him in detail - so if he does it again, he can expect sanctions. I suggest we leave it at that." because of serialization issues, this was based on the assumption that it's happened twice, but as i just explained it has not. Thus, it is not edit warring. And secondly, i had not had BLP mentioned until later, so that order of events is also off, so i would say that comment is based on false assumptions and perhaps should be struck. SageRad (talk) 22:20, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
To be blunt, Wikipedia doesn't give a flying fuck about your personal spat with Gorski. He is perfectly entitled to ban anyone he chooses from his personal blog, and that is no more 'censorship' than me being prevented from tattooing the word 'halfwit' on someone else's forehead. Go away and start a blog on it if you like, but stop wasting our time here - before we oblige you to, by exercising the same right that Gorski did... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:21, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
And lastly, it's not just "personal spat" and in fact to me it's not personal at all, but it's an incident of censorship in a source of information that is used to support some things and not others, and therefore it's relevant to public knowledge. How relevant? Good question. How much weight? Good question. But it's not a personal spat. It's a political occurrence. SageRad (talk) 22:23, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── You are absolutely wrong in regard to your understanding about censorship, and the tattoo analogy, sir. Would you like me to explain more? SageRad (talk) 22:24, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

No. Go away. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @SageRed: You are complaining that you were "censored" from posting comments on Gorski's website, as if you had an inalienable right to post comments on his website. You do not. It is his website, and he has the right to limit who comments on it. Further, we have only your word that this "censorship" ever occurred, and we have no idea the nature of the comments that you made that led him to ban you. Since there are no reliable sources to tell us that information, your comments about his censorship have no place here. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 22:32, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Mother of God. My eyes see it, but I still don't believe it. You sourced a contentious claim in a BLP to a comment on a Wikipedia talk page??? Do you have the slightest clue how many degrees of industrial-strength wrong this is? You should be banned not just from the Gorski article but from all BLPs. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:15, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

SageRad is obviously not here to build an encyclopedia, but to right great wrongs. Either they immediately desist, or they should get banned. A topic ban is another option. That would give them the opportunity to edit other topics and learn how things work here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:19, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I'd support a topic ban. It's very clear that SageRad is editing the page because he's angry that Gorski removed comments from his website. Like others have said, it's Gorski's website and he can do whatever he wants- if he wanted to turn every comment into 80s pop song lyrics, that's his prerogative. All we have about this is your account of things- for all we know your comment (assuming it happened) was laden with profanity and/or hostility. In other words, it's entirely possible that your post was deleted based on reasons that have nothing to do with you disagreeing with Gorski but because you were verbally abusive to him. The point is, we have no way of knowing if you're as much of a victim as you claim to be. Even if you were, the fact is that unless this is covered in reliable sources (newspapers, scholarly journals, academic texts) then there's no reason for it to be added to the article. You insisting that it be added to the article comes across as a one person crusade against Gorski. Want this stuff added? Provide reliable sources that aren't blogs, forums, and so on. At this point you pretty much have two options: accept that you cannot include the censorship claims on the Gorski article or get blocked from editing. I have absolutely no doubt that if this were to go up for an official vote on whether or not to topic ban you, you will be banned from editing his article. The odds of you getting Wikipedia editors (at least any that are familiar with BLP standards) to agree with you are practically nonexistent. I'm sorry to be harsh, but I don't really see where you seem to understand or want to understand Wikipedia's BLP policies. The policy is pretty straightforward: you cannot make claims on an article if they are not backed up with enough coverage in independent and reliable sources to show that it should even be mentioned in the first place. Forums/blogs/threads are not good enough. Your say so is not good enough. Only the type of sources covered at WP:RS are good enough and even then you have to include a lot of sourcing if someone could claim that it's libelous or that the article reads like a tabloid that includes every rumor and speculation. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 09:46, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Also, be aware that your posts here will make all of your prior edits seem suspect. I mean, if you are unwilling to understand how what you're trying to add violates one of Wikipedia's most serious and important policies then how can we trust you to understand and follow the others? Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 09:59, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── You're all kind of missing part of the story. The original article included the claim that a group was trying to censor Gorski or prevent him from blogging, and that claim was fully taken from Gorski's own blog claim about it, with the whole tone of that and all. I removed that, as my sole edit, originally.

  • Then, it was reverted, and i posted for comment on the talk page. Nobody replied. Then, later, i commented again. Nobody replied. Then, to make the point, i added my own claim and sourced it to my own blog. I could have made a blog somewhere else, but to make the point, i just stated it on my talk page, and sourced it there.
  • Do you all see that point?
  • Do you also recognize that i am not seeking to put that claim back in the article?
  • Do you see that i am not "edit warring"?
  • Do you also see that there is an equivalence between a claim by a person simply written on a blog?
  • And also, censorship is a more serious subject than just who "owns" the blog. There is a lot of thought on this, and there is the concept of an effectively public forum.
  • And also, i *am* here to make an encyclopedia. I am rather confused because both Tokyogirl79 and BullRangifer are working with me on the article on the hoe, which you can see in this talk page discussion and you can also see the lengths that i will go to in order to find the most accurate presentation of reality to make the article as useful and reliable as possible. We're talking about names of hoes in so much detail and i have even just written to the author of a 2014 book to ask him his sourcing on the term "dego hoe"... in order to avoid a likely WP:CIRCULAR -- please give admission of this. I'm working really hard there for accuracy. That's what i bring to this. And in this case, please do open your mind to the notion that censorship also occurs in the fourth estate, even when some entity "owns" a media source. Please even read the first paragraph of Censorship here in our beloved Wikipedia. I think that is relevant when an article discusses prominently and even sources to a source that is exercising censorship.
  • So, i would love to hear your thorough responses, admissions or denials to these questions, with explanations. This is how they do it in lawsuits. There is a stage of admissions, and this seems to be useful here. SageRad (talk) 17:40, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I am concerned that the David Gorski article is not neutral. It's got a serious bias. There's a lot more to this than the versions of the story you're echoing. There is a lot of serious thought that must go into deciding what's accurate and what's suitable for an article here. I am willing to do that work. SageRad (talk) 17:40, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

You're not the right person to contribute to that effort. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:48, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Where is completion of dialogue? Where is care and thoroughness?
Where is any attempt to address the majority of my points in this dialogue?
Where is the process of admissions or denials of points? SageRad (talk) 18:05, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
No matter if you're doing good elsewhere, you have a COI regarding Gorski, so it's simply off-limits for you, so stop all discussion of the matter anywhere at Wikipedia, even on your own talk page and policy pages. A topic ban has that effect, and the ban can be formalized easily, if it hasn't already.
Your blog can only be used as a source regarding yourself on your own biography here, if you are notable enough for such. His blog is usable, with limits, on his own article per WP:ABOUTSELF, and in some instances (because he's a notable expert) in other articles. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:07, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Where is any concern at all about the original lack of dialogue on the article's talk page?
Where is any admission that i began this edit by removing a bad source, and that was reverted, and then i asked about it on the talk page, and got no response in a reasonable timeframe?
Where is the admission that only after that, did i add my claim, to make the point about the insufficiency of the original claim sourced to David Gorski's own blog claim?
Where is any concern at all about anything except putting me down?
Do you see the strangeness of all this? SageRad (talk) 18:09, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
I will happily agree to not edit the David Gorski page anymore, but there is a lot more at stake here. This original question is about BPL policy, but there is also a lot more material here. Why the threats of banning from a whole topic, and why the assumptions that i am doing wrong consistently? SageRad (talk) 18:11, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
There are no assumptions. The editors who have commented here have read what you have written, pretty carefully I imagine, then told you why your behaviour isn't acceptable. You haven't yet heard them. I'm hoping you'll take a step back before you get topic banned. stop being angry at the injustice you perceive. -Roxy the Mainstream dog™ (resonate) 18:17, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── There is not sufficient completion of dialogue. There are wild claims unredacted. There is much evidence that many people commenting have not fully comprehended the situation due as evidenced by their comments. SageRad (talk) 18:22, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Along with the sound advice poster here by several editors you should also try to understand that Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs - real or perceived. MarnetteD|Talk 18:24, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm trying to think of a good way to phrase this. I don't really doubt that he was removing blog quotes- it's not an unusual tactic for antivaxers in general, let alone for authority figures. However all we have here are self-published sources- not coverage in independent and reliable sources. It might have happened but because the accusation of censorship is a pretty serious deal and can be considered libelous, Wikipedia needs to have a lot of coverage to not only really help show that this is happening but that it's worth mentioning in the article. If it's only sourced to self-published sources then it's entirely possible that Gorski could sue Wikipedia to have the material removed and/or sue for damages. People have made those threats before and unless Wikipedia really covers its butt, the person could have a pretty good case- especially if they think that some part of Wikipedia was aware of the issue and didn't step in. If you can find coverage in places like newspapers, academic sources, and the like, it can be included. If it's just SPS, it cannot. However because you clearly have a very strong personal emotion towards Gorski, it is not a good idea for you to edit the article because you will be likely to insert your own personal feelings/bias/opinions into the writing. Under the same brush we wouldn't want an extreme Gorski fan to edit the article either and would make the same requirements of them as far as sourcing goes. That you can't really see the points being brought up here shows exactly how strongly you feel about this and why it's a bad idea for you to edit on this subject. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 18:29, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
    • @Tokyogirl79: To correct one really minor point in your post: Gorski is not an anti-vaxer; he is an outspoken critic of the anti-vax movement. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:44, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
I can indeed see the points being brought up, and i accept some of them, and i have objections or clarifications or further questions about others of them.
I feel strongly about avoiding bias in articles, and i see that there is a lot of bias on many articles in many directions. I am working to correct those biases, sometimes, to help bring a more neutral point of view.
I will voluntarily recuse myself from any further edits to the David Gorski article. That is ok.
I do point out that the original edit that i made was indeed to remove an accusation that was sourced to Gorski's writing about another group. I had no knowledge about that other group, and no relation to them, and i could not find other sources on that incident in a cursory search, and therefore my first edit was indeed to remove a claim of a self-sourced nature, from the article.
That edit was then reverted.
I did not revert i back. I posted to the talk page.
I got no response. I posted again to the talk page. Again no response. Reasonable time elapsed.
I made the second edit, which was my assertion sourced to me that he censored me.
That was my mistake. I do recognize that was not sourced correctly.
I was attempting to make a point in a case where i had a concern and nobody discussed with me on the talk page, and simply reverted my original edit.
And it sure did get attention!
Now, i would not do that same thing again. I learned from this. A lot.
However, there is still the remaining issue of that page containing a he said / she said event from only one self-sourced side of the story. I'm concerned about that, though i am recused, and i will not be editing that.
Having strong feelings, though, is not in itself a disqualifier. I love hoes and therefore i'm editing the article on hoes. I do not like Monsanto as they polluted the rivers near my birthplace, and therefore i care to make their page accurate in regard to PCB pollution. This is alright. This is even a good thing. To do it without bias in the article content is the thing. SageRad (talk) 18:47, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
I suggest you take a couple of days off, then return to the Gorski talk page, and open a new discussion, particularly if you have decided not to edit the article again. I bet you find a number of eds willing to try to understand the issue, and who will examine any proposal you want to make, and discuss a new beginning to this. I still cant figure the whole thing out. I have to say that you may not get what you want, but people really haven't been unreasonable with you, and they will WP:AGF. You might find you think a little less ill of eds here too. -Roxy the Mainstream dog™ (resonate) 18:55, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Unconfirmed pregnancy in tabloids[edit]

Leighton Meester reportedly is pregnant. However, as we've encountered before, this comes from anonymous sources. Celebrity-watchers on her page, however, are inserting the claim — which neither Meester nor her husband nor her representatives have confirmed — as fact. I believe we generally wait for confirmation, so I ask members of the Project to keep this page within your scope of attention. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:40, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Did you check for other news listing this information? [34] Is People Magazine reliable in this? [35] Many other news sources cover it as well. Dream Focus 00:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
@Tenebrae: there are sufficient reliable sources to verify that the subject is pregnant, but this is better off at WP:BLPN or WP:RSN than here. Us Magazine, Entertainment Online, Cosmo', HuffPo, Time.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:22, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree with RightCowLeftCoast on both points; I don't know why this was posted here, nor why reliable sources are being dismissed out of hand by the OP as "tabloids". postdlf (talk) 15:19, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
I posted on the wrong talk page — I was looking for WikiProject Biography's talk page and somehow took a wrong turn and landed here. My apologies.
All those outlets, some of which are attributing others on this list, make the claim based on anonymous, unverifiable, shadowy "sources." While that might be newsy, unconfirmed claims are simply rumors being reported. I didn't think Wikipedia traffics in rumors and gossip.
The reason I used "tabloids" — and perhaps I should have said "tabloid" — is that all of this stems from the tabloid site PopSugar.com, the original website that showed photos of her. Anyone can PhotoShop images, and heaven knows celebrity hoaxes are nothing new.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:51, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Louis Johnson (bassist)[edit]

Could anybody verify whether Mr Johnson is dead, as the Wikipedia article states? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.13.143.167 (talk) 09:53, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I haven't found any reliable source about it, and therefore removed the death info from the article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:07, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
There are plenty of posts on Twitter and Facebook - [36] - but we could do with something more definitive. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:24, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Brian Day[edit]

Dr. Brian Day is a doctor in Canada who is leading a legal challenge to permit more privatization of the Canadian health system (specifically, in British Columbia, but that would have repercussions across the country).

It is a controversial case in Canada with proponents on both sides of the debate.

I'm concerned that the current article on this individual is one-sided, sounds like a commercial and not a fact-based article.

I tried to edit this article to present both sides of the debate, and provided citations -- and cleared out all of the propaganda in the article. But someone has gone back and undone all my edits.

I'd like an independent editor(s) to weigh in.

I have no stakes in this game -- other than wanting to see fair, balanced information on the individual, the court case he's bringing forward, and the all the facts so that those reading about it can make their own determination. It should not be a propaganda war.

It doesn't have to be me making the edits nor do my specific edits have to stay, but the article as it stands now is not up to Wikipedia standards and needs some independent intervention.

I spent a lot of time and energy trying to get it balanced, and I see no rationale for having my edits undone.

Thanks for your assistance.

Kathleen5454 14:56, 22 May 2015 (UTC)kathleen5454 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kathleen5454 (talkcontribs)

Butcher of Gujarat dispute[edit]

There is a Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_May_21#Butcher_of_Gujarat discussion going on here there has been alleged canvassing ,edit warring and claims of WP:BLP violation as it redirects to Narendra Modi which in turn is rebutted by claims of WP:RNEUTRAL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:20, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Joshua Duggar[edit]

More eyes are needed on Joshua Duggar. This is oldest son of the Duggar family of 19 Kids and Counting who has recently admitted to fondling 5 underage girls, including family members, when he was also a child (at age 14). There have been attempts to add "admitted child molester" as opening sentence of lead. Also, the Category:American sex offender was recently added to this BLP even though Joshua Duggar was not convicted of any sex offense. Can we add this category per BLP if he's not convicted? --BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:48, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Why have we got a biography of him anyway? He doesn't seem to be independently notable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:10, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Well we didn't until yesterday [37]. That said, his life has been well covered both as a reality star and more recently as the executive director of a lobbying agency and spokesman for certain conservative values. I don't think we'd have trouble finding sources about him specifically if people want to go that route. Dragons flight (talk) 01:27, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Semi'd for a week. This should probably be redirected to the article about the show, and maybe a blurb added to the organization, but maybe once the dust settles. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 00:14, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

More eyes are also seem needed on his father, Jim Bob Duggar's BLP. Just removed that he was "complicit in covering up incestuous molestations" from the lead. This does seem to have some op-ed type sourcing, but the sources also said he went to the police. Stating he was complicit in criminal misconduct seems problematic here. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 01:54, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Alexis Arquette[edit]

The headshot featured on this page seems to be a rather odd choice. It has Alexis Arquette in rather severe and unnatural makeup and might be considered both misrepresentative and unflattering in comparison to the vast majority of the other photos available.

Given the extensive agenda-riddled arguing about gender and trans issues in the Talk sections, with repeated edits to make the article conform to one pronoun or another in spite of clear Wikipedia rules, I am going out on a limb here and guessing that the photo was selected specifically by a biased editor to portray Alexis in an unflattering light.

(It's a genuine photo, mind you. No argument there. It's just that it's so atypical of Alexis' appearance that the choice seems suspect.) Felice Landry (talk) 11:30, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

"...vast majority of the other photos available" -- where are they? We can only use freely licensed photos (of living people) on Wikipedia, if you have or know of any such photos then you can upload them yourself. But if you don't then we're stuck with what we have. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 11:49, 23 May 2015 (UTC)