This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page.

Catherine Bosley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The subject of the article is a news anchor. Her article has been persistently but sporadically vandalized by anon editors who keep inserting a ridiculously long, unsourced section about an alleged incident that is a serious BLP violation. The incident appears to true, but obviously something like that should be kept out until proper sourcing is provided, and in any case the length and salacious detail do not belong. This has been going on for at least five years, and obviously the anon editors involved have expressed no interest in creating a properly sourced, BLP-compliant account of appropriate length.

I've semiprotected the article for six months. I'm hoping some editors here can also put this page on their watchlist. The more eyes on it the better to keep it BLP compliant. Gamaliel (talk) 19:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Five years and nobody's managed to source this right? As "wardrobe malfunctions" go, this one is probably second only to Janet Jackson's in terms of press coverage, to say nothing of the press the followup lawsuit(s) got. Even I remember it, although I didn't remember her name. I mean, no kidding, it's so bad that if you google her name, naked pictures of her show up ahead of her Wikipedia article. There are at least a half dozen Google Scholar hits on the incident. GBooks hits. Bill O'Reilly video. The NYTimes talked about it. The hardest part to source in this story is the part that's more sympathetic to her -- that she was "acting up" following major surgery for a life-threatening condition.

But aside from all that, which can be dealt with by ordinary editing -- if nobody else does, I'll try in a few days, but it would be best if somebody who understands the lawsuits could write it up -- the talk page includes a batch of comments which really should be suppressed -- discussion of her physical appearance, zero-basis accusations/implications that she's dishonest, and so on. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Sandra Horn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm Sandra Horn -the item about my being a fluent German speaker is wrong - I'm not, and I didn't write the publication in German. Som eother Sandra Horn, perhaps? Please take it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.46.28 (talk) 09:28, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Done. The German book seemed to be about how to market things to foreign tourists, and its inclusion in the article was cited only to an Amazon search for any publications by authors named "Sandra Horn". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Betty Broderick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Your birth and death dates for Dan Broderick are incorrect. The area should read 11/22/1944 to 11-5-1989. You have down his marriage date as his date of birth! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.159.199 (talk) 18:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The dates listed in the infobox in the spouse section correctly list the years of marriage, which is the intent of the field. Additional information regarding the use of specific infobox parameters can be found at Template:Infobox person.Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Damien Comolli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

"It was also at this point revealed that he was a chameleon" Unsure as to what is meant by this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.5.54.78 (talk) 23:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I would love to speculate on what it means, but I know relatively little about football, and it's obviously fairly ridiculous, so I've removed it. The article needs a lot of improvement, too.. maybe you could help? Thanks for alerting us to the problem. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

From looking at the other few edits by the IP, this was simple vandalism - they have already been warned over another example. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

 – User:Joyson Noel added the interwiki link to the article section 1985 Rajneeshee assassination plot#Investigation

I would like to add the five FBI audio files to the following section of the 1985 Rajneeshee assassination plot article.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1985_Rajneeshee_assassination_plot#Investigation

However, i am not quite certain about what the appropriate template for multiple audio files would be. I would appreciate it if someone would help me out in this regard. The accompanying caption should be as follows:

Conversations between Rajneeshpuram mayor Swami Krishna Deva and John Mathis, a mediator with the federal Community Relations Service; recorded by the FBI in the fall of 1984. In these phone intercepts, the mayor pleads with Mathis to provide details about a secret federal investigation. The "Geraldine" referred to in these tapes is Geraldine Thompson, the chief of staff for Oregon governor Victor G. Atiyeh.

Thanks. Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 07:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Category:Federal Bureau of Investigation audio files on Rajneesh movement.

• - I am no interwiki expert by a long chalk and am learning as I post here - but I think rather than add them here we usually just add an interwiki link to the other wiki - such and such a wiki has files related ot this topic. See like this in the external link section- 1985 Rajneeshee assassination plot#External links - So you might add - a template like this .................. and add it to the specific section that discusses that topic. Off2riorob (talk) 21:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 21:31, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

No problemo, glad to be of help, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 22:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Example images of the individual for comparison: [1], [2], [3]

Article: Aafia Siddiqui

Relevant policies: WP:BLP, WP:MUG

I am looking for outside advise on this issue that addresses the given arguments and i urge involved editors not to disturb this discussion.

Problem: The image in the infobox reduced the individual of this biography to a FBI created Facial composite and presents her in a false light. It shows how Dr. Siddiqui might have look at that time in the view of the FBI. It is not an authentic image of her. The facial composite shows her in a false light and therefore violates WP:BLP, WP:MUG.

Proposed solutions: The Facial composite should be removed from the infobox.

Possible counter arguments: There are no authentic free images available. Solution for that: The facial composite could be moved to the relevant section in the article body.

Additional input on how to use Facial composite in BLP's in general are also welcome.

Independent views and comments by editors who are not involved in the dispute are welcome. Thank you. IQinn (talk) 02:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I would be quite loath to use a "facial composite" for any living person as an image with exceedingly few exceptions (such as a composite leading to apprehension of an unkonwn person is a notable case). It does not qualify as "fact" to be sure, and in most cases would be essentially a "pictorial opinion" of an artist (trying to make it fit the current BLP requirements and wording). Collect (talk) 03:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• I’m not seeing a problem. Five other editors have weighed in at Talk:Aafia Siddiqui#BLP to tell iQinn that the photo is compliant with Wikipedia’s policies. The consensus was that WP:MUG is intended to prevent the use of unflattering images like this mug shot of Nick Nolte when there are perfectly good alternatives such as this image of him, which is not unflattering and is the one actually used in the article. The above picture of Siddiqui looks more like a passport picture, and is free use because it came from the U.S. government. If there is a better image of her that is already in the public domain, that’s great. The reasoning of the five other editors is quite clear and consistent. IQinn’s “Possible counter arguments” above, gives short shrift to the facts since there known and existing counter arguments. His post would seem a little less disingenuous if he revised it to “Known counter arguments” and did a better job of capturing what has truly transpired over there. Greg L (talk) 03:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

As Collect points out, this isn't an image of the person in question: it cannot be used in an infobox as in illustration of the subject. The absence of an authentic image is a red herring at best - there is no requirement that an infobox should have an image at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:20, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course its an image of the person, just as much as this is an image of George Washington and this is an image of Obama and so too (is this one). It doesn’t matter if the FBI took an existing picture of Siddiqui and modified to make it clearer; if it is a reasonably accurate facsimile of her from an RS and isn’t unreasonably unflattering (cherry picked just to cast her in an unflattering light) then it’s perfectly OK for Wikipedia to use the image to illustrate the subject in question. Greg L (talk) 03:31, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Utter nonsense. - our readers don't need to be told the George Washington image isn't the actual subject, but an artist's impression. The 'composite' is intended to look like a photo, and as such is misrepresentation. And no, the FBI isn't 'RS' in this instance - they are clearly an involved party. But I return to my earlier point - there is no requirement for the infobox to have an image, so why insist on including one which isn't actually a photo of the subject? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Poppycock. It would help if you familiarized yourself with the facts. Right under the photo is a caption states “Facial composite, created by FBI for a wanted poster.” And it’s cited. So there is zero misrepresentation. You guys are all getting sucked into a vortex phenomenon when an editor who won’t abide by consensus goes forum shopping and misrepresents the facts. Don’t let it happen to you. Greg L (talk) 03:54, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

(I'm not sure what is supposed to follow "utter nonsense" and "poppycock".) I agree with Collect and Andy. The image shouldn't be used. The caption doesn't eliminate the misrepresentation. Why don't you come up with a WP article of a BLP that uses a facsimile photograph of the person in the infobox? If you can, then we can remove it from that infobox, too.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:02, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I think readers expect to see a photo in our infoboxes. It's OK if it's a painting or whatever for people who lived before cameras. The reader will understand in that case. In this case, I think a lot of readers will ignore the caption, and think this is a photo. I'm not worried too much about the subject, but I think we may be misleading our readers. The image should probably be put below the infobox, and a photo should be put in the infobox. Possibly a non free one. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:09, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be only one 'fact' here - that editors are trying (why?) to insert an 'image' into an infobox that isn't what it appears to be. Unless they can give a convincing argument that this is necessary, it should not be included. Infoboxes should be used for uncontroversial 'information' (hence the name), not for questionable 'facimiles' originating from involved parties. Frankly, the image is hardly useful anyway - where I live (London), this could be any one of hundreds of women of South Asian ancestry one might see on the street - she looks stressed out, but that isn't unusual, who doesn't? I'm certainly not going to start looking at everyone to see if they look like an FBI 'facsimile' of a terrorist - I probably look like one myself.AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• This subject has been discussed at length here. Iqinn misconstrues what the plain words of wp:mug state. Iqinn also above takes the interesting tact of not only leaving out reference to the relevant discussion, and leaving out the points of those who disagree with him (all who commented there, unanimously), but then goes so far as to ask that those who took part in that conversation (all of whom disagreed with him) not comment here.

WP:MUG states: "Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light." That policy has nothing to do with the matter at hand. As has previously been pointed out to Iqinn. This is not "out of context". Rather, it is in context -- it is properly captioned to state precisely what it is, it is in an infobox that provides the context of her criminal charge, criminal penalty, and criminal status, and it is in an article that describes her "wanted for questioning" alert for which the image was used. This is a poster child for "in context" use of an image.

We could stop there. But perhaps it is also worth mentioning that Iqinn's "false light" protestation misses what a false light representation is. There is no "false light" here -- this is not an instance of a picture taken to suggest something "false" about her -- that she was shooting up heroin when she was not, or shooting someone when she was not, or kissing a goat when she was not, or has lots of acne and a crew cut when she does not. Those are "false light" images. Nothing here of the sort. In fact, it defies credulity to suggest that the FBI in its wanted picture put out anything other than their best effort to reflect what she does in fact truly look like. There's simply nothing to that argument.

As to whether this is an image of the person -- of course it is. It is a composite image. "Image" doesn't mean "one-click-of-the-camera-photo". It can even be a portrait, a composite, or any other likeness that qualifies as an image. If a photo is available of her that is free appears (doesn't appear to be one at the moment), that would be fine as well. Alternatively. But there is nothing to the "this isn't an image" line of thought. --Epeefleche (talk) 06:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• This photo should be removed. I don't think I would want my biography illustrated by a "wanted" photo put together for the purpose of arresting me by the FBI. I don't think anyone would. So per WP:MUG the photo is presenting the subject in a disparaging light. Alex Harvey (talk) 06:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
• I agree with Collect (!) and think the photo is unsuitable for use in the infobox. It's fine for use in the article in proper context and with a clear legend. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:53, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
• I also agree with Collect, AndyTheGrump, Bbb23, and others here - the image is essentially guesswork and misleading. There is no immediate imperative that an image must be included in an infobox, and a misleading one is worse than no image at all. It's no different than adding a reference that doesn't support a string of text, just to be able to say there is a reference. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 14:09, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
• I'm in the "take it out" camp too, for the reasons stated by Collect, AndyTheGrump, Bbb23, and the others. – ukexpat (talk) 15:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• I really fail to see the problem here. We're upfront about what this image is in the caption, and it doesn't appear to misrepresent her in any way. Drawings and paintings and prints are used in infoboxes here all the time, so I don't see a compelling reason to disallow this usage. did find another photo of her in this terrorist bolo. Perhaps editors could look into the copyright status and appropriateness of using it as an alternative. Gamaliel (talk) 17:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - You mean the image on the left. I think it might be free as it seems that it has been published by the FBI as well. IQinn (talk) 22:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• The image seems acceptable to me. Photography doesn't always equate to verisimilitude. The argument is made on the article Talk page that the composite image is not an "authentic image" but I think there is some flexibility between authentic image and inauthentic image. This image doesn't have any glaring inconsistencies with the other photos it has been compared to. Bus stop (talk) 20:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - We know the image in question is manipulate or even completely computer generated. Is this Aafia Siddiqui? Isn't it original research WP:OR when we as Wikipedia editors compare manipulated images to original ones and make a judgement about that? It seems to me that way. You think this facial composite would be suitable to represent the subject of a biography? Where do we draw the line? IQinn (talk) 22:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• No. This is obviously the best effort by the FBI to accurately represent the image of the person, an image which they created so that people would recognize her, and help the FBI find her. It was not created to make her look bad (indeed, she looks far better than some other images we've all seen). Let's apply a reasonable dose of wp:common sense.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

@Iquinn .no it is not. FBI website is considered a RS. several other RS have used the same image.[4], [5]--Wikireader41 (talk) 23:55, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• WP:MUG states "Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light." This persons only claim to fame is that she is a convicted felon and a suspected top ranking al-Qaeda militant. Nothing in WP:MUG saying composites cannot be used. It is not as if we are using a composite of Lindsay Lohan in her BLP. This person is not notable for anything except that she is a criminal. If she was not that she would not even have an article. we are not presenting her in false light one bit so the image needs to stay unless a better public domain image is available.--Wikireader41 (talk) 21:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - Facial composite allowed for criminals but not for Lindsay Lohan? Do you think that we should not give people convicted in a US court the same BLP rights than anyone else? Do you think this Facial composite has a criminal touch so it suits her? IQinn (talk) 22:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

well Aafia is ONLY notable ( by WP standards) for her criminal pursuits and associations. She has no other notability and would not have an article if she was not listed as one of the most wanted al-Qaeda terrorists by FBI ( using this image). We are not misrepresenting her here by putting a facial composite. IMO we would not be misrepresenting her if we put a ( public domain) picture of her in prison clothes. It would be different if it was putting a facial composite for somebody who was notable primarily for another reason ( other than being a criminal). She has the same BLP rights as anyone else not to be misrepresented in their picture. the point is she is NOT misrepresented and her image is not being used out of context.--Wikireader41 (talk) 23:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree mostly with this position - she is only a notable criminal and as such the mugshot in the infobox if cleanly labeled as a composite seems admissible. Off2riorob (talk) 23:50, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the objection Iqinn is raising is not that it is problematic because misleads the readers into thinking the subject is a criminal. She is a criminal. His objection, as I understand it, is that WP:MUG does not make exceptions or differentiate between convicted criminals and those merely accused or charged with crimes. I think if you're going to take up the view that the composite image is okay because she's a convicted criminal, you would have to explain either (1) why we ought to take exception to that policy here, (2) why the policy doesn't actually apply at all (i.e. why the rationale motivating the policy does not apply to this case), or (3) why the policy should be amended to permit mugshots for convicted criminals. I hope that helps. Regards, causa sui (talk) 00:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - I had a fresh look at WP:Mug and the point seems to be - "not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light. " - is this picture disparaging? - thats a judgment call...personally I do not find this picture disparaging. - but if someone else did per WP:BLP and WP:MUG and it was moved into the body of the article I would not object. Off2riorob (talk) 00:10, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

For wp:mug to apply in the first place, the image has to be used "out of context". As you point out, in your quote. It is clearly being used "in context" -- properly described, in an infobox that discusses her criminal charges and conviction. So, there's not even a judgment call involved here; wp:mug doesn't even apply (to this image which is not, btw, a "mug shot"). And, further to your point that you do not personally find the image disparaging, I agree -- we all know what a disparaging image looks like .. and this would be one example.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually I did not see a policy that says facial composites can't be used in BLP. WP:MUG clearly talks about Images rather than photographs. IMO a facial composite and mug shots would be OK in any article ( BLP or not) as long as the primary notability of the subject is that they are criminals. I would object of course to putting a mugshot in an article ( BLP or otherwise) if the subject was primary notable for another reason like Ms Lohan ( of course the only reason somebody gets a mugshot is because they encountered Law enforcement somewhere- this could be a relatively trivial matter as drunk driving or you could be one of the most wanted al qaeda terrorists)--Wikireader41 (talk) 00:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

(←) It's an interesting case and doesn't strike me as clear-cut either way. But the discussion here does suggest to me that while some people think it is not strictly a BLP issue, there are lingering concerns about whether it makes sense from an editorial standpoint to use a composite where we would usually have an actual photograph to illustrate the subject. I'm tempted to try to pinch this off (forgive the expression) and go to the next step (something like DRN) before the original disputants start going around in circles with each other again. causa sui (talk) 00:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

As a quick look its about eight to five policy considered comments to err on the side of caution and remove the pic from the infobox to the related section of the article body. I also note - this pic is almost spammed across the project Siddiqui 2.png#filelinks in ten articles on en wikipedia alone. Off2riorob (talk) 00:50, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

What people have said has somewhat convinced me it's OK, but since it's a BLP, we should probably still err on the side of caution, and put it lower with a detailed caption. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that is my position as well. Off2riorob (talk) 01:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I've added " (not actual photograph)" for now where possible. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:07, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

@ causa sui would also like to add if the intent of WP:MUG was to put a blanket ban on using Mug shots ( or composites) in BLPs it would have stated so in plain english. something like "Mug Shots and composites should not be used in BLPs". Clearly it does not say that and only prohibits use of Mug Shots "out of context" and in a "disparaging way". a clear cut situation violation would be use in Lindsay Lohan. Sometimes it is useful to think about the intent of the policy rather just rely on "plain reading" . We clearly don't want to put mug Shots on BLPs of people who are not notable for criminal activity and thus defame them. I would have had no problems with a mug shot in the article on Timothy McVeigh even when he was alive. Ditto for Richard Reid & Zacarias Moussaoui who in fact are alive.--Wikireader41 (talk) 01:29, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think WP:MUG is particularly relevant here. :) What I wonder, though, is if a composite based on what eyewitnesses think someone looks like can ever be used as a reliable depiction of what they genuinely do look like. I'm presuming that this is effectively a artist's impression based on accounts, and under those terms I wouldn't have thought such a depiction would be seen as reliable enough for an infobox. It would be reliable, of course, as a depiction of what eyewitnesses thought they saw, or who the FBI believed they were looking for. - Bilby (talk) 01:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

well Aafia lived for a long time in US prior to being declared wanted by FBI. I am sure FBI had access to her drivers license photo(s), visa photos, college photos etc. Its not that Aafia was some never before seen militant and FBI was basing the composite on third party descriptions. just a plain comparison of her other pictures on the web will confirm that the composite is of the same person.--Wikireader41 (talk) 01:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

We can not be sure about something we do not know. You do not have any information about how this facial composite was created. This is pure speculation. The second suggestion to compare an artistic facial composite with original images to decide if the person looks identical or similar enough is clear WP:OR and would lead to chaos. There are already opposing opinions about that. I do not think that is the case.

Collect, AndyTheGrump, Bbb23 summed it up the right way that was endorsed as well by many other editors. Lately Bilby says almost the same. You are driving circles. Let's try to find consensus. Wikipedia is all about compromises and consensus. There seems to be also a large number of editors who think the problem could be solved by moving the image to the body of the article. Not my first choice but how about we solving the dispute by following their advise? IQinn (talk) 02:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

well she look like it and the image has been used in articles on aafia in several RS.[6], [7]. any rebuttal to that ?? wikipedia runs on RS. can you point to a single Rs which has raised concerns that the image is NOT her ? No you can't. What you are saying (that this presents her disparagingly is certainly OR)--Wikireader41 (talk) 15:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

IQinn—it would be original research if it were created by Wikipedia editors, but it is not. It is the result of deliberate effort by a responsible entity—the FBI—to create a likeness of the individual. Bus stop (talk) 16:05, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Quick wiki poll

Trying to find consensus.

Please indicate if you think that the Facial composite used in the infobox of Aafia Siddiqui should be moved to the article body.

• Move to article body IQinn (talk) 02:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
• Keep as-is. It meets both policy, and common sense. It is an image (though some editors above thought that a non-composite photo, not an "image", was what we need). There is no reason to think that it is an image that lacks verisimilitude -- just the opposite, under the circumstances. In fact, many photos can lack verisimilitude -- we know from the purpose for which this image was created that it was created to accurately reflect the person. It is not a mug shot. At the same time, it meets the criteria of wp:mug--it is clearly put in context. It is the best image we have, that we can use in the infobox. And, by way of contrast, this image and this image are two of the more popular non-composite images of her. And this is the image that her own supporters use for her.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
• Keep in infobox. It is common sense to use it in the infobox—as long as the caption under the photo clearly indicates that it is a composite (as is currently the case). GFHandel ♬  06:19, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
• Keep as-is per Epeefleche V7-sport (talk) 06:21, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
• Move to the most relevant section - there is clearly enuf assertions that the FBI composite picture is disparaging to require us to err on the side of caution as per WP:MUG in a WP:BLP. Off2riorob (talk) 06:49, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your earlier comment above, in which you indicated that you yourself "do not find this picture disparaging". I especially agree that it is not disparaging in the wake of having compared it to the other images of her, including those used by the subject's own supporters (see above). I also found your quote of WP:MUG to be instructive; clearly, it does not apply. Insamuch as the use of this image is not "out of context".--Epeefleche (talk) 01:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

• Move to another section where the composite is discussed. [8] Even the non-free photos (except for one apparently post-beatdown) show her in some kind of headgear. I do not think she would willingly present herself bare-headed; it is therefore equivalent to "situations where the subject was not expecting to be photographed". Thundermaker (talk) 10:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Her supporters seem to be partial to this photograph of her bare-headed. And this photo of her bare-headed as well.But, if her hair is the issue, we could always crop the photo below her hairline ... even in photos where she does wear a graduation cap or other hair covering, her hair is in fact often showing below the cap/hair covering.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

• Move or remove per my (and others's) comments in the previous section. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
• Move - and any caption should make clear that it is an impression of the subject, not an 'image'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
• Move - per the many arguments above. I'd be happy with complete removal as well per Stephan.Griswaldo (talk) 14:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
• re-Move Why stick a supposition in the info box? John lilburne (talk) 14:48, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
• Keep image in Infobox. There is no issue with the image being merely an impression—not any more so than any other image—in fact verisimilitude is what is aimed for by the FBI. The image aims to be representational. I do not think it aims to present the subject unflatteringly. Bus stop (talk) 15:07, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
• Keep as is Like User:Bus stop, I do not think it aims to present the subject unflatteringly. The only question should be “What is best for the article and for the reader?” The photo composite is from a reliable national investigative police agency with the intent to make the likeness as clear as possible. If this was a painting of an individual, like this one of President Obama or this one of George Washington, there would be no need for the caption to say “Oil painting representation of what the president appears like;” it’s obvious. When the image is so realistic it appears like a plain photo but really isn’t, such as with many astronomy images like this binary pair, the captions usually say something like “Artist impression.” Until a just-as-clear, free-use image becomes available (other non-free-use ones invariably show here with a scarf around her head), the existing image, unaltered by any wikipedian, with the current caption (“Facial composite, created by FBI for a wanted poster”) is how to best serve the reader with encyclopedic information so they better understand the subject matter. Greg L (talk) 15:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
• Move or delete The "composite" is not an "oil painting" where a person presumably was at least seen by the artist <g>. Collect (talk) 15:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
• Move I have not been following this discussion, but my initial impression of the image is that it is clearly disparaging. I certainly would not want a similar picture of myself in circulation. Placing it in the body of the article, with a caption that makes its origin clear, would let readers form their own judgement about the image.--agr (talk) 15:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
• Keep as is I do not see how this image woukld present the subject disparagingly. we have a precedent of using mug shots on BLPs of people notable for criminal activities alone.Timothy McVeigh,Richard Reid & Zacarias Moussaoui are examples--Wikireader41 (talk) 15:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
• Move to an appropriate section of the article or remove entirely. The infobox image in a biography should be an accurate portrayal of the subject's appearance at the time that the image was created. Photographs and painted portraits generally meet this standard; 'best guesses' by a law-enforcement agency do not. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
• Move or better yet remove per TenofAllTrades and others. Smallbones (talk) 17:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
• Keep as is. per Epeefleche, GregL, Wikireader41 and Bus stop. It's not like the FBI is making this image up from their imagination. It's labeled clearly (and should be) as a composite, and until a real-McCoy picture becomes available, this is best.SteveB67 (talk) 23:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

• comment - example of a drive by support - OH - I was wandering by after a year or so and I thought I would comment about this - We really should close this down, drive by votes are unhelpful. There are good faith policy driven reguests to move the picture from the infobox and a fair degree of support for that, as such under erring on the side of caution we should make the move and close this vote down. Off2riorob (talk) 23:05, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I could write “Please stop stalking me”, but that would be more odd talk. To state that another editor’s participation in an RfC is drive by votes are unhelpful is unconscionable. Greg L (talk) 01:45, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

• Remove or move. Per my earlier comments. I don't see why I need to repeat myself in a poll I don't want to take.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
• Move from infobox to elsewhere in the article. Cla68 (talk) 01:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
• Leave as is. That was the clear consensus on the article's talk page and, as I see no policy violation, it should not be disturbed by a discussion here. ‡ MAHEWA ‡ • talk 03:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
• Remove or move to article body per my earlier comments. Alex Harvey (talk) 16:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Referral to DRN

I'm headed out of town on business for the weekend. I do not see evidence that this dispute will be resolved before the existing protection on Aafia Siddiqui expires tomorrow, or that edit warring will not continue when it does. Therefore, I am extending the full protection on Aafia Siddiqui for another three days and referring this dispute to the dispute resolution noticeboard. Regards, causa sui (talk) 01:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Saxa (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

"Saxa" reported as born in Kingston, Jamaica was incorrect. This is my Uncle and he was born in Croft's Hill, Clarendon, Jamaica on Jan 5th, 1930. (Fitzroy A. Green <redacted phone number) for further verification) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.186.159.252 (talk) 18:03, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Can you please provide a reliable source verifying his birthplace? It could be a newspaper story or even a bio on his website, since it is not likely to be controversial. The article now states Croft's Hill rather than Kingston. Thanks. Cullen328 (talk) 06:59, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Dimitris Christofias (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Unreferenced, defamatory and libelous information part of the ongoing propaganda. diff - — Preceding unsigned comment added by WPCbot (talk • contribs) 02:42, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the edit in question that accused this Cypriot politician of murder because of an armament explosion was a flagrant BLP violation. However, I am wondering what "WPCbot" is. This account has only made four edits. Is this a newly approved bot? Do bots now make reports to this noticeboard, and characterize edits as "defamatory", "libelous" and "propaganda"? That seems to assume a higher level of intelligence than I'm comfortable with for a bot. Cullen328 (talk) 05:19, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I asked a question about the account at Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard - is it really a bot? Off2riorob (talk) 21:42, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

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

the Wikipedia page shown above was not created by the named person and contains many inaccuracies and information that is clearly out of date.The page has been edited by Stephen William Pallett born 4th April 1959 and is accurate.As a police officer it would be unethical to state anything that was not truthful.There are further edits that are necessary to bring items up to date — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevepallett (talk • contribs) 19:10, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Putting aside your obvious conflict of interest, I can't for the life of me figure out who you are now. The article has no lead. It has an infobox saying that you are "in office" from 2005 to 2013, but what office?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:49, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I was close to nominating that BLP for AFD, the claim of notability and the coverage in reliable externals seems weak. - Off2riorob (talk) 22:04, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't he meet WP:POLITICIAN? Of course, I don't understand UK politics, and I'm still not sure who he is or was, but didn't he hold what might be considered a provincial office?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:07, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I think he was a councilor, a position that is not really a clear pass of WP:Politician - lets me have another look. He was twice a failed candidate for what I think would be an automatic pass for wiki politician - from the article - In 2005, Pallett twice ran as a candidate for the States Assembly, first for Constable of Saint Brélade, Jersey against the incumbent Connetable Mike Jackson, then for Deputy of Saint Brélade, Jersey - He failed to be elected on both occasions - Its a place I don't really understand much about though - Jersey - perhaps on a small island he is noteworthy. Off2riorob (talk) 22:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy to let you figure it out. You may know little about Jersey, but you're still a couple of steps ahead of me on the UK thing.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:28, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

update - Article has been nominated for discussion at ...

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Pallett (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Kara Saun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Wikipedia entry for Kara Saun reads like a resume, not an informational article. There are several non-factual opinions contained within ('beautifully executed red carpet looks', for example). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.229.236 (talk) 20:58, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Very peacocky and almost no sources. I've trimmed it, removing the worst of the language. It's been tagged as needing sources since last month. If it doesn't get some sources soon, it will have to be cut back to a stub.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:14, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Could someone take a look at recent edits to Louis Van Amstel. I'm not familiar enough with BLP to know whether action is needed here or not. Station1 (talk) 22:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about BLP issues, but it's terribly written and very boring. I started just to make minor changes to it but got tired and need to sign off. If I had to remove one more wikilink from Dancing with the Stars and put it in italics, I was going to scream. I'll look at it later.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:27, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe there are indeed BLP issues.
In this edit [9] an IP has tried to remove the Louis_Van_Amstel#Personal_Life section and provided a summary, I work for Louis van Amstel and have been requested to remove this section as it is ficticious. I removed this section once before and it had been re-posted!! Should not be on here. This section begins, "Van Amstel is openly gay. Growing up, he was bullied for being gay. When he was 15, his mother reassured him that if he ever felt different, he could talk to her. At the time, he did not know what she meant, but afterwards, he began experimenting and learning about himself, opening up a whole new world to him outside of dancing." And so on. This material is ostensibly based on Windy City Media Group, aYouTube Video, and PerezHilton.com. Alex Harvey (talk) 05:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I've removed the YouTube cite as a copyright vio, and I've added a tag to the Personal section for more references. It's hard to wade through the article because of the way it's written, but I suppose I should look more closely at some of the more controversial sections.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, an IP has tried to undo all the changes I've made to the article. Putting aside all the formatting changes (and things like misuse of flags and wikilinks), the IP has restored the YouTube reference, which is a copyright violation, removed the maintenance template I added, and inserted information that is not sourced and is probably a BLP violation (reference to alcohol). I posted many warnings and reverted more than I should (based on the copyright vio I felt it was justified). I've now asked for the IP to be blocked. I'm signing off shortly, so I have no idea what will happen. I've left in the last reversion by the IP (so the article is now in a compromised state) because I don't want to keep reverting while my block request is pending.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Now I've seen everything. User:Jww047 edited WP:AIV and replaced my report of the IP to his/her report of me. I assume an admin will notice the behavior and revert it. So far, no one has.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:56, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Let me know if you need any help with this. Alex Harvey (talk) 10:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

Frank Colacurcio, Sr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'd appreciate it if some others could check this one out.

I've just removed the unref'd claim he was dead [10] - I had a (admittedly brief) look on Google News, and couldn't find a ref.

There's other concerns, e.g. According to the dancers at his clubs, he engaged in sexual activities every night ref'd to a blog, by the looks of things.

Best,  Chzz  ►  01:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Bbb23 has tidied up a bit and added a cite as he has indeed expired. Off2riorob (talk) 13:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I still think it needs more attention. I just removed one unreferenced sentence which said, Colacurcio was convicted of assaulting a former bartender working as a police informant.  Chzz  ►  21:49, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Michael C. O'Flaherty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

1. The article states that O'Flaherty has not sought laicisation. This is untrue. He withdrew from work as a priest in 1992 and initiated the process of laicisation in 2007.

2. It is misleading to identify him as a leading advocate of gay rights. He has published just one aricle (of about 50 published works on a range of human rights topics) on the topic of the application of human rights regarding issues of sexual orientation and gender identity. This and his work on the Yogyakarta Principles are not about "gay rights" - they are about the application of existing international human rights law regarding issues of sexual orientation and gender identity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dominick alcorn (talk • contribs) 10:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I removed the gay rights activist cat as it seems unsupported in the article text. As for the laicisation issue , the text currently does say he requested/initiated that.Off2riorob (talk) 13:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

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

Sayuki is the first white geisha in Japanese history as is evident from any google search. Two editors on Wikipedia keep on editing her birth date in to their article. Geisha in Japan are not allowed to reveal birth date under any circumstances and none do. The Japanese media respect this absolutely and the only media that has failed to respect this is Wikipedia for Sayuki and now other media are taking this information Wikipedia. Because geisha are strictly not allowed to reveal age by a four hundred year old cultural tradition, Sayuki is put in a very difficult position by the editing on Wikipedia as she is being treated differently from other geisha. It is a hard road to be the first person of an ethnic minority to do something like this. Is it fair on Sayuki that she should be treated differently to other geisha just because she speaks the same language as the Wikipedia people who are editing her page? Wikipedia has a policy of not causing harm to a living person. This is causing Sayuki problems and harming her career. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.11.146.65 (talk) 12:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Nothing has changed since the last time this was raised on BLPN. See here. And it has been raised before that. The IP keeps engaging in disruptive editing to advance her belief as to how Wikipedia should operate and how Fiona Graham should be treated. It's been discussed on the Talk page, and the consensus is to keep the birth year in the article. It has been suggested that the IP is Sayuki, or at least someone who knows her. The sentence "This is causing Sayuki problems and harminng her career" is yet one more indicator of that possibility. One editor has requested semi-protection of the article. The last time that was requested (by me) the article was fully protected. I worried that the IP would return after expiration of the protection. Unfortunately, I was correct.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I would like for more users to go to the Casey Anthony talk page and either support or oppose a creation of a bio-article on Casey Anthony. Here Talk:Casey Anthony. Thanks--BabbaQ (talk) 13:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

All gluttons for punishment, please proceed to the Talk page. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 18:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

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

Benjamin is not a recognized artist. He is not a figure of public interest. The article reads like a fanpage that links to Benjamin Kanarek's blog.

It appears Wikipdia is being misused as a directory for a particular professional photographer. Mermaid424 (talk) 16:17, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Articles been seven day prodded - needs more assertions of notability or it won't survive. Off2riorob (talk) 16:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Wiz Khalifa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Someone is repeatedly accusing the artist of copyright infringement. Look at the discussion page and see what I mean.Wantsomecomegetsome (talk) 04:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

More eyes would be great, I've removed the section for now since it doesn't appear to be sourced to anything reliable. It looks like a blog speculating whether or not the artist cleared the sample. Dayewalker (talk) 04:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Craig James (American football) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The current listing for him includes, in the third para, reference to him not having charged with any wrongdoing, "other than the murder of five hookers." This is out of left field, and obviously both wrong and defamatory, and should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.73.121.23 (talk) 15:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I removed the phrase and added a tag to the last sentence of that paragraph, which is favorable to James but unsourced. I left in the phrase about him not being charged with any wrongdoing, even though I hate those kinds of negative fact phrases. Honestly, I don't think any of the SMU troubles belong in the article. The only connection in the source I see to the SMU issue is that James was on the team. It's been in the article a long time, but I'm going to think a bit about removing it entirely.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I thought about it and removed the paragraph. It's too remote and, even with the unsourced qualifier, it has negative and unwarranted implications.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Jamie A. Koufman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I was hoping for some assistance from editors more experienced with BLPs than I am with a situation. I recently made some changes to the article to removed what looked like an unduly promotional material - it does not help that the BLP looks unreferenced (aside from the list of publications, which does not appear to be actually sourcing any material in the article). I was contacted by Weintraub.a (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on my user page, who reports that they are a representative of the subject of the BLP and was unsatisfied with my changes to the article. I replied to the user talk page here (a copy of their message to me can be found there), but would like some more experienced eyes on the situation so that I know what I'm doing is in compliance with policy. Thanks! Yobol (talk) 16:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you did the right thing trimming a bit of the fluff and removing the embedded externals. I remove them on sight also - if they have any value, rather than simply removing them I try to use them and format them with ref tags or as external links. They were all primary externals but rather than remove and leave the new article hanging totally uncited I suggest trying to format and replace, possibly in external link section, as that can help to assert a bit of notability and protect it from imminent deletion while a young article is under development - New users attempting to create can find it hard when some of their work is deleted (even if it requires it) so unless they are showing clear bad faith or creating attack type content, communication and assisting the newcomer is a primary objective. Off2riorob (talk) 17:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the response and eyes on the page. You are right, changing them to ELs at the end of the article or references would have been a better way forward. Let's see if the editor who messaged me will respond. Yobol (talk) 17:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Paul Abbott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Unattributed content pertaining to an alleged rape and sectioning could be libelous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.98.132.211 (talk) 05:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Removed by User:Dayewalker - Off2riorob (talk) 09:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Vanessa Amorosi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ralph Carr Management is trying to correct the birth date for the subject but keeps getting reverted. OTRS ticket 2011071810003841 comes from the same domain as the reference for this claim, http://www.ralphcarr.com/web/rcm.htm. The birth date should be 1983. You can see a link to the management's site is at http://www.vanessaamorosi.com/links/. – Adrignola talk 14:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Birth year is now corrected/edited to 1983. The article is semi protected for a month. Off2riorob (talk) 21:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I wanted to alert people here about another thread I started at RS/N as it relates to celebrity profiles on TMZ.com.

• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#TMZ_and_WP:Circular

It appears that they are taken directly from Wikipedia and therefore are not reliable per WP:Circular.Griswaldo (talk) 15:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Considerable material has recently been added to this section of the article regarding the sources of Willie Soon's research funding and support, citing sources that don't explicitly connect the funding to the subject controversy. The funding revelations came from a Greenpeace investigation [11], whose tenor may be judged from their title:

CASE STUDY: Dr. Willie Soon, a Career Fueled by Big Oil and Coal

Of all the climate deniers, one scientist has been particularly closely involved in the campaign against the climate science consensus for the majority of his career: Dr. Willie Soon.

The most detailed press reports on the Greenpeace allegations appear to be from The Guardian and Reuters. Both stories mention the Soon and Baliunas controversy, but draw no direct connections with that controversy to the long list of what Greenpeace considers prejudicial funding, nor are any given in our article.

This funding material belongs (if anywhere) in the Willie Soon article. Using it in Soon and Baliunas controversy gives the appearance of endorsing an apparent "guilt by association" PR campaign by an activist organization, and appears to be a serious BLP violation. --Pete Tillman (talk) 22:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The Guardian and Reuters are not "activist organizations". If our coverage is based on those sources, then I don't see any reasonable basis for saying that we're "endorsing a PR campaign". Nor do I see how a simple mention of the subject is a BLP violation, since the material is covered in reputable sources (e.g. Reuters) and Soon has admitted receiving the funding in question. The question of where properly sourced coverage belongs—in Willie Soon or in Soon and Baliunas controversy—is an editorial one, but not a BLP question. MastCell ^Talk 23:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Note that both the Guardian and Reuters mention the 2003 J. Climate Research paper. This is not a case of WP:SYN, this is simply reporting what the sources say. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:31, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can see, there is nothing from the Guardian article other than a passing mention of the S&B controversy, although the Reuters article does say, "About 5 percent of the [S&B2003] study's funding, or $53,000, came from the API, they said." I guess it is reasonable to include a sentence to report this. However there is no good reason to turn the S&B Controversy article into a general discussion of Soon's funding over 20 years, which is what appears to be happening at present. For one thing, Soon's says nothing about Baliunas's funding. This is WP:COATRACK and given the guilt by association type claim, agree that it is a WP:BLP issue. Alex Harvey (talk) 02:22, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

these are the facts, as reported by reputable sources, and Soon has confirmed that he has received over $1million in funding from energy companies, there is no BLP issue. The article should outline the researcher's funding record because it is notable, in the context of the article, which is about a controversial paper, co-authored by a scientist well known for his stance on global warming. It's of interest in an encyclopaedic context, because a general reader will now have a better overview of the controversy surrounding Soon. Ignoring this recent assessment of Soon's funding, over an extended period, as reported in the press, doesn't make sense, because it has a direct bearing on our view of Soon and his earlier research. This has nothing to do with a "guilt by association" problem, it's simply how it is: he is a scientist with a track record of receiving funding from the energy industry and other groups who are opposed to climate change legislation. Why does aversion to detailing these facts exist here? It has been widely reported.Semitransgenic (talk) 03:31, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but the article is about the Soon & Baliunas 2003 controversy, not the Soon controversy. I fail to see how funding Soon received after 2003 be thought to be relevant to events in 2003. So the rest of it belongs in Soon's biography article, not this one. Alex Harvey (talk) 06:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

not sure I agree really, in 2003 there was an insinuation that Soon might not have been an objective participant in the research, because of certain funding contributions. At that time, the issue could have been brushed aside, however, since 2003, Soon has demonstrated a willingness to accept funding from companies/organisations that the press view as having particular agendas with regard to global warming legislation. This places the 2003 research paper in a different light; it recontexualizes this earlier enterprise. For those reasons, it is notable in the context of the article section Soon and Baliunas controversy#Criticism_and_controversy. --Semitransgenic (talk) 11:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

"This places the 2003 research paper in a different light..." This would appear to be WP:OR, unless you can show RS support. I didn't see any in the cites you gave, except the limited bit re API funding that Alex noted above, and that was already in the article prior to your new adds. --Pete Tillman (talk) 19:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Pete, but lets not play word games here, that is an opinion, expressed in a discussion about content, it exists independently of the content I placed in the article, which most definitely is not OR it is RS.

The Guardian item clearly states:

One of the world's most prominent scientific figures to be sceptical about climate change has admitted to being paid more than $1m in the past decade by major US oil and coal companies.

and

he has been heavily funded by coal and oil industry interests since 2001, receiving money from ExxonMobil, the American Petroleum Insitute and Koch Industries along with Southern, one of the world's largest coal-burning utility companies...since 2002, it is alleged, every new grant he has received has been from either oil or coal interests.

and

freedom of information documents suggest that Soon corresponded in 2003 with other prominent climate sceptics to try to weaken a major assessment of global warming being conducted by the UN's leading climate science body, the Nobel prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The Reuters report also states the following:

Beginning in 2002, Soon's funding mostly came from oil companies, including Southern Co (SO.N: Quote), one of the largest coal burners in the United States, and the American Petroleum Institute, according to documents uncovered in a Freedom of Information Act

This is new information about the 2001-2003 period, with additional new information about Soon's research funding since then, it discusses Soon's position as a scientist, who is sceptical of global warming, and who, for a decade, has been receiving funding from the energy industry and other groups who are opposed to climate change legislation. I fail to see how this is not notable in the context of the article, and I fail to see where the BLP violation exists here.

This is, as I have stated from the outset, a content dispute, perhaps we should move to a more appropriate dispute resolution forum? --Semitransgenic (talk) 12:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

That's all fine, and probably some of it should go onto Soon's bio page -- with appropriate disclaimers, that the source is a overtly-hostile investigation by Greenpeace. And not in boldface ;-] You did include Soon's overall disclaimer, which is a good start. We also need his funding statement from the original paper added at Soon and Baliunas controversy#Criticism_and_controversy -- ie, the $53K from AIP was properly acknowledged at time of publication, along with the other 95% of their funding.

But you still don't seem to appreciate that, by BLP, NPOV and SYN rules, you can't put 20 years of Soon's funding history on a page that's concerned with a single paper, published in 2003! Unless a RS clearly and explicitly draws that connection, and so far you haven't presented one. Would you respond to this specific problem, please? Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Pete, the continued claim of a BLP violation is a false charge, it's getting somewhat tendentious. There is also no synthetic conclusion presented, the content reflects what is stated in sources. And you are now claiming there is an NPOV violation, but I didn't write the news. You are failing to acknowledge that irrespective of the original source of the new information regarding Soon's funding, multiple news sources [12][13][14][15][16] have carried this story. It relates directly to the article, because Soon, a man who is one of the world's most prominent scientific figures to be sceptical about climate change and who has been paid more than $1m in the past decade by major US oil and coal companies, just happens to be same the guy who co-authored the controversial paper the article is about. Soon's funding history is of course relevant here. --Semitransgenic (talk) 09:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

[outdent] With due respect, you are still missing the point. Just because Soon got money from various sources over 20 years, doesn't mean you can WP:COATRACK all of this into an article on a single incident in his (and Dr. Balunias's) career. Can't you see that? --Pete Tillman (talk) 17:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

but there is no point, because the BLPV is non-existent. Quite clearly Soon's research career is notable due to both his scepticism and the fact that he has received over $1 million worth of funding from companies and groups that are opposed to climate change legislation. As co-author of the discredited paper the article is about, it's worth addressing this news. To ignore this in the article is wilful ignorance of reported factual information that has recently come to light, I don't see how that serves encyclopaedic interest. --Semitransgenic (talk) 21:47, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Would you please read WP:Coatrack: "When a biography of a living person is a coatrack, it is a problem that requires immediate action. Items may be true and sourced, but if a biography of a living person is essentially a coatrack, it needs to be fixed."

By BLP, you can't do what you are trying to do. I may have to kick this up a level to get it resolved. --Pete Tillman (talk) 15:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

It's hardly a coatrack to show reliably sourced views on S & B's funding in relation to the controversial paper. These views go back to 2003, and both the criticisms and the responses by S & B should be shown. The article itself doesn't show the controversy as ending in 2004 or thereabouts, it notes the revival of controversy when new information came out in 2009 – or do you think that's a coatrack and should be deleted? In my view proper coverage of this continuing controversy is appropriate, and is not a BLP issue in the "controversy" article. The issue shouldn't be overweighted or the S & B controversy discussed in depth in their individual bios, but a brief mention and link to the "controversy" article is appropriate. Also, by the way, this wasn't just a Greenpeace investigation: they got the information released using freedom of information acts, and Reuters did their own analysis of that public information. . . dave souza, talk 18:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

It is OR/SYN at this stage to fit this material into the S&B controversy article unless and until reliable sources explicitly make the same connection for us. That is, a reliable source needs to say explicitly that Soon's $1million funding over the entire 20 year period is relevant to the S&B controversy of 2003. At the moment, we only have Wikipedians asserting that it is relevant. Alex Harvey (talk) 07:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

again, false charges. there is no OR, facts are stated as they appear in the sources, and there are no synthetic conclusions in the added content. I don't agree that this is coat racking, and essays are opinion pieces, they are not policies. I see no consensus here for the removal of the information concerning Soon's research funding and I believe it is relevant in the context of a the "controversial" dis-credited paper he co-authored. And again, this is not a BLPV so further discussion in this current location is not appropriate. --Semitransgenic (talk) 13:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you agree that there is no reliable source asserting that Soon's 20 year funding record is relevant to the S&B controversy? If not, show me the source that says this. And it is a BLPV when editors feel that someone's reputation (in this case Baliunas's) is being smeared inappropriately so this seems as good a place as any to discuss it. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

S&B is reported as an example of research stemming from this 10 year history of funding, to bracket this off and view it as somehow isolated from the overall pattern presented in the reports is to inaccurately represent what the sources are reporting. They are discussing a pattern of behaviour, S&B is part of this pattern, the reports are therefore relevant to the article, it is wilful ignorance to contest otherwise.There is no evidence here of an attempt to "smear" Baliunas, and I don't see how presenting information on Soon's funding history casts aspersions. There is nothing libellous or derogatory presented.--Semitransgenic (talk) 10:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you are making a logical mistake here. The articles assert that (A) S&B03 paper is relevant to (B) Soon's 20 year funding history. If so, then of course any discussion of Soon's 20 year funding history must make mention of the S&B03 paper. The rest is the wrong way around however. This is not the same as saying that (B) Soon's 20 year funding history is now relevant to (A) the S&B03 paper. Now I have argued that events after 2003 are of no relevance to the 03 paper because they can't be seen as causes of events in the past. You have argued that these later events recontextualise the earlier events. I don't really agree. What is needed is a reliable source that makes your argument about recontextualisation, otherwise it is OR and thereby a BLPV. Alex Harvey (talk) 08:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC) edited Alex Harvey (talk) 14:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Alex, I disagree with your assessment, this edit does not constitute a breach of policy on BLP and it is not OR. I feel the information is certainly relevant. To clarify again, the main period centred upon in the press reports is roughly a decade, beginning in 2001. There are excerpts above that quite clearly evidence this. I have offered all I have to say on the matter really, can we move to the next DR phase please? --Semitransgenic (talk) 15:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I can't see this is a policy based argument. You're just telling me what we already agree, that the material is reliably sourced. I could add reliably sourced material about Napoleon Bonaparte and I am sure no one would disagree that it would not be relevant. But I do agree that this discussion isn't going anywhere. As I am not involved in the dispute I can only suggest Pete Tillman might want to escalate the issue. Alex Harvey (talk) 01:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

This biography about a blogger includes some paragraphs about a supposed controversy created when a law professor publicly criticized – in her own blog – the bio's subject. The event was somewhat covered by some sources, but I'm still in doubt if this belong to this article.

I've tried to contact the editor who added the information but she is inactive for some days. I would welcome informed opinions on the matter. Thanks, --damiens.rf 14:50, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Althouse is a notable blogger and this was covered in a reliable secondary source, so it may meet the bar for inclusion. Gamaliel (talk) 15:29, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The article contains only one source covering the controversy, the Salon.com article "The blogosphere's breast debate". There's also a huffingtonpost.com blog post where a notable feminist activist gives his opinion, but it's still a blog post: "Feministing: Feminist? Or Just -Ing?".

Do we really have a good reason to cover this episode on her bio? --damiens.rf 17:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Valenti herself addressed the controversy in a Guardian column in 2007. So I think I'll add this as a counterweight. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 23:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Anthony James Hall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There's been a bit of a three-way edit war going on at Anthony James Hall (a minor Canadian left-wing academic) today: two spas want to downplay all negative content and puff the article up with bad sources, a second editor has been removing positive sourced content, and GcSwRhIc and I have been reverting in the middle. More eyes on the page would be helpful. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I made a few edits and will keep it on my watchlist. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:59, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! —David Eppstein (talk) 17:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Carolyn Carlson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Carolyn Carlson was raised in Fresno,California. We haven't seen her since graduation. We are having our 50 yeat class reunion Sept 24th at Fort Washington Country Club and would very much like to see Carolyn, Sincerly, Carolyn Roberts Mefford and Janice Carlson Lawrence — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.126.229.178 (talk) 03:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

This isn't the place to try to contact the subjects of Wikipedia articles. This is the place to report and discuss serious problems with such articles. You may want to try some of the external links listed in the article to contact her. Good luck. Cullen328 (talk) 06:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Angelina Fares (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The body of Angelina's sister Maya was found on 15 July ([17]). Her murder was covered extensively in Israel's press over the weekend, both on account of her being Angelina's sister and because it's suspected that she was honor-killed. Would a mention of this be within the scope of the Angelina Fares article?—Biosketch (talk) 07:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

IMO not unless there is something to connect the killing with the subject of the BLP or unless the subject comments extensively about it. The subject of the article is herself not very notable, a beauty contestant that didn't win and withdrew after threats - if you add this honor killing claim about her sister then you actually would have an article about Attitudes to womens freedom in the Israel Druze community. Off2riorob (talk) 16:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so either. Though it may belong on the Honor killings page. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 22:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I echo what the other editors said and will add that if the murder becomes notable (see WP:EVENT and WP:NOTNEWS) it may be suitable for its own article, but merely being related by blood to a notable person doesn't confer notability (WP:INHERITED). Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Laura Stack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Paid for article, tagged with COI about 10 days ago. Since then a number of single-purpose accounts have been repeatedly removing the tag (User:Bamanh27, User:DME2010, User:Cottreda, User:Pcola30). There's only so much good faith I can presume so there is a strong suspicion of sockpuppetry. Whats's the best way to proceed? doomgaze (talk) 17:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

We might also want to take a look at National Speakers Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- created by the same editor, and lists Stack as a president. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bamanh27 although it may be a duck. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

No quacking at all - all four accounts unconnected....... I think the way to go is just to ask - is this article notable or not? I think Stack is notable as an author/businessperson and perhaps the group may be less notable than her - Is the group wikipedia notable? I made a few edits tin an attempt to make the Laura Scott BLP a bit less promo and I don't see that the COI template is really of benefit to the reader or to other editors, and if no one objects I will remove it later.madeOff2riorob (talk) 18:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• Also Dianna Booher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- same author, lots of crossover to Stack (the article even cited some commercial blurb of Stack's as a source until I removed it). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I think Brooher is notable, there seems to be a fair number of reviews of her books behind paywalls in google news. The organisation and Stack I'm less sure on. doomgaze (talk) 19:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

A list of not notable books a dubiously notable speaking group and lots of primary externals - I don't think the project would be less informative if all three of the paid for and mostly self promotional articles were deleted. Off2riorob (talk) 21:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

 – small clean up and watchlisted

Could someone have a look at this page? It has recently been extensively edited by IPs to include unsourced opinion/ allegations which can't possibly appear in the article. Regards JRPG (talk) 20:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Archived, and left a note to remember that BLP applies just as much on taklkpages and in articlespace. Off2riorob (talk) 21:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks once again. JRPG (talk) 21:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

No worries. Thank you for the report. Archiving of soapboxing type attacking talkpage posts is easy and satisfying work. Off2riorob (talk) 21:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

This article for Robert Petkoff recently acquired this notice:

A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page. (July 2011) The remainder of this article (content appearing below) may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please improve this article if you can, and move or remove this notice if appropriate. (July 2011)

I have followed the template for a living person/actor for Wikipedia and believe that it follows the neutral viewpoint and content for a Wikipedia article. Please help me "clean up" or revise this article if it needs revising. Thank you.

Cwands (talk) 23:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Please remove libelous content from section titled Early Life and Education. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.55.97.3 (talk) 00:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• I believe that the problematic content has already been removed. And if you see anything like that again, in most cases you can just remove it yourself. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

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

Why should an article about a scholar/scientist/academic include information on his private life, such as how long he's been married, and about his hobbies (unless he's famous for them)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.187.187 (talk) 18:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

A biography should give a well-rounded overview of the person's entire life, assuming that reliable source material is available. It is not necessary to limit the biography only to discussion of the person's most notable accomplishments. Of course, it would be an editorial mistake to give undue weight to minor aspects of the person's life. In the case of Eugene Fama, the section devoted to family and hobbies is brief, and serves to humanize him, in my opinion. Cullen328 (talk) 19:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Totally agree, plus his daughter and son-in-law both also being notable, is worthy of mention in the brief manner that it's covered. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The IP address seems to have a point, and I disagree with Cullen and Demiurge. Wikipedia isn't designed to try to "humanize" people. It's intended to record historically notable facts. So, unless his family life is described in reliable secondary sources, it has no place in the article. As for a brief mention of his notable daughter, that could perhaps fit into the intro or a "see also". But there is no need for a "personal life" section. It's exactly that: "personal". -- Bob drobbs (talk) 17:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Hope Solo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hope Solo plays FOOTBALL not SOCCER — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.221.244.60 (talk) 11:02, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I think as they call it soccer in the USA and she is a USA player and plays there its usual in wikipedia articles to use expressions/descriptive local terms. Off2riorob (talk) 11:06, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I am well aware that this game is called "football" in most of the English speaking world. However, the practice on Wikipedia is to use the terminology and spelling common to the geographic area that best corresponds to the topic of the article. In the United States, the game is called "soccer" universally, and "football" refers to a completely different game. Similarly, we use the spelling "colour" in articles about British painters and "color" in articles about U.S. painters. Offt2riorob is correct. Cullen328 (talk) 15:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

It is worth noting that the word "soccer" originated in England and was common there until the 1970s. See Names for association football. Cullen328 (talk) 15:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Having grown up in Manchester in the 60s and 70s, I would take issue with that - we never called it "soccer", it was always "football" or "footie". Maybe it was a regional thing... – ukexpat (talk) 16:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Sadeg Faris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sadeg Faris is a reputable scientist that was victim of trumped up charges by Malaysian Govt to take his business. Repeated posting of libellous information on his page is hurting his business and reputation. This has been removed, but keeps regularly reappearing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Francazz (talk • contribs) 20:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Watchlisted - some content is being added supported by a blogspot which imo is not a relaible wiki source - Off2riorob (talk) 20:33, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it's extremely notable that his company was seized for money laundering. I'm re-adding at least some of the content with appropriate sources. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• User:Context23 repeatedly posting material in violation of BLP rules

Hello, Wikipedia. It has come to my attention that in the discussion section of their user profile, user Context23 has repeatedly posted potentially libelous and defamatory material in violation of BLP rules. These postings seem to exclusively focus on Haiti. I have deleted the offending material and posted on the page a note to Context23 as follows:

Hi Context23, and welcome to Wikipedia!

Your articles here are violation of the policy on biographies of living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if there are other concerns about the biography of a living person, please report the issue to the biographies of living persons noticeboard. If you are connected to the subject of this article and need help with issues related to it, please see this page.

BoukiSenSen (talk) 20:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Please explain how those links to articles are libelous, I'm not seeing it. Dayewalker (talk) 20:57, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I would also like to know why anything I have posted to my own Wikipedia user page could be seen as libelous. I have just a working list of published articles and some other info. These articles are available all over the web and mostly have been so for a number of years and to the best of my knowledge nothing has ever been taken down for claims of defamation. As a matter of fact, a few of these articles are linked to from Wikipedia articles themselves and others have extensive footnotes backing up all that is said in them. Context23 (talk) 22:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Added comment The user BoukiSenSen on the user talk page has deleted a request for a dialogue about the blanking on my user page [18] Context23 (talk) 23:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I've asked for clarification at BoukiSenSen's page, I can't see what the problem is with merely having links to artiles on your talk page for future reference. Dayewalker (talk) 02:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

There are four articles - "Michael Deibert and Elizabeth Eames Roebling Attack IPS Journalists Writing on Haiti" "How to Turn a Priest into a Cannibal" "A Dishonest Case for a Coup and "A Few Notes About "Notes From the Last Testament" the accuse Deibert of intentionally falsifying reporting, which is an actionable libel if Diebert would decide to take issue with them, as he evidently has on his own blog. Additionally, the only person who claims to offer any proof of the accusations leveled - a Haitian politician named Patrick Elie - has himself evidently been imprisoned for two years for lying in the past. So, for those reasons, I believe that link to those four articles - though not the others - are in violation of Wiki's BLP policies which specifies that "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous." I think that re-printing the material here leaves Wikipedia and Context23 open to legal action and thus must be removed accord with BLP policies. BoukiSenSen (talk)

I'd like to get further opinions on this one, but I can't see how merely linking to an article in user space is any kind of a BLP violation. Dayewalker (talk) 22:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree it is not really a BLP violation, (although there may be BLP violation content within them and they may not be WP:rs that could be inserted into any wikipedia articles. The user is now specifically requesting the removal of four externals, perhaps the user would as a sign of good faith remove them from his user page and keep them locally - or would he consider NOINDEXing his user page to stop the page showing in google search results? The subject of one of our articles seems to have blogged that he considers something in them to be libel. Off2riorob (talk) 22:09, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I could of course remove the links, but then I still like to know why they are offensive. For example the Justin Podur article I have in my link list (which is a rejoinder to something Deibert wrote about Justin Podur, quote: "...Mr. Podur does what many of Mr. Aristide´s supporters abroad do when confronted with inconvenient facts: He lies.") Is measured in tone and does not use anything that could be construed as libelous.

I do not find myself in agreement with all the articles that so vehemently criticize Deibert, but they are part of a dialogue that is necessary to comprehend the [U.S.] media and it's reporting on Haiti.

Out of curiosity, why are the Deibert related links offensive, most are using measured language and are partially written by academics such as Justin Podur. I have a link in my list that calls Mac McClelland writing "It’s sensationalist, inaccurate, irresponsible, and perpetuating of stereotypes or racist tropes, they say. This is about harmful journalistic malpractice.". Why is one offensive and the other not?

I am open to de-indexing or removal of the links, but like a little more explanation as to why that would make any difference. Context23 (talk) 02:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

To me, your use of your userpage for assembling links and references is entirely acceptable. However, in answer to your question, Wikipedia userspace is not designed to be used for promotion of one thing or another, and anything placed in Wikipedia userspace is prone to be taken way-too-seriously by search engines (and some humans) just because that's where it is. So if someone has a problem with how your userspace shows up in their favourite search engine, then that's a totally sensible reason to nowiki your userspace. After all, it doesn't stop you using it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I am all open to not having that show up in search engines, but I would very much prefer to know why each one of the links could be seen as defamatory. What is the issue with "Michael Deibert and Elizabeth Eames Roebling Attack IPS Journalists Writing on Haiti" for example is a piece by a Brooklyn based newspaper editor Kim Ives (currently of Haiti Liberte) detailing attacks by Deibert on other journalists writing. Nothing defamatory here...

I don't intend to promote (or demote) anything this is more about having a link-list which definitely could reside on my own computer. That is not a problem.

RE BoukiSenSen's comments (just one, since I do not want to monopolize this space): Patrick Elie: a former Haitian Drug czar and government minister and official under two Haitian presidents as well as a political activist and biochemist by training. [19]. The fact that he was imprisoned for several month in a case with political connotations, does not make his statements libelous. So far nothing concrete has been mentioned as to why Patrick Elie's writing should not be linked to. It is all over the internet and referenced by many others in their own articles. If we are talking the removal (or making invisible) of links, this appears as limiting speech. There can be very important reasons for that and being harmful or defamatory certainly fits such criteria. Please do give me a reason besides "someone is offended by the links" Context23 (talk) 03:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure where Context23 (redacted) is coming from. There are four articles in his list that could be construed as libelous or defamatory. Those are the ones we are discussion I have no opinion on the other ones. redacted, but that still does not absolve you from following BLP standards here on Wiki. When redacted states that "Patrick Elie was imprisoned for several month in a case with political connotations," this is false. Patrick Elie was convicted by a federal grand jury on two counts of making a false statement to a firearms dealer and on one count of impersonating an accredited diplomat, and spent nearly two years in jail. Please see link here. Patrick Elie's documented history of lying and fabrication makes linking to his potentially defamatory and libelous statements here even more problematic.BoukiSenSen (talk) 14:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I have redacted some of your comment; it does not appear Context23 publicly lists his identity on Wikipedia; with that in mind your comment amounts to an outing, please do not do so again. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

In terms of the issue of the links - they do not appear to contain anything particularly libellous or indeed anything (IMO) a reasonable judge would accept to a civil case. However, perhaps the polite thing to do, in this case, is simply to remove the links if they serve no particular purpose. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi ErrantX, Accusing someone in print of intentionally lying is definitely libelous and defamatory in the US, even more so in the UK.BoukiSenSen (talk) 15:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Chisten88‎ has now appeared on the page to make the same edits and accusations as BoukiSenSen above. Dayewalker (talk) 02:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

And before that Multiworlds as can be seen in the edit history of my user page. [20] Context23 (talk) 03:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

User: SereneSereneSerene has twice added POV-pushing edits to Eliana Benador (SereneSereneSerene is a WP: SPA who only edits the Benador article). In both of these edits SereneSereneSerene wrote that Anthony Weiner "was said to be Jewish" and "is allegedly Jewish" respectively. He's not "allegedly Jewish", he's Jewish (as mentioned in his article) and to say otherwise is a BLPVIO. What action needs to be taken to prevent this from happening in the future? I think SereneSereneSerene may have a conflict of interest in addition to having BLP-violating endencies. Difluoroethene (talk) 16:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

You properly reverted the edits. Serene has been notified of this discussion. One step at a time. The Benador article needs a fair amount of work. I've done a minor amount. Also, I will probably nominate Benador Associates for deletion.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Mister Cee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has a section entitled "Gay Oral Sex Bust". While this section is sourced (weakly), it seems a bit sensational and out of place. Opinions? The Interior (Talk) 19:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I think there was a previous discussion at the noticeboard about this but there was no consensus to remove it..or rather, we did remove it until "after the verdict"

• - Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive114#Mister Cee

As I remember there were at the time (pre trial/verdict) reasoned cries that removal would have censorship issues, - large possibility of someone re-adding it if you remove it....Mister Cee#loitering violation - I changed the header to a less exciting one. If someone is interested in Hip hop, a bit of article expansion about his music would help to take some of the weight out of it. Off2riorob (talk) 19:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Anya Verkhovskaya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Anyaverkhovskaya (talk · contribs) has been engaged in an edit war trying to blank the article. causa sui (talk) 05:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I've just posted a brief review on the talk page of this article, and cursorily scanned the talk page. There seems to be a BLP issue here, and I have very little experience in this difficult area. Other opinions would be appreciated. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

As I stated on the talk page, there is no WP:BLP issue here because this is not a biography where we are simply presenting a lot of negativity. We are presenting the facts of a trial as they happened, including the significant outrage from the public at the verdict. One editor, Blackie Lstreet, keeps slamming the article and saying it is not neutral and that there is a BLP issue simply because we present evidence that was actually used at trial, arguments actually stated at the trial (both sides are presented), and negative reaction to the aftermath of the trial (though both sides are presented). According to all reliable sources (every single one), most of the public has reacted negatively to the verdict of "Not Guilty" in the case of Casey Anthony. And yet Blackie Lstreet acts as though this is defamation and as though Wikipedia is presenting its own opinions,[21] all because he believes Casey Anthony and most Americans believe Casey Anthony to be innocent.[22] This belief goes against every reliable source reporting on this. All one needs to do is turn on the television here in America and see that most people are outraged by the "Not Guilty" verdict. It has also sparked several different debates which should be (and are) covered in the article. And yet Blackie Lstreet insists that "Only a tiny minority have cried out against the verdict" and that there is a "silent majority [who are] apparently content to let the jury make the decision."[23] Blackie Lstreet removed information about the outrage of the "Not Guilty" verdict twice,[24][25] and was reverted twice.[26][27] Just today, he removed the entire Evidence section (among other things) under false claims and reasoning, all while introducing bias and POV into the lead, which I reverted. He was mainly reverted because just about everything in the Evidence section was presented at the trial by the prosecution. And here he removed key arguments made by the prosecution all under the summary "Remove some clutter."

Basically, Blackie Lstreet keeps undermining the article because he feels the article should reflect her innocence since she's been found "Not Guilty." And feels we are presenting our own opinions.[28] As I stated, there is nothing POV about presenting facts. We present the evidence, trial, and reaction to the verdict as it has been reported through reliable sources. Not through our own personal opinions. And we do present both sides. Flyer22 (talk) 10:30, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Blackie is correct in that, under United States law, Anthony has been adjudged legally innocent of the charges brought against her, except for the four obstruction charges. Therefore, there's a careful balancing act to be had per WP:BLP. The article may be about a trial, but it's a trial of a living person involving many living persons, so WP:BLP absolutely applies. Specifically, I'm concerned about the balance between BLP's injunction to avoid victimization vs. WP:WELLKNOWN. I think that the "reaction after the trial" section is currently overlong, and may constitute WP:UNDUE regarding the viewpoint that Anthony should have been found guilty. I'm also concerned that it may be edging into WP:RECENTISM territory; the article includes minor details that were reported in the press but that seem unlikely to have long-term historical relevance. I would prefer to see the article trimmed back a bit, with some of the recentism removed—particularly where pundits are quoted at length. That would reduce my undue concerns. Because Anthony is legally innocent—remember, in the US you are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law—material that paints her as guilty must be weighed carefully to avoid victimization. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 15:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! This article seems to have been written to further or support the view that Casey Anthony is/was guilty of murder. Now that she has been found to be innocent of the charge of murder, the article has even bigger problems than it did before. The whole tone of the article is out of sync with the verdict. Under BLP policies, it is not appropriate to write an article contending that someone is guilty and should have been found guilty of murder, when the court has said she is innocent. Casey Anthony, as a matter of law, did not commit a murder. So much more balance needs to be added to the article. To prevent the article from being overly long, the many trivial details in the article (apparently included to cast Anthony in as bad a light as possible) need to be removed. There is barely any information included at all about the defense positions during the trial, and that needs to be fixed as well. Blackie Lstreet (talk) 16:30, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: I have restored my comment to its proper position. Flyer22 needs to stop refactoring the comments on this page and the article Talk page. Blackie Lstreet (talk) 18:00, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: People are allow to move their comments higher or lower. Flyer22 (talk) 18:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Blackie Lstreet may be right "in that, under United States law, Anthony has been adjudged legally innocent of the charges brought against her, except for the four obstruction charges" (even though "Not Guilty" does not mean "Innocent"), but Blackie Lstreet has not been right in his editing (such as removing the entire Evidence section). At all. The links above clearly show his agenda. Despite what he claims, there is a careful balancing act going on. Both sides are presented in all sections. It cannot be helped that the reactions to the verdict are mostly negative. There are positive reactions in that section too. And the reactions are mostly about the significant debates. I have only kept the relevant material in. First the ratings, then the explanations as to why people have been obsessed with the trial, then reactions to the verdict, and then explanations for reactions to the verdict. All of that is relevant. To remove any of it would significantly impair that section. It would not be accurate in its reflection of the reactions to the verdict. I have done my best to accurately reflect these reactions. And that's what that section does. At eight paragraphs touching on each of the reactions and debates, it is not overly long. And I'm quite sure that all this stuff will have long-term historical relevance, similarly to the way that the O.J. Simpson murder trial has held up after all these years. But what "will have long-term historical relevance" is an opinion. And what Blackie Lstreet is asking for is to mostly portray Anthony in a positive light. He pretty much stated so on the talk page. That cannot be done. Portraying her in an equally positive light cannot even be done, considering that every reliable source out there says most people are displeased with the verdict. Asking us to make the section look as though people are divided on this issue -- half for Casey Anthony; half against would be deceptive and highly inaccurate. Some are for Casey Anthony, but not half. We must accurately report and reflect what reliable sources report on this matter. Not make the section look the way we want it to look. Just because Casey Anthony has been found "Not Guilty," it does not mean we cannot accurately report on the reaction to that verdict. Flyer22 (talk) 17:29, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Although a verdict of "not guilty" does not mean that a person did not commit the crime, it does mean that legally, a person is considered innocent of the charges, because there is a presumption of innocence in the United States. Therefore, because Anthony is at this moment legally innocent of the homicide, we must take care not to imply that she is guilty, nor to lend undue weight to the opinions of those who feel that she is guilty, lest we be charged with accusing an innocent of crimes. That's a core part of the BLP policy. The article should not portray Anthony in a positive light, nor in a negative light; it should portray her dispassionately and from a neutral point of view. The aggregate effect of the copious material asserting that she should have been found guilty is to swing the article away from NPOV and toward support of those assertions. We do not have to report every opinion and quotation on the topic; a representative subset and/or a summation is sufficient, and would better serve both BLP and NPOV. This is not to say that I necessarily endorse Blackie's edits or editing pattern. However, Blackie's concern has validity. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 17:52, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I have taken care not to imply that she is guilty, nor to lend undue weight to the opinions of those who feel that she is guilty. The section on reactions is balanced in that it presents both sides. Those who believe she is guilty (which is reported as the majority opinion) and those who do not. It then goes into explaining why people feel this way and the effects the verdict has had on American society. I am not trying to have every opinion and quotation on the topic; I am trying to adequately reflect the impact/discussions this trial has had/created. And that's what I did. A brief summary would not do that. And there is no need for one when there are no violations being had, and especially now that the article title has been changed back to Death of Caylee Anthony to partly prevent some BLP violation accusations that may arise (though I'm not sure how long, or if, the article will stay under its current title). If you look at the Talk:Death of Caylee Anthony#article not NPOV, reads as if Casey committed a murder section, an IP (as in a person who is not an editor here at Wikipedia, or so it seems) finds the article completely neutral and was turned off by the non-neutral tag. That IP came away from that article understanding how the jury found her not guilty (before the Criminal trial section was recently tweaked). That tells me that I've done my job. Objective outside opinions like that are the best when reporting on what is neutral or not about our articles. Flyer22 (talk) 20:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

You need to read WP:BLP. "BLP issues" to you means "any type of negativity presented in this article about Casey Anthony. The article has NOT been written to further support the view that Casey Anthony is/was guilty of murder. It was written from the standpoint of reliable sources. And, really, you have a problem with any negativity in the article about Casey Anthony, as you have displayed. If you had it your way, the Caylee's Law section wouldn't be there either. For example, you say, "Under BLP policies, it is not appropriate to write an article contending that someone is guilty and should have been found guilty of murder, when the court has said she is innocent." WRONG! That would mean we couldn't accurately report on this trial here at all. By your logic, we would only portray Casey Anthony as innocent. There are no trivial details in the article, and it is not overly long or anywhere close to it, per WP:SIZE. It may look overly long from the table of contents, but most of sections are relatively short.

Doesn't anyone here see what Blackie Lstreet is trying to do? How skewed his logic is? It's all about WP:IDON'TLIKEIT for him. Flyer22 (talk) 17:29, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Right. I haven't followed the case or the article closely, but I'd say this.

1. Twelve people who considered the matter very carefully and had access to all the information (some of which we may not have) decided unanimously the person was innocent.
2. Its a simple fact of human nature that police and prosecutors want to close cases successfully, and easily if possible. They're only human. It's a simple fact that police and prosecutors make mistakes; whether this happens "often" or "sometimes" I don't know, but it doesn't happen "never".

Given #1, and assuming the probability or at any rate possibility that #2 is in play, the only way to approach this article is "here is a person who has suffered a terrible loss followed by a horrific unjustified hounding". I think that any whiff or hint of anything else should be quashed mercilessly. Herostratus (talk) 17:10, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

• - comment - the tone of the article should reflect the recent verdict - if sections need rewriting that should be done as fast as possible. User:Blackie Lstreet and User:Herostratus seems on the correct BLP point. There will by all likely be previous reliable external s with all sorts of speculation and titillation in - however we have editorial control and clearly need to throw out some of those reliable externals that ended up incorrect or with commentary that now with hindsight appears attacking and undue. Off2riorob (talk) 17:36, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The trial is over the prosecution and the media didn't get the result they wanted. The jurors say there wasn't the evidence. So WTF are WP editors trying to rerun the trial blow by blow for? This should be a precise of the event not some "You're the Juror" game. John lilburne (talk) 18:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I am a little unsure what you are commenting on. Anyway - the reassessment of content to reflect the current position is completely normal and necessary editorial task. Its just updating and removing of detail that suddenly seems undue when new information is assessed. Off2riorob (talk) 18:36, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Off2riorob, the tone of the article cannot reflect the recent verdict when it comes to the Public and media reactions. What would you have us do, leave out any mention that most Americans have disagreed with the verdict and that this has sparked a national debate? According to various reliable sources, there have been very few trials like this that have caused such an extensive debate about the jury and the jury system. The only other one has been the O.J. Simpson murder trial. These facts should be in this article in regards to this trial's impact on society. There is no doubt that scholars will study this trial for a long time to come. Should we leave out all of that from this article, too, when that time comes? Saying Wikipedia should hide or downplay the widespread public response to this trial is silly. No reliable sources out there reflect that most Americans or even half of Americans believe that Casey Anthony is "Not Guilty." And we shouldn't try to make the article look that way either. Blackie Lstreet's view on this whole thing is over-exaggerated and skewed. He removed the entire Evidence section, I remind people yet again. And as seen above, he says, "Under BLP policies, it is not appropriate to write an article contending that someone is guilty and should have been found guilty of murder, when the court has said she is innocent." What???? That is bogus. If that were the case, we could not report on the societal impact of this trial at all.

lilburne, what I have presented in regards to the reactions is precise. And there is nothing wrong with an article being extensive in its detail. Just like we are when it comes to our math, science and history articles. If we are not going to report on this trial's impact accurately and comprehensively, then we should not report on it at all. Flyer22 (talk) 18:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Find an article that deals with press prejudging trials, and press reactions to trial verdicts that didn't pan out the way they wanted. John lilburne (talk) 20:39, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Off2riorob my reading of the article is that it is a rerun of the trial evidence as presented by a what seems to be a biased press. Evidence that the jury, who heard the whole of it, found unconvincing. One cannot write a NPOV article made up from reports from a "trial by media" circus. John lilburne (talk) 20:39, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The article is not "a rerun of the trial evidence as presented by what seems to be a biased press." The Criminal trial section, for example, presents both sides. The Public and media reactions section presents both sides and goes into analysis about these reactions. You don't need scholarly sources to go into analysis about the public's response to a trial. Would they be better? Yes. But we must work with what we have at the moment. And the public largely being upset about the verdict -- that's not made up by the press and the section on it is not giving undue weight to those who believe Anthony is guilty. Flyer22 (talk) 23:14, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Public and media reactions in the immediate aftermath of a trial are not encyclopaedic, they are NEWS. Talk about if and when something happens as a result, and how the concrete effects actual affect anything. For example if they actually do make law changes and how those changes actually pan out. Apparent in another case which resulted in Megan's Law the result on the ground, as far as protection is concerned, is nada zip, nothing. So far lots of heat and bugger all light. John lilburne (talk) 07:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

But, lilburne, that is your opinion that immediately covering such aftermath is not encyclopedic. For example, should we not have covered the aftermath of Chris Brown's domestic assault of Rihanna so early on? Should we still be waiting until this is documented by scholarly sources? Or does this only apply to trials and history? I'm saying that while I understand where you are coming from, that is the first rationale like that I have ever read. It would also slow down Wikipedia significantly if we had to wait for scholarly sources for almost everything. Speaking of aftermath in general and not just as "immediate," there is no way to cover the O. J. Simpson murder case without discussing the reactions that verdict had on American society. In fact, there is a lot of scholarly material out there available discussing that verdict and the case as a whole, seeing as that trial spun several debates that should be adequately addressed in that article (which needs fixing up, by the way). There is nothing unencyclopedic about discussing public reaction to a controversial verdict. Not discussing it would make the O. J. Simpson murder case article incomplete, because it would not be discussing its cultural impact. Public reaction is what made that trial notable. That, and the fact that a celebrity was accused. But we don't give Wikipedia trial articles to every celebrity who goes on trial. We simply mention it in their article and that's it. The reason the O. J. Simpson murder trial even has a Wikipedia article is because of its cultural impact. The reason the Death of Caylee Anthony (or Casey Anthony trial) article exists is because of its cultural impact. If the cultural impact is not discussed, showing why the topic is even notable, then the article should not exist at all. Just because we only rely on news sources and not scholarly sources at the moment does not mean we should not yet have a section reflecting cultural impact. I understand you feel we should wait until scholarly sources are available, but I disagree. And if we did that, this article wouldn't be here at all. I understand that you feel it shouldn't, judging by what you stated below, but it does. And since it does and I doubt it could be successfully deleted, I am trying my best to work with the sources we do have. We'll just have to agree to disagree. I prefer scholarly sources when there is a choice of using them over news sources, too. But right now, we just don't have that. Flyer22 (talk) 14:43, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The article is not discussing public reaction, it is reporting on public reaction, no analysis - because none has been done, just reportage. The OJ article has nothing on the cultural impact except to say that whites think he did it, and blacks think he didn't. I can't see any impact statement in there on American culture at all. Answer this what changed? Again it is simply reportage. Chris Brown and Rihanna is once again reportage, boyfriend punches girlfriend. What has changed? In this present case we have child goes missing and parent fails to report it for 5 weeks, child is later found dead, parent arrested, media declare parent guilty, but prosecution fails to prove murder case at trial, parent instead sentenced of minor infractions and released almost immediately. Public and media think that, murderer or not, a more severe sanction should be applied to someone that fails to report their child missing for several weeks. Did I miss anything? When you don't have scholarly sources often less is more. John lilburne (talk) 15:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

It is your perception that it "is not discussing public reaction," and you are saying that because we are using news sources. The section is doing both -- it is reporting and discussing public reaction. Such as discussing why the public has been fascinated with the trial, opinions offered from psychologist and the like. As for the O. J. Simpson murder case article, I did state that article needs fixing up, didn't I? Given the buttload of scholarly sources out there about that case, that article would already be detailing a lot of that information if I were interested in fixing up that article. Chris Brown and Rihanna? What should be mentioned there about change? Other than whether or not Brown has changed for the better? My using that instance as an example was simply to show that Wikipedia doesn't wait for scholarly sources to cover topics. Nor should it. And that there may not ever be any for some cases. In the Anthony case, what has changed is people's belief in the justice system. And possibly a law to help ensure something like a child going missing for 31 days never happens again. Anything else, we'd have to wait and see. And I am saying that just because we have to "wait and see" (though there is no doubt that scholars will be documenting this trial for years to come)...it does not mean how the impact the case has had on American culture at this point in time should not be covered. Also the belief that "When you don't have scholarly sources often less is more." doesn't apply to a lot of instances on Wikipedia, such as certain celebrity controversies (Chris Brown) or fictional characters. But like I stated, I agree to disagree. Flyer22 (talk) 15:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem comes when the article has an undue amount of this 'cultural impact' stuff. People are much more polarized when the events are current, and that doesn't represent the realistic view that a long term article will have. It is bias toward passion and sensationalism. For those of us who don't care much about this case, it appears misguided and overzealous to see people push for the inclusion of these things. I've see the same problem with articles about Julian Assange, the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords in Tuscon, the War in Libya, and others. It just happens. But that doesn't mean we can't keep a cool head and separate the wheat from the chaff. -- Avanu (talk) 14:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

There is not an undue amount of "this cultural impact stuff." There isn't even a such thing as "an undue amount of cultural impact stuff." Various Good (GA) and Featured (FA) articles have significant amounts of "cultural impact stuff." There isn't a problem when the material is balanced and relevant. And the section I created is. It's not some consistent attack on Casey Anthony, as made out by Blackie Lstreet. Others at the talk page have agreed that it is not, including an IP (that I mentioned below) who agreed that the entire article is neutral. Only one paragraph is fully dedicated to people disagreeing with the verdict. The other stuff is a combination of things, all relevant to the topic. This is not about me keeping a cool head, except for when arguing/combating Blackie Lstree (which I admit that I should). As many editors can attest to, I am rationale in my editing. It's about the fact that we only have news sources to rely on this matter at the moment, and that's all we can work with to build and mold this article until scholarly sources are available. The 2011 Tucson shooting article? Yeah, I was there (and still am), as mentioned below. And that's a perfect example of not being able to wait until scholarly sources are produced to cover a topic. Would I prefer scholarly sources? Yes. I mentioned that. Plenty of editors I have worked with and/or hang out at my talk page know this. But we do not have that in this case, and should not have to wait for them to adequately cover this topic. Flyer22 (talk) 15:26, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

"the societal impact of this trial" - hmm, the sounds a bit overreaching. Currently its just press coverage and newspaper sales, any long term impact is yet to be seen. I would say things we could look at, for example, if the article includes a lot of peoples opinion about this and that and the weight of those currently included opinions is reflective of the subjects guilt then those opinions could be trimmed for weight - or comments/opinions from people can be merged and rewritten to reduce the weight of the comments that are currently included from prior to the not guilty of murder result. Trim some of the media and public reaction that is perhaps now included unduly and given the verdict given undue weight. You don't need to include it all, you can just say, there was some degree of trial by media. Off2riorob (talk) 18:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Off2riorob here. The "aftermath" section is currently barely readable and smacks of recentism. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:19, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Flyer22, as for what "most Americans" think about Casey Anthony, I'm not inclined to say that matters one flip (mostly because I think "most" people don't even stop and think about it much). That being said, we do often include some degree of media coverage or commentary in articles. Your reactions to other editors indicate to me at least that you are very emotionally involved in this article, and it might help to take a step back for a bit. There are tons of issues more important in the world today than Casey Anthony and her situation. I've seen this several times now when an article is hot in the press and gets a LOT of attention from a bunch of very very zealous editors who put in VERY biased and point-of-view-driven material. We're an encyclopedia, not the news media. As long as we're not inaccurate or violating BLP, there will be time to improve the article as the days, months, and years pass. Have a lemonade, enjoy the summer, and think about things like debt ceilings or Kate Hudson's new baby. -- Avanu (talk) 19:27, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

David Fuchs, I'm not seeing how the article is currently barely readable and smacks of recentism. But I'll get to that in a moment.

Avanu, I would have to disagree that "what most Americans think" about Casey Anthony, doesn't matter a flip or that they don't care about it much. If that were the case, this trial would not have become a national media obsession. It would not be on television 24/7. The verdict would not have outraged so many. There wouldn't be a bill proposal titled Caylee's Law. The Wikipedia article on this trial wouldn't even exist. So forgive me if I respectfully disagree. You speak of my reactions to others as concluding that I am "very emotionally involved in this article." No, I don't like to see what I consider silliness, such as downplaying or or outright hiding the impact this trial has had on society. I am not the one expressing personal feelings about Casey Anthony. Blackie Lstreet is; it's all in the links displayed above and on the talk page. I am only interested in presenting what reliable sources state, as we should do, unlike some here. I don't need to be told that "there are tons of issues more important in the world today than Casey Anthony and her situation," as if this all I care about and I don't have a life. Further, you have no right to imply that I a "very, very zealous editor who put in VERY biased and point-of-view-driven material." I did not put in any biased point of view material whatsoever! And my response to Off2riorob below will show that. I am never about bias in any article I work on, and I hate being accused of such. I put in every significant aspect of this trial's impact. Excuse me for wanting to reflect this section accurately and comprehensively. You say "[a]s long as we're not inaccurate." Exactly. I am striving for accuracy here. And I don't see it as violating BLP whatsoever.

Off2riorob, "the societal impact of this trial" - that phrase is not overreaching in my view, when looking through reliable sources discussing the trial and verdict's impact. It's true that any long-term impact is yet to be seen, but that is another matter. In the case of long-term impact (whatever that means; it could mean different things to different people), I certainly believe this trial will be documented by various scholars. But we have to wait for that. Anyway, so you're saying trimmed for weight? Not to take away from the fact that most Americans, according to every reliable source out there, have rejected the verdict, right? Because I don't see how we can leave out the fact that the verdict has sparked such a national outrage; that's one of things that has made this trial so notable. And on that note, I want point out again that the section is not simply a whole bunch of negative reactions. I am not one for a whole bunch of redundancy. This his how it goes Casey Anthony trial#Public and media reactions:

The first paragraph starts out with the fact that the trial became a media obsession (ratings, etc.).

The second paragraph goes into why.

The third paragraph goes into the negative response about the verdict.

The fourth paragraph goes into the positive response about the verdict.

The fifth paragraph goes into the impact it had on the Internet (that's the only paragraph I didn't add).

The sixth paragraph goes into why the general public has so strongly rejected the "Not Guilty verdict.

The seventh paragraph talks about the gender gap, about how the trial has divided men and women.

The eight paragraph talks about various explanations for why the jury chose a not-guilty verdict.

All of this, I believe, is relevant to the Public and media reactions section because it covers every aspect of this trial's impact on the nation. I mentioned higher that I have done my best to accurately reflect these reactions. And that's what that section does. This is not about reflecting a lot of negativity, this is about comprehensively covering every aspect this trial has had on American society. I can't see any valid reason that we shouldn't -- why we should only mention part or half of its impact. There is enough room to mention all of it. Like I said, there have been very few trials like this that have caused such an extensive debate about the jury and the jury system in America. Two, to be exact.

I will also start a discussion about this at the article talk page to see what the other main editors think of the current version and what they may want to keep or cut out, or whether they want to keep it all. Flyer22 (talk) 19:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

This trial was made into a big deal because the media got to have all the things they like to have. Murder, lying, poor little child, white girl everymom who doesn't look like 'the type'. I really hope the only thing this trial has done to society is make us realize how the media caters to the lowest and basest things possible. And I hope those who are so emotionally wrapped up in this trial actually do something constructive rather than dwelling on this. Too bad we can't focus on real issues, like several undeclared and expensive wars that kill far more children. Or a debt crisis that could affect more families than we can count. But sure whatever, its a "national media obsession", so it deserves more credit. The very fact that you use the word 'obsession' should probably be a strong indicator that there might be POV problems. -- Avanu (talk) 20:07, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

What is your attitude with me? Did I get into a past debate with you and piss you off? I think I might have. I see you around enough. That's the only explanation I see for your rudeness, unless you are just naturally like that. I used "national media obsession" because that is covered in reliable sources (which have been drilled into my brain from looking at so many sources about this) and because that is what it is. I suppose the constant media coverage, protests, reported explosions on Twitter, Facebook and YouTube didn't convince you of an "obsession." But whatever. It doesn't matter how it was made a big deal (with the exception of a child having died). The fact is...it is a big deal. The fact remains this verdict shook the world's belief in the justice system like no other verdict since the O.J. Simpson trial. Reliable sources state that this is something we can learn from and may impact jury selection in the future. All I am doing is going by reliable sources, trying to better the article and you are sitting here belittling me for working so extensively on a Wikipedia article, all because it has to do with a mother who may have killed her child and not something to do with war? Wow. So fixing up this article is not doing anything constructive? I should be working on a war or debt crisis article? Well, nice to know that editors working to fix up any article here may be viewed as "wasting time" if not viewed as an "important enough" by a certain editor. Never mind that I work in various fields on Wikipedia and simply decided to take some time and significantly contribute to this article. I shall defer to you next time there is an "actual article" I should be working on, my grace, or when I should be doing something "better with my life," like belittling a fellow Wikipedia editor over his or her choice of an article to work on. Flyer22 (talk) 20:57, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

• - come on guys, look for the middle point for a bit of agreement - I do think the main issues here is to be aware - as in the press, is our article. - the reporting from legal people seems to be that the trial by press reporting was a factor in the outcome - our wikipedia article was a part of that. We need to report all trial articles extremely cautiously as they are "pre judicial" - and on more that one occasion such reporting has been quoted as affecting the outcome of a trial. If we had reported that way, the article would not have the current weight issues that users are now asserting. Off2riorob (talk) 21:05, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

"this verdict shook the world's belief in the justice system" or maybe it didn't. It seems clear you feel very strongly about this article. That's the point I was making. You seem to be looking at this as needing to fix an article so that people see Casey Anthony in the proper light, whatever that is, but really people murder other people in the US and around the world every day. The significant thing here is how the media is playing it up, nothing more. -- Avanu (talk) 21:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

• - This article had a quarter of a million views in the last two days. Off2riorob (talk) 21:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Or maybe it didn't? You'd have to provide a reliable source for that. I can provide reliable sources for my assertion. It seems clear you love to put words into people's mouths. That's the point I was making. And, uh, no I am not fixing up the article so that I can portray Casey Anthony is a "proper light." I am fixing up the article because it is needed. It barely had anything in it before I started fixing it up. I get passionate about all articles I work on because I'm just that I'm kind of Wikipedian, which others can attest to. And, again, I don't need to be told that people all over the world die or whatever else condescending line you have to spew at me. Why are you even at this talk page? You are not helping. You're just belittling me, etc. Must be due to some exchange we had at the 2011 Tucson shooting article. Flyer22 (talk) 23:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment Just weighing in here to say, where do we take this? BLPs have serious issues, especially when they concern debatable/scandalous material. Please see this post at DSK sexual assault case. I am just reacting to this editor's edit summary "about ready to quit Wikipedia", something needs to be done, it is too time-consuming and debilitating to try to edit articles about (sensationalist) stuff happening in real time. Should we open a village pump discussion? I don't know. All I know is that I got caught up in DSK and ended up at the AN/3RR board and was later accused of tag-teaming on the fork article, and basically I don't give a shit about DSK, but I do give a shit about Wikipedia and this experience almost convinced me that WP is a pile of horseshit run by self-promoting "guardians" of (their interpretation) of WP pôlicy. So, what are we going to do? Lose editors or define a more specific, enforced policy for BLPs? CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 21:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we just need to stick to the 'facts' as much as possible, leave out the media circus stuff. What will we do when some nutball decides to go out and 'avenge' Caylee because of all the media attention? The media will do its usual faux apology stuff -- "where did the media go wrong? Story at 11", but as we saw with the highly contested Santorum article, Wikipedia is a player in things to an extent. Yes, we're not Nancy Grace, spending night after night ranting and raving against people, but Wikipedia is a voice that people use to fact check and review things. -- Avanu (talk) 21:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Uh, the media is sticking to facts in this case. Flyer22 (talk) 23:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm just looking at this article for the first time. And, frankly, it's ridiculous. How can the "aftermath" section of the trial be half the article, especially given that the verdict was less than a week ago? At just a quick glance, there are several things which should be cut--for instance, claims that Cindy Anthony may face perjury charges--isn't it a direct WP:BLP violation to report that someone may face criminal charges when no such charges have been filed, even when reported on by reliable sources? Tbe idea that Casey Anthony could make money on the trial is somewhere between a commonplace and irrelevant to this argument: we can't treat simultaneously treat this as an article about the trial (to avoid WP:BLP1E) and include extensive details about Anthony's personal life not directly related to the trial. And the section on Caylee's Law, which, at this point, is nothing other than some drafts written up in some random state legislatures, with no evidence those drafts will ever actually become votable bills; probably something should be included on those, but a single sentence would be more WP:DUE, to me. I just started from the bottom, and only scanned really quickly for things that were obviously questionable. If this weren't an immediately hot topic, normally I'd be bold and excise those parts immediately, but I'll start by raising them here. I assume that much of the rest of the section is between UNDUE and totally unacceptable; I don't actually think there would be any real harm in completely removing that section and restarting it (Of course, I know that won't happen and wouldn't actually do it, but I still think that it means something that we are, by name, an encyclopedia and not a news source). Qwyrxian (talk) 21:39, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Exactly how is the article "ridiculous" simply because the "aftermath" section is longer? We can't relay every detail of the trial, especially without copyrighting a lot of information. The verdict has had more impact than the actual trial; that's just a matter of fact. And of course they're going to be sections dedicated to the prosecution/defense, jurors, etc. Those sections aren't even that big. How is it a claim that Cindy Anthony may face perjury charges? It's not exactly a claim or a WP:BLP violation when it's true. The sources clearly demonstrate that authorities have proof that she lied on the stand. We are simply reporting that information. There's also nothing wrong with including reports that Casey Anthony could make money post-trial from book deals, etc. The jailhouse letters are related to the case, seeing as she wrote them while behind bars. Not everything in the article has to be tied to the trial. That is an aftermath section -- meaning after the trial. Such as the letters were released after the trial. And as for Caylee's Law, I cautioned against that article being created (before I knew it had already been created). You say "a single sentence [about it in the article] would be WP:DUE, to [you]." Yes, to you. Your opinion. All I see here are opinions and different interpretations of what WP:BLP is. And the section on the reactions? I don't see how removing that section and restarting it would help at all. It wouldn't be a better, more comprehensive section than the one I have implemented, and getting rid of it would not mean that we are any more of an encyclopedia than we already are. The content is encyclopedic. I'm familiar with writing encyclopedic articles, much in the same way that I'm familiar with getting articles to GA or FA status. With this article, my first goal was to build it up, because there was almost virtually nothing in it before I arrived at the article a week ago. It was a lot of work gathering the references and putting all that together, whether it looks like that to you or not. From there, the tweaking has started, and others have been helping out. It's not like I planned to leave the article like that forever. I always build an article up first, then get to tweaking. Flyer22 (talk) 23:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that everything in the article is news of one sort or another. There is no independent or objective analysis there is just quotes from media wonks being media wonks. Reportage does not make an encyclopaedic article. John lilburne (talk) 01:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Independent or objective analysis? Where will I get these "independent or objective analysis" sources, considering that the case/trial is still fairly new? It's not as though there's a bunch of books about this case on Google Books or Google Scholar already. And it's not as though we should just wait until there are. Of course most of the sources in the article are going to be from news organizations. As long as nothing is completely one-sided, I don't see a problem. There are objective opinions, and not just from "media wonks" either. And right now, that content accurately reflects all sides of the topic. We have to take things one step at a time. Flyer22 (talk) 01:19, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the reaction needs its own article, so it can be summarized in the main article and not dominate it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Flyer22, your last point here, "where will I get these independent or objective analysis" (that the don't exist), is exactly why the aftermath section is way too long, undue, and, in several cases, is a clear BLP violation. The fact that there hasn't yet been any independent analysis is a clear indication that topic is fundamentally not encyclopedic. Now, of course, that's not a view everyone agrees with, so I'll drop it. But, moving back to my specific points, on Cindy Anthony...it is radically different to say "she lied on the stand" than to say "she may face perjury charges"...especially when one of the two linked sources says that she won't! To me, there is no question, no doubt, that that sentence is a direct BLP violation. This article doesn't need "tweaking", it needs a hatchet to cut half of the undue recentism. You seem to have this idea that simply because a whole bunch of things have been reported, that those should all necessarily be included in the article. While I can understand that sentiment (it's a common one for people who are close to a subject), and it can even be helpful in some cases, when that sentiment leads to including significant speculative, negative claims about living people, it must be checked by those who do not have a close interest in the subject. Significant harm has been done to the image of these living people by the news media; for us to perpetuate that harm by repeating it under the guise of encyclopedic summary is exactly why we have WP:BLP. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, you're right I disagree with your first view. Even with "independent or objective analysis," the aftermath section would still be as long as it is now or longer, because there is no way to cover the aftermath without covering all these points. With as much widespread debate this has caused, we shouldn't accurately reflect that widespread debate? The defense and prosecution's statements after the trial? What these jurors have to state when there is so much debate about them and their verdict? We shouldn't mention the Anthony family? These sections are not even that big. In this case, I'm not seeing WP:UNDUE in accurately, comprehensively covering the aftermath. I suppose a case can be made for not having a section on Caylee's Law, when there is an article on it, or the combined section of Caylee's Song, so I'll drop that (though that's part of the aftermath too). Plus, the article's title has been changed backed to the Death of Caylee Anthony. You may also have a point about Cindy Anthony. But we can just change that to "she lied on the stand" and why (which is backed up reliable sources), and leave it at that. I of course disagree that the article "needs a hatchet to cut half of the undue recentism." Because I don't see any undue recentism. But we aren't going to agree there at all. It's not that I believe "simply because a whole bunch of things have been reported, that those should all necessarily be included in the article." If that were the case, there would be more in the article right now. Such as every last detail of what happened at trial. I'm saying all the reasons the public have been debating the verdict should be accurately reflected in the Public and media reactions section. I don't feel we have perpetuated any harm by accurately reflecting this information. It's not as though the article is filled nothing but a bunch of venom directed at Casey Anthony or the rest of the Anthony family. It's not even mostly filled with that. The aftermath section is simply about the reactions, of everyone, including the jurors' reactions. This is not "under the guise of encyclopedic summary." The aftermath is a comprehensive, accurate reflection of all sides of the reaction/discussion/debate. It's about making a comprehensive, accurate encyclopedic article. Something I have experience in achieving. I would state all of this even if I hadn't been heavily involved in editing this article. Quite frankly, I've always been like that, and people have felt that it's made me a good editor. If some feel it makes me a bad editor, then so be it. Flyer22 (talk) 13:43, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I looked through some of the remarks on here, and it's the same ongoing thing regarding the problems that editor Blackie Lstreet has had with the Casey Anthony trial article. I'll repeat what I said in the article talk, and add afterwards...

Of course there's been some POV in wording and tone in SOME parts of the article. As an example, where it said that Baez "rationalized" away some evidence instead of the more neutral "explained". Which the edit warrior Blackie Lstreet correctly pointed out and fixed. But he seems to be going overboard with his contentions, seeing "POV" even when it's NOT really there. He has some kernels of truth in his position, but is exaggerated. Even neutral explaining of what happened, if it doesn't seem positive to whichever side, will be seen as POV or biased. And that view is an over-reaction. Some objective facts are just negative sometimes. That's just too bad. Deal with it. It does not mean Wikipedia itself agrees with it necessarily. All articles and editors need to be careful with tone, wording, and style, in reporting and stating things. But there's NO excuse to violate 3RR. Or to see things that just aren't there. And calling it "clutter" is not a WP argument or justificaiton.

But I have to say that while I think it can be commendable that Blackie wants to ensure a neutral and NPOV tone in this sensitive article, he has also demonstrated an obsession with placing his own spin and in seeing "POV" even when it's not really there, and abruptly removing whole parts of sections of this article with no regard to their noteworthiness or context in the article.

His stated position is that his own removals and his own wordings are much more important and descriptive of the subject than what he has removed, which he deemed as "clutter". I feel that Blackie's arguments are usually based on reasoning such as wp:ilikeit, wp:idontlikeit, wp:otherstuff, and seems to be violating WP:OWN. And accusing others of what he himself has become guilty of. When editors note the reliable sources and pertinence of stuff that he has whole-saled removed, Blackie initiates a series of repetitive and endless talk page posts attempting to justify his over-reactive edits. No matter how many other users disagree, and no matter how many links to guidelines and policies are offered, Blackie insists his perspectives are correct and he becomes wp:disruptpointy. Blackie seems to interpret WP policy and editor conduct rules to suit his own justifications and continually responds to editors who disagree with him with posts of redundant justifications of his own invention.

Taking elements of truth (that I even have agreed with in part), but then going bananas with it, and arguably edit-warring. Again, there's been SOME amount of POV in this article and it needs improving here and there. But to remove whole paragraphs simply because "I don't like it" has no valid WP justification. And using the front excuse of "POV" after a while starts to wear thin. There was NO valid excuse, as one example, in removing the matter of "Ashton smiling" and the reaction of Baez and what was said, as that was reliably sourced and pertinent in the goings-on of the closing arguments. Calling that "clutter" is tantamount to "wp:I Don't Like It" which not only is invalid in votes but in also edits as well. Hashem sfarim (talk) 03:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I fully endorse Qwyrxian's statement above. Can't find anything to add. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 03:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

It used to be said, for good reason, that one couldn't write a history about something until at least 30 years after the event. The nearer we are to an event the less likely we are to give an a) an object analysis, and b) be fully cognisant of all the facts. These articles DSK, the Kercher affair, Joanna Yates, NOTW, et al, are not yet ripe enough for articles whose details will be anything other than dubious. John lilburne (talk) 07:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Thoroughly agree with John there, there is too much real-time reporting on these BLPs/cases and it is aggravated by Twitter, lack of fact-checking by journalists and unfounded rumours that fly around the WWW in a few seconds. In fact, thinking about this the other day I came to the conclusion that BLPs are almost the exact opposite of what an encyclopaedia is about. I'm sure Hitler did and said a lot of things that Wikipedians would have wanted to include - "omg he said this or he did that" - but finally pale into insignificance or get lost in the fog of time because there is other more salient stuff that appears to be important after some time has passed. Okay we have information overload now, but even if Hitler had had a video blog on YouTube recording his every thought and so on, I'm sure the historians would sort the wheat from the chaff and present us with the essential and not the bullshit detail.

And just reading through the above comments, how can an aftermath section be half the article? We don't know the fallout, it is still happening, what is the aftermath of Fukushima? Well, we don't know because the reactors are still fucked, half the power plants are still down, the government and energy companies are not exactly "coming clean", for all I know there are still huge fishing trawlers stranded on buildings several miles inland and maybe baby foetuses over there are growing a sixth digit on each hand and foot.

The fork for DSK was created because the sub-section sexual assault case had grown into a many-headed hydra and was becoming impossible to manage and dominating the whole BLP, giving more weight to this "potentially" minor incident (NPOV) than to his whole political and professional career. That's all (for now) folks. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 20:08, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Captain Screebo, the BLP issues (what little of them were in the article) have been taken care of. As for how can the aftermath section be half the article? Simple. There's more to cover regarding the aftermath of the trial, and the media attention following the aftermath has certainly been more extensive than it was before or during the trial. Basically, there isn't much to say about Caylee's death itself. There isn't a lot to say about Casey's arrest and the evidence surrounding her. And we can't say too much about what happened during the trial without covering it blow-by-blow. That leaves the aftermath, and there is a lot more to say about that as compared to the former topics. The aftermath of Fukushima is quite different than the aftermath of the Casey Anthony trial, LOL. We do know the fallout in this case. And I can't think of anything else that will happen beyond what we've documented (which, by the way are only the significant things...not trivia). But we'll see. And that said, the aftermath sections are not that big. If you look at them, they are relatively short. Flyer22 (talk) 02:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Today's interesting development is a 100K suit filed against Casey by a team that searched for Caylee, while Casey (according to her attorneys) knew the child was already dead. Casey will now be put in the position of either forking over 100K or refuting her own attorneys' explanation. The drama around this incident is only just beginning. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I know, Bugs. That's already in the article, "hidden" in the Civil cases section. Flyer22 (talk) 03:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be totally missing the point that John and I are trying to make - it's very hard to be objective and report on the aftermath of something which is still happening, so no, it's not very different from Fukushima at all. In the Baby P case in the UK, the child actually died in 2007 but if you look in the aftermath section you will find "fallout" right up until 2009.

And, after having a quick look at the "Aftermath" section of the Casey Anthony trial article, it is absolutely huge and what's more, contains a lot of horrible ref-stacking (no less than seven references for one measly statement, a sure sign that there has been some warring going on). CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 17:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not missing any point. I just disagree.

There's nothing "absolutely huge" about the "Aftermath" section of the Death of Caylee Anthony article. All of the sections are relatively small. Just because things are divided into subsections, as they are necessary in this case, doesn't make the section "absolutely huge." And there's nothing horrible about ref-stacking "one measly statement" when that "one measly statement" is covering a few or several topics, such as media commentators, lawyers, and psychologists weighing in. One or two references alone do not always cover everything. It's not a sure sign that a lot of edit warring has been going on, considering that there has not been a lot of edit warring going on with that section. Only once did someone try to edit war over something in that that section, and that was Blackie Lstreet removing the fact that people reacted to the verdict negatively...which he was reverted on by two different editors (myself not included). Certain lines being ref-stacked is due to what I stated above -- one or two references alone do not always cover everything. And when something is likely to be viewed as a controversial statement , I like to make sure it is more than well-sourced. We obviously aren't going to agree, so I'll go back and work with the regular editors of the article now. Flyer22 (talk) 19:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Your dismissive comment aside, I would like to reiterate the fact that you are not taking on board what several editors are saying: to whit, the aftermath section carries undue weight and it is difficult to get a decent, balanced view of the fallout from the case as it is still ongoing (the fallout not the case). I chimed in here as this seems to be an ongoing problem with BLPs concerning court cases/scandals which are high profile. Sorry for having the temerity to offer my opinion on this issue. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 20:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Not agreeing is dismissive? Okay. But despite what you state and your belief that I only listen to people who think like me, I did take the BLP concerns into mind (as well as others). And as stated below (and agreed upon by a few editors from this noticeboard), they have been taken care of. I disagree that there is any undue weight with the "Aftermath" section or that it isn't a balanced view of the fallout. Outside editors have also weighed in agreed that the article as a whole is fairly balanced. The Aftermath section covers all the relevant responses, such as the defense, prosecution, and jury. And it would be like that even if all the news media were done with this story. Most of the news media aren't even focusing on this story anymore, certainly not to the same extent they were days ago. There is no more fallout to address, except for the civil cases and possibly Anthony needing protection (and I doubt those will be so huge as to need big sections; the two civil cases are already covered in one combined section). To add anything more about what the media, public or jury thinks would be unnecessary, seeing as all of their feelings on the matter are well-covered. It's not like we should list what each individual juror thinks, if the others come out and speak. I really don't have much more to state on this matter. I appreciate your opinion and was not trying to dismiss it as nonsense or any such thing as that. Flyer22 (talk) 20:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

No, not agreeing is not dismissive, but the comment so I'll go back and work with the regular editors of the article now is, IMHO. This is the BLPN and the whole point of someone bringing something here is to get outside input i.e. not just the opinion of the regular editors, so to me it sounds like you're saying "please go away now, your opinion is not as valuable as that of the editors I know/recognize".

And linking to a diff of something I redacted from my comment less than 30 seconds after posting it is just plain ridiculous. I redacted it as a) it was unnecessary and b) it wasn't really what I meant, what I meant was that you seem to be stating what I have said above i.e. "shoo! I don't know you, so please go away, and I'll go back to working with the regular editors". Just to clear that up! So now let's all go and do something more worthwhile than bloat this talkpage discussion even more ;-). CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 17:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Saying "We obviously aren't going to agree, so I'll go back and work with the regular editors of the article now" is not being dismissive after listening to everything you had to state. That's knowing when to agree to disagree. It's not like I'm obligated to do what you think should be done, especially when other editors also do not feel the same way.

I felt that repeating that statement was necessary because it seemed to be what you believe. And either way, you believe that I'm being dismissive of your thoughts because you don't share the same opinion as myself and others. Which is not true. However, I apologize for repeating that statement, since you believe my doing so to have been unfair and unnecessary. That was not my intention. My intention was to clear up the misunderstanding. Flyer22 (talk) 17:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

[list of celebs] also expressed outrage via Twitter just so that you know ... when an article is mentioning what a bunch of people on twatter think, it can generally be assumed to have lost its way. John lilburne (talk) 17:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

In this case, it can generally be assumed that the article is accurately and adequately covering the facts, since the way most celebrities, and a significant number of people in general, responded to the verdict was through Twitter. Just so you know. Flyer22 (talk) 18:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but I must disagree, your statement comes across as haughty and dismissive, you seem to sidestep or ignore most observations that I and other editors make about the bias, or recentism or undue weight of the article (your response to John above is typical of your "so what? I don't want to take this on board" type of response, IMO, Twitter is ephemeral celebrity/wannabee yacking and not really very encyclopaedic).

And I don't think that I am trying to obligate you to do anything, and several editors feel the same way as myself about the issues mentioned above and have said so here but you seem to be turning a deaf ear. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 19:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

You can disagree. You can say I'm haughty, dismissive or whatever. But you are wrong. You are wrong because I have listened to editors here and fixed perceived BLP issues; this has been stated by a few editors from this very noticeboard. You are wrong because only one editor in this discussion -- Blackie Lstreet -- stated that the article is biased. That same editor who, according to all regular editors at the article, does not describe how the article is biased. These editors did not see what Blackie Lstreet saw, and neither did I. I still don't, especially considering that changes have been made since this discussion was started (per below). Blackie Lstreet has one agenda regarding that article, which is clear to all regular editors there, even a few outside editors (as stated below). You seem to be neglecting all of this (the edits to improve this article since this discussion, the editors who state that there are no longer any BLP issues, and the editors who state that there is no undue weight). And if you aren't neglecting that and just disagree with how these people see things, then fine. That is your opinion. You cannot convince me that relaying a significant aspect of the disagreement with the verdict -- the Twitter overload, including celebrity disagreement -- is unencyclopedic simply because we are mentioning Twitter. With all due respect, that is B.S., pure and simple. And since you cannot accept an apology, because you either find it disingenuous or only want to keep stressing how right you are (or both), then it is clear that it is time to move on. Flyer22 (talk) 20:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your permission, and I will. I mentioned bias AND recentism AND undue weight which expands the number of editors to more than Blackie, but in your usual fashion you choose to ignore the best part of what is written and fixate on a small part.

I can't really see where I'm trying to stress that I'm right, I'm trying to tell you that you're not listening but obviously you can't take that on board because ... you're not listening. Oh, and by asserting that "you are wrong. You are wrong because..." you are basically saying "I am right".

So, bla bla bla bla, you're wrong, bla bla bla, let me tell you what your opinion/attitude is, bla bla bla, that's just bullshit, bla bla, bla, go boil your head, bla bla bla, so long and thanks for all the fish! CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 21:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome for my permission. But to be clear, a number of editors did not mention bias (unless we are counting Blackie Lstreet and yourself). And the point is...a number of editors have stated that there is no bias or undue weight and that the real concern (BLP issues) has been addressed through editing of the article. But, yeah, whatever is definitely it. Your inability to see that you are trying to stress to me that you are right and that I am wrong about how the article should be, and that I am not listening because I happen to DISAGREE with you, says it all. Thank you for showing your immaturity. Have a good rest of your day. Flyer22 (talk) 21:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

How old are you? 5? I know that you can read and write English but do you understand the significance of the words? I'm tired of dancing around your pretentious posturing, you win, you're right, god I'd like to have wiki-sex with you and so on, do not wish things in such an insincere manner, I think I'll go and have a good crap now to "have a good rest of my day", I hope that that was suitably immature (a question of finding the right level). In the word DISAGREEABLE there is DISAGREE. ;-) CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 21:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Right, turn your childish and ignorant behavior on me. I'm the one who is acting like they are 5 and cannot understand the significance of words. Yeah...right (sarcasm). Flyer22 (talk) 23:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Can anyone here offer any advice on how to get some oversight for this article? Would an RFC be appropriate? It seems that Flyer22 and a few others are in total denial about what their jury nullification agenda is for this article. Flyer22 will listen to none of the advice given to her on this BLP board. They are blocking any info on the defense side of the case and any efforts to improve the article. Flyer22 and crew are trying to use Wikipedia to publicize their personal views that Casey Anthony is guilty of murder even though she was acquitted, and thereby present an article that is along the lines of a nullification of the verdict. They are even refusing to allow a NPOV tag on the article (which I just once again restored)or to include the defense side of the case in the lede. ( I just added it back in, but they will delete that and the NPOV tag.) This article can never meet Wikipedia standards under these circumstances. Please let me know if anyone here can help or if there is some formal procedure I should go through to get some help. Blackie Lstreet (talk) 03:07, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it's you who's in denial. Members of the jury have openly stated they thought she was guilty, but the state didn't prove its case. That's not "innocence" or "exoneration" in the English language. Also, I'd like to hear your theory as to how she's going to deal with the $ 100,000 fraud suit filed against her today. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Goodness! Now it's "me and crew"? Didn't know I was in a gang. If you look at the Talk:Death of Caylee Anthony#Consensus for keeping or removing the non-neutral tag section or any other section I have created about your disruptive edits, you will get your answer. I did listen to the concerns here, but the concerns here were not even mostly about BLP issues. The fact is...there were not a lot of BLP issues in the article to begin with. What little, so-called BLP issues were there have been removed. In addition, these removals (tweaks included) were done by a couple of editors from this Noticeboard, helping to address any perceived BLP issues in the article. Now it's you being disruptive again, seeing problems where there aren't any and painting all of us as Casey Anthony haters trying to bias the article. Baseball Bugs doesn't even know who he considers guilty in the Anthony case. And I have never stated my personal position on the Casey Anthony verdict. I have, however, repeatedly stated that I am only trying to present an accurate reflection of the topic as a whole (as I do for all articles I significantly work on). It is you who has stated you believe Casey Anthony to be innocent and that you want us to portray her ONLY as innocent, and it is you who is trying to remove any negative thing associated with her, such as the entire Evidence section! And when you're not doing that, you're trying to rename it to "Potential Evidence." Flyer22 (talk) 03:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Blackie Lstreet has twice summarized my own good faith attempts to improve this article as disruptive. In fact they were merely collaborative, and most recently Blackie Lstreet appended their own edit to content more closely resembling my own attempts. Furthermore there are efforts within this thread which indicate a concerted effort of which further insinuations suggest I am a part. This is simply an incorrect assumption. Best regards - My76Strat ^talk 04:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe it may be best to:

1. Remove the entire "Publicity and Aftermath" section (temporarily)
2. Fully protect the article for 7 days, in a minimalist state that meets BLP.
3. Get these issues sorted out before moving forward.

This is not something that should be discussed in terse edit summaries. The entire article has devolved into one, big edit war. I believe a break from editing it would help everyone involved, not the least of which is Wikipedia, as a whole.  Chickenmonkey  04:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Possibly, and point 4 would be to put Blackie on ice for awhile for edit-warring over the POV tag (for which I've reported him to the edit-warring page). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:07, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

No editwarring on my part at all. I am trying to alert fairminded Wikipedians to a big problem on this article. I think they get it. But concrete steps need to be taken to get this article into much better shape and compliant with BLP and NPOV. Right now it is far from neutral and accurate. I like ChickenMonkey's ideas, and agree that stripping down to a minimalist article and protecting it for a while would be helpful, so long as it is not preserved in its present POV state. The aftermath section definitely should go. Blackie Lstreet (talk) 04:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, indeed editwarring on your part. Look at WP:EDITWAR. And of course you would like ChickenMonkey's ideas. That way, it would remove an accurate reflection of the public's, including's the jurors', reaction to the verdict. But notice he said "temporarily." And knowing you, next would be the Evidence section.

I can't agree that anything things to be removed just to appease Blackie Lstreet. Why should we remove the public's reaction (which only has one paragraph dedicated to those who believe Anthony to be guilty), the prosecution and defense's response, the jurors' response, etc., etc. all to appease this user? He is the only one who feels that the article is non-neutral. And he isn't even complaining about the Publicity and aftermath section. He is complaining about everything. He, need I remind people again, has tried to remove the Evidence section more than once. He has tried to retitle it to "Potential evidence" more than once. It is anything that speaks negatively about Casey Anthony...that he has a problem with. He has stated that she should ONLY be reflected as innocent. We cannot work anything out with Blackie Lstreet in that case. Besides the fact that nothing will satisfy him, except painting Anthony as completely innocent, he doesn't discuss things on the talk page. He just starts section after section of complaints, about the same thing, and completely ignores any ongoing discussion addressing it. Flyer22 (talk) 04:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The aftermath needs to stay, as that's where the real truth of the matter will come out, which so far has not been the case. The family are a pack of liars and the jury couldn't figure out which of them actually killed the child (for all we know, all 3 of them might have been in on it) who did what. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs, I can't tell you not to edit articles related to this event, but if that is your attitude, perhaps it would be better for you to step away and let other, less opinionated, editors handle the situation. I assume good faith, and I assume you haven't let your personal opinions alter how you've edited that article, but your comment is a clear BLP violation and probably should even be removed from this page.  Chickenmonkey  04:39, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The sources call them liars. She's now also being sued for fraud, thanks to her tale about the drowning. There's a good chance the truth will eventually emerge. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:15, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree the article is problematic, starting with the actual title Death of Caylee Anthony. I would like to point out there is a Category:People acquitted of murder with 115 articles about individuals, only a few as famous as Casey Anthony. Therefore the article should be about her. (Note that even the Lindbergh kidnapping article is not named for the child, Charles Lindbergh, Jr.)

Obviously Casey will continue to be in the news, especially if she does tell a story of a dysfunctional family, an accidental drowning and some parental knowledge of (or demand for?) a coverup (because family members in Florida are prosecuted in child drowings?), and then crazy behavior as a result, which is what the defense obviously insists is the truth. And which theories have been profered by some media pundits since the verdict. Who knows what other news worthy (or at least notable) things will happen next. (See some of the bios under that category.)

A balanced BLP can present facts, trial evidence, and WP:RS commentary on both. The question is, is HLN and Nancy Grace, WP:RS? In any case, much more reliable sources obviously have commented on and explored the case in the last week. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

According to most editors at the article, the article is not problematic. The title of the article is the only main issue all editors keep fighting over at that article, which you just brought up now. But according to most of those same editors, the article is fair and balanced. It includes sources from various reliable sources, not just HLN and Nancy Grace or even mostly HLN and Nancy Grace. Nancy Grace is barely even used as a source in the article. Flyer22 (talk) 05:05, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I've mostly been a lurking editor who comments ocassionally and who's made just two edits I believe to the article itself. I came to this article from a board report, AN/i I believe but not sure. It took awhile to catch up on everything, from reading all the threads, to reading the article with checking out the sources, it takes time. I think the editors there are trying real hard to co-operate with each other except for Blackie Lstreet. Being a new editor this editor needs to listen more and learn to co-operate. The article is ok right now. Does it need work, you bet but it will get there. Everyone is trying hard to show both sides in this article. There are new things going to be coming up as time goes on. The new lawsuit is mentioned but don't forget she is supposed to be getting out this weekend too. Let's all just show some patience here. There are enough editors watching this article, so BLP vios should be caught quickly. Let's all just see where this all goes and add the important stuff and then some of the other stuff will definitely have more of a weight problem to be removed. Remember there is no deadlines here. I do agree that the title of the article is a problem too. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

It is probably hard to find someone from Florida, such as Crohnie, dispassionate about this case. My efforts to raise awareness about the problems with this article have fallen on deaf ears with people like Crohnie and others who frequent the talk page on the article. That is why the problems were referred here for review by neutral uninvolved editors. And what the article needs is oversight by a neutral uninvolved editor or administrator through some sort of RFC or other process. I like Chicken Monkey's proposal, but don't know how it can be implemented. Would this have to be done by an administrator? Otherwise, I would like to get some sort of review process going with this article. Information tending to show the defense side of the case is being blocked from inclusion, even though the defense won the case. For example, even the basic fact that Casey Anthony's defense asserted that the child died accidentally in the swimming pool keeps getting deleted from the lede, the last time by Crohnie http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Death_of_Caylee_Anthony&diff=prev&oldid=439418748. Overall, the article is being written as some sort of rebuttal of the jury's not guilty verdict, with a suppression of anything that is not damning to the defense. A more biased article there could not be. Blackie Lstreet (talk) 14:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Goodness, give it a rest. "[A] suppression of anything that is not damning to the defense?" No one at the talk page agrees with you. No one there sees a BLP or POV issue, including Crohnie. If Crohnie saw such serious BLP issues, Crohnie would have removed them by now. Chicken Monkey's proposal can only be implemented through consensus on the talk page, something you're not familiar with achieving. And Chicken Monkey's proposal is a suggestion of temporary measures to calm you down. There is nothing actually BLP about the section at all. The public reaction is a BLP issue? The defense and prosecution's response is a BLP issue? The jurors' response is a BLP issue? The rest is a BLP issue? No, no, no, and no. None of it is. Editors here (uninvolved editors you so requested) and at the article have already taken care of any potential BLP issues. And Crohnie is one of the editors who keeps removing what you call the "defense's side" from the lead for the reason explained in this edit summary. Crohnie also clearly stated above, "I think the editors there are trying real hard to co-operate with each other except for Blackie Lstreet." As a lurker, Crohnie was pretty much an uninvolved editor.

It's pretty clear that Blackie Lstreet will accuse anyone who doesn't agree with him as biasing the article. It's also pretty clear that he cannot work with others, no matter how many times he is advised to, and has a skewed interpretation of how Wikipedia works. It's time to ignore this editor. Flyer22 (talk) 15:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear here Blackie Lstreet. I am a Floridian but Florida is a big state and I knew nothing about this case until about a week ago, probably less than that and it was quite limited in what I did know. My RL has had me in the hospital dealing with my own needs so please lose the bad faith you keep saying. Editor's do not agree with you, get used to it because that happens to all of us. I came to the article like I said from a noticeboard. I haven't commented that often nor have I edited the article that frequently, three times I think now for the article. You need to chill out and stop the slow edit war you keep going on with. Remember 3rr is not needed for an edit war. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Editors on the article talk page may not agree with Blackie Lstreet, but several different editors here think that there are very serious problems with the article as written. I'm going to go there now and raise one of the minor but most obvious ones, if it isn't already.Qwyrxian (talk) 02:09, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I see that my biggest concern is a little bit fixed (the perjury issue); I'm going to try to catch up on the talk page there. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any serious problems, Qwyrxian. I've looked upon various GA and FA articles, and have contributed to some, including ones about real-life people (such as Angelina Jolie). The only issues this article has may be that it needs better restructuring in a few parts, it certainly needs more information and copyediting in certain parts, and of course there is the matter of the article title that most cannot agree on (no matter what title is used). There are no BLP issues. As I stated above, any perceived BLP issues were fixed and/or removed (such as the perjury charges). And everything in the article is fairly neutral, according to every editor at the article (regular, new, IPs). Even the Public and media reactions section has been tweaked away from overquoting. There is nothing wrong with that section as is, considering that only one paragraph is dedicated to those who believe Casey Anthony to be guilty, and the rest is analysis of why people are interested in this case and discussion of all the relevant debates it has caused. The problem with Blackie Lstreet is that he acts as though there is not going to be any negative talk of Casey Anthony. And worse, that there should not be any. That is impossible, considering that the general American public is upset by her and the verdict. The section dealing with the Defense, prosecution, and jurors, for example? It cannot be helped that most of the jurors did not even want to deliver a not-guilty verdict, and that most of them seem to believe that Casey Anthony is guilty (if not of murder, then of something else). Should we not include this information simply because these jurors are not talking positively about Casey Anthony? No, I don't believe so. And, no, I don't find it WP:UNDUE to include a few of their opinions showcasing why they reached a verdict that has shown itself to be highly controversial. Basically, Blackie Lstreet acts as though including these things is trying to paint a biased article, because it's not mostly about how innocent Casey Anthony is and a few parts deal with those who believe her to be guilty. Flyer22 (talk) 08:01, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

>Blackie Lstreet may be right "in that, under United States law, Anthony has been adjudged legally innocent of the charges…

This is incorrect. In American jurisprudence (based on English jurisprudence), a judgment of 'not guilty' is not the same as 'innocent'. If you dust off your law books, you'll find it means– and has always meant– the court did not find the party guilty.

I.e, not guilty ≠ innocent. --UnicornTapestry (talk) 15:09, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I stressed on the talk page more than once that "innocent" is not the same thing as "Not Guilty." I was simply quoting ⌘macwhiz in that comment. And so, as you may know, your response is truly directed at ⌘macwhiz, as well as Blackie Lstreet. Flyer22 (talk) 17:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)