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

Resolved

 – Better source found for most of the information. --GRuban (talk) 17:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

A slew of edits have been made to this article. One claim in the lede specifically read:

As President and later CEO of the company, she negotiated business deals, launched wrestling merchandise, and signed wrestler contracts.

And is referenced by [1] The only problem is that absolutely none of the sentence is found in the cite given.

One editor has repeatedly re-inserted this, and added other rather "iffy" material. Can people kindly examine the cites given and emend the article? Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you that the cite doesn't back the claim. It does mention that she signed one contract, but did so "on behalf of Titan Sports" which may have been a precursor of the WWE, but not quite the same thing. That said, though ... why is this a BLP issue? Yes, McMahon is a living person, but what she actually did as CEO doesn't seem particularly derogatory or controversial; surely there can be sources found that say what the job entailed? --GRuban (talk) 18:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Here. [2] This is the official WWE bio of McMahon as published on the NYSE, circa 2004.

Mrs. McMahon negotiated and implemented the first licensing deal in the wrestling industry with a toy company called LJN, which produced the WWE line of Superstar action figures. She also managed the development of WWE publications, and, at the start, wrote most of the articles. This foresight was a harbinger of multi‐million dollar business centers for the company. Today, Mrs. McMahon oversees and guides the strategic direction of this integrated media company...

That says nothing about wrestler contracts, but seems to back the first two points all right. Is there something controversial about her having signed wrestler contracts? --GRuban (talk) 18:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Seems to me like it's a bit of a variation on a coatrack. The statement itself is fairly benign but serves to link an inflamitory article as a citation.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Um -- 880 edits by one single editor out of just over two thousand total by every editor <g> and lots of similar stuff in the article. Thanks for noting this. Collect (talk) 18:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so Collect, you visited this noticeboard and found your answer. I don't know why this is an issue. It certainly wasn't contentious, and there was no reason for you to delete it twice. Now, we have another source, which is already linked to the page. I have no issue with linking that footnote to the statement in question. Does that settle the issue, Collect?--Screwball23 talk 22:29, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

And the answer was: the cite did not back the claim. Meanwhile, please stop the personal stuff - it is getting a tad tiresome. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Not true. You see, the main difference between me and you is that you are a problem-focused person and I am a solution based guy. I am willing to put the footnote to the statement in question. Not a problem. I was even willing to discuss it with you on the talk page, and I did until your logic broke down and you started "hoping for another person to spot the issue". Even now, there is no issue and you continue to insist that the cite was no good, when you agreed earlier that it did prove she signed wrestler contracts. I mean, talk about wishy washy. You really need to stop the personal stuff, and stop being so sensitive about losing edit wars.--Screwball23 talk 17:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

"Edit wars"?? I would like to point out that your edit summaries read like:

come on, man why do you have to be this way? she did the deal; i don't know who drafted company contracts, but it probably wasn't her) and

Undid revision 438742994 by Collect (talk) - untrue : there are multiple sources that state magnate ; Collect, I thought you changed your games and the like

and your "posts" on my user talk page after you were disinvited read like:

but I had watched the page because it was related to Gaddafi, and when I saw your damage, I'm lucky I was able to stop you in your tracks and

It's sad, but I recommend you read the articles before you make a decision as to whether someone is relevant enough to delete off a page. and

And for a person who is making up nonsense about how I do not have reliable sources to support what I've said, you seem to have an eager zeal to delete all my content from any type of discussion. I have yet to see a rationale for why you think the material you deleted needed to go. But then again, it seems that asking for rationale or even some level of conviction in your edits is too much to ask. and

Collect, your lack of integrity is making your editing some of the most destructive I've ever seen. and

you did not have the guts to simply admit your mistake - you wanted to save face, and could not. and

Grow a pair of balls and admit you have no rationale for your edits. I know it and you know it. Give up the game, because you are wasting your life right now. There are a lot of other things you can do besides vandalize wikipedia and fight edit wars

I suggest that the claim of "personal attack" coming from you is like the claim of "edit war" coming from you on an article where your edits outnumber mine by a ratio of 25:1. And of course your CANVASSing of another editor at [3] saying:

User:Collect is going nuts again. I want someone to moderate this, because he's on Linda McMahon deleting things again.]]

Which some might even feel is a violation of WQA, I would think. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:57, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Everything I said was true. Your edit wars have been founded on a refusal to read the references. And don't even get started with your canvassing stories. You and I both know that you came to this board because you were wishy washy and knew you had no idea what you were talking about, so you decided to come here and have other people make sense of your issues.--Screwball23 talk 04:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Ahem. I hate to interrupt this wonderful catfight, but is the question that started this resolved? Any objections if I replace the source in question with the one I found, and remove the "wrestler contracts" bit? Will that solve this particular problem? --GRuban (talk) 20:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

No objections, assuming good. Done. --GRuban (talk) 17:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

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

There are many different people editing this article but just two or three disruptive editors who revert everything without consideration. Sayuki is the first westerner to work as a geisha and this is easily proven by a simple google search which shows hundreds of articles all saying the same. One or two articles only claim that a former woman was a geisha. According to the Wikipedia page or any other source on geisha it is clear that to debut as a geisha you need to have a year or so of training before hand and the whole community watches the new geisha during this time to see if they are suitable. Liza Dalby did not do this and did not work as a geisha. There is one article that says she "debuted" as a geisha but this is incorrect. Using one article to overturn the hundreds of articles all saying that Sayuki is the first foreign geisha is not right. The editors on Wikipedia who keep doing this should be banned from editing this page. Sayuki is working as a geisha which means that what is written on Wikipedia about her affects her position and her income and her relations with other people in her community. The geisha world is very tough and Sayuki has to do what her older sisters tell her. No of the geisha talk about how old they are and Sayuki has to obey these rules. I am a student of Japanese Studies and have studied geisha. I know that a geisha has to deal with tough conditions and obey the rules. Wikipedia is causing harm to Sayuki and it is always the same editors doing it over and over. Please someone ban DAJF and My Lord and Master (used to be Simon of Sagamihara) and changed his name. There are many students studying geisha and these editors do not know what they are talking about and especially they don't care what happens to a living person like Sayuki who has to obey rules in a community. On Liza Dalby's discussion page there is already comments from many people saying she was not a geisha. Why is Wikipedia ignoring this and now all the pages are contradictory about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.45.182.172 (talk) 02:37, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

See the talkpage for Fiona Graham. I'm not seeing much here that hasn't been discussed at the talkpage, but I'll take a crack at it here. We'll take this in two parts. First, Liza Dalby or Fiona Graham being the first gaijin geisha; the closest parallel I can think of is Masuda Sayo and Iwasaki Mineko. It may be that Mineko was the first ex-geisha to have a widely-published book in English about being a geisha (granted, it's fiction, but it's based in reality), but Masuda wrote Autobiography of a Geisha 30 years before Mineko wrote her book (also granted Masuda was an onsen geisha, which is slightly different, but the point stands). Masuda doesn't get as much publicity because her book wasn't translated into English until 2001, and was never as widely read as Mineko's book, so there are many normally reliable sources which mistakenly tout Mineko as the first geisha to talk about her experiences. We've got a similar situation here; Dalby was never as involved in the karyūkai and never became a full-fledged geisha (as Masuda never really was; as mentioned above, she was an onsen geisha), and hasn't gotten as much coverage as Fiona Graham/Sayuki, so there are some sources mistakenly claiming that Sayuki is the first true foreign geisha.

On to your second point (this is my take only); her name was already out there before she became a geisha. It's not like her age is a big secret, and having it posted somewhere isn't the same as her talking about it. I'm not seeing a good reason to keep such basic biographical material out. Yes, I know that being a geisha is rough (I've read Autobiography of a Geisha, among other texts; the dark side of Japanese history is my specialty in history, so I do get it more than you'd think), but it's not really possible to stuff the genie back in the bottle once it's out there. And finally, don't throw around ban requests like that; people will perceive you as attempting to bully/harass your way to the result you want. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:47, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Masuda Sayo was a geisha because she trained as a geisha in the normal way, debuted in the normal way, and worked i.e. earned money as a professional geisha. Mineko Iwasaki was the same. Sayuki was the same. Liza Dalby did not train as a geisha in the normal way (she did not participate in dance and other training that new geisha participate in at the geisha office). She did not debut in the normal way (after a year or so of training as a geisha and with a debut ceremony with the permission of the geisha office and the geisha community). She did not work as a geisha or earn money so she cannot be called a geisha which is a profession of women who earn money from working as geisha. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.178.149.249 (talk) 03:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The Graham article has been discussed so many times on this board and on other boards, and it's always the same stuff. Various IPs, who are probably the same person, stubbornly and disruptively change the article to suit their views. They get reverted. They get discussed. They accuse everyone else of being culturally insensitive and god knows what else. Although it's kind of Blade to respond, we don't have to keep going in circles with unconstructive IP single purpose accounts who keep raising the same points. As for as "perceiving" that this editor is trying to bully and/or harass, it's not a perception, it's a fact.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I always try to at least keep the air of politeness the first time around; I saw exactly what you're describing. If you need another set of eyes over there I'll gladly watch over it. I've dealt with worse, and this is actually a subject I know something about. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

We already have an open thread about this half-way up the page. The answer was "no" then, it's "no" now and it will be "no" tomorrow. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

The "several people" that the IP editor refers to are all the same person -- the same person as the IP editor herself, who is most likely Graham herself. Ironically, she is the one reverting without discussion. Seconding what Blade of the Northern Lights said. 124.100.76.179 (talk) 22:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The genie is only out of the bag on Wikipedia. The Japanese media respects the fact that Sayuki needs to maintain tradition and behave in the same way as other geisha, not break tradition in the English media. It is causing harm to a living person in this case. Why can Wikipedia not follow what the Japanese media has followed for the last 4 1/2 years and respect the fact that revealing age will cause Sayuki harm? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.178.149.249 (talk) 03:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Article speedily deleted (again) as spam. – ukexpat (talk) 19:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

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

He is a business person looking for cheap publicity.

1. Poor and unrelated citations at no 5 and 6

2. Ambitious statement with no citation

-"He is generally credited as the inventor of the Java Bachelors Program."

-"He was the inventor of bachelors degree program (BSc.) in Java Technology in 2007"

-"as a first ever Sun Certified Java Programmer (SCJP) in Sri Lanka"

3. Misleading public

Occupation - Java Technology Specialist

His highest Java related qualification is SCJP - according to information provided in "Education" section — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.134.127.30 (talk) 06:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The article certainly looks dubious, and it succeeds a shorter alternative that was autobiographical. Yes, it smells off to me. Well, feel free to improve it, to cut junk from it, to sprinkle warnings over it, or to do any combination of these -- or to recommend its deletion. (I've already recommended deletion of the one image that it contains.) -- Hoary (talk) 09:16, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion it is blatantly promotional and I have tagged it for speedy deletion as such. – ukexpat (talk) 15:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

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

I refer to this discussion and leave it to you to decide whether or not the cleanup and refimprove tags I added were justified. Regards. 81.83.138.164 (talk) 19:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

In BLPs (or biographies), the normal usage, after the full name has been stated, is to use an unadorned surname. The occurrences of "Cécile" should be replaced by "Ousset". For BLPs of other female pianists, see Hélène Grimaud or Martha Argerich. Mathsci (talk) 12:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

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

I am seeking guidance concerning this article, which seems overwhelmingly focused on one doctor's legal troubles. My impression is that, although a respected doctor before losing his license to practice, he was not notable aside from his humiliation. Is this a cast of BLP1E? I am not familiar with WP:BLP rules and would welcome help from others who are. Sharktopus ^talk 00:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The article has a history. At one point, the doctor was mentioned in an article about the hospital he was working at when he lost his license. I removed the material from the hospital article because the connection between Midei and the hospital was too attenuated. The editor who inserted the material then created the Midei article. Since that time, the editor has also been working on the article. I put the article on my watchlist, but I haven't read the article because I figured I'd give the editor a chance to finish with it - and I keep noticing edits to it almost every day. At the same time, I suspected that the article would have notability problems, so it doesn't suprise me that you raise the issue here. Anyway, none of that helps you much because I still haven't read the article. I plan to but not today.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I saw the article because it was submitted to DYK to be featured via a link from the Main Page. We do not allow hooks that are negative about a living person, but the hook suggested was fairly neutral. We also don't use articles forbidden by other Wikipedia policies, but I don't know enough to say if this is an OK article or not. My concern is that the article is negative, and I was wondering if a BLP expert could either remove or improve it. Sharktopus ^talk 01:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

• I took the article to Afd because of WP:BLP1E issues. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 21:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Flo, for taking time to look at this issue. Sharktopus ^talk 22:46, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

P. Susheela (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi,

Just reporting this incident. I've been editing this article and a couple of others. All the three persons belong to the state of Andhra Pradesh state but a couple of wiki users have been undoing my edits. They were reverting the place of birth to a name that was called over 60 years ago. I've questioned them because playback singers and Musicians from Tamil Nadu who were born over 60 years ago do not have the same birth name 'Madras Presidency'. They were changed to Tamil Nadu, which is the present name. This is my Humble request to those users and would like to ask why this partiality. The users are 'Vensatry' and 'Salih'. This kind of mis-representation of information is not acceptable. I've seen Ilayaraja, KV, K Balachandar etc...who all have the birth-place changed to Tamil Nadu. So why not PS, SJ and SPB?

I cannot understand why this user 'SpacemanSpiff' thinks that it’s an act of vandalism. A more sensible approach is needed before acting??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.43.48.136 (talk) 12:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

This particular bit of the article has been in a stable state since September 2007, but over the past two weeks the IP-hopper has kept changing it against multiple editors and general convention -- the state he's adding did not exist at that point in time, neither in name nor in territorial extent. If there are such errors elsewhere, then those errors should be fixed, not add more here. e.g. Gandhi's birthplace is listed as Kathiawar Agency not Gujarat, Rabindranath Tagore's birthplace is listed as Bengal Presidency and not West Bengal. I meant to remove the vandalism bit from the pre-filled TW note, but I apparently forgot. —SpacemanSpiff 13:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

And I've now fixed the two articles that the OP referred to. —SpacemanSpiff 13:36, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Back in July I raised the concern on this forum about the biography of feminist blogger Jessica Valenti mentioning a "controversy" where fellow blogger Ann Althouse criticized her about the way she posed for a photo. The question was, did that controversy around that photo ever merit mention in Wikipedia?

There wasn't much participation but the few that did somehow supported the inclusion of that bit of gossip in the article. User Andrewlp1991 (talk · contribs) even expanded the section mentioning the photo.

Since the controversy was all about the way the subject posed for the photo (Ann Althouse implied that Valenti, one of the most accomplished feminist writers from the XXI century, was using her body to draw attention to her.) I posted the photo so that readers can see (and judge!) what was it all about.

But now, the validity of mentioning the gossip is once again put in check as Jessica Valenti herself (JessicaValenti (talk · contribs)) asked the photo to be removed.

Shouldn't the whole section be removed? Keeping the text about the photo while deeming the photo itself problematic sounds as a double standard to me. Can we get ride of the text as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Damiens.rf (talk • contribs) 14:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I took out the photo, which is really inappropriate. Anyone can find it online if they must. I guess the "controversy" is (barely) notable; but if Jessica feels the discussion of it victimises her further, I would support removing it altogether. --JN466 14:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Most of the enitre article fails to be really utile in regard to the goal of having encyclopedia articles here. Wikipedia is not Entertainment Annual or the like. And this is another splendid example where the use of RS sources for what is clearly opinion at best is a real problem. How on earth can someone's opinion of a photograph of someone else be even remotely relevant to the actual BLP? Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I would normally agree with removal of the text, but I'm not so sure here. As the article explains, Althouse's criticism was made within the political context of Feministing being criticized within the feminist movement for its sexualized context. Hence the personal criticism of her pose. I agree that it's absurd, but that's why the criticism was made, and the critic was a prominent one. Having said that, if someone were to remove the text, I would not object; I just wouldn't remove it myself.

The image, though, should definitely not be used, and the upload with the enlarged inset is really inappropriate. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 14:45, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I created two new versions; the first with the blog issue, but tightened, and the second without it. I think I prefer the second. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 15:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Per BLP: "Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity..." The photograph should remain out of the article especially the tasteless enlarged inset per request of the subject, and sensitivity. I prefer Slim Virgin's second version. Wikipedia is not a tabloid.(olive (talk) 15:55, 23 August 2011 (UTC))

Thanks, Slim. I am happy with either of your rewrites. Either is much better than what we had, and the second, shorter version, is probably slightly preferable. --JN466 18:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I would agree that the general issue of "sexualized context," or however it can be best stated briefly, needs to remain in the article, but that the extended treatment and illustration of a borderline-trivial example is clearly inappropriate. It would be quite ridiculous to allow such commentary on a single incident to dominate the article while, for example, essentially ignoring all of Valenti's published books.

This situation seems to me to reflect an unfortunate editing pattern, where easily accessible online commentary, particularly promotional efforts, astroturfed "controversy" and celebrity journalism, is given extended treatment while more substantive coverage is given no better than cursory treatment. See Lisa Lavie for an example of an article dominated by coverage of the subject's own promotional activities, and Hayley Westernra and the history of Kerry Katona for articles laced with celebrity journalism, both positive and negative, respectively, at the expense of encyclopedic content. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

• Would an uninvolved admin considering deleting the photograph now, per BLP, rather than waiting until August 30? It's clearly inappropriate with the inset, the subject feels harassed by it (see here), and it's an unused fair-use file that can't be used anywhere. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 17:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

• Quadell has deleted it per F5 as a non-free image of a person for whom a free image exists. Discussion here. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 17:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
  • This would not be a valid reason for deletion of this image, you should know. --damiens.rf 17:59, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

"If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out." (WP:WELLKNOWN) Andrewlp1991 (talk) 17:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, so by policy it should be culled. The only real referencing of note was the actual blog posts from the two of them - nothing else really treated the incident specifically. So not very well known. --Errant ^(chat!) 18:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The blog where the criticism was made was not really directly referenced. There was, actually, an article from The Guarding covering the controversy. --damiens.rf 18:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Apparently User:Who R you? does not understand some basic WP policies, and speedy deleted an article on ViSalus because he has a personal opinion that the founders are scammers. Although he hasn't produced an RS, he continually refers to non-RS sources such as scam.com.

The article has been restored, but am a bit disturbed by his remark profane about the founders on the talk page here. I haven't had to deal a lot with BLP since I mainly work on company/business articles, but would like opinions as to whether or not that is OK to have in the talk page.  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 17:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, Who R you did not speedily delete the article (he doesn't have the power). He inserted a tag for speedy deletion that was then removed. As for the Talk page, Who R you's comments are way out of line and I'm going to delete them as potentially libelous and and BLP violations pursuant to WP:TPO.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

In Death of Caylee Anthony, one editor keeps alleging that you can’t link “to an article which contains otherwise personal information about a WP:Non Notable Person.” I.e., one cannot use WP:RS news sources (no matter how many notable references there might be from high quality sources) that state even the tiniest negative thing about a "non-notable" person - even if that info is not used in the article itself. I’m quite sure s/he is wrong, but feel free to help correct the miss-impression so I can stop getting reverts on the article and lectures on the talk page!

[Added later: Under this criteria, most articles that mention a living person would be deprived of a good portion of their content because many sources - including especially books - contain some negative info about some non-notable person, even if unrelated to the article.] Comments? CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

We are not talking about "some negative information". We are talking about a lie which accuses George Anthony, a living person, of covering up the death of his grandaughter Caylee, an alleged criminal act.

As to the Krystal Holloway's testimony, CarolMooredc, has once more mistated it. What CarolMooredc initially put in the article Death of Caylee Anthony was that George Anthony confided to Ms. Holloway about Caylee's death "it was an accident that snowballed out of control" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Death_of_Caylee_Anthony&diff=440142272&oldid=440140363 which as stated, means that George Anthony knew about Caylee's death and covered it up. A crime. What actually happened is that Ms Holloway recanted that version at the trial. The paragraph CarolMooredc put into the article was factually inaccurate and accused him of a crime, i.e., covering up the death of Caylee Anthony. What Holloway said to the Enquirer for $thousands of dollars is not what she finally admitted to in court. When Prosecution showed Ms. Holloway in court her sworn signed statement that she made to the police, she finally admitted that what George Anthony actually said was that "I really believe that it was probably an accident that snowballed out of control". A completely different meaning. Krystal Holloway tried to say the statement the first way but when shown the truth of what she had said under oath to the police, she recanted. CarolMooredc was explained this on several occasions. What happened then was that the Judge struck Holloway's back and forth statements as "prior inconsistent statements" and told the jury to ignore ALL of her statements as is done in trial under such circumstances. I even showed CarolMooredc the video of the trial but she maintains that she can use the version which was proven untrue. CarolMooredc argued and refused to correct what she put in the article, so I took it out per WP:BLP because, it was factually inaccurate. The video of Holloway's complete statement at court is here: http://caseyanthonyisinnocent.com/trial-videos-3-casey-anthony-trial-witness-video-and-witness-testimonies/krystal-holloway-june-30th-2011/ There are SEVEN videos I believe the pertinent testimony and attorney and judge conversation is in 2, 3, and 4 but they are all there for a complete version of her testimony Mugginsx (talk) 17:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

As to the defamation issues and the WP:BLP issues: Yes, I believe that it can be considered defamation to even link to a site that contains personal defamatory information about a non-notable person which may adversely affect his livlihood and reputation. These are the references used by CarolMooredc in the Death of Caylee article that are in dispute:

Ref# 28 http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2009-01-14/news/casey14_1_kronk-sheriff-office-angelo-nieves is supposed to reference Roy Kronk but mainly contains information about a Florida police officer as "failing to properly investigate a threatening telephone call in March 2007, and was being investigated... and it goes on about the police officer, a non notable person, leaving only a very few lines about Roy Kronk, the man CarolMooredc is supposed to be referencing. A BLP issues, since the officer is not a notable person and is not part of the Death of Caylee Anthony article except previously mentioned only as an "officer". http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2009-04-11/news/cain11_1_cain-kronk-caylee-remains

Ref #29 - http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2009-04-11/news/cain11_1_cain-kronk-caylee-remains mentioned the police officer again by name and states that he is "is facing being fired" (which he was) it goes on and in the entire article which is almost entirely about the police officer, there are only six lines about Kronk, stating the office was "rude" to him. This too is supposed to be referencing ONLY Kronk.

Ref #30 - http://www.wftv.com/news/18530178/detail.html contains information about the "heart shaped sticker" which Kronk does not describe but was attributed to him. It seems that CarolMooredc had revised the paragraph about Kronk which contains NO mention of the heart-shaped sticker contained in the article she uses as a reference to Roy Kronk. It was actually the police who mentioned it.

Ref #31 - http://www.cfnews13.com/article/news/2011/june/259603/ is about Casey Anthony crying in court when seeing the pictures of the skull and the fact that court had to be adjourned early. It has two lines and three words about Kronk making a 911 call.

As a paralegal I have always believed and was made to believe that "repeating a defamatory or libelous statements is making the statement again", meaning that the new statement is libelous to the person who speaks it, or reprints it. http://www.dba-oracle.com/internet_linking_libel_lawsuit.htm Linking to a defamatory web page is republishing the web page is one site. There are others: http://www.bitlaw.com/internet/webpage.html#defamation and this one that is Canadian but refers to the suing of Wikipedia, and this one whch is admittedly more about general liability: http://carnahanlaw.com/nl/webliability.html

Defamation These statements are clearly defamatory toward the policeman involved and Roy Kronk as to their personal lives which have absolutely nothing to do with the article or the trial. Ironically, they are the kind of negative statements which CarolMooredc has in the past, used as an excuse to remove other editors references and now she has linked to even more negative statements about non notable living individual

As to Wikipedia BLP concerns they are listed and I think everyone know them but I will be happy to cite some of them here: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons Resolution:Biographies of living people Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources par. 2 Mugginsx (talk) 10:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

We don't have a rule against linking to RS articles that contain info that we wouldn't allow. We don't allow linking to copyright infringement, and sometimes frown on linking to non RSs. Maybe a consensus at WP:RS could then be used here, if people wanted a new rule. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 15:09, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I must respectfully disagree. We link to newspaper articles all the time and they are copyrighted. http://public.findlaw.com/abaflg/flg-10-4a-2.html . The way we get around that is that we paraphrase the content. I do agree that a consensus at WP:RS would be a good idea. Thank you. Mugginsx (talk) 15:26, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Defamation has got nothing to do with copyright and paraphrasing. To repeat "defamation by WP:RS" in Mugginsx eyes does not mean just things like reprinting unsubstantiated wild rumors or exaggerated screaming headlines (though there are enough "WP:RS" articles about Casey Anthony linked from the article that do just that). He means if a newspaper article mentions legal suits, public records, court documents or court testimony under oath and permitted by a judge that say anything negative about a person (they owe child support, they may be fired for bad judgement, I gave him $4000 and he didn't pay it back, etc.) - even if that info is NOT used in the Wikipedia article - the source itself cannot be used because that information is defamatory. Of course, now that Anthony is acquitted, under Mugginsx formula, most of the info about her would have to be deleted from the article since no reliable source for factoids could be found. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:28, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

That mistates my position in so many ways I don't know where to begin. Please re-read my position at the top. Mugginsx (talk) 17:37, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorting out 3 issues for noninvolved editors (as I see it)

From Carolmooreindc (with clarifications that it's as I see it): OK, I can see there are three separate but related issues here and maybe if I clearly state them Muggins and non-involved editors can better reply.

1. Can we use WP:RS that have negative information about people who are non-notable, but important to the topic of the article, assuming the information is not used in a WP:Undue way.

As I see it, and correct me if I'm wrong, Muggins says doing so is defamatory and the material must be removed, even if its court testimony under oath a Judge allowed, police records or lawsuit documents or other sources that a high quality WP:RS is willing to use. [Added later: (As he wrote on the article talk page you can't link “to an article which contains otherwise personal information about a WP:Non Notable Person.”)] This is the absurd position I’m particularly protesting as a re-write of Wikipedia BLP policy.

2. Replacing one WP:RS with another than does not have the negative information.

Now, if someone wants to replace one reliable source with another that does not have the objectionable material, but still provides proper referencing, one might find it annoying, but I don’t think we can object. (Someone probably could do that with every ref that makes Casey Anthony look bad, since some sources or articles portray her in a very negative light.) But it is NOT an excuse to remove important material for which no other source is available.

Hope this helps. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:36, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

You have again misstated what my initial statements were. Editors, please read my statements at the very beginning of this discussion. Carol, editors are able to interprete the discussion for themselves and do not need anyone's help. You are (unintentionally I am sure) only confusing the issue with your incorrect interpretation and paraphrases. Also, Carol, it is improper for you to subhead and reframe what you think my argument is. This is a noticeboard and not a Talk Page. Thank you. Mugginsx (talk) 20:02, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

CarolMooredc, you initiated this noticeboard discussion inviting Editors to comment on "defamation": issues. Perhaps editors would like to comment on that. Mugginsx (talk) 14:45, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

<--- On Hidden Text I have hidden my initial examples and three sections of editors back and forth on the narrow issue of properly sourcing one of the examples in order to allow those who come in fresh on the Weekdays when most of the action happens to actually deal with this important issue. If there is no clear consensus here on this broad policy matter obviously the very general issue (with no reference to any specific article) must be further discussed at WP:BLP policy page and -- if Mugginsx is correct -- the policy explicitly changed. If you don't like the fact that I have done this, please revert. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Repeated talk of "defamation" and WP:No legal threats

Someone advised me that another relevant issue here is that constant references to Defamation actually may be bordering on being problematic in terms of [WP:No legal threats]]. Repeated statements like "this is defamation" might also be interpreted to mean "I'm going to see that Wikipedia is sued". Even if the person saying it doesn't mean that, and even if others don't consciously understand that, it hangs over the talk page, poisoning the conversation. There is a big difference between saying something goes against WP:BLP policy, which is what I always say, and repeating over and over again "defamation" and "we " or "you might get sued" in response to edits one does not like. So perhaps that's the way this kind of repeated ad nauseum accusation has to be handled. Thoughts? CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Attempt to answer question #1 from above

I'm sure I'm going to regret getting myself involved here, but it looks like nobody else is stepping in to offer an opinion, LOL. I would say that editors may use a WP:RS that has negative information about people who are otherwise non-notable, but are important to the topic of an article, assuming that the information is not used in a WP:Undue Way or violates any other Wikipedia policies. Editors should take care to discern if the negative information is potentially defamatory or violates privacy laws. Obviously, defamation and privacy law violations are prohibited by Wikipedia policies for good reasons, including exposure to risk just by linking to them. There is a great deal of WP:RS "negative" information, however, that does not constitute defamation or violate privacy laws. Sorting it out may require careful consideration. If an editor feels that something is defamatory, it is probably best to temporarily pull the material down and sort it out on talk pages where consensus can be reached before it is re-inserted. Would someone like to highlight a particular link that they feel constitutes defamatory material? Please post the link (assuming it's a WP:RS) and indicate which material therein is problematic, along with the specific rationale as to why you perceive it to be legally actionable defamation or a privacy law violation. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 21:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

AzureCitizen: I list the specific examples and their links at the top of this section with a short description of each. I have also expressed concerns about not only the article content, but the links that contain mostly information about negative things about the persons described and negative information either peripheral or not at all related to the murder case. I will reprint that section here for you: I am only listing the examples here I inititally presented. For all other comments please see the beginning of this section'.

The Krystal Holloway controversy seems to have been settled on the Talk Page under the section: Krystal Holloway and subsection Draft of Krystal Hollowaybut. It was about the July paragraph entered into the article being factually inaccurate as to the statements that Ms. Holloway actually said about what George Anthony did or did not know about what happened to Caylee. The tape and her Carols new link: http://www.kvia.com/news/28403325/detail.html eventually ells the correct statement. It is way down the page. http://caseyanthonyisinnocent.com/trial-videos-3-casey-anthony-trial-witness-video-and-witness-testimonies/krystal-holloway-june-30th-2011/ According to Carol's latest outline that paragraph should be factually accurate though there is a question as to Baez re-direct which I have not had time to listen to. It is on the article talk page under Krystal Holloway and Carols draft in directly underneath.

As to the defamation issues and the WP:BLP issues: Yes, I believe that it can be considered defamation to even link to a site that contains personal defamatory information about a non-notable person which may adversely affect his livlihood and reputation. These are the references used by CarolMooredc in the Death of Caylee article that are in dispute: Some of these references are still in the article but the references #'s may have changed since User:SlimVirgin and others have done a partial restructure. But here for you to look at for the basic question: Are they defamatory? Is linking to a libelous or defamatory site repeating the defamation or libel? That is the primary question: Ref# 28 http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2009-01-14/news/casey14_1_kronk-sheriff-office-angelo-nieves is supposed to reference Roy Kronk but mainly contains information about a Florida police officer as "failing to properly investigate a threatening telephone call in March 2007, and was being investigated... and it goes on about the police officer, a non notable person, leaving only a very few lines about Roy Kronk, the man CarolMooredc is supposed to be referencing. A BLP issues, since the officer is not a notable person and is not part of the Death of Caylee Anthony article except previously mentioned only as an "officer". http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2009-04-11/news/cain11_1_cain-kronk-caylee-remains

Ref #29 - http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2009-04-11/news/cain11_1_cain-kronk-caylee-remains mentioned the police officer again by name and states that he is "is facing being fired" (which he was) it goes on and in the entire article which is almost entirely about the police officer, there are only six lines about Kronk, stating the office was "rude" to him. This too is supposed to be referencing ONLY Kronk.

Ref #30 - http://www.wftv.com/news/18530178/detail.html contains information about the "heart shaped sticker" which Kronk does not describe but was attributed to him. It seems that CarolMooredc had revised the paragraph about Kronk which contains NO mention of the heart-shaped sticker contained in the article she uses as a reference to Roy Kronk. It was actually the police who mentioned it.

Ref #31 - http://www.cfnews13.com/article/news/2011/june/259603/ is about Casey Anthony crying in court when seeing the pictures of the skull and the fact that court had to be adjourned early. It has two lines and three words about Kronk making a 911 call. As a paralegal I have always believed and was made to believe that "repeating a defamatory or libelous statements is making the statement again", meaning that the new statement is libelous to the person who speaks it, or reprints it. http://www.dba-oracle.com/internet_linking_libel_lawsuit.htm Linking to a defamatory web page is republishing the web page is one site. There are others: http://www.bitlaw.com/internet/webpage.html#defamation and this one that is Canadian but refers to the suing of Wikipedia, and this one whch is admittedly more about general liability: http://carnahanlaw.com/nl/webliability.html Mugginsx (talk) 22:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not something is peripheral, or simply unrelated to the case, can certainly make a particular item subject to editor judgment (and hopefully consensus) for inclusion/exclusion from a given article. I'm assuming the real problem here on this board, however, is whether or not something is defamatory? Is there a particular link you would like to examine and shine a spotlight on whether or not there is concern that it is defamation? Let's take them one at a time, if anyone is interested. AzureCitizen (talk) 22:18, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The only examples were about a paragraph stating that George Anthony had foreknowledge of a crime and then the above examples I repeated here for you. i.e., Ref 29, 30 and 31. That was it. Mugginsx (talk) 22:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Is there a specific one you would like to look at first, to parse out whether or not there should be a defamation concern? Please post the link below, then below that add your specific concern as to why you assess that it's defamation. AzureCitizen (talk) 22:55, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2009-04-11/news/cain11_1_cain-kronk-caylee-remains This references is supposed to be about Roy Kronk finding the remains of Caylee. It's actually entitled: " Police officer faces firing" and talks about this police officers poor record as a policeman, etc., and has only about three lines about Kronk. Mugginsx (talk) 23:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. :) I've now read the Orlando Sentinel article at that link and noted that it contains some brief information about Kronk finding Caylee's remains, while mostly containing unflattering information about the Orange County deputy sheriff who Kronk said was "rude." Is there something in particular in that article that you're concerned might be legally actionable defamation? I'm heading out for dinner shortly but promise I'll check back later to respond... AzureCitizen (talk) 23:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think that it mentions too much about the policeman's trouble and can he not sue to damages that the wide circulation of this article (which is bigger than newspaper circulations and without their protection) inhibited his ability to get employment and support himself and possibly his family. After all, we don't have his police personnel record before us. andisn't a regulation about non notable people and negative information on Wikipedia as well? You caught me at a time when my mind is just about exhausted, I am not the brightest person at this hour but I think you get my gist. This is the second article in a row of references which is supposed to be about Roy Kronk and is mostly about the police officer who is mention by name in the reference but never mentioned by name in the article. Mugginsx (talk) 23

45, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The reasonable thing to do is determine if another reference can support the related fact which is included in the article without the addition of undue defamation. From discussions I have observed, The reference title can in and of itself preclude its use, even if the information is otherwise related. Especially when another reference is likely available. My76Strat (talk) 23:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I fully agree. But this is one of the reasons that User:CarolMooredc brought me to this board, and you can seeby her comments she disagrees with the principle and the examples being defamatory, BLP issues or even inappropriate. Mugginsx (talk) 00:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Insert to correct of what probably are many mis-statements about my concerns, but it's far too much for me to read: Let me note that because of all the hyperbole about defamation, my initial impression was that there was to be no mention of certain topics at all, not that the desire was merely to replace references. And if nasty titles can disqualify a reference, someone could have fun replacing half the references in the article that say nasty things about a woman acquitted of murder. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

One last example: the first ref http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2009-01-14/news/casey14_1_kronk-sheriff-office-angelo-nieves is again supposed to be about Kronk finding the body, but then they mention he owes $10,000 in back child support and was accused of kidnapping a former girlfriend and a "sealed" record about something else. To me, that takes the cake.

Finally, these are the sites that I presented that state the possible legal issues that are the heart of the defamation-libel claim: that "repeating a defamatory or libelous statements is making the statement again", meaning that the new statement is libelous to the person who speaks it, or reprints it: http://www.dba-oracle.com/internet_linking_libel_lawsuit.htm Linking to a defamatory web page is republishing the web page is one site. There are others: http://www.bitlaw.com/internet/webpage.html#defamation and this one that is Canadian but refers to the suing of Wikipedia, and this one whch is admittedly more about general liability: http://carnahanlaw.com/nl/webliability.html That is the crux of my argument, Mugginsx (talk) 00:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

(Am now back from dinner, and I see that there are several intervening posts; I will start by responding to the concern regarding the deputy sheriff filing suit) Obviously, if the Orlando Sentinel article was defaming him and we republish that by linking to it, that's a problem. But we haven't yet tackled precisely why we believe the negative information in the Orlando Sentinel article is legally actionable defamation. Sure, it's very unflattering, but an official investigation by the Orange County Sheriff's Department found him negligent and the relevant authorities suspended him (confiscated his badge and gun, told him he can no longer represent himself to the public as a deputy, etc). Isn't that a matter of public record? Wasn't he a minor public official in that capacity? Do we have any credible reasons for doubting the truthfulness of this report? The deputy may well indeed have trouble finding future employment in the law enforcement field, but I'm having trouble seeing a viable cause of action for defamation here, regardless of whether or not this story reaches wider circulations or who publishes it. Perhaps after you've had time to think it over further, you could clarify again precisely what the defamation concern might be. No rush!  :) Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 01:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

As I say above in #2, replacing refs because they allegedly contain defamatory material not used in the article with equally good refs for material referenced might get annoying (especially when the person repeatedly replaces properly formatted references with Raw URLs.) But the replacement of the reference is not against policy.

However, the initial problem in #1 "Can we use WP:RS that have negative information about people who are non-notable, but important to the topic of the article, assuming the information is not used in a WP:Undue way." seems to have been resolved. I can see that rather than try to get a general ruling here, as I did initially, the best thing is to bring specific problems as they arise. (Including questionable claims that that some information, even if it comes out in legal documents or testimony,is so defamatory an individual just might sue all the wikipedia editors on the article. Per my comment above.) So I'm finished here myself. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The main problem is that the reference, as titled is not about the death of Caylee Anthony, it is about the police officer. While it would be perfectly fine in an article about the officer, if he was otherwise notable enough to have an article, it is UNDUE to promote his personal shame, in the name of WP:V, especially when another source can substantiate the fact which is related to the article. The article also states that an appeal is underway, and while a news organization has certain first amendment rights, and can retract a wrong statement, it isn't entirely clear that an encyclopedia enjoys the same protection. And it is Wikipedia policy which primarily exceeds the minimum requirements of the law. To the extent, Casey has some unfaltering headlines, that is like an apple to an orange, in that she is notable, and directly related to the article. IMO My76Strat (talk) 03:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I see that now. In the context of all the other yelling about defamation, it just seemed to be one more questionable example, especially since it had taken a while to find that source. But someone else found another source for the info, so that was fine. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

AzureCitizen: Am I understanding this correctly? To conclude about the police officer, two answers in one statement 1)As to defamation: "that because it is true, it is not defamatory, or probably not defamatory unless the newspaper got it wrong and we used it." 2) You are upholding my assertions that linking to a defamatory (or) libelous source is defamatory and/or libelous in and of itself? That is a key point to me because I keep telling editors that and that newspaper have special rights that we do not have. Mugginsx (talk) 10:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

As to My76Strat: As to Wiki guidlines: WP:UNDUE - the reference should not be used in the article because it is not about the article title but the police officer. Did I sum up you answer correctly?

That is a fair summation of my opinion. My76Strat (talk) 12:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you My76Strat. I agree. Mugginsx (talk) 13:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

AzureCitizen: Do you agree with my summation of your opinions? If so, I just have one more example and I am very grateful for your expertise and time. Here it is: The first ref http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2009-01-14/news/casey14_1_kronk-sheriff-office-angelo-nieves is again supposed to be about Kronk finding the body, but then the interviewer mentions he owes $10,000 in back child support and was accused of kidnapping a former girlfriend and a "sealed" record about something else. To me, that sounds like any inappropriate source for defamation and WP:UNDUE. My 76Strat, would you also care to comment on this last source as well and then I would be so grateful as to giving this matter a rest because it has been a bone of contention with myself and other editors on other sources and content. (See Archive 9 of article talk page section: Some possible BLP issues for futher reading if you want). Mugginsx (talk) 10:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I have less problem with this second source. It is appropriately about the subject of the article, references valid facts for inclusion, and should not be precluded for a cursory mention that one could classify as negative. If the reference was titled in such a way as to itself be about Mr. Kronk and his personal finances, then I would consider it off track and UNDUE. This is my opinion, and as I stated earlier, I am interested to see where consensus aligns, because it is a compelling consideration. My76Strat (talk) 13:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Azure Citizen and My76Strat - I agree it is compelling and I thank you once again for your response My76 strat. I worry about it in the legal sense. Remember, it not only refers to his finances, but a kidnapping complaint which went nowhere so we do not have any proof if is true or false claim from his old girlfriend AND a mention of a legally protect "sealed" complaint (which could be the same complaint but we do not know). At any rate it has nothing to do with the death of Caylee Anthony I will look forward to AzureCitizen's opinion on this too for a consensus opinion. Mugginsx (talk) 13:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

(Replying collectively to both editors and several postings above) Mugginsx, yes, you've got it right - 1) these articles are not defamation in my opinion and 2) if they were defamation and Wikipedia linked to them, we'd be republishing libel which is actionable. The article about the deputy sheriff is entirely factual based on matters of public record, and even if he appealed it, it wouldn't change the facts reported (and he actually dismissed his appeal and requested that he be allowed to resign a few weeks later anyway). The information about the meter reader isn't a problem either... the fact that he owes $10k in child support is a matter of public record (anyone can get that information from the clerk's office), and he voluntarily went on television and publicly talked about being accused of kidnapping and getting his record expunged, etc.

As a side note, in the United States, testimony given in court is privileged against suit for defamation. If witnesses had to worry about whether or not what they said could be held up to civil suit standards for what is "true" and "false" regarding other people and defamation, they wouldn't be able to freely testify. Of course, that doesn't mean they are free to lie either, as we criminally prosecute people for perjury. Ordinarily, imputing someone else committed a criminal offense and communicating that to third parties in speech or print is defamation per se if it's false. However, if person A testifies in court that person B told them (assuming a hearsay exception) that they murdered person C, it's privileged and cannot be used in a civil defamation suit regardless of the truth or falsity. Now... if we as Wikipedia editors state this as a fact in an article: "person B murdered person C," we'd better be very careful about the truth or falsity of that fact! Were they convicted for it? If so, better to rephrase as follows: "Person B was convicted at his trial for the murder of person C." But even if there wasn't a conviction, we would also be safe to make a statement such as this, complete with an iron clad reference citation: "At person B's trial, person A testified that person B told them they murdered person C," along with whatever other relevant facts and outcomes came out of the trial, including the fact that they were found not guilty if that was the outcome. Imagine the problems our free and open society would have if the media and even just individual citizens would have communicating about these sorts of things if they couldn't even do that without fear of being sued!  :) Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

AzureCitizen makes excellent points. As does User:My76Strat when he writes: I have less problem with this second source. It is appropriately about the subject of the article, references valid facts for inclusion, and should not be precluded for a cursory mention that one could classify as negative. Obviously we can theorize about all sorts of things that would make it problematic. Obviously disagreements on these things should be brought here on a case by case basis.

I note that WP:BLP and WP:Libel link to Defamation which has a tag saying it needs attention from an expert (but no talk page explanation of why). (Have asked elsewhere for people to review whole article.) Bottom line, however, is that information must be FALSE. If it's just negative, it's not necessarily defamatory or against BLP policy.

Now re: the Kronk info in article Mugginsx brings up. Is the problem there is no equally good source with the same info? If there is what's the issue?? Again, since I finally figured out much of what Mugginsx kept repeating "defamation" about was merely his/her to desire to substitute sources, not remove material entirely, I don't care about replacing WP:RS if the new one properly source info that's in the article.

However, just an interesting aside I'd like to point out regarding Kronk "was accused of kidnapping a former girlfriend" - this actually would have been relevant to the article had the judge allowed it in the trial, esp. because I read at the Central FL News 13 timeline info that makes one think he tied her up with duct tape. The defense actually was promoting a theory that Kronk did it. I assume there are other refs on that topic. So IF that was the only ref for some important info, I would say, keep it in. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

AzureCitizen, Thank you, Thank you, Thank you for delineating the legal points. You are good! and also good, I might add, at explaining intricate legal issues. I know you did not want to do this but I think it has been a big help to me personally, and to Wikipedia editors everywhere. I see the noticeboard it busy with issues peripheral to this and I think you words are extremely important for any Wikipedia editor to read. We are fortunate to have you here. My issues are satisfied. I will memoralize on a word document, along with other discussions of this kind for my "continuing edification". Thank you.

If Carol has no other questions, perhaps we are through? Mugginsx (talk) 19:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Enough for me. Hopefully the last few comments summarized everything since reading through everything should the issues arise again could be a bit much :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

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

The dispute in question concerns a quote that was added by a newly-created account to the Somalia Affair article (c.f. [4]), a page to which the Shidane Arone bio re-directs. The quote was taken from an opinion piece [5] by one Kevin Myers, an outspoken journalist. Here is the quote and passage in full as it was added to the article:

"The soldiers concerned received sympathy from an unusual source in 2011. In an article condemning the provision of famine aid to starving Somalian children, Irish commentator Kevin Myers attributed the atrocities to "despair" at the ungovernable nature of the victims. "Everyone who has ever soldiered in Somalia has left in disgust.... The Canadian Parachute Regiment was actually disbanded after its despairing troops committed shocking atrocities against locals in the 1990s."^[1]

As can be seen above, the passage is potentially libelous vis-a-vis the people of Somalia, especially the part that alleges "the ungovernable nature of the victims". As such, I have pointed the account to WP:NOTSCANDAL, which states that "articles and content about living people are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libellous or infringe the subjects' right to privacy". WP:QS likewise stipulates that questionable sources are those "which rely heavily on rumor and personal opinion", and that as such, "questionable sources should be used only as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves[...] They are unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties." Since the material that was added was potentially slanderous personal opinions about a third party by an individual (who is also not an expert in any of the areas concerned), those opinions belong on the gentleman's own biographical article. In addition, WP:BLP instructs that "editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page", that "WP:BLP applies to all living persons mentioned in an article", that "it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment", and that "editors should "remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced". It also states that "criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone." However, the passage in question is sourced directly to an opinion piece that the man that is being quoted personally wrote i.e. a primary source. In fact, no reliable secondary source appears to have quoted or even discussed his remarks (only a few news feed pages [6]). Please advise. Middayexpress (talk) 11:40, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

It would also appear that the Immigrant Council of Ireland (ICI), among others, have officially accused Kevin Myers of racism and journalistic unprofessionalism vis-a-vis other articles that he has written in the recent past on Africa (c.f. [7]). This seems to further render the opinion piece a questionable source since, per WP:QS, questionable sources "include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional, or which rely heavily on rumor and personal opinion. Questionable sources should be used only as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves[...] They are unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties". Middayexpress (talk) 11:40, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The opinionated comment, from a columnist in his own column, has been removed - which seems reasonable imo. Its not really about libeling a large group of people - its just his opinion is a bit, perhaps on the external fringe side and as such we would need assertion that his opinion was noteworthy in the article which it isn't at all. imo. Off2riorob (talk) 12:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok thanks. Middayexpress (talk) 12:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree w/the way this was handled. Concur that it is a reasonable approach here.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Could we get some extra eyes on this article, and in particular the section titled "Corruption allegations"? Two of the three sections don't seem to have anything to do with corruption, and the first section seems to be based on three different translations/interpretations of the same statement, from three different wire services, turning one complaint into three separate charges. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Not sure how to do with the first or second paragraph, but the third was easy to fix. --Dweller (talk) 10:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

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

This article of Manchester City FC player Aleksandar Kolarov has been edited a few times now. The edits are always corrected by me. The article is inappropriately edited, by changing his full name to Muhammad Hassan and his birthplace to Kenya - both incorrect. I have corrected everything that needs to be , however I still dont know how to add a photo. Please add a photo of Aleksandar Kolarov and lock the page so that it may not be modified incorrectly again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoravaiDrina (talk • contribs) 07:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I've watchlisted the page, and left a warning for the IP address that made these incorrect changes. Strangely, the same IP tried to do something similar to the Ryan Giggs article back in January - it's possible they really don't understand what's going on, and are trying to use these pages as a basis for a player profile of their own, but are failing to save it somewhere different.

However, as regards Aleksandar Kolarov, this erroneous change only seems to have been made once in the last month, as far as I can see. There was some more problematic vandalism back in May, but in my opinion the situation is not problematic enough to merit semi-protection of the page yet.

I can help you add a photo, however the question is, do you have one that is freely licensed, or could be freely licensed? For example, if it's a photo that you own the copyright to because you took it yourself. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• Israel Hanukoglu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Could somebody with relevant expertise please take a look at this article. It somehow made its way onto my watchlist & I just reverted the unexplained IP removal of its sole ref. It then occurred to me to wonder why the sole ref in an Israeli intellectual's BLP is in Indonesian -- which is why I'm bringing it here. May be fine (and just another poorly-sourced BLP), but may be fishy -- so I thought I'd play it safe. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Can't explain why it's in Indonesian, but I added a decent hebrew language ref I found on his he: article, in case that Indonesian one is junk. --Dweller (talk) 09:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I have some understanding of Malay which is partially intelligble with Indonesian and it looks to me like the only thing the reference says about Israel Hanukoglu is that he started the Israel Science dan Technology website and that he was a science advisor to the Israeli PM from 1996 to 1999. The ref it self appears to be primarily about proving Amdocs is an Israeli not a US company. (It mentions Israel Science dan Technology as it says it lists Amdocs is an Israeli software company.) In other words it isn't a great ref and doesn't establish notability but what it appears to be about Re: Israel Hanukoglu doesn't seem likely to be that contentious, although the Israel Science and Technology Homepage bit could probably go without some evidence it's significant when it comes to Israel Hanukoglu Nil Einne (talk) 14:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

User:BlueonGray is again disruptive on Ricardo Duchesne (1 and 2), after he has been already so in February and March. His edit history shows him to be a clear single-purpose account who apparently holds a grudge against Duchesne. BlueonGray has already been the subject of a incident report in March where he was warned by User:Off2riorob on his talk page about his disruptive bahaviour. BlueonGray's actions also led the article then to be included in the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Watchlist by User:C.Fred. However, BlueonGray has never cared to replied, neither on his talk page nor on that of Duchesne, and now he just picks up his intransingent edit pattern where he left in March. I believe the user should be blocked for an extended period of time for an unwillingness to adhere to fundamental WP policies, namely WP:ALIVE and WP:Discuss. Involved users are notified. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Ricardo Duchesne is, at best, a marginal academic with negligible influence within his discipline. It remains an open question why there is a biographical entry for him at all. Biographical entries of living persons should be created for persons of some significance. In the case of a scholar, one obvious and uncontroversial measure of that significance is the number of times he or she has been cited. The fact is, according to Google Scholar, Duchesne has been cited only 15 times. Factual information about scholarly influence should be included on a biographical entry on a scholar. What justification does User:Gun Powder Ma have for censoring the fact of Duchesne's limited influence? This censorship runs entirely against the spirit of Wikipedia's openness and commitment to factual accuracy.--BlueonGray (talk) 16:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

UPDATE - Actually, according to Google Scholar, Duchesne's best known work has been cited only 12 times. If Duchesne is indeed a significant scholar, then there should be no problem in including this fact in his entry.--BlueonGray (talk) 16:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

If you believe that the subject doesn't meet the WP:ACADEMIC guidelines, take it to WP:AFD. – ukexpat (talk) 16:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I will proceed there and provide strong evidence that the subject does not meed the WP:ACADEMIC guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueonGray (talk • contribs) 16:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Apologies: forgot to sign.--BlueonGray (talk) 16:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• - The BLP has now been nominated for discussion and possible deletion at ...

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ricardo Duchesne (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - Off2riorob (talk) 03:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

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

As with this biography, and with that of Jack Layton, there is a reference to the 2005 meeting in which Paul Martin sought support from the NDP for his minority government, and the claim is made (but with no supporting reference) that Jack Layton demanded a ban on private health care from the Liberal government in return for propping the government up.

The fact is, there are no news agencies which make any claim to know what was said between these individuals. The failure of these two to reach an agreement resulted in Stephen Harper's election, and so it is a politically contentious question as to who bears responsibility for the failed negotiation. Wikipedia should not be making assertions about the substance of these negotiations without citing authoritative sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brendan.Osberg (talk • contribs) 12:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Hi,

I am Jeff Kostoff, swimmer, and someone keeps posting false and inappropriate information in my bio. They keep posting a statement about my involvement or a commercial on the Party Poker website. I HAVE NO AFFILIATION WITH THIS WEBSITE AND I NEVER HAVE. They also seem to have this obsession with me allegedly yelling the word "Balls." I suspect this is a former student from when I taught history at Rockville HS in Maryland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.93.217.2 (talk) 15:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, you should send an email as described on Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem; this will alert the Wikimedia OTRS team that there is an issue. I'll watchlist the article now, but OTRS inervention will make it more likely that this content will be kept out of the article. Puppy (talk) 15:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

There is a discrepency in this article concerning Lita's birthday. Underneathe her picture, it says September 23, 1958 ... but the opening line of the article is says 19, September 1958. I think the one under her picture is correct but now I'm not entirely sure.

Here's the link to the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lita_Ford

Thanks!

Beth — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.116.187.166 (talk) 16:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll correct the discrepancy and add citations. Thanks! Gamaliel (talk) 17:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Farrah Gray's original name is Farrakhan Khalid and he is the son of Khalid Abdul Muhammad (a prominent and wealthy Nation of Islam member). This information keeps being removed from Farrah Gray's wikipedia page and is an essential part of his upbringing.

It should be removed because it's unsourced. I've also removed his birthdate, which is also unsourced. Finally, I note that the article is a mess.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I noticed this edit which adds a signature to an infobox of a living person, and it appears the signature is a newly uploaded image of an autograph. There was a discussion about this issue at Jimbo's talk which pointed to a proposal at WP:Signatures of living persons. What is current feeling on this practice? It appears the editor (Hindustanilanguage (talk · contribs)) is doing similar edits on other articles, and I will let them know about this question. Johnuniq (talk) 12:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

My view is that unless the signature is historically significant (the Founding Fathers, signers of the US Constitution, Elizabeth I, John Hancock etc) signatures of the living or dead serve no encyclopedic purpose whatsoever and should be removed from iboxes. In the case of living people, there are additional concerns with possible identity theft and fraud. – ukexpat (talk) 19:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, when celebrities go on signing/ autographing spree, they know the obvious risks. And I believe that they do take adequate precautions. Arundhati Roy is no single celeb to have her sign/autograph posted on the internet. How do you explain many other celebs including living heads of state whose autographs are posted on the internet? Hindustanilanguage (talk) 06:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with UKexpat's points. Don't see the encyclopedic value and the downside is possible ID theft. We have to be careful with BLP's. A little caution here would be good I think.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 10:35, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

FWIW - "autographs" are not the same as "legal signatures." Anyone trying to cash a check with a copy of what the celebrity furnishes as an autograph will be quickly disillusoned! (Even applies to George Herman Ruth, by the way) Collect (talk) 18:21, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, in my experience the most important thing about cheques is that there is some kind if ink in the proper field. A recognisable name is not usually required, let alone a unique signature. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• I have removed almost all/all of this User:Hindustanlanguage's additions of claimed uncited autographs and asked them to stop adding such without consensus support/discussion here. Uploading some signature without any verification that it is released and citable as noteworthy is simply not verifiable or encyclopedic. Off2riorob (talk) 19:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

It is interesting to try image searches for "[famous person] signature" - it often returns results and does in the case of the aforementioned Arundhati Roy. We are not Google though and our image policies are different; I mention this merely to establish that it is not an overwhelming security issue. I don't believe that many of them are worth including though. violet/riga _^[talk] 20:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I think ukexpat explained the situation well: there are cases where a signature is significant, but the examples I looked at in the current discussion appeared as non-encyclopedic fluff to me. We don't put someone's favorite color in their infobox, and we don't include their autograph (without good reason). Johnuniq (talk) 02:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for removing/ deleting all my contributions, Off2riorob. But:

1. Is it not rude on your part to ask a person not to edit signature on hand, and on the other unilaterally carry out a massive editing operation.

2. If you really believe in democracy and human rights, you should wait for the other persons reactions (For example, you asked me not to include any autograph in any article, give me some time to react to your order / appeal).

3. The autographs I have posted are from my personal collection. In fact, many have my name/my family member's name in the accompanying letter. I don't want publicity. I only want to share something with fellow Wikipedians. I am sure no one knows my name and probably will never know.

4. Please consider me also as a fellow human being.

5. Although I would not like to edit autographs / signature in the infoboxes till a decision is taken, justice demands that unilateral decisions taken by Off2riorob are undone immediately, i.e. till a decision is taken, let the existing autographs be in their place. Whether further inclusions are needed or unneeded shall be discussed later and I will fully cooperate in this direction. Hindustanilanguage (talk)

WRT the specific instance of the Roy autograph - a person who engages in "autograph signing sessions" and whose autograph is widely bought and sold is precisely the type of autograph which is reasonable on Wikipedia. One who has such sessions is producing autographs in abundance, including on letters, and the implication is that she is not using any signature which could be used to defraud on a legal document. This would not apply to persons who do not hold "autograph signing sessions" by the way. The only BLP issue would be fraud - which is not here present. Collect (talk) 12:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I mostly agree with Collect. Including a well-published signature or autograph is not a BLP issue. If it is useful or desirable is an independent question that may well be decided differently in different situations, and should best discussed elsewhere. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

It may or may not be a BLP violation, but what about the wider question of encyclopedic value? What is the encyclopedic value of including a signature/autograph such as Roy's? Answer: none. – ukexpat (talk) 12:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

If it is useful or desirable is an independent question that may well be decided differently in different situations, and should best discussed elsewhere. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Where is the verifiability - the citation to support what it is? I also see there alleged autographs as completely encyclopedic-ally valueless - this is my position wherever you discuss the issue. First issue which has BLP issues as regards verifiability is where are the reliable citations to assert they are what they are claimed to be? - None of them should be replaced without a WP:RS - the days of - trust me, its an autograph I got in 1987 at a book promotion are long gone (imo other users might support the inclusion of such uncited user created and disagree with me). User:Hindustanlanguage says, "The autographs I have posted are from my personal collection. In fact, many have my name/my family member's name in the accompanying letter." - although I assume good faith - that is different to verifiability. - you will notice I removed them with an edit summary of "uncited" - that as I said is my primary issue with these additions after that its "notability" and educational value? and also the low quality of some/all of them. As Stephen Shultz says , which unless there are complicating factors I agree with, "Including a well-published signature or autograph is not a BLP issue." Off2riorob (talk) 16:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Similarly an article could say, with perfectly reliable sources and therefore not a BLP issue, that the subject "has a cat named Spot", but unless that is somehow relevant to the notability of the subject, it is of zero encyclopedic value. – ukexpat (talk) 19:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Ukexpat. I got into this issue a while ago, possibly on the Robert Pattison article, but I'm not sure. There are lots of parameters in infoboxes that serve very limited purposes for a small subset of articles. Unfortunately, many at Wikipedia think that if it's a fact and it's sourced, that's the end of the issue. It's just the beginning.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The big issue which is probably missing in all the discussions is that what are the "accepted" opinions of Wikipedia itself?

1. What is the difference between a ‘signature’ and an ‘autograph’? Consider the cases:

a. Arundhati Roy signed her autograph for me?

b. Arundhati Roy gave her signature to me.

c. ‘to sign’ means ‘Mark with one's signature; write one's name (on) something’.

d. ‘signature’ is the noun form of the verb ‘sign’.

e. Autograph is ‘something written by one's own hand, usually by a celebrity’.

Hence policy-wise there is absolutely nothing wrong in uploading autograph as signature. It is completely wrong to undo the good work done by me.

2. When this person Off2riorob requests not want me to carry out editing of autographs as signatures, decency demands that he quote the accepted rule / norm about the autographs. Further, he should at least give me sometime to react – positively or otherwise.

3. Consider the Wikipedia article on Manmohan Singh:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manmohan_Singh --check signature part. The signature is in English and Hindi and is uploaded not by me but my the user: Connormah. Now compare a autographed letter uploaded by me: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ManmohanSingh_AutographedLetter.jpg

What’s the difference do you find? Which is an autograph and which is a just a signature? Admins first make a distinction been autographs of living and dead persons, then notability, then encyclopedic value, etc. What I say is where exactly is a written rule / norm in all such matters. If there is no written rule or norm, then how can Off2riorob carry out a ‘dissection’ of my articles?

4. The question of notability is very vague when you consider some of the Wikipedia pages such as:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spouses_of_presidents_and_prime_ministers_of_Iceland
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spouses_of_German_presidents_and_chancellors
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_First_Ladies_of_the_United_States

Is being the spouse of a president / head of state so special that you find a special mention on Wikipedia?

• - WP:Other stuff exists - Off2riorob (talk) 21:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

5. I have uploaded about 300 autographs. Initially I wanted to uploaded autographed photos. But there was an objection on account of copyright issues. So I was forced to restrict myself just autographs (without photos). The autographs which I uploaded include:

• David Ben Gurion.
• Niels Bohr
• Ernest Hemingway
• Dr John C Mather
• Faiz Ahmed Faiz
• Ho Chi Minh
• Mark Tully
• Milton Friedman
• P G Wodehouse
• Sania Mirza
• C V Raman
• Sirimavo Bandaranaike
• Host of celebrities from India / Asia and the world

In fact, Category: Autographs of the Wiki Commons mostly contains autographs uploaded by me. Does that mean no interest or encyclopedic value addition. How is it that Wikipedia fully encourages its volunteers to demotivate people like me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hindustanilanguage (talk • contribs) 07:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Your attempts to improve the project content is appreciated but imo in regard to policy and guidelines a bit mistaken. Category: Autographs of the Wiki Commons mostly uploaded by you are at least commons compatable and wikipedia readers and users can do what they want with them, which is great if users want to use them - but according to wikipedia policy and guidelines they can not add them to en wikipedia articles. Off2riorob (talk) 21:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Hindustanlanguage commons uploads - the user says he has uploaded three hundred of these unverified autographs.... have a look at the users uploads ... such as this http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ShazTamkanatAutographedPostCard.jpg . Please do not add these to any wikipedia en articles thanks. - Off2riorob (talk) 21:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC) Off2riorob (talk) 21:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean by this user has uploaded 300 unverified autographs? Compare, for example, the signature of Dr Manmohan Singh at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manmohan_Singh and the letter signed by him uploaded by me - you can verify things before your eyes. Similarly, the verification of a number of autographs can be found on the Wikis themselves. I fail to understand your efforts to ridicule a dedicated contributor. When want to downplay my contributions, you choose the example of an upload autograph in a language not known to you. What about the uploads, especially the ones I have mentioned in the example ? There is nothing wonderful in hurling abuses and downgrading others if you are part of a larger and more conducive forum. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 05:27, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

As I said, "Your attempts to improve the project content is appreciated " - I am not attempting to ridicule you in any way. If you can verify something in a WP:RS and you think it has value to the information in the article then great - please remember, wikipedia is not a reliable source in itself. - also imo neither is just look at the claimed signature and how much it is similar to my uploaded claimed autograph. As for the Singh signature , you would have to ask to uploader where he got it from as its basically uncited and unverified also. Off2riorob (talk) 06:19, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

My dear Off2riorob, when there is a rule in the English Wikipedia for one user, it should be equally applicable for all. You have taken the trouble to undo my editing work as well stopping me from further editing about autographs/signatures. You should follow the same rule for others such as the uploader you have cited. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 07:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I would like to amend all such issues but its a great big wiki and I just do what I can - I suggest it may be beneficial to you to introduce yourself to the User:Connormah - he seems quite an experianced contributor and interested in and has uploaded similar files as you, have a chat with him as to how best to resolve this, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 19:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with Connormah. In fact, even before you tried to enforce a moratorium on my editing of signatures/ autographs, I saw Dr Manmohan Sigh's autograph in two languages posted by him. I must admit that even though could cut the english autograph and upload it in place of Connormah's uploaded link, I didn't because his upload is superior (in two languages).

But the whole issue has blown out of proportion when you tried to delve into my editing history and undid my work without at least discussing things with me. So the onus falls on you to adopt similar stance for other editors as well. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 07:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry - I can only do what I have energy and inclination for I am a volunteer - I reverted your contributions because they were uncited - So ? Off2riorob (talk) 18:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Why is it that you are unleashing your energy only at me and not others? Hindustanilanguage (talk) 04:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Moreover, why is it that Off2riorob thinks a citation is required? The current version of today's featured article has five images with captions, including on in the infobox, and none of them have citations. The few citations I've seen in captions are for facts not derivable from the caption (e.g. a photograph of a plant with a caption discussing similar plants), and I've never seen one for the inclusion of an image without a caption. Richard Dannatt, Baron Dannatt was just promoted to FA this week, and it contains a photograph without a citation proving that it's the subject of the article. Signatures need no more verification than photographs: it's just as easy to create a fake signature as it is to take a photograph of a random person and claim that it's someone else. Nyttend (talk) 23:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Have you looked at some of the signatures? How do they help the article? Johnuniq (talk) 23:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I hope "the signatures" means signature uploads of Hindustanilanguage as well as all other users such as Connormah. In targeting me, you people forgot to adopt a similar stance for others. Further, the debates of living v/s dead persons and celebs with signing sessions v/s relatively reserved celebs also subsided. Only I am being stopped from contributing to Wikipedia and my work is wholly undone by Off2riorob without bearing any of these considerations in his(?/her) mind. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 06:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I want a reply to my query, Off2riorob, you cannot possibly adopt different stance for me and someone else. Also, you cannot undo my work in its entirety without bearing the two debates cited above. For example, how could you remove the autograph/ signature of Tudor Arghezi from his biographical article when he died in 1967? Also, what about the valued contributions of people like Connormah? You did not scissor his work on similar grounds.Hindustanilanguage (talk) 05:47, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

This discussion may be helpful. Connormah (talk) 16:37, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

To paraphrase Clinton, it depends on how you define "helpful". For me, it shows more about certain kinds of Wikipedia discussions than anything else. I suppose it also shows that this isn't a new issue. I will now sign my comment.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:56, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

—Preceding undated comment added 08:24, 22 August 2011 (UTC).

There is clearly no consensus support for their replacement in this discussion - as others commented - if your interested, join in the discussions at the signature discussion. Perhaps you should take them one at a time and discuss on the talkpage of the individual articles to see if there is support to include them - Is this sort of thing in the infobox beneficial to a biography? - Harold Wilson for example - Off2riorob (talk) 08:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I repeat my earlier unanswered post: In targeting me, you people forgot to adopt a similar stance for others. Further, the debates of living v/s dead persons and celebs with signing sessions v/s relatively reserved celebs also subsided. Only I am being stopped from contributing to Wikipedia and my work is wholly undone by Off2riorob without bearing any of these considerations in his(?/her) mind.

I want a reply to my query, Off2riorob, you cannot possibly adopt different stance for me and someone else. Also, you cannot undo my work in its entirety without bearing the two debates cited above. For example, how could you remove the autograph/ signature of Tudor Arghezi (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:TudorArghezi_Autograph.jpg) from his biographical article when he died in 1967? Also, what about the valued contributions of people like Connormah? You did not scissor his valuable and commendable work on similar grounds. You only want me personally approach you for every editing work - something unique to en:Wikipedia. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 09:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Just because your recent edits were removed doesn't to suggest I have a duty to go remove all similar historic similar additions. This is not personal about you at all. As I said, why don't you go join in the discussions and help form a policy. Also , you are foccusing on me and that is never going to find tyou a resolution - and what part of my comment - "Perhaps you should take them one at a time and discuss on the talkpage of the individual articles to see if there is support to include them " - asserts you have ot ask me for permission for anything? You link to Tudor Agahzi also - perhaps users could comment as to the biographical value of this one as well - he is expired but its another example Tudor Agahazi autograph - it is Is it acceptable within policy to add such as this and is this something beneficial to allow project wide? - note - the autographs are personal collection and unverified. Off2riorob (talk) 09:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

1. It was you who first unilaterally undid my work.

2. Further,it was you who made fun of me by your post : User:Hindustanlanguage commons uploads - the user says he has uploaded three hundred of these unverified autographs.... have a look at the users uploads ... such as this http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ShazTamkanatAutographedPostCard.jpg . Please do not add these to any wikipedia en articles thanks. - Off2riorob (talk) 21:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC) Off2riorob (talk) 21:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC) This assertion is made without understanding the text or context, person, language, etc.

3. Similarly, it is your personal love, affection, care and concern to promise instant deletion of my edits.

4. You are unwilling to share this love affection with any other person such as Connormah.

5. Still the enthusiastic assertion continues : "the autographs are personal collection and unverified." - This again is only for me as usual. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 10:13, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Two signatures are already updated :

• Tudor Arghezi
• Arundhati Roy

Regards, Hindustanilanguage (talk) 10:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

In some fields, persistence can be good, but it is not helpful to persist when other editors are trying to tell you that adding signatures to infoboxes is not a useful activity. Collecting autographs and inserting them into articles is a form of original research (how can other editors verify the information?). There are plenty of people who are photographed signing documents (e.g. the leaders of various countries), so an argument can be made that their signatures have encyclopedic value because other sources have commented on the signature (or at least, they consider the act of signing a document to be significant). That reasoning does not apply to every living person: the infobox does not record their favorite color, or the name of their pet, or quite a lot of other things. Johnuniq (talk) 11:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Adminship Abuse of Power: Off2riorob himself suggested "it is acceptable within policy to add such as this and is this something beneficial to allow project wide" in connection to the inclusion of Signature of Tudor Arghezi above. He also suggested talk-page discussions and inclusion of signatures in the articles in phases rather than in one go. I included the signatures of Tudor Arghezi and Arundhati Roy in their biographical articles and immediately posted a message on this noticeboard so that people could discuss my editing work. But overlooking his own statements, (s)he removed the signatures of Tudor Arghezi and Arundhati Roy which I had included in the biographical articles almost immediately and unilaterally. Is this not an instance of glaring Adminship Abuse of Power ? Hindustanilanguage (talk) 08:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Although Off2riorob's approach continues without letup (as known from his silence to my above post), let me highlight a very valuable contribution made by me ( http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:KingHussain.JPG ).

This autographed photo uploaded by me is used on the following pages of the English Wikipedia:

• Hussein of Jordan
• Portal:Arab–Israeli conflict
• Portal:Arab–Israeli conflict/Biography of the Month
• Portal:Arab–Israeli conflict/Biography of the Month/archive

Non-English Wikipedia as follows:

• Hussein al Iordaniei
• Hussein o Jordan
• Husajn bin Talál

Let me assure everyone that I am nowhere involved in the editing of the above files. So if I am given a freehand, I would like to continue with my constructive editing work. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 06:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Your king hussain of Jordon appears ot be a likely copyright violation - and has been tagged as missing evidence of permission at commons since August 4 - are you the person that took the photograph? are you the owner of the copyrights of that picture? Off2riorob (talk) 13:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

arbitrary break

• I for one do agree that the autographs, which were never published elsewhere, probably shouldn't be used on wikipedia. It is not an issue I take with Hindustanilanguage, but it is impossible to verify all such real or potential uploads as to whether they really do belong to the people in question. We do not have a reliable publisher implicitly staking their reputation that these are not forgeries or blunders, we have a wikipedia editor with a collection of letters. In my opinion, WP:AGF cannot work on that level of authority.
  But if I'm wrong and we do keep the autographs, can we at least crop out the unsightly and irrelevant portions that have been blackened out, the dedications too? If there's anything we need, it is the signatures themselves, not the polite waves to a "Mr. [inkblot]". Dahn (talk) 14:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Adminship Abuse of Power: Off2riorob himself suggested "it is acceptable within policy to add such as this and is this something beneficial to allow project wide" in connection to the inclusion of Signature of Tudor Arghezi above. He also suggested talk-page discussions and inclusion of signatures in the articles in phases rather than in one go. I included the signatures of Tudor Arghezi and Arundhati Roy in their biographical articles and immediately posted a message on this noticeboard so that people could discuss my editing work. But overlooking his/her own statements, (s)he removed the signatures of Tudor Arghezi and Arundhati Roy which I had included in the biographical articles almost immediately and unilaterally. Is this not an instance of glaring Adminship Abuse of Power ? Now he is issuing editing warning on my talk page. How far is his stand justifiable. By the way King Hussein is not my king - I am not Jordanian. Please restrain yourself. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 04:08, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Is it acceptable within policy to add such as this and is this something beneficial to allow project wide? - note - the autographs are personal collection and unverified. - is the correct question I was asking, please excuse the small error that has led to the confusion - Off2riorob (talk) 04:31, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Still looking for an answer from you - Your king hussain of Jordon picture upload appears ot be a likely copyright violation - and has been tagged as missing evidence of permission at commons since August 4 - are you the person that took the photograph? are you the owner of the copyrights of that picture? - Off2riorob (talk) 04:22, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Nancy Lee Grahn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I think it would be helpful to get a couple additional eyes to review the birthdate information at Nancy Lee Grahn. The birthdate that was originally in the article was April 28, 1958 which was sourced to her Santa Barbara profile. Yesterday an IP continued to change the date to 1956, using Intelius only as a source, specifically this link . I pointed out that Intelius is not an acceptable source for personal info in a BLP (i.e there is no way to even know the Intellius page is referring to the same individual asthe article subject) and a previous query at WP:RSN noted it was not reliable. I explained this both in my edit summary, as well as on my talk where the IP commented "It is what it is and she and fans will have to deal with reality". This does not sound like an impartial comment. I went back to the article, cleaned up a bunch of uncited personal information and added an additional, published source for the birthdate (Gale's Contemporary theatre, film, and television), but the edits have been undone again by the IP, restoring the Intelius based date and all of the unsourced personal info. At this point I would appreciate fresh eyes as the IP obviously will not stop until the Intelius ref is accepted. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 14:34, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

'Ponyo' is using a fan site of capridge.com and a self-supplied old 'who's who' type book to 'document' a birth date of 1958. I am using a site intelius.com (which uses credit, government, and other data) - and ancestry.com (you need a paid subscription to see the data - and it says 1956) and is extremely reliable, well-known, and used by researchers for genealogy worldwide. Also, this actress is well-documented as having attended Niles North High School in Skolie Il, (many cites say 1976) however, she does NOT appear in the 1976 class book as a graduate or undergraduate, see: http://www.classmates.com/yearbooks/Niles-North-High-School/16558 but a sibling is in there as a freshman. I cannot help it if actors want to appear younger than they are; the documentation does not support it. I could create a hundred web pages saying I'm 10 years younger than I am, but the real paper trail won't support it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.201.148.108 (talk) 14:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

1) I did not add the capridge.com reference, it was already included in the article. 2) Intelius is not a reliable source for personal information in a WP:BLP. 2) Ancestry.com is not a reliable source for personal information in a WP:BLP. 3) What you are inferring by looking through online yearbooks is original research and not viable as a reliable source in a BLP. If the Gale reference is not seen as reliable enough to retain the 1958 date, then I propose the date be removed altogether unless and until a solid source is included for verification. This would be wholly inline with BLP policy when such instances arise. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Per the BLP I have removed the DoB pending resolution of the sourcing issue. Everyone OK with that? – ukexpat (talk) 16:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

That's the direction I usually go when dealing with this type of discrepancy. Could you also take a peek at the other unsourced personal info I removed in this edit? It was all restored to the article when the IP undid my edit. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd rather see it left blank than continue the drivel by Ponyo. according to him/her re: ancestry.com - he claims it's user generated?!?! So - he decides ancestry.com is unreliable and then uses that to discredit others using that? Ancestry.com IS NOT USER GENERATED. It has a searchable database and provides links to images from the US Census, Ellis Island immigration/arrival records, Social Security death index, images from thousands of newspapers, and thousands of other sources etc. So I suppose I put my own great-grandfather's WWI draft card on there? Or my grandmother's Ellis Island record? HAHAHHAA. You can't do that. I think you should edit out his comments on that one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.201.148.108 (talk) 16:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

OK enough, please keep the discussion civil. We have a resolution for the moment. I will, however, add that the records that ancestry.com provides access to are primary sources. Please read WP:RS for guidance as to what the community here regards as reliable sources. – ukexpat (talk) 17:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Gale is an extremely reliable publisher of secondary sources, the kind of sources we should be using instead of doing original research with general databases with no real indication that the person we find is the same person in the article. We are not here to do original historical research, that is the job of biographers. I'm restoring the citation to Gale on this basis. Gamaliel (talk) 17:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

A final note, I'm not sure anyone who edit wars to insert this tidbit into a BLP should really be editing the article at all. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 13:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, that does put the anon's behavior in a new light, doesn't it? Looks like instead of an edit war that's boiled over, we've got a grudge match. Gamaliel (talk) 14:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

 – directed to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Romania and translated by User:Dahn on userpage

Hello. I will be thankful if anyone could leave an English translation of the following Romanian text of Tudor Arghezi's signed note ( http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:TudorArghez.JPG ). Regards, Hindustanilanguage (talk) 09:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

This is not a BLP noticeboard issue - You might ask at the - Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Romania - Off2riorob (talk) 13:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Serious WP:UNDUE problem here. The only plausible solution is to fill out his biography with more information, as the craigslist incident surely deserves some coverage. He's been in Congress the Indiana House of Represetatives for 10 years, there must be some information about him.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Started with his official state website bio information. -- Avanu (talk) 17:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted that as a copyvio as it is far too close to the original source and generally state government materials (as opposed to materials produced by the US federal government) still enjoy copyright protection. Gamaliel (talk) 18:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Please check the signature of Nazeer Akbarabadi in his biographical article - it is just a print of the name in Urdu and not a signature. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 08:40, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Luke Evans (actor)‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Users are desirous of categorizing this living person as LGBT actor and LGBT from Wales - when it is clearly disputable - a decade ago while promoting his parts in homosexual focused films he declared as homosexual and recently there are reports that he is suggesting his private life is private and has recently been reported to be dating a woman - clearly although he did self declare a decade ago - there has been no follow up to that declaration at all - no boyfriends no relationships with same sex subjects and not the subject tis dating a woman - clearly as per BLPCat there is a disputable position here - content is king and insisting on labeling his sexuality in the situation imo is clearly controversial. Off2riorob (talk) 21:49, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Off2riorob is apparently trying to take this through as many venues as possible, since the talk page consensus is against him. Alright, let's run through this, back in 2002 and 2004, the subject, Luke Evans, had fairly lengthy discussions in a number of interviews in reliable sources about his homosexuality and how open he was about discussing it and not being in the closet and all of that. Fast-forward to now, a reliable publication caught wind that Evans is reportedly dating an actress, Holly Goodchild. There is a quote from Holly in that publication, but there is no quote or any seeming discussion from Evans, so his dating her is still just a rumor in that regard. Another reliable gay-oriented publication sought out Evans' manager to ask him to clarify on what Evans' sexuality actually is, since he stated he was gay in the past, but is dating a woman now. The manager just responded that Evans had been far too frank about his life in the past and that there will be no more discussion about his personal life.

And that's all we have. Evans has made absolutely no statements in regards to dating Holly, so we don't even know if that's true or a publicity stunt, and he has made no new statement about his sexuality, whether he identifies as heterosexual or bisexual at this point in time. Because WP:BLPCAT relies on self-identification for adding categories about people, the only self-identification we have is his statements in the past that he was gay. Everything else currently is just hearsay, as Evans himself has said nothing on the subject. Therefore, until he makes a public statement saying otherwise, we should be currently considering him gay in regards to his past public statements in that nature. The moment he states otherwise, we will change our views, but in terms of BLPs and categories, we can mostly only go off of info that is directly stated by the subject. So, the cats should be included for now, until Evans says otherwise to his sexuality, if he ever does. Silverseren^C 22:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Correction - She's a PR agent. AlbionBT (talk) 22:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

So, not even his manager? That makes it seem more...PR-ey. Silverseren^C 22:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have clearer. Holly Goodchild is a PR agent. AlbionBT (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC).

Agreed. AlbionBT (talk) 22:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Off2riorob, having watched this one from the sidelines, both sides of this dispute seem to be making assumptions that they should not make. We have no idea how many men and/or women Evans has been involved with since the interviews in which he declared he was gay - all we know is that no one has produced sources which identify any girlfriends or boyfriends. What we do know is this - he said he was gay in earlier interviews and now he is reported to be dating a woman (the fact that she works in public relations is probably not relevant for our purposes). Although you seem to be suggesting that Evans is now straight and other are suggesting he is now bisexual, both due to the "girlfriend", what we need to know is how Evans himself categorizes his sexuality. We do not know that. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree. A small quibble. Off2riorob refers to a decade--the latest source in the article with an interview in which he self identifies as gay is from july of 2004, which would be roughly seven years ago, not a decade. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

We're not suggesting that he is bisexual just that in absence of a statement changing the record, we have to go on his only previous statements regarding his sexuality which classed him as gay. Bisexuality was only brought up to refute Off2riorob's idea that being linked to a woman suddenly made him straight. AlbionBT (talk) 22:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, I wouldn't put him being bisexual into the article without a source quoting him saying so. Silverseren^C 22:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

That isn't the impression I get from reading the talk page. I suggest all parties in this dispute need to step back and let others try to work things out here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:31, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

There's a difference between bringing up a point in discussion and proposing it to be included in the article. That said, I do agree that it has gotten a little heated and that we should all step back for the time being. Though, I would like to say that, as with the previous discussion, this isn't a BLP violation issue and the talk should probably move back to the talk page. AlbionBT (talk) 22:52, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I see nothing wrong with categorizing Evans as gay based on his self-declaration. I think it's a bit much, though, to say that the report of his dating Goodchild is just a "rumor" unless Evans himself confirms it. We report dating on a lot less than that without classifying it as a rumor. As an aside, I think the sentence currently in the article ("In September 2010, Evans was romantically linked with a woman.") is just plain silly. It makes "woman" sound like an epithet. We should report on the relationship in the usual way, naming Goodchild. As to what it means to say that he said he was gay and is dating Goodchild, that's up to the reader, not us.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

It did originally name her but Off2riorob argued that it should be remove since she's 'not a public person'. AlbionBT (talk) 22:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that makes good sense. And we need to work through this carefully and calmly, since WP is now part of the story in places like Gawker. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:34, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I was fine with putting her name as well. As Albion said, it was Rob who thought we shouldn't put the name. Silverseren^C 23:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

She is a private person named in a single article was the reason to keep her name out of the article - wikipedia would immediately become the primary source of her name, something that is not encouraged. As a not notable person that is not widely reported about the naming of her in our article is of no specific benefit to a reader and yet not naming her is beneficial to the privacy of the woman.Off2riorob (talk) 23:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't get that. First, she's obviously mentioned in a public source. Second, she's described as a fashion industry expert (whatever that means). Third, what if Evans married someone who was a "private person"? We'd still the include the spouse's name. Finally, what policy or guideline supports that view?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Its editorial judgment and BLP privacy. I also remove such spouses names and children's names also they are worthless to the readers educational understanding of the notable issues and the privacy is respected - we are requested not to allow wikipedia to become the primary source of information about basically private not notable people. Off2riorob (talk) 23:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, at least you're consistent, but I see no support for it, other than a very expansive interpretation of BLP guidelines. You're speculating as to what people want. What makes you think she wants to be private? She's quoted in the article. And even if she did, how does it harm her? I can see, for example, removing personal identifying information about non-public figures (like dates of birth), but she's just dating the guy, and we're just reporting her name. With some actors, they date serially lots of different people. If they are not public figures (in your view), what are we going to say? So-and-so dated Person #1 and then Person #2 and then...--Bbb23 (talk) 23:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

* Enough already - this is yet another campaign being waged by an editor in his war to remove any suggestion of homosexuality or bisexuality from this article. First he doesn't want it mentioned at all. Then he supposedly agrees to a compromise and immediately begins editing to undermine the compromise. Then he starts questioning the reliability of the sources. Then he jumps on this weird "he hasn't said it lately" bandwagon that I absolutely don't get. And laced through it all are misrepresentations of both Wikipedia policy and false accusations regarding the conduct of other editors.

• This is ultimately a very simple situation. We have someone who, in the last instance he made any statement of his sexuality, declared himself openly and unambiguously as gay. That declaration in and of itself is sufficient to categorize him as gay. We cannot assume on the basis of his supposedly dating a woman and in the absence of a statement from Evans that his sexuality or his self-identification has changed. If it is somehow seen as too controversial to categorize a man who says he's gay as a gay man, then put him in the LGBT categories. William Bradshaw (talk) 23:18, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

You are losing the point - his homosexual comments a decade ago are not what he is notable for - hes a movie actor and not a very notable one of those. This is not the gay times - get over yourself. This is an educational encyclopedic publication, this persons minor homosexual statement from a decade ago is worthless in the scheme of things - he hasn't even had a named same sex relationship. He is not a notable gay person - hes barely even a notable movie actor. Off2riorob (talk) 23:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Never heard of the fellow myself, then again I don't usually remember actors. What his sexuality has to do with anything is quite odd, and rather intrusive. John lilburne (talk) 23:28, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

(ec) William Bradshaw, the LGBT cats are being objected to. User:Off2riorob, he's clearly notable in our terms, and it is arguable that those who are trying to remove the references to the reliably sourced information about his orientation are causing public controversy. And "get over yourself" is not exactly assuming good faith. Best to loose "decade" 'cause it ain't been that long... --Nuujinn (talk) 23:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

With respect to the "get over yourself" comment, in all fairness to Rob, William's comment about a campaign wasn't helpful, either.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

::::: I don't know what else to call it but a campaign. Multiple challenges to the same piece of information across multiple forums. William Bradshaw (talk) 01:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, but you miss the point, you don't need to call it anything. Your opinion about Rob doesn't need to be expressed at all. It just distracts from the substance issues.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I disagree, Rob. First, it doesn't matter whether he's "barely notable" as an actor. If he's insufficiently notable, then you should nominate the article for deletion. Second, his coming out was related to his acting career, so it meets that prong of WP:BLPCAT. Third, he doesn't have to have a "named same sex relationship" to be gay. In the interview, he said he had a boyfriend, but it wouldn't matter if he never had a boyfriend. Is someone not heterosexual because they never have a non-same-sex relationship?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:31, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

John lilburne, you may wish to read the relevant references, that should, I think, clarify what his sexuality has to do with his career. The short version is he did not start out as a blushing violet in G rated movies. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:34, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Whatever- he has never had a same sex report apart from his own, and now he is advertising some other sexuality - some would laugh and say it was all promotional, kissing the (whatever) of the people that were paying his salary at the time - now its the hetrosexuals. Anyway - a clear positive that has come out of this trivial crap is that its not notable on wikipedia to simply be homosexual , you need a notability related excuse to add it. The claim here is that his career didn't suffer...suffer, f, this whole crap has been a worthless suffering - Off2riorob (talk) 23:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sorry, Rob, but that's all speculation on your part and arguably a BLP violation to say so without support. And I thought the whole idea of WP:BLPCAT was self-identification, so why do we suddenly need another report "apart from his own"?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Hes more notable as a homosexual than a movie actor. Its not speculation at all its all cited. Hes a notable homosexual who has done some acting. Off2riorob (talk) 23:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

What's speculation is your statement about him doing all this for promotional reasons. As for notability, the problem is there's almost never any way to truly satisfy the notability prong of WP:BLPCAT. How is being Catholic related to an actor's notability? Or being gay? Or being straight? My view is - and always has been - we should do away with these categories, but I'm stuck with them and the policy. So, the only way the policy can possibly work is if there is some way to satisfy the notability prong, and here I think it's been sufficiently met.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:51, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Its just an off wiki homosexual promotional tagging group, in a bit they will all go and I will tidy up after them. as I usually do - we should be less obliging and enabling of such desirous activism. Off2riorob (talk) 23:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

^ Yeah, Rob has been repeating that personal attack a lot lately. Silverseren^C 00:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Bbb23, I agree wholeheartedly regarding the value of these cats, and about Williams's comments. Off2riorob, please assume good faith, we're not all part of some cabel. I can't help but note that if you really do believe "Hes more notable as a homosexual than a movie actor" then you should not be objecting to the cat at all, but rather the movie references. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Suit yourself how you take it, theres no personal attack though. If I have violated WP:npa PLEASE POINT IT OUT - THIS IS CITEABLE OFf WIKI - just an off wiki homosexual promotional tagging group, in a bit they will all go and I will tidy up after them. The fact that a fair few homosexual single purpose users have been around and came from the homoseual chat thread is pretty imdesputable - so whats the personal attack - I would despise such enabling by experianced users if it was related to off wiki five a side football Off2riorob (talk) 00:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not following this at all. Maybe I'm not suspicious or cynical enough, although most of my friends say I was born a cynic, but which editors are you talking about and what homosexual chat thread? Even assuming some editors have an agenda, their motives are immaterial to the issue of whether Evans should be categorized. Personally, I have no agenda, I'm just discussing substance, policy, and guidelines, and I'd rather stay clear of the other stuff, frankly.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:28, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

He's talking about William Bradshaw and AlbionBT, specifically, though there are quite a few other new users and IP addresses that joined the talk page discussion and the other discussion halfway up this noticeboard. Quite a few of them, i'm sure, are from someplace off-wiki where this was announced, but most of them have been using policy based arguments, so it's not a very big deal. Furthermore, as I explained to Rob, William Bradshaw joined back in July, before this whole debate, and has been editing a number of LGBT topics (which is fine, we have a number of experienced users that stay within a single topic area as well). Silverseren^C 00:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for filling me in. How do we know it was "announced" somewhere else? "Tagging group" sounds like a homosexual gang (laughing).--Bbb23 (talk) 01:28, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I dunno. I thought a link had been given somewhere in the previous discussions, but I just looked through all of them and didn't find one, though I did notice that Rob has been repeating the existence of this off-wiki group multiple times throughout the previous discussions, but never given a link to it. I suppose we should just ask him for a link, since he's the one that keeps mentioning it. Silverseren^C 01:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

:* I don't know what "desirous activism" is but calling people who appear to be trying to participate in these discussions in a good faith and productive manner as an "off wiki homosexual tagging group" strikes me as nothing more than an attack on those editors. Saying "in a bit they will all go and I will tidy up after them" is as clear a statement as can be that the editor is unwilling to participate in the consensus-building process in a meaningful good-faith way. Whatever resolution is reached, Rob will "tidy it up" by changing it to whatever he thinks it should be. William Bradshaw (talk) 01:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

William Bradshaw, please assume good faith (think of it as a mantra). I'm not happy with the comment, either, but I think it reflects frustration more than anything else. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:38, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

:::: I'm sorry, but an assumption of good faith in the face of what I consider pretty compelling evidence of bad faith is not warranted. I started my involvement with this article assuming the good faith of everyone involved but one of the people involved has engaged in repeated conduct that makes it impossible for me to continue to do so. Whether he's frustrated or not, saying that he's not going to allow the edits that he doesn't personally agree with to stand regardless of the consensus that's reached smacks of rank ownership issues and a failure to maintain objectivity. Ideally, yes, this should all be about the article and the policies and not about the individual, but at some point when it's the same individual starting fire after fire after fire over the same exact thing all over Wikipedia there needs to be a community statement that enough is enough. William Bradshaw (talk) 01:46, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

This is the same argument you're making at ANI, and it's not going over well there, either. Nuujinn and others are telling you to let go. You're not helping yourself by failing to heed their sound advice.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

He's an actor, his sexuality was mentioned in tangential relationship to his career - but in all the noise no substantial source dealing with the impact/links to his career has surfaced. I am always discomforted by the drives to get people tagged as homosexual (or otherwise) because its usually driven by some personal desire (either to disparage or laud) based on minimal sourcing. --Errant ^(chat!) 02:12, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Evans took roles that pertained to his sexuality. He specifically came out before acting in Taboo because he was going to be playing the sexually confused character. And then, in Hardcore, he played a gay porn star. We've already given the sources that discuss it, but here they are again. The Advocate. QX Magazine. Silverseren^C 02:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

What is your point? River Phoenix played a gay street hustler, Nigel Hawthorne played King George III, Ian McKellen played Gandalf the Grey. John lilburne (talk) 11:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Except the actors you quote did not have reliable sources discussing their roles and the relationship to their own sexuality, including interviews where the subject also discusses as such. Evans' sexuality had an impact on his early play work, as he sought out roles that he was able to attune to due to their relationship to his own sexuality. Silverseren^C 12:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

And? In the first place only two of the three were gay, and in the second place whether they prefer oysters or snails none of it makes one bit of difference as to their notability as actors. John lilburne (talk) 15:38, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The interview with the Advocate clearly that he himself saw a link between his career and his sexuality, "How did you decide you're going to be open about your sexuality? Well it was something that I'd spoken to a lot of people about, including my boyfriend--we've broken up now--but at the time when I just got Taboo, I knew that even though my part was a straight character everybody knew me as a gay man, and in my life in London I never tried to hide it….I knew I was going to have to do interviews with gay magazines, I knew this was going to happen. So I thought, Well, I'm going to have to be open. It's who I am. And if people don't like it, then I don't want their jobs" That does not strike me as a tangential relationship between his sexuality and career--the interview is about his coming out. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As Bbb23 notes somewhere above, these categories (sexual orientation/religious beliefs) are inherently problematic and I would be of the opinion that they need doing away with too. That aside, and relating to this particular case, Evans self-avowed homosexuality was highly notable at the beginning of his career due to the roles/plays he appeared in, the interviews he gave and even the fact that he was quite happy to "out" himself, going so far as to draw parallels with George Michael and the unsavoury way in which GM got found out. He says (regarding his decision to be open about his sexuality) "if that means I'm going to be a poor man at 60, then at least I've lived a happy, open, gay life and not had to hide it from anybody".

As far as I can tell, he never spoke about his supposed heterosexual relationship and the woman only appears to be one of his friends now - recent gq article - I would have thought that if there were a relationship she would have been noted as his girlfriend.

So, the current version of the article with the LGBT cats is suitable in this instance, IMHO. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 13:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I read the two sources that appear to be our sole source of material here - they aren't very compelling. Given they are gay advocacy magazines we have to be a little careful taking their material out. There seems no critical discussion of the impact of his sexuality on his career, which is what leaves me uncomfortable using the categories - he is not notable for being a gay actor. He is notable for being an actor, and at some point in the past has spoken about being gay. He has taken gay roles, yes, but many actors do that (indeed, the sources vaguely mention lots of straight people he has worked with in gay roles!). It happens that in real life he is also gay.. well, whatever. As I said; there is nothing very compelling there. --Errant ^(chat!) 13:52, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I am more than a little tired of gay-interest publications being called into question as reliable sources for gay-related articles. As I have noted in several of the many tedious discussions about this subject already, Sports Illustrated is not questioned as a source for sports-related articles. The Wall Street Journal is not questioned as a source for economics articles. The New York Times is not questioned as a source for New York-related articles. And no non-gay-interest source ever seems to be called into question for any story on the basis of its not being gay-themed. Yet The Advocate and other gay-themed sources are viewed with suspicion based on their having a non-heterosexual perspective. It's rank double-standardism smacking of heterosexism.

We're also talking about a category here, so I'm not sure how compelling the sources need to be. Compelling is not a criterion I'm familiar with in discussions of notability, reliability, verifiability, etc. His notability isn't the issue, the question is whether the cat is appropriate. In the two interviews Evans discusses the relationship between his career and coming out, and that seems sufficient to me. And I'm not familiar with cat policy, do we require that a person be notable for the attribute that ties them to the category? --Nuujinn (talk) 21:57, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

::::::: There has been no evidence presented that any gay-themed source has fabricated, misrepresented, misquoted, distorted or otherwise taken any action by which the reliability of its material related to Evans should be of concern. The sources include information from Evans himself regarding the link he at the time saw between his sexual orientation and his acting career, including both his choice of roles and the potential adverse effect that being gay could have on his career. The sources more than adequately satisfy any policy or guideline for categorizing gay people as gay, or at the very least LGBT. William Bradshaw (talk) 21:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC) FWIW and without taking any sides on the matter: [8] shows a person soliciting others off-wiki:

Please, there is a campaign to pay him back, by vandalizing any page he edits. This is the only way to get him back, because no one will prevent him from editing according to his religon or his politics.

[9] shows another example:

This vile woman really does HATE the gay community. She has spent the entire weekend zipping back and forth to Wikipedia, dropping poisonous homophobic comments, attacking anyone who may be different than she is--pretty much the rest of the world.

Anyone, absolutely ANYONE who says that Rudy was not 100% straight gets it in the neck from this spiteful, homophobic, racist, anti-Semitic, friendless, opinionated piece of trash.

Let us hope, then, that justice will be served today.

Might appear to be off-wiki lobbying on the topic. [10] appears to solicit editors:

Other registered users, such as Vipinhari, have undone the homophobic vandal’s posts, and blocked his/her IP address. Unfortunately, someone committed to such hate speech can continue their activities by switching to another computer at a different location, so continued monitoring of these pages is crucial to Wikipedia continuing to offer helpful and accurate entries.

So it is clear that solicitation of outside editors to edit on Wikipedia on the basis of sexual orientation exists, and has existed for a long time. In fact, editing of Wikipedia articles seems to be a major topic on "anti-homophobia" sites. [11]:

Wikipedia editors are oft-accused of personal agendas, and some users in the ensuing deletion discussion question whether this was another case of "gaywashing"; others say that Wikipedia is just sticking to its policies

[12] even has a comment asking for votestacking overtly.

Crockspot, a homophobic conservative nazi is being voted in as admin as I post this message. This provides the link to the page in question. Having this cockroach transform from an impotent bottom feeder into a person with power would seriously damage Wikipedia’s reputation. Cockroachspot would go on a facist rampage and ethnic cleansing of anyone who doesn’t distort information into his twisted Bush agenda POV. Go by and vote as soon as possible if you’re a member. If not, registration takes about thirty seconds. If you care about not being misinformed every time you google anything having to do with politics-then don’t just vote but email anyandeveryone you can. Trust me, your friends will show up by the dozens–and we only need a few dozen more to put the nail in his coffin.

Seems moderately clear. For fun see [13] [14] has a comment:

A while back I pointed out the clearly anti-gay bias of several editors demanding the deletion of a article about a gay hockey player. They were furious that I dared to speak my mind

So it is reasonably clear that Wikipedia is frequently the topic of anti-homophobia sites, and that such sites frequently encourage members to become Wikipedia editors with the object of defeating the homophobia. Quod erat demonstrandum. Collect (talk) 14:02, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll accept what you say on faith, Collect, as I had trouble with almost every link above. And I guess I'll have to assume that this is what Rob was referring to, although he's never said. Has any editor involved in this discussion been actually tied to any of these off-wiki websites? In any event, although it satisfies my curiosity, it doesn't change my view. The issues for us are still the same, the application of policy to the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• Since none of those articles have anything to do with Luke Evans, I fail to see the relevance of you posting them. As for the idea that they are anti-homophobia sites, most of them are personal blogs, one is a left-wing forum and another is a Toronto local interest site. You can't say Q.E.D. when you haven't proven anything, all you've said is that at some point in time a call was made for people to register to get rid of an editor who apparently had gone on an anti-Semitic homophobic rant at a completely different article. You don't know whether anyone actually took up the offer and you've put forward no evidence to say that this is even what happened here.

Bbb23, the fabled 'off-wiki gay chat thread' that Off2riorob claimed anyone who disagreed with him came from still hasn't been linked to.AlbionBT (talk) 15:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Note that a link to these on-wiki discussions was posted on AfterElton.com. People coming from this site may not be aware that per WP:BLPCAT, Wikipedia requires public self-identification for LGBT categories, and that should be current. It is a fact of life that people may change attributes like their religion or sexual self-identification. For example, if someone publicly self-identified as a Scientologist in 2002, but has since withdrawn that public self-identification, then it is no longer appropriate for Wikipedia to categorise them as a Scientologist today. This is a similar case. His publicist's statement and the reports of his relationship have changed the status of his public self-identification. Wikipedia's BLP policy tells editors to be conservative, err on the side of the individual's right to define their religion and sexual identity, and edit from a clear presumption in favour of the subject's privacy.

The current presence of the LGBT categories in the protected article is a BLP violation in my view, and I have raised an editprotected request on the article's talk page. The Wikipedia default is to exclude BLP-sensitive material, until there is consensus to include it. Cheers. --JN466 14:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

First, there is nothing in WP:BLPCAT that states that the self-identification has to be "current" - talk about a can of worms, are we going to set some arbitrary line in years like words in WP:FILMPLOT? Second, changing one's religion is just a smidgen easier than changing one's sexual orientation. In any event, he self-identified, and he hasn't changed that since.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:37, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

People can and do change their sexual preferences. Although there seems to be an obvious PR involvement in this case, there is cause to question if Evans earlier statements still apply. Unless we have a statement from Evans himself, we simply do not know how he classifies his sexuality at present, which is what we need in order to add the categories. If nothing else, I think the expectation of users is that when the look at the category of "X people" they expect those people to be "X" (which is why we have those "Former X people" type categories). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:47, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:BLPCAT, we need public self-identification, and it is clear that Evans is, for whatever reason – either because his sexual outlook has changed, or because he is just no longer willing to talk about it publicly – unwilling to publicly self-identify as gay. In either case, we no longer have the solid basis for the categorisation that we need. Incidentally, I doubt we would be having this argument if someone who used to be a proud ladies' man announced that he was now in a gay relationship. --JN466 14:57, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I think you're both adding non-existent hurdles to the policy. And, Delicious, although you may think of it as pure political correctness, the phrase "sexual preferences" is offensive to many, and your assertion that people change their sexual orientation is (a) disputed and (b) a little like saying sometimes it doesn't rain in Seattle in December - it's pretty damned rare, to the extent it's even true. But we're all injecting our own views into this, and it isn't necessary. Nothing in WP:BLPCAT requires currentness.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Bbb23, I made no suggestion that it is common for one to change one's "sexual orientation", but we both agree that it does happen. Perhaps part of the issue here is that trying to sort people's sexual orientation into little boxes is ridiculous. Although you are taking offense that I have suggested that people may change their sexual orientation (even though you agree that it happens), I am really just acknowledging that people sometimes find that they have been placed in the wrong box or that the box isn't large enough to accurately reflect how they view themselves. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:35, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I never said I believe people change their sexual orientation. And although it's true that you did not say it was "common", a reasonable inference of your comment is it happens often enough to be relevant to this discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:57, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I took your comment about it being "pretty damn rare" as acknowledgement that it happens. Rare or common, if it happens we end up at the same result so it is relevant to the discussion. Incidentally, what we are talking about here is people changing the labels that are applied to their sexuality, which isn't quite the same thing as changing their sexuality itself although that subtle difference seems to be hard for many people to grasp. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I understand why you interpreted my comments the way you did, although you left out the rather important phrase "to the extent it's even true." That aside, I do agree with your orientation/label distinction. However, whatever Evans has done in his life, he hasn't publicly changed his labeling of himself.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Bbb23, FWIW, the very AfterElton page where the link to this discussion was posted states, Many people have a sexuality that is fluid or realize their sexuality might not be just what it was when they were younger. There is nothing in BLPCAT requiring currentness because it is WP:COMMONSENSE. If someone publicly self-identified as a Buddhist in a reliable source in 2002, and now publicly self-identifies as a Baptist, we categorise them as a Baptist, not a Buddhist. --JN466 15:51, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

In my view, it ain't worth much, Jay. It's one sentence, one view of one person, on a very complex topic. For example, there's a difference between changing one's orientation and understanding one's orientation. There's also a difference between changing from being gay to being straight and changing from being straight to being gay. There's also a difference between changing from being gay to straight, as opposed to from being gay to bisexual, or from straight to bisexual. I'd really rather stick to the facts, the sources, and the policy, and your commonsense view that BLPCAT requires something is not the commonsense view of others, including me.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I've raised the matter at WT:BLP, and proposed a corresponding amendment to WP:BLPCAT, stating that any public self-identification that forms the basis of religious or sexual categorisation in Wikipedia should be current, with no reasonable grounds to assume that this public self-identification has changed. --JN466 17:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, Jay. I've commented there.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

We should never assume anything regardless of whether you feel there are reasonable grounds, doing so is essentially OR. The only statement we have regarding his 'public self-identification' is when he calls himself gay. The later report of his involvement with Holly Goodchild doesn't change that (incidentally, a man can have a relationship with a woman and still identify himself as gay). AlbionBT (talk) 17:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

A man can have a relationship with a woman and still identify himself as an armchair, but that wouldn't make sense to a reasonable person. Just saying. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

It might make sense to a reasonable gay person. :-) Have you thought of exploring your choice of armchair in therapy? Does it recline?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:51, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that oversteps what Evans himself has done. His management issues a no comment statement when they were contacted, and as far as I know, Evans has said nothing on the matter, although I expect that might change. Yes, people do sometimes change sexual orientation, but is there any sourcing supporting that is the case here? And just a hypothetical question--how well would a "former LGBT" cat go down in this case? --Nuujinn (talk) 15:10, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, Nuujinn, please don't suggest even more of these categories - god help us. The distinction between current and former is often missing from categories. Unfortunately, most categories don't even have definitions as to what they are. I guess they think they're self-evident, and as we all know, very little is self-evident on wikipedia. If you want to look at an example of "former", take a gander at an article I nominated for deletion today, List of ex-gay people.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

We do not know if Evans woke up one morning and was no longer gay; has been bisexual all along (but decided it was easier/better to simply say he was gay); is simply playing along with a PR campaign; or some variation on those themes. Without Evan stating that he is no longer gay or bisexual, the "former LGBT" category is equally inappropriate. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

"Equally" nothing. It is completely out of the question. There is a valid argument as to whether LGBT categorization is appropriate or not. There is nothing valid about a former-LGBT cat given the evidence to date. It goes beyond the bound of even OR to being just totally made up. LadyofShalott 15:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. All of these cats related to ethnicity, religion, race and sexuality are problematic at best because the represent a particular slot or box into which the subject is put. What we have is two decent sources in which Evans self identifies as homosexual, and nothing as far as I can that that refutes his self-identification. One editor asked on the talk page whether or not it is expected that people have to 'reup' their self-identification every few years for a cat to apply. If we pull this cat because we think he no longer wishes to be considered gay without any sources, we're just as guilty, I think, of OR as if we make a new "former LGBT" cat. I point out that in the Afterelton aricle, Evans is not quoted, nor his is homosexuality denied--his management simply say that "he has learned not to engage the press in his personal life again." There's no refutation, no clarification, no explanation of motive or desire, and it's not even from Evans himself. So he has self-identifed as homosexual, and has not himself done anything, as far as I can see, to justify our changing the cat or removing it. Given the nature of churnalism, I expect that we may have some additional sources on this before too long, but we have to wait on that. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

No, I disagree with that as well. There's a big difference between not categorizing someone at all and putting on a totally made-up category. I personally think it would be fine to use the LGBT cats because of his previously stated identification as gay. I don't think that leaving them off would be a horrible omission though. If he were out continually making a big deal of his sexuality (whatever it may be), then, yeah, it would matter a lot to have the categories. He's not (now) though, so I don't see why it's such a big deal. LadyofShalott 23:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I understand your point, and it's a reasonable one on its face, but, practically speaking, it opens the door to these kinds of discussions. If an actor publicly announces he's gay, why should he have to continually put himself out (no pun intended) there to justify the original label? In some ways, it's similar to Jay's view that his self-identification has to be current. Why? I can see someone arguing that it might somehow relate to the original notability prong of BLPCAT, but even if that were true, it leads to incredibly subjective (and endless) discussions like the one we're having here.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not opening that gate; that gate's been there from the beginning - this just happens to be a particularly contentious (for some reason) example of what can happen with that notability clause of BLPCAT. The fact is though that we don't encourage people to put articles into every category in which they could conceivably fit. There has always been editorial judgement involved. This case is no different, except that there are some really strong opinions in opposing directions about it. LadyofShalott 23:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The ironic thing for me personally is that I told myself I wasn't going to get involved in this discussion. I've been in other discussions like this one, and I generally find them to be singularly unhelpful and way too long. I should have stuck with my original resolve as I've clearly gone the other way big time. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 00:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Heh! Personally, I don't think we should have cat for sexual preference, religion, race, anything of a personal nature. And if we're going to have them, we shouldn't treat them as either/ors, because that would be an oversimplification. Categories do not apply only to the living, so I find the notion that a cat must be current to be appropriate an absurdity from the getgo. Let's say Author X, 1964-2006, self-identified as red in 1972, and blue in 2001. Which cat is appropriate? If either, then both. But the fact is, people use the cats to push agendas, as unfortunate as that is, and that's why the discussions are so contentious. If we want cat to just be categories, then we have to push the "it's no big deal" aspect, and I have no idea how we'd do that. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

For once an easy question (the red and blue cats): the answer is purple. :-) And no facetious comments about lavender.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

But now you're advocating a category for miscegenation. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

It's just hard to herd cats. -- Avanu (talk) 01:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• I really wish we weren't having this discussion at 4/5 different places. Silverseren^C 19:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree. So I'll be brief, I don't believe that the category is appropiate. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 03:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• I have been uninvolved in this whole matter up until now, and frankly I no longer have any idea which is the best venue to post this in, but...it just seems very obvious to me. He identified as gay. His self-identification as gay has (as attested by sources) been much more important to his career (ie. to the source of his notability) than most LPs' religions. The absolute most we can concede to this supposed relationship with Ms. Goodchild (he has not confirmed it and they have apparently never been seen together) is to refrain from putting him in "Gay actors" and instead keep him in "LGBT actors." Comments like "we don't know the names of any of his boyfriends, so he's not gay" and "he's dating a woman so he must be straight" are absolute nonsense. Lastly, the displays of bad faith on both sides are really shocking, but these comments about the "homosexual lifestyle" and "Wikipedia is not Gay News so we shouldn't talk about anyone being gay" really must stop. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:38, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

A couple of pictures of Evans and this woman that there are claims of relationship have been posted here - if you haven't seen them ask here, and someone will link you to them I am sure. His sexual preference is not a part of his notability - are you asserting he is a notable homosexual? The dispute is that seven or eight years ago he said he was homosexual and since then there has been no reports at all of any homosexual activity - such as dates, relationship and no comments from him at all either - now hes reported to be dating a woman - this is not a anti homosexual drive - its just a disputable label. Do you have reports of recent homosexual activity from this living person? As you can see here from the associated homosexual chat thread and blog posting the title of the article itself expresses the dispute, do you claim there is no dispute about this? - the title "Is Luke Evans Gay? Publicist tries to get his story straight - clearly there is doubt and dispute. - which is all this issue is about here at wikipedia - a fair few single purpose accounts came from the link at that homosexual chat thread imo and a couple are blocked including a homosexual focused sockmaster Otto. - Off2riorob (talk) 21:16, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Being gay isn't like being a AAA member, you don't need to renew your credentials every few years by going out and finding someone of the same sex to screw. Nor is this particularly relevant since you're also, seemingly deliberately, ignoring the possibility that he is bi. Spare us your prejudices and bizarro-world claims about what being LGBT really means - your obsessive focus on the off-wiki Gay Mafia to the exclusion of all policy-based arguments is a pretty good indication that you don't have any to offer, but you could try. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:20, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Spare us your prejudices yourself - if you can assert any recent homosexual activity in regards to this living person then please present it. You can't, I know that. - me, I am like the BBC and reuters I am not interested in reporting titillating claims about subjects sexual preferences. When the LGBT sector matures and accepts itself as normal they will have progressed into my world. I am waiting for an update from him or his management team - but clearly this living person is a long long way indeed from being out and loud and proud and our article should not claim or assert that he is. Off2riorob (talk) 01:36, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

"When the LGBT sector matures and accepts itself as normal they will have progressed into my world" - You are incredibly over the line here. Please retract this. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:25, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Why do you think that observation is an attack? As I read it, the assertion is that the LGBT sector at Wikipedia should adopt the attitude that LGBT is part of normal society and human activity, and there should be no need to label everyone who may have had an LGBT experience. Johnuniq (talk) 02:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Johnuniq, perhaps, but it's a very condescending way to put it. Attack or no, I think it's not civil. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I've seen a statement made by a woman claiming to be in a relationship with Evans, but nothing else. The question is how he self identifies, and his management simply said that they do not comment on such issues, and that Evans now prefers to keep silent. His earlier assertions were that he is gay, and until someone can produce a source that says that he now identifies as heterosexual, I think the cat should stand--that is, unless we come to our senses and get rid of these troublesome cats entirely. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the point was simply the same one being made by The Daily Show here --> http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-may-9-2011/minneapolis-is-the-new-gay

-- Avanu (talk) 22:35, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Ooh, humor, in the midst of Wikipedia turmoil. Thanks!--Bbb23 (talk) 22:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I've been minorly following this discussion but as with others haven't really want to get involved. But since it's still ongoing I have to say I disagree. If he now says he doesn't comment on such issues, this to me implies he no longer wishes to publicly self identify as either gay, bisexual or heterosexual. There's no reason why he should have to self-identify as something else to withdraw his public self identification as gay. (Note a key point here is the fact that he doesn't wish to publicly self-identify in that way doesn't mean he doesn't do it privately, simply that he doesn't wish to do it publicly.) His earlier public self-identification as gay can probably remain the article but the categories should be current and based on current self identification (which as I've said appears to be that he doesn't want to publicly self identify by his sexuality). Note that I'm not saying we should remove all cases when the self identification is old, rather only when we have evidence it's no longer correct, as we do IMO in this case. In fact, I would go so far as to say it's a bit silly if we require self identification for sexuality but then don't allow people to redraw said self-idenfication. Nil Einne (talk) 10:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Except that Evans has not stated a single thing in regards to this. The "no comment" was stated by, presumably, his manager, who just stated that he wasn't going to discuss Evan's personal life. We do not have a single comment from Evans or even a no comment from him in regards to this, we have absolutely nothing beyond comments he has made in the past in regards to his sexuality. Silverseren^C 11:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

My impression is that the statement the manager made was much more then a 'no comment' but something along the lines of 'he's learnt not to engage the media in his personal life'. As I'm currently having major connection problems with wikimedia (something to do with an intermediate server I believe from my quick tests and a comment on IRC) and am using Tor, I don't fancy looking in to it further but am I mistaken? If not, I stand by my comments. I was aware the statements were made by the manager or PR agent, but this doesn't make any difference unless there's some suggestion they weren't representing Luke or Luke later contradicted the manager neither of which I've seen. If that isn't the case, then a statement from someone representing Luke is as good as one from Luke when it comes to the cats (obviously the distinction should be made in the article), it's fairly common after all people rely on someone else to make their statements for them when they would prefer not to directly engage in the media for whatever reason. Heck plenty of statements notable people utter themselves were entirely composed by PR agents. It's not surprising if it's something someone would prefer not to discuss anymore they would often prefer not to discuss it at all i.e. let someone else discuss it on their behalf. It's not up to us to evaluate their reasons but instead accept what has been said. As I said, this isn't something I want to get very engaged in so I probably won't read or respond further although I admit I'm still confused why people feel it that important to put the cats although I admit some of the other arguments for removal are perhaps not that great. (P.S. Just to be clear, the key issue is self identification. I don't think who he's dating, nor when he lasted dated a man is particularly relevant to the cats.) Nil Einne (talk) 11:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)