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

• Rosemary Altea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please note that there seems to be a strong bias against Rosemary Altea on the wikipedia search for her. Wiki should be an unbiased reporting of her at at this point it is not! I have edited the information given about her several times to then find, again, inflammatory information which is clearly biased. It's obvious that whomever is changing what I write has a problem with Altea and what she does. I have several times changed the information to specific un biased general information on this person (who happens to be my mother), (Altea is a new york times best selling author) etc and then a week or so later find that it has been replaced with controversial and clearly negative bias against her.

Please can you help me figure this out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.253.156.243 (talk) 21:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm guessing you're User:Samaltea? If so, then your latest edit, for example, seems to have been reverted on the grounds that you're deleting well cited information. It does seem that the article about her is negative, but the solution to that isn't to delete well cited information, but perhaps to add more positive to balance. For example, do you have references for the New York Times best selling authorship? --GRuban (talk) 15:03, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• Yelena Mizulina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Just created article by SPA about a Russian politician, probably fallout from the recent LGBT controversy there. Bordering on attack page, serious WP:UNDUE issues and excessive personal details. Plus sourced entirely to Russian-language sources. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, this is a really notorious politician widely known for censorship of Russian wikipedia [1]. She is an infamous proponent of anti-gay and anti-children laws. This page has been just created and needs many technical/language fixes, but other than that I do not see any serious and obvious BLP violations.My very best wishes (talk) 19:05, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

We do not call politicians "controversial" in the intro. We do not document the back and forth regarding her son, nor do we care if her daughter has children or not. Certainly don't need to know if she breeds exotic cats. I don't know who Mark Urnov or Dmitri Bykov are, thus I have no idea if their opinion about the subject is notable coverage and merits inclusion under the "Criticism" section. More importantly, I can't tell if the sources say what the article says they say, so I don't know if I'm reading factual information or synthesis and POV original research when I look at all the negative material in the article. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with FreeRangeFrog criticism concerning the fact that more non-Russian language references are necessary. This is however a first version. However, it is important to point out that this article is a direct translation of the Russian-language Wikipedia page. If you do not understand Russian, perhaps you could attempt to open the Russian-language page with Google Translate or a similar app and you will observe this directly. I have not tried to modify the Russian version extensively as I am not an expert on this lady. Concerning your comment on calling Mrs.Mizulina "controversial", she has been directly involved in some of the latest "controversies" that have made headlines in the non-Russian-speaking press concerning Russia in recent times including the anti-LGBT law and the Anti-Magnitsky law. Her opinions *are* very controversial in Russia and the legislation she has pushed forward has caused *controversy* abroad (just browse the media reaction concerning boycotting the Sochi Olympics). Also, you keep saying "we do not". Who is "we"? Wikipedia? Is it really so shocking to call someone that has sought to *censor wikipedia* "controversial" *on wikipedia* (or is it rather an understatement)? The section concerning Mrs. Mizulina's son, is not an attack on her son in any way but part of a section specifically pointing out Mrs.Mizulina's response to criticism, where she has accused a number of people of pedophilic tendances (an extremely serious accusation whether in Russia or abroad) including a well known politician and former Vice Prime Minister for writing an article concerning the fact that her son did not espouse her convictions in respect to LGBT issues. The personal life section simply restates what was mentioned previously in respect to him. I agree that the section can be rendered shorter and the list of all the universities he has attended may not be relevant. Mrs. Mizulina's insistance imposing legislation to promote large families in the families of other Russians, makes the fact that her own daughter does not have children relevant. I disagree with you completely concerning the issue of her personal life - as any celebrity/ public figure especially one that seeks to regulate other people's life - her own life choices are very insightful in respect to such choices. Sine Oculis (talk) 22:17, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Without expressing an opinion about the specifics of this article, I would like to point out to FreeRangeFrog (an editor I respect) that reliable sources in other languages are appropriate on English Wikipedia. This is the English language encyclopedia of the entire world, not an encyclopedia of the English speaking world. We prefer English language sources when they are ample, but if not, sources in other languages are not only permitted, but are absolutely necessary to counter systemic bias. You could study Russian, ask a Russian speaking editor to assist, or more crudely, use Google Translate or something similar for a first approximation of an accurate translation. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:59, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't see much need to restate unnecessary details on her son in the personal life, like where he works. With additional commentary they may or may not be relevant in other sections but they should remain there. Her daughters life choices as an adult have little relevance as well no matter how they may differ from the subject's expressed views, unless there is some established relevance, e.g. there is some sourced double standard over what she expects from her family vs what she claims people should follow or perhaps if it was a well sourced major family dispute (particularly if the daughter was notable as well). In other words, there's a big difference between well sourced details on the subject's personal life that sources relate to her expressed personal views, and the life choices of others, no matter their relation to the subject. Nil Einne (talk) 01:02, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Louis Tomlinson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) "is an English pop singer for the boy band One Direction, actor and [..]" This is part is inaccurate because he is not an actor. As the definition says, an actor is a person who acts in a dramatic or comic production and works in film, television, theatre, or radio in that capacity. [1] He doesn't fit the definition, he loves acting but he has never had a real role in his life, I would like to keep his biography as true as possible. Thank you.

 Done. No RS.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:06, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Just to point out he can be called an actor. One Direction's This is Us comes out on August 30, 2013. RS to any news organization you can name. Caffeyw (talk) 14:57, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

There is dispute related to new president of Iran again, I suggest some admin to check relevant discussion here: Talk:Hassan Rouhani#Son's suicide claims. I'm sure that I've provided enough explanation about libellous claims and I removed it four times today - of course I'm familiar with 3RR, but please keep in mind this article has been opened more then 500.000 times in past three months so it's very sensitive issue. --HistorNE (talk) 15:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the sources in the round, it seems that the circumstances of the death are unclear, and this is what the article should reflect. I agree with the comment made on the article talk page that we should say "died" rather than (as at present) "killed", even though the Guardian uses the latter verb, because of the implication of murder.

It may be appropriate to mention the suicide claim (I make no judgement on that). If it is mentioned, it should be very clearly attributed and the attribution should include the information that the claim originates from a dissident journalist. Formerip (talk) 23:20, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I see the article has been protected but I can also see that the article is being targeted by a large number of sockpuppets/meatpuppets of blocked (on both Spanish and English Wikipedia) and banned racist ultranationalist Argentina based AndresHerutJaim. You can see some background info on this person at Talk:2013_Israeli-Palestinian_peace_talks#Chop"sock"y. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:00, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Richard Worth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) [note that this is a self-report]

I'm looking for guidance about balance and sourcing issues on Richard Worth. An IP removed a whole lot of apparently well sourced material that I restored but now I'm having doubts about WP:BALANCE. I'm a significant contributor. I've made attempts to find extra coverage of Worth (for example Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Zealand/Election 2011 taskforce#Coverage of former MPs), but I'm failing to find anything useful as he appears to have dropped out of public sight. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:02, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

The scandal seems very well sourced, but the section can be shortened a bit. Right now there is noticeable unnecessary detail about Key's statements about his loss of confidence in Worth, which might well be reduced to one sentence; yeah, it's important that the PM was peeved, but we don't have to go on and on about it. We might also compress the bit about Choudary and the police not pressing the matter beyond the resignation(s) into one sentence. Finally it's debatable whether we should write about Choudary's unsuccessful political career at all - not that it's derogatory towards Worth, but it doesn't really have that much to do with him - it wasn't a reason people voted for or against her, was it? Maybe compress from 2 sentences to 1, or maybe remove entirely. So that's shortening by a third to half. --GRuban (talk) 19:36, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the bit about Choudary's later attempt at a political career, there's nothing in our article suggesting any relevance to Worth or her earlier allegations or involvement in Worth's resignations. Nil Einne (talk) 05:20, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Quvenzhane Wallis is a actress who is born on 28th August 2003 and right now this is 28th August 2013 which means that she is 10 not 9 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.170.154.184 (talk) 08:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Her birthdate (and calcuated age) has been accurate for awhile now, so I'm not sure what you were seeing. I personally added a reference for her birthdate within the last week or so. Jauersock^dude?/_dude. 13:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm guessing the Template:Birth date and age template the IP was seeing hadn't updated yet. Try clearing your cache. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 18:19, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

obviously created by someone very close to the subject, likely the subject himself. "During that time, the firm invested in the economy." What? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.42.157.5 (talk) 23:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

The speculation about it being edited by the subject is unwarranted. However the article was a mess and I have cleaned it up and added it to my watch list. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Hi there: There have been repeated changes in Jason Orange's biography. There is a user account of Orangejeanne who is repeatedly added to his biography that she is his partner/wife. The website she has provided as proof is one that she created herself. Other than that, there is no proof. Would it be possible to have her stopped from making changes to his page? Jason Orange — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karleysmom (talk • contribs) 00:47, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

If it continues, I'd suggest posting at WP:ANI. Formerip (talk) 00:55, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the article and put it on my watch list. I don't think ANI is warranted here (yet). Its just two new editors who are still learning WP procedures for editing. I've also posted on their user pages offering my assistance.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:08, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Can somebody please take a look at this article? It is full of what look to me to be dubious sources for a BLP, including some (possibly notable) blogs. It is very negative in tone, and I also question notability based on the sources I've looked at quickly. Unfortunately I don't have time to deal with this now, so am hoping somebody can. --Slp1 (talk) 00:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Some person(s) had assembled a bunch of personal blogs and non-compliant YT videos etc to politicize this BLP and assassinate the character of what appears to be a somewhat non-notable MD. I clean it up and cut it down and its on my watch list. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

This is in DYK: "... that one of Dougal Butler's first tasks when he became a roadie for The Who was to provide a getaway car so that Pete Townshend could [details of criminal act deleted]" The Dougal Butler article includes one reference for the claim, Butler's autobiography. The way the claim is written in our biog is subtly less strong than the way it appears on Main Page:

"According to Butler, one of his early tasks for the band was to provide a getaway car so that Pete Townshend could steal a guitar from Jim Marshall's music shop in Ealing." (my emphasis)

I'm worried about such a strong claim against a living person appearing on Main Page based on such thin referencing, exarcebated by the fact that whoever wrote the claim in our article (and presumably had the written source) didn't write it as strongly.

Finally, the source isn't really a reliable one. It's a primary source and our WP:SELFPUB policy says that we can only use such material if it "does not involve claims about third parties"

I think that unless someone can instantly find a proper RS to back up this claim, this DYK should be removed immediately and the claim should also be removed from the article.

NB I'll flag this at WP:ERRORS. --Dweller (talk) 08:16, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

How on earth did this pass DYK? The rules say "Articles on living individuals are carefully checked to ensure that no unsourced or poorly sourced negative material is included. Articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals or promote one side of an ongoing dispute should be avoided." It should be removed immediately. StAnselm (talk) 08:20, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I wrote the article and sourced it, and would like to make two comments.

• I would like to challenge the claim that the source is self-published. Although the text was written by Dougal Butler, it was not published by him, but in book form by Faber and Faber. Therefore, although you can see a citation to a web link, you can also find the same information in print. Would a notable publishing company with a good track record have printed such a claim and sold it to the general public without reasonable assurance they would not have been sued?
• Pete Townshend has admitted himself on national television that he stole guitars from Jim Marshall's shop. The appropriate extract of this interview was reproduced verbatim on The Kids Are Alright, a major movie that was released theatrically and commercially released on DVD numerous times. I'm afraid I don't have the DVD to hand to cite a specific location, but I did quickly find a verbatim transcription of the relevant quotation here (though that may be self published). I also found another reliable book source for the claim here. ECW Press is happy to print claims that people think Townshend stole guitars.

It's a contentious claim, but one I believe is credible (Townshend destroyed a guitar a night in the 60s and The Who were deep in debt) backed up with the appropriate quality sources. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

It's not just about the sourcing - it's about the "focusing unduly on negative aspects of living individuals". StAnselm (talk) 08:41, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLP also says when 'x' claims 'y' did 'z', you say that - you don't say that 'y' actually did 'z', but you cite the claim to a specific individual. One might say the claims for Keith Moon's drug taking and deterioration of his personal life might be considered "negative aspects", yet they are also sourced reliably. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:45, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

But that's not what the DYK hook says. The DYK hook says "y did z". StAnselm (talk) 08:51, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Aha - sorry, I think I've been talking at cross purposes a bit - I've been looking at the article, rather than the hook, which I actually agree is erroneous per Dweller. It's a transcription mistake, and I agree it should be pulled or sent back to DYK to be rewritten. I actually completely forgot about the DYK (which I compiled weeks ago) until just now. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

RL intervening. Please whistle up an admin at AN to remove the claim anywhere protected. --Dweller (talk) 09:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I've changed it to "according to" for the time being. Black Kite (talk) 09:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that, and for Dweller for pinging me on my talk. I do take BLPs as seriously as you guys, and smack people down for blatant violations myself on occasion, ([2]) so I am sympathetic to your views.Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

If you all feel that the article should be removed from DYK then I have no problem with that. Regards,

--BabbaQ (talk) 09:36, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks all for your help with this, sorry I had to disappear in the middle of it all. A good result and I'm really pleased by the further good work on DYKs in general that Fram has prompted below. --Dweller (talk) 21:54, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Domenico Rancadore

In a similar vein, Domenico Rancadore is set up to hit the main page soon in DYK, with the hook "... that Domenico Rancadore has been described as one of Italy's "most wanted criminals", and headed the Cosa Nostra mafia?". While the first part seems accurate, the "headed the Cosa Nostra Mafia" is apparently a claim on a warrant by the Italian police, while his actual conviction has been for being a member of a criminal organisation. Can someone check my reasoning and correct or pull this DYK nomination accordingly? I'll do it myself if no one is around to doublecheck this first, but I'ld like someone else to get the flak for my DYK criticisms for once :-) Fram (talk) 10:02, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm far more uncomfortable about that appearing on the main page, even if it is cited to a reputable source, and even if you fix up the hook to say who specifically claimed what. The incident above (at least from my viewpoint) is more like old men reminiscing about silly stuff they did in their youth, as opposed to this one which describes something actively happening in the news right now. I'd pull it. I'd also get rid of the cites to the Daily Mirror - it's right up there with The Sun as far as trashy gossipy tabloids go Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:18, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A quick Google of his name seems to suggest that every UK media source, including ones generally considered impeccable like Sky News, the BBC, the Daily Telegraph, the Independent and The Guardian all describe him as either "Mafia boss Rancadore" or "Mob boss Rancadore" without qualification. If Wikipedia's job is to reflect the sources, then this seems pretty clear-cut. Mogism (talk) 10:20, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Being a mob boss or a mafia boss is not the same as "heading the cosa nostra", which the hook claims. E.g. the independent states he "is a key player in the cosa nostra" and in the article "the reputed head of the cosa nostra in Trabia", which a) adds "reputed" and b) changes him from the overall head of the cosa nostra to a local head. Fram (talk) 10:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Again, regardless of sourcing, it focuses on a negative aspect of a living individual. Who is approving and promoting all these hooks? They seem to be blatantly ignoring the DYK rules. StAnselm (talk) 10:41, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

To be fair, if you take out the Mafia associations, you're left with somebody who is completely non-notable. That sounds more like a WP:BLP1E. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:53, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Apologies if the Rancadore hook is inappropriate, I used it as it was backed up in most sources. Matty.007 11:45, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

To be fair, there isn't much positive that can be done with the fact that he was a key man in the mafia. Matty.007 11:46, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Would it be possible to have simply "... that Domenico Rancadore has been described as one of Italy's "most wanted criminals" for DYK? Matty.007 11:48, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of the notability of the person, negative BLP hooks are not appropriate for DYK. I don't think the alternate hook overcomes that issue. StAnselm (talk) 12:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I have for now pulled the hook from the main page, where it was life for some 15 minutes. I'll drop a note at WT:DYK and at the nomination page. Fram (talk) 12:16, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks Fram, and sorry for any inconvenience caused. Matty.007 12:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

For future reference, would saying that he had been accused of being a mafia boss have been permitted? Matty.007 12:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

It would certainly have been better. If we need DYKs of this nature (which can be disputed, the current DYK rules state "Articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals or promote one side of an ongoing dispute should be avoided." but whether this would have been "unduly" is the question), then it should preferably stick to facts, i.e. either that he has been convicted, or that there is a warrant from the Italian police, or that his arrest was contested (by his lawyer at least); mere claims that someone is this or that kind of criminal should be avoided wherever possible; and of course, if such claims are to be repeated, they should be repeated sa precisely as possible (e.g. here, being the alleged head of the cosa nostra in one town of 7,000 people is definitely not the same as being the head of the cosa nostra full stop; but the hook dropped both the allegedly and the local aspect of the claim, making him a much bigger fish than he is claimed to be). Fram (talk) 12:47, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the reply, and sorry for my mistake. Matty.007 12:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Two more

I've noted this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Hooks pulled for BLP reasons, and added two more negative BLP hooks in the current queues of DYK (i.e. about to hit the main page tomorrow). They don't seem as problematic as the Rancadore one, but still, they focus unduly on negative aspects, and one is sourced to court transcripts (blogged by the Chinese court) as posted by the BBC, which may not be sufficient to accuse people of things here. Fram (talk) 13:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Not sure but doesnt adding Template:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch to the article on Rolf Harris, somebody charged but not convicted, appears to be a breach of BLP and possible BLPCRIME. MilborneOne (talk) 20:50, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

It's just an IP messing around. I reverted it and left them a warning. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 21:09, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, he may be innocent, until convicted we cant say he isnt. I also sourced the charges which was unsourced in the opening, not a great ad for wikipedia reliability. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 21:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

At Keeley Hazell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) the dispute is about including the Pornography portal and Wikiproject pornography in the main article and on the talkpage respectively. Presumably, Keeley Hazel having been a page 3 Sun girl qualifies for the Pornography portal. I would appreciate any advice. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 16:01, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm curious about the standard invoked for determining that this article should be connected with "pornography". I personally think it isn't pornography to appear topless on Page 3. Others might disagree. But again that raises the question, how should it be determined? Consensus of involved editors? Or is there something more systematic we could use? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:19, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

According to the reverting editor, it doesn't sound like much of a standard and imo it is not justifiable under BLP. This is what the reverting editor wrote: The second paragraph of the article on Page 3 clearly states that there is a dispute about whether Page 3 girls are softcore pornography. The link to the pornography portal is not an attempt to resolve this dispute, but merely a reflection that the dispute exists and therefore Page 3 girls are a topic of interest to the pornography project. I don't see these reasons, especially in case of dispute, as being strong arguments for including the Pornography portal in this article. Same goes for including the pornography wiki-project on the talkpage. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:37, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

If Hazell doesn't fall within the remit of Wikiproject Pornography, who does? I have nothing against her personally, but it seems improbable that her regular lads-mag and Page 3 appearances are because of her exceptional journalistic talent or witty soundbites. bobrayner (talk) 01:25, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Although FHM gives her occupation as "melon farmer". Maybe she should be with WikiProject Farming instead? bobrayner (talk) 01:32, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

All fine and dandy but according to BLP "controversial material that is poorly sourced" must be removed from the BLP of the person. This is actually a meta-discusssion because we want to use wikiprojects in her bio that label her, bypassing the need for reliable sources, and associate her with porn. I left the wikiproject banner on the talk of the article for the time being but I removed the porn-portal from the main article page because of its higher visibility and due to the label it attaches to her. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:55, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

--The Vintage Feminist (talk) 06:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

We definitely exclude the portal link in the absence of a reliable source. I wonder what other pages it needs to be excluded from as poorly sourced association? 06:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Rightly or wrongly, she is described as a "glamour model", and rightly or wrongly the glamour photography article says that it "stops short of deliberately arousing the viewer and being pornographic photography." Hence, you still have to demonstrate a relationship between Hazell and pornography. StAnselm (talk) 13:02, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

This is correct. For a BLP we cannot infer links to pornography by association with Glamour photography. There must be explicit connection to porn through reliable sources. Anything else is original research and synthesis. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 13:26, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the portal link from Sam Cooke (model), Lucy Collett, Louise Cliffe, and Lacey Banghard. It looks like there will be many others in Category:Glamour models. It's probably safe to retain the portal for people who have modelled for Playboy. StAnselm (talk) 13:18, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you StAnselm. I agree with your removals. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 13:22, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Can someone please explain why the 'broad-brush-stroke' article on the glamour photography industry as a whole (which has an American-slant and a picture of Michelle Merkin) is taking precedence over and above the more specific (and relevent) Page 3 girls article which states "Page 3 is popular with many readers, but it has also attracted sustained controversy. Some critics have argued that Page 3 objectifies and demeans women, while others have argued that the feature is softcore pornography that should not appear in a generally circulated national newspaper."--The Vintage Feminist (talk) 12:16, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

According to WP:BLP:

Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous.

The association of Keeley with pornography is unsourced or poorly sourced and it is also contentious because not all critics agree as you state above. It therefore fulfills the BLP criteria for removal from her article. 13:18, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment We can be completely objective about this actually. If none of the publications she has appeared in are listed under our pornography categories then there is no reason for the portal to be there. If they are then her connection to the pornography industry is objectively established. I haven't gone through them myself, but portals should only reflect close associations with subjects and topic areas, not our own personal moral standards or indeed the individual interests of Wikiprojects (which are free to select what they are interested in). Betty Logan (talk) 13:15, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

The general issue of whether "glamour modelling" is (softcore) pornography seems open to debate, but in this particular case, I think it would be instructive to google "Keely Hazell sex tape". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:25, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

This is a pretty clear BLP violation. There's pretty significant disagreement about whether glamour shoots are "pornography", but regardless, if you told the average person someone had been in "pornography", their first thought is not likely to be that they were photographed wearing sexy clothing. The pornography portal link implies that the subject has something to do with pornography, which is clearly in dispute. The linked articles explain that debate in all its nuances; slapping a portal link on this person's page does not. (And why are half the posts in this colored red? It's quite distracting.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:36, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Delicious carbuncle may have a point in respect specifically to Keely Hazell because of the sex tape. In general, though, describing a Page 3 model's work as "pornography" would present a BLP issue. Porn is infamously hard to define, but material that is presented in a daily newspaper in Britain seems to clearly go outside the definition.—Kww(talk) 14:39, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that having her boyfriend leak a home-made sex-tape on the internet against her will makes her a pornographic model. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 16:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the viewers of that video would agree with you. Have you heard of "revenge porn"? The subjects are not professional pornographic models either, yet everyone seems to agree that it is pornographic. I encounter it on Commons fairly regularly, uploaded from picture-sharing sites. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think this single-occurrence of "revenge porn" is reliable enough and uncontroversial enough to overcome the constraints imposed by BLP. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:58, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

There does seem to be quite a lot of moving the goalposts going on here. Firstly, the reason given for removing the pornography portal in the edit history was "she is not a porn star", and then a further argument about Keeley Hazell being "unfairly labelled" (nothing about sources, reliable or otherwise). I pointed out that the pornography portal is not a euphemism for "porn star", so then, secondly it became about sources. The sources to show that she has worked both as a Page 3 girl and a glamour model are numerous and reliable. So finally, the goalposts were moved again and it became about, "oh well, just because the sources are reliable it doesn't really mean anything.", followed by cherry picking an article on glamour photography (which is mostly focused on Playboy Playmates) over and above more relevant articles on both page 3 and glamour modelling. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 00:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no moving of the goalposts. If the article is to assert she's involved in pornography, we need a consensus among reliable sources that she is indeed involved in such. Pornography, being a very sensitive subject for many, is something we must be very careful of using in BLPs. I couldn't personally care less if consenting adults want to participate in pornography—their business and none of mine. But it is a categorization many people would object to, and so without a clear consensus among sources that the subject of the article is involved in pornography (not just a few scattered ones that assert it), we can't put something on the article that makes it seem so, such as a portal link. The stretch from "She did glamour photography" to "Some people consider that a type of pornography" to "We're going to slap an unexplained pornography categorization on this article" is way too far and is original research. Let the articles on such types of photography explain how various people see them.

On an unrelated note, I'm not sure if you've got a broken script or what, but all your posts are showing up in red. It would be good to fix that, as black text/white background is the standard and it's very visually distracting. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually I've just noticed that,

according to the magazines section of the glamour photography article (the article User:StAnselm quotes), it states:

Today, softcore nude photographs of models appear in publications such as Perfect 10, or tabloid newspapers such as Britain's The Sun's Page 3.

...with "softcore" linking to softcore pornographyand the quote User:StAnselm has used has got "citation needed" written on it. (As I was quoted in green I decided to pick red for myself but it is no trouble to stop.) --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 05:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The citation tag has just been added. StAnselm (talk) 06:12, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

We can't use another Wikipedia article as a source. Are there sources that say this person, specifically, is involved in pornography? If so, is that the prevalent consensus among the sources? That's what would be dispositive. You wouldn't find any trouble, for example, finding a consensus among sources that Jenna Jameson is involved in pornography, so it's perfectly appropriate for that article to say so. I don't see anywhere near the same type of thing among the sources for Hazell. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Because it needed to be.

"An encyclopedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject." (WP:encyclopedic content)

"Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive, even exceedingly so (see Wikipedia:Content disclaimer)." (Wikipedia is not censored)

The Page 3 article, the section on glamour modelling, and the section on magazines in the glamour photography article, refer to the lack of subtlety and softcore pornography, not to be mean but because it is "accepted knowledge" to anyone born and bred in the UK. This is an advert for The Sun, whatever 'gilt' or ambiguity there might be with a Playboy Playmate, a Page 3 girl / lads mag model is an entirely different proposition. Wikipedia should not try to censor that. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 07:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Invoking censorship and repetition of the same refuted points without addressing Seraphimblade's arguments, and mine for that matter, about insufficient sourcing to classify this person as a porn model, is not helpful. Please face it: There are no reliable sources that can sustain such categorisation of Keeley Hazell. Statements such as ...because it is "accepted knowledge" to anyone born and bred in the UK and youtube links are not reliable sources and the conclusions you draw out of them are original research and cannot be used to substantiate any connection of Keeley Hazell with porn in her article. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 12:40, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Sources - from my post 2 days ago in this thread:

I didn't add any extra material or references because there was no need to. The article already contains reliable sources and no "absences". (Ref 2 is "Keeley Hazell: Angel is a centrefold". The Independent (London)., ref 13 is ""Keeley strips for hot music vid". The Sun Online (London).", ref 17 is "The Latest Cameron Mantra: Praise a Page 3 Girl. This Is London. (London Evening Standard) and "FHM, (magazine), "Keeley Hazell — All-Time Great", FHM". to name a few).

So that takes care of that point. "Assumed knowledge" accounts for the opening section of the article on glamour photography stating that, "glamour photography stops short of deliberately arousing the viewer and being pornographic photography". "Assumed knowledge" also accounts for the description of British glamour photography saying, "Today, softcore nude photographs of models appear in publications such as Perfect 10, or tabloid newspapers such as Britain's The Sun's Page 3."

The first is what America assumes to be true (that glamour modelling is not softcore pornography) and the second is what Britain assumes to be true (that glamour modelling is softcore pornography), neither are wrong and either one can potentially draw the criticism of being original research and unsubstantiated. The YouTube video was intended to clarify the cultural differences between Playboy Playmates and Page 3 girls.

At the end of the day Keeley Hazell is a British Page 3 girl and not an American Playboy Playmate and her BLP ought to reflect the UK definition of what glamour modelling is, and the only sources that are need are those that show she was a Page 3 / lads mag model. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 19:10, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia. It cannot sides either with the US or the British view. There is a dispute about the definition of glamour photography. BLP is clear when disputes exist: The information cannot be added to the BLP. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:18, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

One more time: We need sources that say "pornography". Not that you think implies it, or says something which some people assert is analogous to it (and no, "common knowledge" isn't an acceptable source). None of those sources say a word about pornography. If you don't have those, the article can't say it either. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:48, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

This is not about "sides", entrenched positions, or one definition being more accurate than the other. This is about acknowledging cultural differences. It is Wikipedia's job to factually record what "X" means one thing in one country and means something else in another country.

One last time: All that is needed are sources to say Hazell is a Page 3 model and a glamour model and there are plenty. The definitions of both clearly state "softcore pornography" - and I did not write either definition.

I may take Delicious carbuncle's advice (on my talk page) and seek a consensus on this (although I really don't see why it is necessary), unless either of you want to beat me to it. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 16:07, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLP is clear -- that one can find a definition of, say, Roman Catholics as "cannibals" in sources ([3], [4], [5] etc.) does not mean we can call Pope Francis a "cannibal", and that you can find a source saying a feature in a particular newspaper is "softcore porn" does not mean we can then attribute that tag to every model for that newspaper. Collect (talk) 16:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

This isn't really a BLP issue, it's a definition issue. If there were consensus that Page 3 images are pornography, then adding the pornography portal to biographies of Page 3 models is not a BLP concern. There is a strong argument to be made that the type of modelling Keeley Hazell is known for is generally understood to be "softcore pornography", but there is no point in continuing to discuss this individual case until the definition question has been addressed. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:56, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I fully agree with Collect's comments. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:57, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• Status comment - I'm not weighing in either for or against the application of the pornography portal to this BLP, but am just commenting on the status here: After four days of this discussion, which was advertised at the appropriate project noticeboard and at WP:AN as well, there's no clear consensus to include the portal, and you can make a good argument that there's consensus against its inclusion. The policy-based argument being raised against the application of the portal is that there are no reliable sources that have been brought which clearly and directly characterize Hazell as being involved in pornography. Per WP:BLP that would indicate that the portal should not be applied. If the discussion continues to repeat the same arguments without bringing new ones, or new sources, I think it should be closed along these lines. Zad68 20:15, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you for your excellent and informative summary with which I agree. I had no idea it was raised at AN so thank you for that information also. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Someone occasionally inserts libel in your article about me:could you somehow lock it to prevent edits? The most recent incident was deleted by a friend, who reported it to me.

Thanks, Henry Harpending — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.195.196.110 (talk) 20:37, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

This seems to be the first time in a couple of years that the article has been vandalised. Frankly, I'm not sure that the level of vandalism seen is sufficient to justify locking the article. We normally only do so if there is an ongoing problem. I'll watchlist it myself though, to help ensure that any future vandalism is dealt with more promptly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:57, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Based on what I've just googled, Professor Harpending has proposed some theories that some see as controversial. (Note the See Also link to Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence.) This might be the reason for the vandalism, and perhaps if we expanded the article to include these theories sourced to reliable sources, this might fill the void and stop vandals from being inclined to fill that void with garbage. If if it doesn't work, expanding articles is a net good anyway. Gamaliel (talk) 04:56, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

There are multiple secondary sources that report Richie Sambora's departure from the band, yet the talk page disregards all of the reliable sources I provided as "feeding on rumors". If Sambora is no longer a current member, it is wrong of Wikipedia to list him as a current member. The reverts also disposed of a valid source, and were mostly performed by PanosBonJovi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whose edit summaries and username suggest a strong COI. I told them on the talk page that BLP violations are a notable exception for the 3RR rule, but all I got in return was this "friendly threat" by Jauerback (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Thoughts? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 04:45, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Its almost never a BLP violation to remove potentially unsafe info about a BLP subject from their article. Even if it turns out later to be true. I would want a lot better sources than the South African Times and US Magazine. First the SA Times article is actually referencing a Daily Mail interview/entertainment piece from MAY which was talking about his absence from the European tour. It says nothing about leaving the band for good. It actually references he has taken a break before. Secondly US Magazine's piece is ultimately sourced to 'Rumorfix' and an un-named source. With no comment from Richie or the band. None of the above are reliable sources for potentially controversial info in a BLP. So it stays out until a reliable source comments. Jaeurback is incorrect on one thing however, we do not need to wait to hear from Richie or the band to include it in the article, only reliable secondary sources. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:48, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, you're right. Technically, we don't need an official statement from the band or him and secondary sources will be enough. However, those secondary sources have to be more than rumors and I don't see how those secondary sources will be accurate/reliable without any statement from either the band or Sambora. For the record, I personally don't care if he's left the band or not, but removing him based on unreliable, anonymous reports is not reason enough to do it. In fact, as Only in death does duty end pointed out, it's actually more of a BLP violation to remove him from the band, especially using sources that claim he was fired, whether it be for alcohol related issues for for money. At this point, it's better to err on side that he's still a member and keeping him listed as such until there are more than rumors. Jauersock^dude?/_dude. 16:03, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Threat? How is that a threat, friendly or unfriendly? You already broke WP:3RR, so you were well on your way to being blocked if you continued reverting. I think it was quite obvious that I was not threatening to block you. Jauersock^dude?/_dude. 16:03, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

The article should be reverted back to an earlier state, since it's not clear what the situation is at the moment. Richie Sambora is still a member of the band until an official statement is issued. And neither Phil X nor Hugh McDonald are members of the band, it's clearly an error to be fixed. They just tour or tour and record with the band. Neither is an official member. There is no confirmed quote anywhere to say Richie Sambora has quit the band. And if he isn't, saying he was fired could potentially be a BLP violation. Iceman (talk) 10:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

My last revert has stood for a couple of days with Sambora still being listed as a member of the band - unless I'm missing something. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 11:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

The NY Daily News says: Sambora, 54, has been with band for 30 years, since singer Jon Bon Jovi formed the group in 1983. A source familiar with Bon Jovi did tell the Daily News' Confidenti@l that reports of a split are incorrect and at best premature. [6] I've seen other news reports that use the word "allegedly". So it seems things are still in flux and since WP is not a newspaper, its prudent to wait and include it only when a clear conclusion is reported by the press.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:59, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

There is a content dispute-- see Talk:Cheryl B. Schrader. One user who feels strongly that the offending section should be removed PRODed. I dePRODed, and removed further content. I'm OK with removing the whole section. Of course, some editors there want to include all the gory details. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 15:58, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Removed. Discussing there. --GRuban (talk) 18:00, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I've also commented and its on my watchlist now.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:40, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Daniel Plaza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I'd like a second opinion before reverting again. -- John of Reading (talk) 11:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I think its a notable part of his sport history and should be in the article. But only one or two sentences. The prior version gave undue weight. My suggested text would be:

In 1996 Plaza tested positive for steroids after a 1996 championship competition in Spain. He tested negative in subsequent tests and the Spanish Supreme Court overturned his 2 year ban from competition several years later. (using the BBC and Telegraph as citations)

-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:14, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Let's see what the IP makes of that. -- John of Reading (talk) 18:44, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Would like other opinions if this is appropriately written and sourced. Discussion is here. Note: other editor has been reported for breaking WP:3RR. Thank you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:45, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think "Has engaged in racism publicly" is the best sentence to write there. It's only one article that accuses racism - the second source doesn't. It also doesn't seem like this was a big deal, so it should just be dropped from the article, in my opinion. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 14:46, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree, the text and the sources should be dropped. The entertainment articles cited refer to a Twitter dispute between a comedian an a Salon mag reporter and do not constitution 'public racism' nor do they, IMO give notability to the so called issue in any significant way.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:27, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Asaram Bapu 2013 rape case

Hello. The criminal case against Asaram Bapu for ("allegedly") raping a 16 year-old girl is being suppressed on the Wikipedia.[7] Is this fair? Just because he wears a religious turban does not make him immune from legal action and questioning. Compare Luka Magnotta (Eric Clinton Kirk Newman). He too is accused of a crime but the information about him is not suppressed because he is not a powerful man. Asaram Bapu's devotees and their sympathizers wish this heinous crime (or the allegations thereof) not to be shown on the Wikipedia. I don't understand why. At this point, I must point out that Asaram Bapu has not even been questioned by the police even once, because once he was "meditating deeply", or "had other commitments" and more recently, "has a dead relative". Is the Wikipedia going to behave just like the local police in India is? The President of India, Pranab Mukherjee- among other big shot politicians- is ("allegedly") a friend if not devotee of Asaram Bapu. There is a lot of outrage over the condition of women in India and the media has been reporting every single rape in the country but in the case of Asaram, but they have invented the expression "sexual assault" solely to describe the alleged rape by Asaram Bapu. The term "sexual assault" does not exist in the Indian Penal Code and Asaram has been charged under IPC Section 376 (rape). It is not the first time that this person has been charged with a grave crime (like murder). I sincerely hope that the Wikipedia did not suppress this important criminal case because of this man's being powerful. Please remove the protection on the page or at least restore the previous version. I do not see how the following criteria for BLP are being violated: verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research. --Crème3.14159 (talk) 17:37, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

The entire article consists of two sections: personal life and controversies. The talk page has a rather long discussion underway with several experienced editors participating. Others may join the discussion. Creme may like to read WP:NPOV and WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE to better understand WP's processes and guidelines.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Nobody is stopping editors from showering high praise on this man. The reason why that page is full of criticism is because there is no publicly available RS that sings an eulogy to him. He has now been arrested and yet Wikipedia does not even have a word about the criminal case against him for ("allegedly") raping a 16 year-old.--70.76.85.36 (talk) 21:34, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

It is relevant and worthy of attention that someone has been removing my list of reliably sourced quotes about the legal controversy from the talk page. My sense is that the discussion there is being hampered on all sides by rather absurd partisanship, and more NPOV eyeballs on the case are warranted.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:51, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention to this case, Mr Wales. I am not sure if you are aware of the nature of this controversy. The person in question is an immensely powerful man with hundreds of thousands of followers and 400 ashrams across the world. As a matter of fact, the President of India Pranab Mukherjee- whether a devotee or not- has endorsed his books with reviews. So, it is not unreasonable to expect people here to be opposed to the addition of any unflattering but well-referenced material.--Crème3.14159 (talk) 06:16, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I wanted to know if it is okay to add that Asaram Bapu allegedly started his life as a bootlegger since it has been published in a major English newspaper in India.^[1] IPS stands for Indian Police Service.--Crème3.14159 (talk) 01:09, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

There is a criminal proceeding underway against Asaram Bapu and his son over the mysterious deaths of 2 little boys in their school on their ashram in 2008. Editors have repeatedly tried to remove it, previously asking for more references and now asking for consensus before adding this material.[8] What is wrong with adding this? --Crème3.14159 (talk) 11:23, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

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

I'm following up from my review of a request at COIN. The Matthew Bryden controversy section is written in a way that is biased with potentially harmful original research (among other postings, "involve himself and the UN in unlawful actions."). Please consider deleting the Matthew Bryden controversy section until someone can recreate it in a more neutral way.-- Jreferee (talk) 14:01, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Manga artist Inio Asano apparently came out as male-to-female transsexual in an interview with BREAK MAX magazine. An anonymous IP user keeps reverting the usage of feminine pronouns that MOS:IDENTITY indicates should be used, and in an edit summary claimed that it was a "gross misunderstanding" of Asano's statements, but has refused to elaborate. Nongendered (talk) 11:25, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Is there an editor who is fluent in Japanese who can chime in? The arguments made by the IP about self-identity gave me pause. We need to make sure we're not screwing this up. Also, funny how the masses are not descending on this one like they did with Chelsea Manning. Sigh. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:05, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I know Japanese, but my reading speed is abysmally slow. Still, if somebody can provide the original interview I can confirm what it actually says. Nongendered (talk) 19:48, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

@Nongendered: The source given is this. We also need to determine if it is a reliable source. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 15:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

That's the source, but it doesn't contain the actual text of the article, which is the problem. Nongendered (talk) 22:58, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Helmuth Nyborg is a Danish scientist whose work has rightfully, in my view, received much criticism. That said, his biography is poorly written and riddled with dead links. I removed a statement accusing him of racism, more or less, and the statement was immediately returned, with a broken link used to source the statement. I'm not asking that this biography be favorable, but that it be rigorously sourced and well written in the manner deserving of an article for a living person. -Darouet (talk) 03:03, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I also see that a section titled "links to extreme right wing organizations" and linking Nyborg with holocaust deniers is based on two references, both of which lead to dead links. I'm not sure if they would have been reliable sources anyway. -Darouet (talk) 03:16, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

All this material has again been restored, much of it using references that are dead links. -Darouet (talk) 11:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

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

This BLP article has a long history of poorly sourced and potentially libellous edits by anonymous users.

On Sep 1, user Dzgoldman/110.77.193.113 inserted a new section headed 'Criticisms by memory and math tricks experts'. User's sole reliable published source is a chapter of the book 'Moonwalking with Einstein' by freelance reporter Joshua Foer. Foer's minority perspective (unsupported by any scientist in the fields of autism/synesthesia/savantism) has long been debated on the article's talk page and previous discussions with editors including Enchanter, off2riorob, EdHubbard (who is one of the researchers who has studied the subject) reached a consensus that Foer's speculation should be incorporated into the article in a sensitive and marginal way to avoid undue weight. The book's title, author, and viewpoint are already listed in article.

BLP rules require multiple, reliable third-party published sources to confirm the notability of any specific claim. The talk page has made this clear on multiple occasions, but has been ignored. The user has advanced no other reliable third-party published sources in support of the above edits, which I have therefore removed.

The above user/s had also inserted a link to a blog by a 'mental math expert' which is critical of the subject. I have removed it as not meeting Wiki's BLP article rules.

Please could an editor review and comment here and/or on the article's talk page?

Oughtprice99 (talk) 07:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

This rule would also seem relevant here:

"Articles must meet the neutral point of view policy. Articles on living individuals are carefully checked to ensure that no unsourced or poorly sourced negative material is included. Articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals or promote one side of an ongoing dispute should be avoided."

Oughtprice99 (talk) 08:01, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Watchlisted, and I agree that the criticism from blogs, such as it is, is far too thin and unverifiable for inclusion in an encyclopedic biography. The existing paragraph is a good, neutral and properly-weighted accounting of what is out there. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 12:56, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

The entry notes his death 1st September 2013 but I can find no supporting evidence — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.158.82 (talk) 13:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Removed as unsourced. I also emailed his website and explained that we need an obit cited.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:40, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

Sourced now.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:18, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Charles Payne (journalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User Stanley Galt continues to remove the section Paid stock promotions despite it being of note and sourced by http://www.sec.gov. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsloughter (talk • contribs) 17:35, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Most of the rest of the article turns out to be copyvio, so I've reverted to the last pre-copyvio version. Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:10, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Stanley Galt (talk · contribs) continues to remove sourced material and add copyvio material. I don't want to edit war, could use some help here. Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:43, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be right about the copyright violations - I suggest you report this at WP:ANI. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Looking into this, it seems that User:Stanley Galt hasn't been properly informed regarding policy - I've left a note on his talk page. I'd wait to see how he responds, and if the copy-pasting continues, report it at WP:ANI. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:01, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

So having looked a little more closely at this, I now think the Paid stock promotions should be removed, as it's sourced to a blog, and states allegations as fact. I've removed it per WP:BLP and opened a discussion on the talk page. Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:51, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Yup - the edit-warring and copy-pasting shouldn't distract us from maintaining standards. Since an IP has joined the edit war, I've asked that the page be semi-protected. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Stanley Galt continues to replace the page with copyvio material after being warned. I've opened a discussion at ANI. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:06, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

At Victor Salva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) an IP insists we should include the fact that the subject has been convicted of a crime in the lede, which is indeed a fact and properly referenced later in the article. The subject's legal problems are independent of his other achievements and basic claims to notability (film director). I feel this is inappropriate, but that's my personal opinion. It certainly isn't a violation of anything in WP:BLP, except perhaps undue weight. I put this to other editors to see if we can reach consensus. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:49, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

The IP is beyond 3RR at this point, btw.Echoedmyron (talk) 19:11, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

IP blocked (I was about to do it but someone jumped in first). Daniel (talk) 22:32, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

That the article is illustrated by a mugshot compounds the problem. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:11, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, IP isn't blocked; maybe you saw the old block from July? Now at 5 reverts of same disputed content.Echoedmyron (talk) 12:41, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to put it in the lead. For such a short article, the lead should be one or two sentences. I've also done some clean up editing there for NPOV and it's on my watchlist now.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:40, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you all, I think we are in agreement here. The IP seems angry at the whole thing, but that's to be expected. Hopefully they'll stop trying to make their point. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:05, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Anomazee (single purpose account) appears to be a bit too excited about the article Michael Harner. He is blanking every comment he doesn't like from the talkpage. Well, actually some of the blanked comments were not related to article or they were unsubstantiated opinions about a living person, but other comments were just normal comments about the way the article is written (example). Due the rewritings by Anomazee, at the moment the article appears to be a little biased (hagiography-like) but nobody is allowed to remark it. Since he threatened to have me blocked for defamatory edits in that page and, moreover, since I'm not involved at all in the development of that article (my bot just fixed a link few days ago) I would like to ask you to take a look at that article and then do what you consider is appropriate. Thanks! -- Basilicofresco (msg) 07:01, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Your bot's addition to the article on Dr. Harner was removed as it violated Wikipedia guidelines for biographies of living persons. Anomazee (talk) 14:02, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

My apologies to Basilicofresco. The edit at issue was not made by that user or that user's bot. I misread the page history. Anomazee (talk) 14:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

This is BLP getting used as a cover to write a hagiography and whitewash. I'm working at untangling it now. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:38, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Any assistance at achieving a NPOV would be appreciated. I know the article needs work. My previous edits were not intended to whitewash but to remove poorly sourced or malicious previous edits. Anomazee (talk) 14:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

This person is searched as Monique Lamoureux-Kolls. Her legal name, and the name she goes by is Monique Lamoureux. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leroy3anderson (talk • contribs) 04:00, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to use WP:RM at the article talk page, presenting your evidence. GiantSnowman 15:26, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

But the sources seem divided between her maiden and married names...--ukexpat (talk) 15:41, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

A discussion about BLPs on DYK is being held at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Asking for consensus determination: are negative articles eligible for DYK? StAnselm (talk) 08:19, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

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

I have never read an article that was written as poorly as this one. Wikipedia should take it down and have someone who can write redo it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.203.57 (talk) 14:44, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I have removed most of the questionable content; a reminder that you are able to edit articles yourself. GiantSnowman 15:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

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

Should a random joke from satirical Spy magazine be included in the "Criticism" section? Gamaliel (talk) 23:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like satire and undue weight at best. Removed. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:38, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I cropped File:Stephen Harper by Remy Steinegger.jpg over at commons because the gap at the top of the image made the subject look short. This caused a minor edit war over there that ended with File:Stephen Harper by Remy Steinegger Infobox.jpg as an alt version. It was added to Canadian federal election, 2011 as well as other articles. Which version would show the subject in the best light? I still think the full size makes him look short. Try comparing both historical versions of the article. A browser refresh is needed if any distortion is caused. Thoughts?--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:59, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

The squarer crop is the better image; bigger subject, less dead space, and with eyes on a class "thirds" line. The "too short" argument is ridiculous. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:02, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there is anything in the original (or the other crop) that makes him look short. No opinion on which is the better image to use. --Onorem (talk) 15:04, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree the crop without the wasted space at the top is better, but ... yes, you are being anal. Neither one is a BLP violation. --GRuban (talk) 15:25, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I realize it isn't a violation but I have done many similar crops at commons and this is the first one I have had issues with. When images are used in many articles it is easiest to overwrite the main one and let others decide on whether to fork off the gappy ones. File:Severn Cullis-Suzuki.jpg is another one that I just did. She looked a little too tiny before the crop. I have had some editors force image sizes when they should have just refreshed browsers. These I revert back in a few days after the caches settle. I think I will add a browser refresh note in any future crops.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:49, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I fixed the other crop to maintain the aspect ratio. Hopefully that will make all happy.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:58, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Though I don't like the look of his right eye. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:31, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• The squarer image is better,IMHO; the infobox crop looks a bit unbalanced. If you insist on a more rectangular image, I would suggest cropping it again from the original into more of a portrait by keeping about the same amount of space on either side of Harper's face. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 16:12, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I think the other editor preffered the rectangular to balance with the other images. I just re-cropped it to center better.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

The relevant aesthetic principles are Headroom (photographic framing) and Rule of thirds. The cropped version is superior. There is not really a BLP issue here. Binksternet (talk) 17:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I think this discussion is mostly over. There is no BLP issue. This page is not the place to discuss which image is better and for what reasons. --Onorem (talk) 17:10, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree but I thought this board would be easier than the 50+ article talk pages that the images are used on.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:22, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:22, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Headroom (photographic framing). I found the article. Someone on the talk page disagrees with it though. Should we think about adding a link to our BLP image guideline? That may save future edit wars.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:22, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think anybody here agreed that it is a BLP issue. --Onorem (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I've found myself in a dispute at Amanda Bynes. Am I being overly cautious in thinking Wikipedia shouldn't include the name of the hospital where a celebrity is currently residing for psychiatric treatment? To me it seems the same as including their home address, which I'm under the impression is not permitted. Theoldsparkle (talk) 18:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

it certainly doesn't seem necessary to include the name of the hospital, though I'm not sure that policy would outright forbid it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:12, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

At this point it seems like gratuitous and highly non-encyclopedic detail, unless the hospital were itself highly notable for some extraordinary reason. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:16, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate Theoldsparkle bringing it up for discussion and alerting me to it. Thank you.

My feeling, both as a journalist and a longtime Wikipedia editor is that we don't censor pertinent information from a reliable-source publication or website — as is the case here. A person does not live at a hospital, a public institution, so I'm not sure how the comparison with a private home address is viable. We can point to countless mainstream articles about public figures who have had treatment at hospitals and rehab centers and the like — "where" is simply one of the "W"s in journalism's Who, What, When, Where, Why and How. Obviously, an encyclopedia article isn't a newspaper report, but these are basics of scholarly and research writing as well.

I'm not sure why the locales of Frances Farmer's or Percy Crosby's institutionalization, for instance, or even the private rehab centers of Lindsay Lohan are named but that we'd somehow make a special exception for Amanda Bynes. It's not a mater of timing — Lohan's treatment locales were parts of major news stories in hundreds of outlets from the moment she went it. Moreover, Bynes is an adult, not a minor. This seems like unnecessary censoring of material widely available to the public and, as noted in the paragraph above, pertinent from any standard research standpoint.--Tenebrae (talk) 18:22, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Details of a person's medical treatment (including psychological treatment), or even the fact that such treatment has occurred/is occurring, is protected personal data under HIPAA rules. Unlike some other (legal) protections, HIPAA protections don't fall away when one achieves celebrity status. Unless widely reported, I wouldn't include, and even if widely reported, I would make sure it was clearly cited to RS, because unless based merely on a sighting someone somewhere has most likely violated HIPAA. Dwpaul (talk) 18:27, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

P.S. - The laws have changed since Frances Farmer's and Percy Crosby's institutionalization. Dwpaul (talk) 18:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd just like to add that I don't think we actually have a reliable source for this. The information is sourced to Huffpo, which attributes it to TMZ, which I don't think is a RS: "According to TMZ, the doctors at the UCLA Medical Center treating Amanda asked that she be held long term, and a judge granted their request." Since Huffpo seems to think it's necessary to add "according to TMZ" I think we should do likewise. Or better yet just remove this. Kendall-K1 (talk) 20:10, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

We should not be using TMZ as a BLP source, especially for information like this. I have removed it from the article and asked for indefinite pending changes protection. I cannot fathom why no one asked for pending changes for this particular article months ago. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources notwithstanding, I agree that this belongs, as a standard "Where". That is, if the info about her sentencing is there at all. No real opinion on that. The privacy afforded someone who personally seeks treatment shouldn't reasonably extend to someone who was publicly sent to a hospital by a judge. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:11, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with "sentencing." A person so mentally unwell as to be subject to a 5150 proceeding doesn't give up their right to privacy as a result of the proceeding. "Patients admitted under section 5150 retain all rights under the Lanterman–Petris–Short Act (begins with WIC-5000) and under the Constitution and other laws. As citizens, patients do not lose their rights by being hospitalized or receiving services. With the exception of being able to freely leave the facility they are placed in, patients have all rights accorded to a voluntarily admitted client." - Ibid. A 5150 proceeding is not a criminal prosecution, and there is no compelling need for the public to know the location or other details of psychiatric treatment. Dwpaul (talk) 04:22, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I used the word in a less-formal sense. Just meaning she was ordered by a court to be detained for a set term, for inappropriate behaviour. Didn't mean to imply she gave up any legal rights. Still not seeing how this hurts her privacy in any real sense, but I suppose the law does carry more weight than my perceptions of reality. I fold. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

She wasn't detained for "inappropriate behavior," she was committed because she apparently, at least temporarily, lost her mind. There is a difference (and the fact pattern here is a little different than that other LA bad girl celeb LL, of whom you might have been thinking). Dwpaul (talk) 04:51, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Many people lose their minds without getting the police involved. If it wasn't for the trespassing/gasoline thing, she'd have remained free to make her own confidential decisions about her mental health. But the resulting behaviour lead to a public court decision on whether treatment for the perceived problem would occur. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

And no, I don't think of Lindsay Lohan. It took me this long to even figure out who you meant. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• Agree with OP: drop hospital name and location. (Per Orange Mike.) Andreas JN466 11:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Amanda Bynes clean-up needed

Guess what the reference for Amanda Byne's birth date is? It's sourced to ""Airport Authority Police Dept. Notice to Appear" from gossip site TMZ. I can think of at least three policies this violates. Anyone care to do some BLP clean-up on that article? I would do it myself, but I suspect I would end up with a much shorter article so perhaps someone with a gentler hand would like to take a look first... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to User:Hillbillyholiday81 for cleaning up the worst of the references. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:09, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Donald Featherstone (wargamer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There have been repeated edits to this page, stating that Featherstone died yesterday. So far none have been properly sourced, and in consequence have been reverted. The only citation provided at all has been to a Reddit page, [9] - which I consider clearly not WP:RS. Can I ask that others keep an eye on the page? I think semi-protection may also be necessary if this continues and no RS can be found. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:09, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I've added it to my watchlist. GiantSnowman 15:20, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a week until this settles down. GiantSnowman 09:45, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

A person claiming to be Featherstone's son-in-law has posted at Talk:Donald Featherstone (wargamer), stating that the reports are correct - I see no reason to doubt that he is who he says who he is, but I'm not sure how to proceed, given that we still don't have a published source. Any thoughts? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:31, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect, even when AGFing, we need to know that X is related to Y - anybody could make that claim, and with no RS to V, I feel the article should stay as it is for now. GiantSnowman 15:34, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Per an example of WP:Tiptibism by ArbCom, I say "Ave atque vale" Collect (talk) 12:14, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Err sorry what? GiantSnowman 12:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Ah, the wonderful Catullus. Ave atque vale, Collect. -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 18:19, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Hope to see you back soon. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

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

Over the past few days a conflicted editor has been adding a section accusing the subject of the article of corruption based on the editors own blog and own complaint with the Southern District of New York. I have removed it twice now, explaining on the editors talk page that it violates the no original research rule, the conflict rule, the neutral viewpoint rule, and the verifiable sources rule (and probably others) but he has ignored my comments and continues to reinsert the allegations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sneekypat (talk • contribs) 13:56, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the questionable content and left a warning on the user's talk page. KillerChihuahua 14:45, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

• Covino and Rich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article about a readio show which I just stubbed. It was a mess of derogatory content aimed at the hosts, and apparently someone associated with the show opted to insert ((cn)) all over the place instead of reporting or removing it. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I have opened an RFC on the first bullet point of MOS:IDENTITY. This is a separate issue from the ongoing discussion of pronoun usage for transgendered individuals. Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#MOS:IDENTITY RFC: Should the text "When there is no dispute..." be deleted, kept or changed? GabrielF (talk) 02:55, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

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

Hi, all! I'm coming here for a quick question.

I'm an OTRS agent, handling ticket:2013071510009944. The person who emailed is a representative of Dr. Chopra, and the doctor himself was in on the email thread. There were several changes that they requested someone make to the article, and I made a few at [10]. This change was reverted, and discussed per WP:BRD (tread at [11]).

Which brings me to my question. Because I'm an OTRS agent in direct contact with the doctor, do I have a COI? Is there a policy that allows me to make edits on behalf of the subject (following consensus of course), or should I make edit requests? I assume this isn't the first time this has happened for BLPs, that's why I'm asking here. If this is the wrong place, my apologies. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Make a comment!} 00:47, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you have COI since you are interpreting Chopra's wishes without benefit to yourself.

Business Wire is a terrible source; just PR fluff, not independent reporting.

The Ig Nobel prize should stay. It was widely reported.[12][13][14]

I don't think Chopra will ever be completely happy with his biography on Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 01:15, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you have a COI as long as you are applying your independent judgment (as appears to be the case from the talk page discussion) on which edits to make, and take responsibility for the changes. If, hypothetically, an OTRS agent were to instead act as a direct proxy for the subject that would raise COI concerns, which wouldn't forbid article editing per se, but would suggest that talk page would be the better venue.

As the situation currently stands, you can simply discuss the changes on their merits. Just be sure to be clear when you are mentioning your own views versus informing what the subject's representative say through the OTRS system. Abecedare (talk) 02:19, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

You don't have a COI at all, unless you have one (because you're a big fan of the man or whatever), in which case you should recuse yourself from handling the ticket. But if that's not the case, you are simply acting as a go between - addressing the (possibly valid or not) concerns of a subject and our policies. As long as you edit the article following the letter and the spirit of those policies and guidelines, you're OK. This is not about giving the subject what they want, but rather ensuring that the article is neutral and well sourced. As a side note, often subjects dislike the fact that criticism that would otherwise be scattered around the internetz is suddenly in a centralized place, easily accessible and distilled down to its basics. Part of your "job" is to make sure they understand that's inevitable, but at the same time ensure that the negative stuff doesn't drown out everything else. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:34, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, thank you for your input!

And thank you, Binksternet, for making the changes to the article. Those were actually three of the changes the doctor requested. Judging by the latest email, you're totally right. I got asked why BRD trumps BLP , go figure.

Thank you everyone once again. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Make a comment!} 16:09, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome. I reduced the article from the stance of strict BLP considerations. In my real world audio engineer job, Chopra has spoken over my sound systems several times, for various audiences such as venture capitalists or Indian entrepreneurs. Whether you admire him or not, he is a very interesting speaker in person. He and I have no direct personal or business connection—he has spoken to thousands of groups and I'm sure his sound has been managed by hundreds of audio engineers. Binksternet (talk) 16:28, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Bhabaniprosad Mazumdar , is a king of rhyme in the realm of Bengali literature. He was born in 1953, at Dakhsin Shanpur, near Dasnagar, Howrah , West Bengal, India. He is a retired teacher, and still creating Hundreds of Thousands of Rhyme in Bengali , He is popular writer at the age group of eight to Eighty.He has got numerous prizes in Bengali Literature. Some of His popular books are : Chhande gora mohan Jara, Mojar Chhora, Chhorachhori gora gori, Jachai kora Bachai Chhora,Mithe kora Abritir Chhora,Chhorar vir Abritir, Jiban Surya Bajay Turya,Sadyo Gora, Podyo Chora,Rinik jhinik khusir finik ,Uluk jhuluk, Chhorar Muluk,Tapur tupur Chhorar Nupur,Bhut Petni Jindabad,Mon kore maat Rabindranath, Chhande Gantha ae kolkata,Akash vora Graho Tara, Jader bole somaj Chole,Nao Phool Nazrul etc. He has written his books with everything in life."Chhora Chhori Goragori", the album with his rhyme, recited by Soumitra Chattapadhayya.http://www.google.co.in/imgres?imgurl=http://www.satinath.com/images/a4.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.satinath.com/discography — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.45.67 (talk) 06:46, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I am the subject of this page. What do I do to correct errors or suggest further information as the current "stub" is a bit limited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulgilding (talk • contribs) 07:46, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

The best approach is to declare your interest on the article's talk page and then, with care to be as disinterested and neutral as one can be about one's self, write on the talk page there with precision the changes you would appreciate being made. Since you are the gentleman concerned it is vital that you only suggest changes that are verifiable in reliable sources, and give those references.

The problem you face then is that you await another editor's pleasure to make the changes.

It tends to be accepted that one may correct factual inaccuracies one's self. Great care is still required here to ensure that such changes are supported by sources and that one gives those sources.

An issue you will find hard to get to grips with is that WIkipedia concerns itself only with verifiable facts, and is wholly unconcerned with the truth unless it is confirmed in reliable sources. For example, you may know you have three heads, but, unless this is cited in reliable sources, the prior fact (which we shall say is cited for this bizarre example's sake) that you have five must remain in the article.

If you want to, ask me on my own talk page to help you. I'm happy to be a guide.

One thing you need to understand, too, is that the text you suggest may be altered by any editor at any time. That is the way of WIkipedia. Fiddle Faddle 10:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

User Antopandeth is constantly inserting unsourced claims in this BLP article even after several editors objected to it. Request some admin to look into the issue. Salih (talk) 14:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Unsourced personal information in a BLP may be reverted without discussion. Nonetheless, I left a warning on the user's talk page. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

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

Calling for additional eyes on this article. It was semi-protected for a day due to repeated additions of gossip about the subject's son. However, it was also recently radically rewritten by an editor who has now identified himself in an edit summary as the subject himself. I had already contacted that editor on his talk page; I rewrote the article incorporating elements of his version; and I've now opened a section on the article talk page; but I would welcome the involvement of better diplomats, particularly with the topic regarding the son sitting there on the talk page just above my new section. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

The above section needs a cleanup by a defter hand than mine. Blow by blow details of the very recent murder & investigation followup, replete with weighty quotes from the bereaved son. WP:NOTNEWS 78.105.23.195 (talk) 08:45, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello,

I am the subject of this article and I see that an inaccurate birth year has been repeatedly inserted and then even more inaccurately re-inserted. I just removed it for the second or third time. I I have a fairly good idea of the source of this posting, and I believe this is done with malicious intent, and in any case, it is inaccurate. I have just removed it again and left the birth year blank. Please be on the alert for any new re-insert of a birth year from the same source. I believe it has been under username WIlliam DFG however the same user could change usernames. Thank you. Eszter Balint — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bardybardy (talk • contribs) 13:24, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

If you manage to wade through Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of rampage killers you will see that I am having a bit of trouble communicating with User:Lord Gøn, a single-purpose account whose focus is "rampage killers". Note that we currently have no article on Rampage killers although we have several sortable lists of them. One BLP issue with those lists has now been fixed (the editor was including people on the lists of "killers" who had not killed anyone because they "intended" to kill people) but one question remains problematic.

WP:BLP could not be clearer that "A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law" but Lord Gøn insists on the rightness of including people who references only say have been "arrested". In some cases, the perpetrator of such a crimes may be found not responsible for the crime because of mental disease or defect, but that is not the situation we are discussing here. These are people who have been arrested for the crimes but we do not know if they have stood trial and been found guilty, are awaiting trial, have been exonerated, or have been diverted to a mental health facilty - all we know is that they were arrested.

It seems like a blatantly obvious violation of WP:BLP to include these people in lists of "rampage killers", but perhaps wider discussion is necessary. I will invite Lord Gøn to participate. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:58, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

One comment... I've asked Delicious carbuncle to tag or remove the BLP violations but, as yet, there's been no activity. Perhaps someone can convince this editor to do something about the problem, rather than just forum shop at Jimbo's talkpage, or AFD, or here. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Not much point in removing them if the main editor of these lists is adamant about putting them back and/or adding more in the future. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Another bad faith accusation. Looks like you're trying to collect 'em all... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I can only go by what Lord Gøn says, but I didn't start this discussion so that you could continue being a WP:DICK, I started it to get other opinions about the specific question that has been raised. You know where my talk page is if you aren't going to comment on that topic. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, by now it's clear you have some kind of DICK obsession, I'm not interested in that. You have identified an article with one, two (how many?) BLP violations, but instead of fixing the violations, you've run to Jimbo, run to AFD, run to this noticeboard to get someone else to do the work. Good effort! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:38, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

1) The fact that we don't have a "rampage killer" article is completely irrelevant. We have articles about topics that are very similar, and if you wish, you could try to get the article renamed to one of those. This is a reason to rename the article, but not to delete it.

2) All rules, including BLP, are subject to IAR. There are several reasons why someone might be an unconvicted killer, such as being not guilty by reason of insanity, being incompetent to stand trial, having diplomatic immunity, or being in a country where such killers are tried in secret. Rampage killers generally kill in an extremely public manner leaving lots of witnesses and evidence such that there is no doubt that the person accused did the killing, even if they escaped conviction because of insanity or some other such reason. If BLP is phrased such that we can't call them killers, that's just a badly worded rule that should be ignored. Furthermore, the fact that it is possible for the law to decide "this person killed, but has not committed a crime" implies that *we* can likewise say "this person has killed" without accusing them of committing a crime, so the policy isn't even worded badly--you're just misinterpreting it. Ken Arromdee (talk) 01:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Ken, I twice explained to you that you are discussing a completely different scenario (here & here). Perhaps someone else can try to explain the difference between what you are describing and simply having no information other than someone was arrested. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:15, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• Since you are referring me here to continue our discussion, here I am. Though I really don't know in how many different places this discussion has to be started, because imho one would've been sufficient, and that is Talk:List of rampage killers.

Anyway, you are selectively quoting BLPCRIME, and I ask you to read it again, in its entirety, including the footnotes, because after your quote above it continues to say that we should seriously consider not to include material suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured. That does not mean "never do that", but "consider if it is necessary and well sourced". Please take notice of footnote 6, which states, quote: "BLPCRIME applies to low-profile individuals and not to well-known individuals, in whose cases WP:WELLKNOWN is the appropriate policy to follow." And then take a look at WP:WIALPI what constitutes as a low profile individual, quote: "Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable." Now you tell me that someone running into a mall, shooting a dozen people is not actively seeking media attention. As the Westroads mall shooter wrote regarding his upcoming shooting spree: "I'm gonna be fuckin famous." Anybody going on a rampage is doing so either with the clear intention to, or at least with the knowledge that he will become the focus of media attention, and therefore BLPCRIME does not apply and your argument falls flat. (Lord Gøn (talk) 12:48, 3 September 2013 (UTC))

First off, the discussion is here because so that editors other than you and I will weigh in. Secondly, you are misreading why WP:BLPCRIME exists in the first place. It suggests that if someone has a WP biography but is not a widely-known figure, don't include accusations of crimes in their biography. Thirdly, you cannot assume the intentions of the alleged perpetrators. In the case you cite, we can rely on his words, but it is not reasonable to assume that this is true of all cases. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

As I see it, there are no restrictions for other editors to post at the talk-page of list of rampage killers, or the AfD, so anyone wanting to weigh in and state his, or her opinion could as well do it there, too.

And no, I am not misreading BLPCRIME, you are. BLP applies to any person still alive, not only to those who have a WP article. Any living person mentioned in an article is subject to BLP, no matter if he/she is notable enough for an entire article. But any person that is actually notable enough for his/her own article, is probably high-profile enough to not be subject to BLPCRIME, because it is very specific in that it does only apply to low profile persons.

The victim of a mass shooting, for example, would be a low profile individual, because it did not actively seek out media attention, but just happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time, so to add that said victim had defrauded 100,000 dollars from his employer, that would be covered by BLPCRIME, and should be removed, if it is unsourced, or irrelevant in the context the person is presented.

But the shooter himself? No, never. There's probably no more drastic way of attention seeking than to shoot up a public place, so the act alone is enough that the perpetrators cease to be low profile. But if you want to say that we don't know if they did it, as long as they have merely been arrested, then you have severe misconceptions of how a rampage killing is generally executed. These are not crimes where the perpetrator walks in, does his deed and then escapes, with the police arriving some time afterwards, doing its investigation and then arresting a suspect days, weeks, or maybe months later due to circumstancial evidence. No, what they do is walking in, attacking people until they are either overwhelmed by their victims, or until police arrives, whereupon they either commit suicide, get shot by police, or are arrested. It rarely even happens that one of them flees his killing grounds, they just stay there, and kill, until they are stopped, so there's almost never any question who did it, and in those very few cases where it is so, I refrain from adding the perpetrator's name, or the entire cases, e.g. the Glynn County Mass Murder. (Lord Gøn (talk) 18:33, 3 September 2013 (UTC))

Adding an unconvicted living person a list of rampage killers because you 'know they did it' is a violation of WP:BLP policy, plain and simple. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

What if the sources clearly state he did it, with no ambiguity whatsoever? Ain't Wikipedia about verifyability, not truth? (Lord Gøn (talk) 18:53, 3 September 2013 (UTC))

If what you say about these kinds of crimes is true, and I believe it is, then there will be very few cases where this issue comes up. If they have committed suicide or have been killed, then it isn't a BLP issue, since they are no longer a living person. If they have only been arrested, then you cannot add them to a list of "killers" (or "attackers" if the list criteria get changed). There would be more leeway in a full article where you could discuss what has been reported by credible sources, but there's no way you can put someone's name in a list of killers without the reader drawing the conclusion that they are a killer. And, despite your opinions, we wait until the courts have decided if they are killers or not. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:17, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, let's agree to disagree on that matter forever. You say, naming the arrested person can never be done, I say common sense demands to state the obvious, and not naming someone like Anders Breivik as the perpetrator, with or without conviction, will make us look like complete buffoons. As I have previously stated there have been edit wars about naming Jared Lee Loughner and James Eagan Holmes in the list, and they were eventually settled by adding that they were suspects. Anyway, no matter if we name the arrested person or not, any reported rampage killing that corresponds to the list's terms of inclusion should be added, and then we have to write something into the perpetrator-cell. (Lord Gøn (talk) 23:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC))

If you write the name of an unconvicted person into a column marked 'perpetrator', you violate WP:BLP policy. If you violate WP:BLP policy you are liable to be blocked from editing, regardless of whether you disagree with the policy or not. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:16, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I know that you see it that way, you've said so several times. I know that others see it the way I do. Also this is not a matter of disagreeing with the policy, just with the interpretation of what it actually says. (Lord Gøn (talk) 23:29, 3 September 2013 (UTC))

I have yet to see anyone agree with your interpretation. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:18, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLP policy is entirely clear regarding such matters - there is no room for 'interpretation': "A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law". AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:26, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• DC asked for new opinions. I'll be one. It looks like the AFD is quite clear, the list/article is needed, if possibly under a different name. I agree with DC's point that we need to be quite certain that anyone we call a rampage killer is one, this is a very highly derogatory claim; if there is any reasonable chance that someone isn't one, they should not be in this list. But I also agree with Ken's point that this does not mean they have to have been convicted of murder; one obvious example besides the one he mentioned is that many of these folks died at the end of their rampage, and the state didn't go through the bother of trying their corpse. So we need to go case by case. If there is any case that is still in doubt, it should not be on this list.--GRuban (talk) 18:44, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Agreed, thanks. It seems pretty obvious to me that any BLP violation should be removed. It didn't need an AFD for that. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
• From the discussion here, it sounds like the guidelines would be something like:
  • If a suspect has been arrested, but not convicted, we can't list them there. There's no deadline, we can wait until they are convicted or plead guilty. We wouldn't want to be complicit in a case like Richard Jewell, and that's exactly why we have BLP. Yes, that may mean some dead obvious listings will be delayed for a bit, but that's not the end of the world. If the event is in itself notable, we can have an article on it, explaining the situation in enough detail to satisfy BLP.
  • If a suspect has been found incompetent to stand trial or not guilty by reason of insanity, but it's beyond doubt that they were the killer, I think inclusion would generally be appropriate.
  • If the killer committed suicide or was killed during the attack, and it was certain that they were the attacker, inclusion is acceptable.
  • Obviously, those convicted of such an attack may be included.
• Anyone else's thoughts? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:33, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I concur with Seraphimblade's assessment. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:18, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I think this contradicts itself--the first says they must be convicted but the second lays out cases (incompetence, not guilty by reason of insanity) where they don't need to be convicted. Ken Arromdee (talk) 14:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Isn't "not guilty by reason of insanity" a court finding? And in the case of incompetence to stand trial there never can be a court finding, although the facts may be clear. On the whole, I think Seraphimblade's criteria make sense. If editors want, I could create an WP:Editnotice for the articles concerned, laying out the inclusion criteria. This would show up whenever anyone clicks one of the Edit tabs. Andreas JN466 15:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

So, what's the difference between the many mentions of the "accused" in the 2012 Aurora shooting and a note saying that the "accused" is still accused in the list? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:39, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

The difference is that the list is labelled 'killers'. And before anyone asks, you can't Wikilawyer around inclusion by saying that 'the list only states that they are accused'. If they haven't been convicted, they don't meet any reasonable criteria for inclusion in the first place. If the criteria includes 'alleged killers', the list title would have to be 'List of alleged rampage killers' - which would still violate WP:BLP policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:14, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

So the article on the Aurora shootings uses "alleged" many times, any reason why this shouldn't apply to the list? After all, the article is called "2012 Aurora shooting" and if there's an implication that someone did it (i.e. did the "shooting"), as described therein, there's no difference, right? In fact, this "alleged" killer has his own article. So, once again, why would we remove him from the list if it was adequately noted that he's still only accused? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:32, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

It is reasonable and likely that a reader will assume that anyone in a list called "List of rampage killers" is a rampage killer. That is not true of the article about the event. We also treat things in list articles differently from articles devoted to a particular subject. This seems a good time to point out that renaming the list to something like "List of alleged rampage killers" is a non-starter. Media reports may identify people as the "alleged" or "suspected" perpetrator, but going from that to "rampage killer" becomes an exercise in original research. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:12, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Ah, eventually you are mentioning the one point that actually may apply, and if I were you, I would've constructed my entire argumentation around it. Yes, it is true that BLP demands to treat lists differently and to not add any information that may suggest a person has committed a crime, but I have addressed this part in a previous comment already, and still think, that if there is no reasonable chance that the arrested was not the actual offender, which is the case in most rampage killings, then the rule should be ignored, because it is an immoderate impediment to the addition of relevant information.

You probably see this issue entirely from the point of rigidly enforcing Wiki policies, whereas I see it from a more scientific point of view, asking myself, what kind of information would I want to have present in such a list, so it helps me to find more on the subject. And the name of the arrested is doubtlessly of great value in this regard, so to me this is an obvious case of WP:IAR.

Also, there are apparently people who agree with my pov, because, as I said, there have been edit wars about the removal of names on grounds of BLP, and their eventual settlement was to add "suspect" either after the perps name, or in the additional notes, so it's not as if there wasn't some sort of community consensus already how to handle this. (Lord Gøn (talk) 11:38, 5 September 2013 (UTC))

Please read and absorb what people here have said. This isn't a case where "ignore all rules" is going to work for you. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I did read what the others have to say about it, and if the community comes to a different conclusion than I do, so be it. I simply wanted to say that it may be detrimental to the providing of useful information. (Lord Gøn (talk) 15:28, 5 September 2013 (UTC))

It may well be just easier to remove the "alleged" rampage killers in this case, although Delicious carbuncle's assertion that list articles are treated differently from articles is ignorant of current editing behaviour. Lists are articles, just a different type. They should be referenced just as an article should be referenced. They should stand alone. Just because some editors don't follow this, it doesn't make it right. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:04, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Since I'm already in complete agreement with Seraphimblade's assessment and criteria, thereby considering this discussion done, I just want to say I have a problem with the word "killer" being used when we're then using criteria from the judicial system, which btw "killing" is not a crime. Murder and manslaughter are crimes, requiring more to the facts than just someone "killed" someone, you have to reach certain criteria to be indicted, even before you ever have the chance to be convicted. You can kill in self-defense, and never be brought to trial but technically you ARE a killer. You can kill a deer, you're a killer, but did you commit a crime? (depends on the season I suppose). I guess it's part of the reason I get upset when someone says "Thou shall not kill" instead of "Thou shall not murder" (there's a difference and only one is found in the Bible).

As a further aside "innocent till proven guilty" technically doesn't occur under the US Constitution, it's one of those "exists in the penumbra" rights, drawn forth from the 5, 6, and 14th amendments and the common law heritage of the US; though as a signer of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights the US is bound by its statement of "presumed innocent until proven guilty" which per the US Constitution all treaties have full force as the "supreme law of the land" as if they were a part of the US Constitution, regardless of any conflict with state or federal law or even the Constitution itself.Camelbinky (talk) 19:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

The US constitution is a red herring: "A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law" is WP:BLP policy. And no, you can't Wikilawyer round it by claiming that calling someone a 'rampage killer' isn't an assertion that they have murdered. It clearly is. Anyway, this discussion has gone on quite long enough, and it is entirely clear that inclusion of an unconvicted living individual in a 'list of killers' is a gross violation of policy, regardless of attempts to suggest otherwise. Frankly, I'm astonished that anyone remotely familiar with Wikipedia policy should suggest otherwise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:01, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Let's not be too categorical, and take it case by case. In general I agree with you, but being categorical that way leads to, for example, needing to delete most of the FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives list as evading arrest is a crime, and yet many of them have not actually been convicted of evading arrest... There will be cases, as discussed above, when people who have not been convicted for various reasons will still be fine on that list. --GRuban (talk) 21:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that's a bit apples to oranges. If we say someone's on the FBI's 10 Most Wanted list, and they in fact are, that's a simple factual statement. It's not saying they're guilty of a crime, it's saying they're wanted by the FBI and on the Most Wanted list, and they verifiably are. On the other hand, saying someone is a "rampage killer", when they are only accused of a rampage killing, is not a correct statement. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:51, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Since it seems we're at a pretty good place here, unless anyone objects, I'll go ahead with Andreas' suggestion of an edit notice. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Two different IP addresses and one seldom posting user, most certainly the same person just using different accounts to not break the three revert edit war rule, keeps adding the word "allegedly" before the word "abducted", despite the police already concluding he did kidnap the girl. Discussion on the talk page has not convinced this person. Talk:Kidnapping_of_Hannah_Anderson#allegedly_abducted_is_slanderous_horrible_BLP_violation Some familiar with BLP issues, please look into this. To accuse the girl of lying, saying its only "alleged" she was kidnapped, and insinuating she was part of the murder of her family members, I believe is slanderous and a BLP violation. Please join the discussion there. Dream Focus 18:48, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

My sense is that the editor(s) who are proposing to insert/have inserted the words "alleged" and "allegedly" have done so because they are being legalistic and exercising what they see as an abundance of caution, since the sole suspect (now deceased) has never and will never be tried for and/or convicted of the crime. I do not think that the inclusion of these qualifiers impunes the integrity of the victim (and only remaining witness to the events), and so I do not think they violate guidelines for WP:BLP. There has been much debate in Talk about whether these qualifiers are necessary or even appropriate given the facts of the case. I think they are not, but I don't see their insertion as a BLP issue. If someone tried to explicitly introduce the theory (which exists, in some limited circles) in the article that the victim is lying and that no kidnapping took place, I would oppose it since many authorities have concluded and stated to media that that one did (WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE). That is not the case here. Dwpaul (talk) 17:37, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Saying the victim was "allegedly" abducted implies she may have been a willing accomplice. There is no credible claim to that effect in reliable sources. The investigators categorically repudiate the idea. Including "alleged" just gives credence to wild unfounded speculation that arose between the first sighting of the abducted girl and the shooting of the abductor, and adds to her victimisation. I have removed it from the article, and I'd appreciate it if admins could keep an eye on the article and issue appropriate warnings if yesterday's edit war starts up again. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:31, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• And he is now changing the infobox to say the guy was the "suspected perpetrator" instead of just "perpetrator". [15] Is it a BLP violation to report what the police report says? Do they need to go to trail to prove he was responsible for the double murder and the kidnapping? Dream Focus 21:09, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
• "He" is me; I am not the person responsible for the original edits that prompted your BLP submission; I've been the one walking the middle ground. And yes, he is the suspected perpetrator. And yes, they would need to go to trial to "prove" that he is responsible for the murder, fire and kidnapping, but that will not happen, since he is dead. So he will remain the suspected perpetrator, with strong circumstantial evidence to support the suspicion but without a finding (unless and until there is an inquest, which is relatively uncommon here in the US, and which officials may not initiate since there are no other suspects). Let the reader draw their own conclusions; we don't need to alter the known facts to force an outcome. Dwpaul (talk) 21:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

And the term "suspected perpetrator" doesn't imply any doubt that a crime occurred, only that the criminality of the suspect is unproven (a fact in this case). This is no longer a discussion of a potential BLP violation, since nothing about the current article has the prior effect. Dwpaul (talk) 21:56, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

This is a bit like what DiMaggio's sister is doing at the moment, attempting to soften up the image of of her brother and lay some culpability onto the kidnap victim. I'm not surprised at all to see this creep into the Wikipedia. Tarc (talk) 21:58, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, one of the editors who prompted this discussion by inserting "allegedly" before "kidnapped" cited comments by the sister as basis, which prompted me to point out to that editor that the family of the (now dead) suspect doesn't get to dictate the terms used to describe him. However, I don't see that "suspected perpetrator" is image softening, or has the effect of blaming the victim, it's simply the fact of the matter at this point in time. Dwpaul (talk) 22:04, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

User Anthonyhcole has reverted my edit [16] and I'd like additional opinions because I strongly disagree. I carefully cited basically every sentence. It's one thing if he had an issue with my wording, but there's no excuse for removing valid citations and just editing the text that referenced them. ThVa (talk) 16:59, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

The two citations of reliable sources included information which has already been widely reported, specifically about 13 phone calls between the suspect and the alleged victim prior to the crime. The editor then proceeded to discuss unofficial theories about potential complicity of the victim not supported by the citations, and in fact are discredited by them. One included an unequivocal statement from a law enforcement officer at the center of the investigation that no complicity was suspected. The editor also introduced theories about the victim faking her injuries, citing a non-reliable source (blogger) who speculated based on two photographs of unknown origin or authenticity and no official information. The reversion was based on WP:RS, WP:BLPGOSSIP and WP:AVOIDVICTIM, and I fully support them. Dwpaul (talk) 20:45, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Although the title of the article has not (as yet) been changed, the narrative and headings now refer to abduction of the subject rather than kidnapping. The distinction (by my reading) is that legally, the crime of child abduction doesn't hinge on lack of willingness of the victim to accompany their abductor, whereas kidnapping generally does. This should resolve the debate here on WP about whether a crime was committed in Miss Anderson's removal to Idaho, a source of much of the BLP controversy concerning this article. Seeking consensus in Talk now about changing the page title to match. Dwpaul (talk) 17:44, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Though not finding it, nor many new opinions on the subject. Please consider weighing in on the Talk page. Dwpaul (talk) 20:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

A lot of sourced, but derogatory, info has recently been added to this article. I'm concerned about WP:WEIGHT. To me, the "Personal life" subsection is starting to read like an attack piece. I've started a talk page thread on the topic. I'd appreciate some additional eyes on the article. David in DC (talk) 10:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

This article has some serious BLP issues IMO. English tabloids are being used as sources for slanderous text. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:01, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Dearie me. On a page under 'pending changes' protection no less! Those sources should be nuked on sight. -- Tabloid Terminator (Hillbillyholiday ^talk 20:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC))

Its all cleaned up now. Nice work folks! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I've just removed some information from Melanie_Griffith#Personal_life per WP:BLPCRIME. I think the sentences about Don Johnson (source: People.com) need looking at as well. -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 22:15, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Dunno how long that information was in the article. I suspect had this BLP been of a male actor, things would be different. -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 04:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Good deletion, its salacious cherry picking from a memoir. Not a reliable source for such serious allegations IMO.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:04, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I've tidied up the Johnson section. I think its OK now. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Keithbob. -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 18:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, if it gets deleted from one article, why should it stay in the other article? Is Tatum O'Neal#Autobiography claims also a BLP violation? StAnselm (talk) 21:51, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 23:49, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• Bhanwari Devi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There's an OTRS ticket that is requesting what is essentially a POV check (although not worded that way of course) on this article. Looking at it I see a lot of emphasis placed on the "allegedness" of the crime against this person, and we'd be well-served if we make sure that's indeed the case and not a bunch of POV warriors trying to diminish the incident and the effect on the subject for whatever reason. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, the verdict is supposed to be released today (I think), and there's a very good chance we'll be able to remove all of the "allegedly" results; perhaps just waiting a little will be easier. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:53, 11 September 2013 (UTC) Wait, that's someone different, ignore that; I'll check the article more carefully. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Follow-up: I've just cut major chunks of purely offensive material from the article based on no sources and intended solely to defame the subject of the article. Could you follow up with the filer of the OTRS ticket and see if this gets at what they wanted? Qwyrxian (talk) 02:26, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

@Qwyrxian: Many thanks for that, it looks a lot more balanced now. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 15:58, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• Note; There is an ongoing discussion at The Reliability of Protoculture Addicts magazine that involves a source used in the article which is in dispute, please share your thoughts on the sourcing there.

@Folken de Fanel: continues to reinsert an inaccurate comments from an unreliable source on Hideaki Anno's interview in Newtype Magazine. Another editor removed this and I agreed with its removal, Folken reinserted it anyways. I removed it countering that the book was unreliable and it was not accurate and lacked appropriate context. Folken reinserted it to an questionable editorial in Protoculture Addicts, which also was not an accurate translation and the information he inserted did not match the text he reinserted. Also, the Protoculture Addicts source is an allusion, not a direct quote and is out of context. The comments are a response to the "Anno is dead" and other death threats the director had received. I removed it again and gave a lengthy post on why it was wrong. After correcting them misinformation and cited the actual source, Folken removed it as "RV unsourced non neutral edit and reinstate perfectly reliable content" which is false.[17] The information is inaccurate and being used to advance a position that was not in the source. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I also notified the user of this discussion, and he removed it.[18] ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:56, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Whether or not a source is reliable is not a BLP matter.—Ryulong (琉竜) 14:24, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

In this case the reliability of the source is being used to justify a BLP violation by drawing a conclusion unsupported by the original document. The well known translation on the site is, "For example, someone mentions my name, saying, "Anno is dead". If that person were next to me, perhaps I might hit them. On the message boards someone can still make a rebuttal, but this remains at the standard of toilet graffiti." Translation matter aside, the context is important here, taking something out of context to arrive at something not said in the source is wrong on numerous accounts. RS typically deals with the publication, not the individual articles or their content as being "right or wrong" and since this is a novel interpretation by someone aware of the materials, I rather have it be handled at BLP where the root matter can be analyzed. Though the article's reliability which is both dubious and not preferred by Wikipedia's measure, the original source is the best and not some editorial "telephone" discussion. Furthermore, the round table discussion was and is all we need for Anno's rebuttal to actual criticism and not this derived double comment Folken advances. Given the events surrounding it, the Evangelion documents alone paint a pretty good picture of the context and give ample reason why its usage is questionable. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:15, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

ChrisGualtieri has not read either my source or my edit, therefore he acts upon an outdated and inaccurate representation of what he thinks is my edit. This has happened before, and unless he decides to carefully read all of what he is discussing, I can't see where this discussion would go. Because there is absolutely no difference between what he says, what my source says, and what my edit in the article says.Folken de Fanel (talk) 15:38, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

No, actually ChrisGualtieri is even incapable of reading his own source, which does not allude to death threats anywhere, but does start with "The 26th episode that some diehard fans rejected…sure, it’s true that some fans were frustrated by the absence of continuity with the original story. But on the Internet, among other things, we have read some very scathing criticisms." Folken de Fanel (talk) 15:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• I will wait for a volunteer before continuing. As someone well-versed in this topic, I am willing to explain this in detail, but I do not want to bloat this further than necessary. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Note that as far as I know, ChrisGualtieri is not a Japanese-speaking user and doesn't have the original Japanese interview. He is relying on an English fan-translation found on an unreliable fansite here, which is itself a translation of an older French fan-translation of the original Japanese interview, from an unknown fansite. I am relying upon a summary of the interview by a prominent North-American publication, Protoculture Addicts, here. That ChrisGualtieri is even trying to compare a fan-translation of a fan-translation to a professional translation and summary is just baffling. But reading the 2 versions there is no difference, and even ChrisGualtieri's fan translation starts with the comment "The 26th episode that some diehard fans rejected…sure, it’s true that some fans were frustrated by the absence of continuity with the original story. But on the Internet, among other things, we have read some very scathing criticisms", then prompting the "graffiti on a wall" comment. My edit in the article is this: "in response to excessive criticism and gratuitous attacks from anonymous fans on the internet, he made controversial comments in a Newtype interview in June 1996, in which he compared their messages to "graffiti in a public toilet", and I honestly don't see how it would be different.Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:12, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

@ChrisGualtieri What statement in the edit do you think violates BLP? This seems to be a content dispute, and the content may or may not be translated appropriately, and may or may not be appropriate for the article, and may or may not come from a reliable source, but I see no defamation, libel, attack etc that should interest this board. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:47, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I was told to bring it here because it concerns the misrepresentation and out of context quotation of Anno, which is being attributed to the subject in a negative manner. Anno did not say what Folken quotes. Also, I do not believe the source is a reliable and objective commentary of the original source. I do not believe the comment is appropriate for the article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:54, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

So that's an issue of source reliablity, and not BLP, because the quote is properly sourced and attributed.Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:45, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Concerns are WP:BLPSOURCES, WP:GRAPEVINE and WP:BLPGOSSIP because of the attribution and stating and going as far an attributing quote to Anno which was paraphrased is a BLP matter. It is more than just the source reliability, three points of BLP apply to its usage in the article and BLP has a far stricter standard than anything else. Also, per GRAPEVINE I am removing it by policy. Do not reinsert it again during this discussion. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:52, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The 3 points you're citing all hinge on source reliability. To clear the matter once and for all, I've asked the question at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Reliability_of_Protoculture_Addicts_magazine. Note that per WP:GRAPEVINE, "although the three-revert rule does not apply to such removals, what counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Editors who find themselves in edit wars over potentially defamatory material about living persons should consider raising the matter at the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on the exemption." Given that all the users besides us have indicated this was not a matter of BLP and that no defamatory material was found, your reasoning for the immediate removal of disputed content is quite shaky, and your edit itself is nonconstructive.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:41, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

You have forum shopped it and billed this as about the reliability of the entirety of the publication at A&M.[19] You are attributing something negative or controversial to Anno and doing so with synthesis or a novel interpretation, that is the BLP concern. Your polemic arguments are tiring and your usage of PA over the original source is particularly non-sensical because it is your justification to lambast Anno with synthesis and your own novel assertions that he says one thing and means another. To top it off you use the bad paraphrasing as a quote when Anno wasn't even discussing the criticism of the work. We also have 3 perfectly valid sources for Anno's response and none of them require third or fourth hand accounts or re-interpreting as you assert here. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:56, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

My thread at RSN calls for commentary specifically on the capacity of PA to accurately translate/summarize a Japanese interview in an editorial. Surely you understand that PA's reliability to do so hinges on the whole publication's reliability. Sorry but the rest of your rant isn't taking into account any actual content so I'm not bothering to answer to that.Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Newly spun off article from the Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin. Subject is in the news again recently in regards to a domestic dispute. soon-to-be-ex-wife made a 911 call saying he had a gun and was threatening her. wife has now recanted, saying she never saw a gun, police say no gun found. Although Zimmerman probably qualifies for WP:WELLKNOWN at this point, I believe this is a violation of WP:BLPCRIME and WP:TABLOID as at this point there is not even an allegation of a crime anymore, yet we are saying "On September 9, 2013, in Lake Mary, Florida, police responded to a 911 call by Zimmerman's estranged wife, who reported that Zimmerman had threatened her and her parents with a gun and had punched her father in the face. Zimmerman was detained and questioned by police.[28] His wife refused to press charges and recanted some of her story. No gun was found at the scene. Police were investigating a broken iPad for video to determine if they would press charges."

I don't want to get in an edit war as I have reverted some of this content twice now (removing the detail of the allegation, and just saying she called 911), but I believe this could use additional eyes. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:27, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

People are obviously trying to add this information because they don't like Zimmerman, don't like that he was acquitted, and want to insert information making him look bad. It's not as if this information is relevant to the shooting or trial. You could make a much better case for having a Trayvon Martin article with certain well-known negative information about Martin (since this information *has* been brought up in the media in connection with the shooting) but right now we don't have such an article at all and I would imagine the people who approve of the Zimmerman article would disapprove of that. Ken Arromdee (talk) 19:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I doubt this has anything to do with anyone's personal feelings about Zimmerman. The media in the US have made Zimmerman into a celebrity of sorts, as they tend to do. As such, they are going to continue to report on his activities, especially if they can draw a connection between those activities and the incident which made him a household name. Is there actually a BLP concern here? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:12, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

If I was a reluctant celebrity, I don't think I'd want a baseless accusation from an ex-wife in an enyclopedia article. Even if the article says it's baseless, there's still that doubt a mention at all places in readers' minds. Wikipedia should stick to things that did happen. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:24, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the new Wikipedia. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

A bit different here. That accuser didn't already recant (or if she did, we don't mention it). More reasonable to err on the side of "She might be telling the truth" in that situation. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:54, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)In that case at least it is a he said/she said situation. In the GZ situation, its a she formerly said, but has now recanted, but we are reporting it anyway. We are reporting an allegation, that nobody is actually making. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:56, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

If I understand the situation (and I may not, since it is of absolutely no interest to me and I have not read any of the reports), no one is saying the allegation was not made. Recanting something is not the same as denying it was ever said. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:08, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

No, but it means the original statement turns to empty words, which carry far less weight in determining fact, but retain their power to persuade already presumptious readers. It's not even a minor thing which the subject of the article did, but someone related to him, so the fact of the accusation itself doesn't seem appropriate here (and no, I don't suggest we create an article for his wife to remedy this). InedibleHulk (talk) 21:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I think the editorially responsible thing to do would be to restore the redirect to Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin and include only what was relevant in that context, but I don't think that's going to happen. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:35, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• Bat Ye'or (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello,

Could you confirm or invalidate this and this ? Was there really a BLP violation? (I do not ask about the previous edit) Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:47, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Such a statement is a BLP violation if unsourced by relevant and notable reliable sources. . What reliable sources are you using to identify him as a conspiracy theorist? Gaijin42 (talk) 21:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Labeling people negatively or positively beyond their principal claim to notability requires multiple unambiguous reliable sources that call the subject exactly that. If you have that then it's not a straight BLP violation, however there are a few other considerations such as undue weight that may come into play. Consider also that when a label is negative it's best to word things neutrally, making clear that you (as an also neutral Wikipedia contributor) are not passing judgement on the subject. John Doe is a saxophonist that has been called a 'stuffed bunny' by X, Y and Z is better than John Doe is a saxophonist and a stuffed bunny. That said, there are labels and there are labels, so each case might be different. If there is already a discussion on the talk page about this then I'd recommend sticking to that. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:22, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

It's clear from the sourcing that the subject is most notable as conspiracy theorist and that she is widely-described as such. It's also clear that this is not just a popular slur.

Just by the way, given that she is a very controversial figure, the article overall does not give the impression of complying with NPOV. The appraisals appear cherry-picked - in fact, a large chunk them pretty much lifted from the back cover of her book Eurabia. Formerip (talk) 22:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I am involved in an edit war over Mel Sembler, an American businessman and former Ambassador. Sembler was involved in a controversial drug treatment program called Straight, Inc., about which there is a long history of activist, POV editing on Wikipedia. The current conflict consists of a paragraph stating that a complaint to a UN body was filed against Sembler for "crimes against humanity" due to his role with Straight, Inc.diff The content is sourced to an article at opednews.com. Opednews does not meet WP:RS, it is a platform where activists and activist organizations can post content without editorial oversight. This particular piece was published by Janet Parker, the Executive Director of an organization called Medical Whistleblower, which, according to her opednews profile: "is an organization dedicated to advocacy and emotional support for those who have bravely stepped forward to "Tell Truth to Power" to the Medical Establish." (sic) Clearly posting allegations that an individual has committed "crimes against humanity" without a reliable secondary source is a violation of WP:BLP. GabrielF (talk) 05:51, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

GabrielF has a history of deleting well sourced content(see: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mel_Sembler&diff=485842728&oldid=485840722) on the Mel Sembler page with little or no explanation as to why other than "BLP issues", and when questioned on the talk page as to why he mass deleted content he referred to only a small part of the text he deleted (the penis pump section)as being BLP (it was not, it was a major news story covered by several papers, with multiple cites) and referred to only one of the many cites (from an upstate NY paper, one of at least 5 cites for the pump section) as being WP:RS. Nuff said. Snertking (talk) 06:17, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of other issues, GabrielF has a point about opednews.com - that is clearly not a reliable source and may not be used for any contentious claims about a living person. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:21, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Let's see - a trash-picking burglar with an agenda supposedly found a penis pump in an elderly man's garbage and tried to auction it off to humiliate the man. There was a lawsuit and an injunction. Yeah, right. And Snertking is repeatedly trying to reinsert this crap into the biography? I just removed the crap section. The whole article deserves scrutiny. Personally, I have no affection for Sembler, but he shouldn't be subjected to a biased hit piece as opposed to a neutral biography. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:49, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

covered by major news sources such as the St Petersburg Times, Huffington Post, Washington Post, etc. There are like what, 7 articles about this cited? This was a major and well covered scandal. CLEARLY not a BLP issue. Snertking (talk) 07:02, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I happen to also like NorthBySouthBaranof change of the pumpgate section title, which clearly (in retrospect) WAS wp:pov (the title only, the story is not wp:npov and should not have been blanked by User:Cullen328) . The new title is more neutral and accurate.Snertking (talk) 07:18, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I now agree with NorthBySouthBaranof that opednews is not wp:rs and shall leave his edit standing. However I am sure other sources on this exist (if not simply just the UN documents themselves!) and reserve the right to add the text back if a truly wp:rs source can be found.Snertking (talk) 07:07, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

The original documents would not be acceptable as sources. See WP:PRIMARY - we do not use primary sources to support contentious claims about living people without reliable and independent secondary sources. Primary sources require interpretation. For instance, in this case, it would be inappropriate to cite a complaint alleging that a person committed "crimes against humanity" without a secondary source that establishes that the complaint is worth paying attention to. Anyone can make an accusation about another person. We don't publish these accusations unless secondary sources deem them to be significant. GabrielF (talk) 07:11, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I was referring to using the document that the UN istself sent in reply stating that although the accusation had merit, they lack jusrisdiction as the US was not signatory to the treaty in question. That would be a secondary WP:RS source referring to the original complaint. The original complaint itself of course is primary and therefore not wp:rs. Snertking (talk) 07:19, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Snertking has reinserted the penis pump junk, and dropped a vandalism template on my talk page. Is Wikipedia now a vile gossip rag? "Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives: the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:21, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

The text you blanked was not a BLP privacy issue as it was covered by several major newspapers in probably a dozen articles over 3 years. Not gossip rags either, mind you. Publications such as the washington post. Granted the title of the section was POV and needed tweaking, but blanking the whole section was uncalled for. The rational as to why the discussion of the penis pump was not BLP already existed on the talk page, yet rather than add to that discussion you took it upon yourself to ulitaterally blank the while section. and therefore it was vandalism in my eyes. Snertking (talk) 07:38, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

@Snertking - No, a letter sent in reply to a complaint by the recipient of the complaint is absolutely a primary source. It is an original document close to the event and is not acceptable as a source in this case. GabrielF (talk) 07:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Acknowledged. I will not add it back in unless I can find an article in a major reputable publication then, one that we would all agree is wp:rsSnertking (talk) 07:40, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

The content highlighting Sembler's intimate medical conditions; namely prostate cancer and erectile disfunction, simply do not belong in this BLP, in my opinion, even if mentioned once in the Washington Post. Sembler was forced into this disclosure by a long term harasser. I removed it and being accused of vandalism for doing so. Am I a vandal? Any thoughts? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:45, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing in the artickle content referring to prostate cancer or erectile dysfuntion. Not before your blanked it, and not after i restored it. Nada. However, if it makes you happy, though, I would be willing to remove the word penis and just refer to it as a pump. Or how about just a "personal item". If you are whining about the headlines of the cites, headlines of articles published by major papers, well.... can't help ya with that. The actual text of the wiki article itself is pretty discreet.(if you look at past edits and the talk page, you will see i did remove "penis" in the past, and someone with an agenda added it back)Snertking (talk) 07:54, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the section should be removed. Sembler was the victim in this incident. Bradbury rifled through Sembler's trash and then put what he claims he found on the Internet. Sembler sued him. Repeating Bradbury's claims is against the spirit of WP:BLP. Snertking has thrown around accusations of vandalism a number of times tonight[20]. I would strongly caution Snertking that legitimate discussions about content do not constitute vandalism and that he should be careful not to make personal attacks on other editors. Given that Snertking himself now acknowledges that the claim should have been removed, he should also acknowledge that accusing an editor of vandalism for removing it was inappropriate. GabrielF (talk) 07:58, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Dissussion is one thing, unilaterally taking it upon oneself to blank entire sections without discussion on the articles talk page occurring first is another thing entirely, and is vandalism. That behavior, and only that behavior, is what my accusations of vandalism were referring to. I would likewise caution GabrielF about personal attacks against myself. Especially in light of his own past behavior regarding this page. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mel_Sembler&diff=485842728&oldid=485840722) I WILL stand by my accusation of GabrielF vandalizing it in the past, as the proof is incontrovertible. There has been a history of people vandalizing the page by blanking negative content, including incontrovertible evidence of Sembler's own company doing it. (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mel_Sembler#Vandalism_from_Sembler.com_domain for details) Neutral parties can draw their own conclusion as to what is going on here. Snertking (talk) 08:19, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Once again, you fail to distinguish between a legitimate content dispute and vandalism. To quote Wikipedia:Vandalism: "Bold edits, though they may precede consensus or be inconsistent with prior consensus, are not vandalism unless other aspects of the edits identify them as vandalism. The Wikipedia community encourages users to be bold, and acknowledges the role of bold edits in reaching consensus." I do not recall having ever made a personal attack against you. As to your comment: "There has been a history of people vandalizing the page by blanking negative content, including incontrovertible evidence of Sembler's own company doing it... Neutral parties can draw their own conclusion as to what is going on here." Are you implying that I am some sort of shill for this person? GabrielF (talk) 08:25, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Discussion has begun on the Mel Sembler talk page about the quality of the sources and the BLP implications of some of this material. All interested editors are invited to comment there. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

This article was previously mentioned on this noticeboard, but archived without discussion. WP:BLP policies have been a significant part of the discussion around this article, in particular related to the current use of certain sources for contentious material about a BLP. Some of the sources include:

• A press release from the Permanent Mission of the Somali Republic to the United Nations
• An op-ed written by Said A. Saryan, a political specialist with ties to the Northern Somalis for Peace and Unity, a political organization with the opposite platform as the BLP.
• An op-ed written by the Qarshe & Tima-Ade International Center, an organization with a mission to lobby for the opposing political platform as the BLP

Based on the sources I have seen, the BLP appears to be best-known for allegations of using his position with the UN to promote the independence of Somaliland over the interests of neighboring Puntland. So it's not necessarily a BLP violation that the article have a negative slant. However, the discussion around if these sources should be used, to what extent and what is a neutral way to present them, etc. could use a few more editors experienced in BLP articles and policy.CorporateM (Talk) 23:13, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

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

Most of the actually cited content in the article is related to a now-debunked series of accusations of personal misconduct for which the subject was never charged and has been thoroughly vindicated. As a result of an OTRS request, I cleaned up the page to remove details of the accusations and put more weight on emphasizing that he was cleared [21]. But there is still a slow-moving edit war over whether this section should be included at all, and I think we have to take the subject's interest in having the record purged seriously.

causa sui (talk) 19:05, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

The allegations themselves are noteworthy due to the fact that Graham Fitch's complaint against SABC for the SABC Special Assignment episodes "Prelude For A Paedophile" and "Finale For A Paedophile" resulted in the largest ever fines levied by the Broadcasting Complaints Commission of South Africa (BCCSA). The BCCSA found the SABC guilty of negligence and defamation. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Do you think it would be acceptable to trim out the data about what the accusations were? For many people, merely mentioning the possibility than an educator is a pedophile and a drug addict can be enough to leave the stink of suspicion on the defamed person for life, even if the accusations are completely baseless. causa sui (talk) 00:15, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

We aren't saying that Fitch is a pedophile and a drug addict. We are saying that an award-winning investigative news program made those allegations (and was fined a record amount specifically because they made them). After a two-episode investigation has aired on television and there has been a public proceeding about those programs, I think the cat is out of the bag. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:59, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

All right. I'll leave it there. causa sui (talk) 08:22, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Mark Latham is an ex-Australian politician who still spends quite a bit of his time talking about (and being interviewed about) politics in Australia. During the last election cycle, he made some comments either about the judgment of Tony Abbott, or about his negative perceptions of the attractiveness of another candidate (depending on how you interpret the focus of the remarks). User:OSX has added information about this interview to the article, (see Mark Latham#2103 federal election) and I've objected and attempted to remove it pending an establishment of consensus...but OSX has repeatedly reinserted it. My argument is that one particular interview that Latham made during a campaign in which he was not a candidate that got are time mainly in articles about "Gaffes of the 2013 election cycle" is not something of lasting importance that belongs in the subject's biography--that is, that it's not WP:DUE. OSX disagrees. Could we get some outside input, please? Qwyrxian (talk) 22:27, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, the truth is that probably the whole article needs to be reviewed for excessive commentary, but focusing on just this section is a good start. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:29, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

So...no input at all? Qwyrxian (talk) 07:48, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I've put an NPOV tag on the article and started a talk page thread.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:25, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

User:68.180.101.240 has edited a large number of articles of living American politicians to identify them as "lobbyists". This is fine, even in the introduction, but this user is placing it as the first piece of identifying information (i.e. "Bob Smith (born 1942) is an American lobbyist and former President of the United States"), even before their primary reason for notability. And this user is edit warring when editors attempt to relocate this identification to later in the introduction. In the case of Howard Dean, it was added cited to a source which contradicts this identification, a source that says he works for a lobbying firm as an advisor but is not registered as a lobbyist. IANAL, but doesn't this accuse him of an illegal act, unregistered government lobbying? This whole matter strikes me as having some serious BLP implications but I'd like some more thoughts before I start mass reverts. Gamaliel (talk) 03:04, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Agree. Looking at the bulk of these edits together, they seem to be made with a single purpose. The editor is moving through dozens of biographies and changing the lede to state that a person is a lobbyist (often erroneously), usually without providing refs. At the very least, the ones that incorrectly characterize someone as a lobbyist are clear BLP violations, but the other ones are also problematic. "Lobbyist" often has a pejorative connotation when referring to someone otherwise notable for public service. If it's not their career, just a consultancy or whatever, it shouldn't be in the lede. --Loonymonkey (talk) 03:46, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, my source for almost all of the un-reffed inclusions is the Center for Responsive Politics: http://www.opensecrets.org/revolving/top.php?display=Z. The distinction between being formally known as an "advisor" to a lobbying firm versus being a registered lobbyist is, as the Howard Dean source itself notes, "largely illusory". Simply stating that someone is a lobbyist doesn't necessarily mean that person needs to be registered. And many more of them are in fact registered as lobbyists. Before I made these edits, almost every page of politicians-turned-lobbyists beared no mention whatsoever of their lobbying activity. Every single politician whose page I've edited - aside from a couple that have since been reverted - is in fact engaging in K Street lobbying as a part of their career. I believe I have thus made significant improvements to the precision of such articles. If you have any more objections to particular pages, state them and I will assess their merit.68.180.101.240 (talk) 05:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

We have very strict rules about factual sourcing in articles involving living individuals. It doesn't matter if you or I agree (which I do) that the distinction is "largely illusory". We can't eliminate that distinction and factually assert in Wikipedia's voice that he is a lobbyist unless the source explicitly says so. The matter of Dean aside, the issue isn't that you are mentioning that these individuals are lobbyists, the issue is the manner in which you do so and the placement of that information in the articles. For the record, I do think this information does add value to these articles, I'm just taking issue about where it is placed. Gamaliel (talk) 17:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I've only checked about less than a dozen of these articles, but I've already found three major errors where people have been labeled "lobbyists" when the cited source specifically states that the person is not a lobbyist, and in one case, says they are legally forbidden from lobbying. I'm going to revert en masse. Gamaliel (talk) 17:34, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

What's incredible and pathetically disingenuous is that not only did you remove the placement from the beginning of the leads, but you also indiscriminately reverted without bothering to insert any mention of their work for lobbying firms anywhere in the articles, let alone the leads. So much for merely taking issue with where the information is placed. If you have any credibility, you'll go article-by-article and correct your mistakes, but I have so little faith in you that I'll be doing it. 130.91.142.1 (talk) 18:23, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I did it for the reason I stated above, the large number of factual errors. If you wish to correct these errors, you can restore this information to the article. You can't insert a bunch of factual errors and then complain about how they were removed. Gamaliel (talk) 18:28, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, you can. Indeed, 68.180.101.240 did. You just can't do it expecting for your complaint to make much of an impression. David in DC (talk) 20:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

You're right, point taken. I guess that sentence of mine ended with an implied "...and expect me to take your complaint seriously." Gamaliel (talk) 21:23, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

He has continued to make similar edits as User:68.180.29.133. These are a great improvement, but there was one significant error and they do require some tweaking. We should keep an eye on this. Gamaliel (talk) 03:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Significant error? Go take a look at Paul G. Kirk and come back to me. The only error was yours for failing to look at other sources. Also, protip: when you make an edit explaining that information should be moved elsewhere in the article, then move the information yourself instead of waiting for others do it for you. 68.180.29.133 (talk) 04:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The error is mine because I didn't clean up your mess the way you wanted me to? That doesn't even begin to make sense. Gamaliel (talk) 04:40, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll be simple for you: go edit the Dirk Kempthorne article right now and add to the body the specificity about lobbying that you claim you desire. Do not simply remove the edit for the purpose of telling someone else to add it when you can do it on your own. 68.180.101.240 (talk) 15:42, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Please keep posting here. It makes it easier to keep track of your changing IP addresses. Gamaliel (talk) 23:01, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I've been posting from the same computer all this time. If you consider keeping track of my IP's a high priority in my life, be my guest. Also, your habit of avoiding any discussion on talk pages is unseemly, embarrassing, and indicative of remarkably low self-confidence.68.180.101.240 (talk) 23:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

You seem like a pleasant fellow. Gamaliel (talk) 23:41, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm very pleasant to people who are intelligent enough and honest enough to deserve my respect. Unfortunately, you're neither. 68.180.101.240 (talk) 00:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I will try to soldier on somehow without the respect of such a brave internet warrior like yourself. Gamaliel (talk) 03:10, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Please do. Put that prestigious University of South Florida degree to its appropriate use and keep deriving your life satisfaction from being a Wikipedia editor.68.180.101.240 (talk) 21:38, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh, no, you insulted my skool! We're gonna hafta fight during recess. Gamaliel (talk) 21:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not insulting your school. I'm insulting you. Bye, kid. 68.180.101.240 (talk) 22:32, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

You are both out of line. Please stop now.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:27, 14 September 2013 (UTC)