Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive212

Frank Schilling

Someone is having fun with this biography by replacing such words as "investor" with "cybersquatter". Not a WP pro, and undid incrementally. Please check — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.165.190.17 (talk) 02:17, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Next time, you can click on the history tab, select the version prior to the editing, click 'edit this page' and just save that version. It seems like it needs to be watched a bit more at the moment. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:58, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

SPA account vandalizing Gary Soto article

A quick review of the contribution history will show what's going on [1]. Would an Admin please review this. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:30, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 week. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:33, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Many thx for the quick action! --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Sabrina Erdely

Sabrina Erdely's article links to See Also "Duke lacrosse case Jayson Blair moral panic which are implied NPOV accusations against her. She is also categorized under Journalistic hoaxes --Gary123 (talk) 00:15, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Sigh, this is going to be a bad one I think. I removed the See Also section and one category. We'll see how it goes. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

There's a move under discussion right now, which I think would clearly be for the best [2]. Artw (talk) 15:50, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

There is now a separate article (A Rape on Campus) - TBH neither it not the surviving BLP article seem without problems. Note that the See Also has been reinstated at the new article, I don't know to what extent that is a good idea even if it's no longer directly on a Bio. Artw (talk) 21:56, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

regina calcaterra

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

A former employee of Regina Calcaterra referred to as Nathan is posting inaccurate information. Several entrants have attempted to resolve the inaccurate information by providing updated cites, and Nathan has returned to undo the material. First, she has been employed by a state agency called NYSIF since July, and Nathan keeps posting that she is with the prior commission. Second, the first commission she ran looked into public traded utility companies' not government operated utilities, third, she was removed from the ballot in the state senate campaign because she did not meet the policy that she had to be a resident of New York for five consecutive years (she moved out of the state for a short time) not that she was not a resident of the senatorial district. Finally, there are accusations in here regarding presumptions by the US attorney. At not time did the US attorney express that. In fairness, the amendments made were done in an effort to balance out Nathan's additions, but Nathan continuously undoes the changes. Nathan is not an objective party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.148.235.158 (talk) 02:34, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Um... I've been a Wikipedian since 2007 and my identity is fairly well known. I have no relationship, past or present, with the subject of the article. I've edited hundreds of BLPs and this one is compliant with policy, if not a perfect article. If the IPer wants to discuss specific issues, he/she is welcome to do so on the talkpage. Wholesale whitewashing deletions of content aren't permitted, Wikipedia is not an advertising platform. Nathan ^T 03:23, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

The article seem to have a lot of external links in the text, and the "Memoir" section is not very WP-ish. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:45, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry, Nathan, but I don't think this is much of an improvement. The Daily News is a tabloid, and at any rate your edit cites the blog. Text such as this, "She is also an advocate for foster children, supporter of government reform and formerly served as a frequent commentator of policy and politics appearing on CNBC, Newsday and other local media outlets", is promotional in tone and content. Drmies (talk) 03:33, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I didn't write the fluffy bits, but certainly they don't qualify as BLP concerns. The article is far from perfect, but that's no reason to subject it to whitewashing deletions. As for the bit cited to the NY Daily News... it's a blog, but an edited blog from a news organization. The paper is a tabloid in that it isn't published in broadsheet, but it's also one of the most popular print newspapers in the U.S. Nathan ^T 20:08, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Jamie Spencer-Churchill, 12th Duke of Marlborough

Jamie Spencer-Churchill, 12th Duke of Marlborough

Please can the title of the page be changed to Charles James Spencer Churchill, 12th Duke of Marlborough. This is his full/true name, he should be referred to by his Christian/birth name, not by a nickname. This must be changed, as a representative of Blenheim Palace, I urge you to do this as soon as is possible.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blenheim Palace (talk • contribs) 09:05, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

We don't necessarily use a person's full given name (nobody would find Boris Johnson if that were the case), but per WP:COMMONNAME we use the most likely correct term instead. I have renamed the article to James Spencer-Churchill, 12th Duke of Marlborough as a sample of reliable sources used in the article use the name "James" when referring to his current name, as opposed to "Jamie Blandford" as used before he inherited the title. Per precedent set in Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge vs Kate Middleton, I'm happy to accept that as the best article name for the subject. By the way, you should change your username, as it implies editing on behalf of an organisation, which is not allowed per the username policy. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:38, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

• And while we have frequent BLP/N participants looking at this article, it might also be a good idea to review the section entitled "Television appearance". The section is overwhelmingly negative in tone and appears to have only a single source; the section could clearly use some scrutiny, too. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:17, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Talk:2014 Badaun gang rape#Requested move

I believe that the discussion at Talk:2014 Badaun gang rape#Requested move raises BLP issues, and should be looked into from that perspective. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:25, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

bamidele ojo

Dr Bamidele A Ojo, Professor of Political science and International studies at Fairleigh Dickinson University was a fulbright senior scholar for teaching and research in 2001/2002. The award was also acknowledged posted on the university web page. all information provided on the wikipedia page is correct. See example:http://view2.fdu.edu/global-education/fulbright/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.238.55.86 (talk) 21:19, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

You might want to add that to the deletion discussion. This board is for discussing problematic article content outside of regular deletion discussions. De728631 (talk) 21:24, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Jay Tavare

Jay Tavare (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 3 questions: 1) Previously, his birthplace was noted as Navajo reservation with "citation needed" noted. Someone edited this to "Multi-ethnic, Los Angeles, CA" without citation, and changed his ethnicity from simply, "American" to "Multi-ethnic" without citation. I researched but could not find any credible information on his birthplace or ethnicity. I deleted the birthplace and reverted his ethnic description as just "American". Is this the correct thing to do because, really, no information on his birthplace or ethnic background? 2) Under Filmography, couple of video game and voice acting parts were found. I added a few, too. Should this be listed in another section or could this be lumped together with movie/tv parts? 3) Are transcribed interviews from internet radio shows with Jay Tavare acceptable as a reference? Thanks! Slaythereddot (talk) 09:16, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• If there is a source that states that he is an American, then yes- otherwise it should just state that he is an actor. Other than that, I am concerned at the article's overall tone. However there is a bigger problem with the page: It's written in a tone that can be seen as fairly promotional, so I'd recommend going over the article as a whole to remove any and all promotional-ish speech. I'll try to see what I can do myself, as it kind of reads like it was written by the guy's official press agent. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:20, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
• I've cleaned out the article and I'm concerned that other than a Rovi review (which is generally considered to be too trivial to really show notability), the sources were all either primary, unusable, or didn't deal with Tavare himself. There's not a huge amount there to really show notability for him. The Metal Gear Informer looked to be a WP:SPS and couldn't really show notability either. I'm going to try to find coverage, but I'm kind of leaning towards AfD on this one. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• I did manage to find sourcing, as some of his film roles were specifically highlighted in various reviews, so I'm satisfied that he meets NACTOR. I didn't really find anything about his ethnicity as a whole, so I'd suggest just leaving that off for the most part. I do want to note that I changed the wording from "journalist" to "blogger" as I don't see where he's written anything other than his blog for the Huffington Post. The two words aren't always interchangeable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:57, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• Awesome - yeah I wasn't meaning to be promoter lol but I totally see your point. Thanks so much! Slaythereddot (talk) 10:01, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• Eh, I figured it was unintentional- I did a lot of that when I first signed up here. :) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:36, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Birth dates

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Admin Bbb23 kindly suggested this would be a good forum to discuss birth dates of notable subject's children when the subjects themselves release press releases and official statements. He said it was alright to link to the background discussion at User talk:Bbb23#Tom Hanks.

In a nutshell: WP:DOB says nothing to prohibit this generally basic piece of biographical information. Obviously, if the parents do not make an announcement, like Christian Bale, they want it private, and under WP:VERIFY and WP:BLP, we certainly would not cite anonymous, unattributed purported "sources" at People, etc.

In the cases of parents actively releasing birth announcements to the media, there is clearly no objection on their part; when they issue a press release or a publicist's statement themselves, it becomes public knowledge at their own insistence. I think anyone looking up Kim Kardashian's life, for instance, expects to know when North West was born. Does any of this need to be addressed in the policy? Does the policy need clarification, or does it say what it needs to?--Tenebrae (talk) 02:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I see absolutely no reason why the exact birth date of a non-notable child of an article subject makes for good encyclopedic content or is a piece of information that helps the reader better understand the article subject. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:36, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

It's trivia. HiLo48 (talk) 03:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely trivia. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Are we still discussing this issue? It have been covered extensively already. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

And no consensus appears to have been made, since WP:DOB doesn't mention a word. Let me add that I brought this here at an admin's suggestion, so clearly, it's perfectly valid to do so. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:27, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

As is obvious from this noticeboard filing, Tenebrae is still discussing it and is asking for more discussion on it. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Off topic dispute--Bbb23 (talk) 06:01, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
OK. Winkelvi, a.k.a. WV, hounds me on Wikipedia while telling me to stay off his talk page. He's cursed at me with the f-word, and I have done my best to stay away from him, but he goes out of his way to come after me wherever I am. He's done so at an Arb hearing, and he does so here now. He appears obsessed with me, and anything he has to ay about me is tainted and should be discounted. Unless someone's a professional journalist or biographer, one has no background to call basic biographical information "trivia." That would be like me giving opinions on neurosurgery or physics. There is no question that it's pertinent biographer data, from any professional perspective. The only issue is clarifying that we don't publish rumors or uncited claims about children. But to say that pertinent biographical information that a subject releases him or herself in a press release or publicist statement is private is by definition untrue. I stay away from Winkelvi's talk page, as he told me to "fucking" stay away. I would ask him to stop following me around. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC) You accuse me of hounding? Take it to a noticeboard and complain or please retract/strikeout your unfounded accusation. And, I point out once again that you have used the four-letter word you say you abhor, doesn't belong in Wikipedia, and is only used by "angry, white, young males". You gripe about the use of the F-bomb but have now used it 9 times in three days. And can't seem to stop using it. What's the definition of irony? Better yet, what does your griping about me have to do with this noticeboard topic? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:36, 2 December 2014 (UTC) I don't direct f-bombs at you, the way you do to me. I'm describing your actions. That's a big difference, and your feigning that you don't know the difference is disingenuous at best and dissembling at worst. As for the other issue, I've asked you to stay away from me, and you clearly are refusing to, following me around to different pages that would survive perfectly well without your input; there are thousands of other editors on Wikipedia. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC) Please get over it and move on. Admins and non-admins alike have said the same thing to you numerous times, yet, you continue to bring up something that happened six months ago. And when it isn't even the topic. Do you want anyone to take your request for comment here seriously or do you want this obsession of yours with the F-Word and the use of it to overshadow this report? Remember, I didn't bring this subject up, you did. Now, can we just discuss the subject of your request and forget about the F-Word thing? (finally?) Please? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

We are not talking about birth dates of notable people. We are discussing birth dates of the children of notable people. There is a huge difference. HiLo48 (talk) 04:37, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. And thanks for taking this back on-topic, HiLo48. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:41, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

First, on what basis does one say it's not pertinent information when professional journalists and academic biographers say it is, in fact, basic biographical data? Second, how is something pertinent possibly private when the subject announces it in a press release reaching millions of people? Finally, there's nothing prohibitive about it in the policy itself. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:46, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

There's no evidence that you have understood my point. HiLo48 (talk) 04:52, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I completely understood your opinion. I then asked two reasonable questions and made one observation. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:58, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

There is absolutely no reason to list the exact birth dates of the non-notable living children of Wikipedia article subjects; birth years should suffice. Moreover, there is no reason to include the names of non-notable children unless the names have been previously published in a reliable source. I recently encountered an IP user adding the names of the five children of a former Olympic medalist, completely without any reliable source, apparently solely based on the personal knowledge of the IP user. In such circumstances we should be careful to protect the privacy of the family and children -- especially when the parents have not been responsible for widely disseminating their children's names and other personal information. In the absence of reliable (i.e. published) sources of wide circulation, we should respect that. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I believe I'm the one who started this whole thing by editing the Tom Hanks article to include the birthdates and locations of all of his children, not just his one "notable" child, Colin Hanks. I cited my source as The California Birth Index, 1905-1995, which is a public records database available through the State of California. In my opinion, it's about as reliable as you can get, and since the information is, indeed, public, I don't see a problem in using it as a source. My intentions were to add more complete information, as I tend to be a completest by nature. What I didn't expect was this long, involved debate over adding "trivial" information for what some of you are calling non-notable people. I truly apologize to people like Tenebrae for bringing so much negativity back upon you over an issue I never thought was that big of a deal. However, I now have to ask a simple question, focused on Hanks's son, Chet. This young man is also an actor, like his father. He hasn't amassed huge roles in movies or TV shows or any major awards, as yet, but who are we to say he's not notable in his own right? Okay, so he doesn't have his own Wikipedia article... but I'll bet he has fans that are interested in details like when his birthday is. If he doesn't have his own Wikipedia article, people will find him in the main body of Mr. Hanks's article, right? So, looking at it from that perspective, wouldn't you (a general "you" addressed to all) want to know such details and be grateful to see them included? For those who declared this matter trivial, forgive me for beating the dead horse, but I did a search of several "notable" high profile people (not just actors) and found that their articles mentioned their children, and in many cases also included more intimate (or minute) details, such as birthdates and locations, and that many different sources, including The California Birth Index, have been used as citations. I'm not trying to stir the pot, so to say, nor am I trying to start an argument with anyone. I just simply don't understand why someone with a completest mentality like myself can't add such a detail, as long as it has a reliable and verifiable source? If even one person reads the article and appreciates the inclusion of such information, then haven't we properly done our job? Or, to borrow from Mr. Spock from Star Trek, do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one? Frankly, I don't really expect an answer to this inquiry. I'm writing it in hopes that it might make some of the people who have been drawn into this debate rethink their stance. I'm considering the matter dealt with and closed, but I will continue to contribute such "trivial" details where I see them missing. However, I will generally steer clear of the articles related to the higher profile people and just leave those alone from now on. I've learned my lesson. I apologize for being so verbose, but I appreciate all of you for letting me put this out there and explain my own thoughts and ask questions on the subject. Peace. ShowMeTheMagic (talk) 07:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)ShowMeTheMagic

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fan site. You would likely benefit from reading WP:NOT. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 07:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Any biographer of a noted individual, whether the subject is an actor, politician or head of GM, includes specifics and not vague details about major life events. The birth of a child is a major life event. Calling it "fan site" material demeans the work of professional journalists and authors, who have training and experience to know what's of pertinent biographical nature and what's "ooh, what's your favorite food?" I myself have deleted trivial content such as "He's a fan of the LA Dodgers."

I respectfully submit that instead of simply throwing around labels like "fan site" or "trivia", that those in this discussion offer thoughtful rationale, as I did in the first two sentences of this paragraph. And unless one writes biographies in a journalistic, authorial or academic context, perhaps one could research journalistic / authorial / academic standards and ethics before offering opinions devoid of fact and context. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:54, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

My comments were directed specifically to Magic in order to address his belief that Hanks' fans would want to see the birth dates of his children in the article. Obviously he has a wrong-headed notion about what Wikipedia is. Obviously you have a wrong-headed notion about who can and should comment here. I submit that if you come to a community noticeboard looking for comments from the community that you either should do so prepared to get opinions you don't like from editors you don't like or don't venture over to a noticeboard at all. Getting [upset] over a request for comments you asked for is not helpful to anyone. Further, if you're looking for opinions from only those who meet your personal standards ("journalistic, authorial or academic context, perhaps one could research journalistic / authorial / academic standards and ethics") you aren't going to get what you want in any case. That's not how Wikipedia works, and you know it. These emotional demands and expectations are ridiculous. Not to mention uncivil. Please keep your personal attacks and feelings out of things. You're not doing yourself any favors and are starting to appear out of touch and unreasonable. An admin has already hatted an off-topic conversation in this request for comment -- a conversation that went off-topic because you took it there. How many times would you like that to happen before the whole thing gets shut down due to consensus already reached (not in your favor) and the fact that it's become a waste of the community's time due to your battleground mentality and defensive stance with lines you keep drawing in the sand? You asked for opinion, you're getting it. Be an adult and take it as it comes or don't come here at all, is my suggestion. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Off topic dispute--Bbb23 (talk) 00:52, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
And you continued to insult me: "wrongheaded" is fairly mild, "battleground mentality" is part of a pattern of attacking the person rather than addressing the arguments, "getting your panties in a wad" is inexcusable. "Be an adult"? A mature adult hardly says things like "getting your panties in a wad". Then you add threats over the fact I even brought this up — at an admin's suggestion, by the way. And there is hardly consensus for changing a policy: That would take a much longer discussion by a broader cross-section of editors. "That's not how Wikipedia works"? Wikipedia is supposed to work on informed opinion, not inexpert, uninformed personal opinion. We're supposed to have some idea of what we're talking about, and not just spouting personal belief. Someone in Congress may claim global warming and evolution aren't real, but that's an inexpert, uninformed opinion. That's not my personal standard. And after the hounding you've been conducting against me since June, there was no reason to bait me and to be an instigator by going out of your way to cross paths with me. This discussion could have survived without you; your presence here is not critically necessary. That was your choice. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC) Enough is enough. This "discussion" has devolved and veered away from its original intent because Tenebrae chooses to keep taking it off course and away from the topic by throwing stones and making personal attacks. Because he doesn't seem convinced to stop, I have been forced to place a personal attack warning on his talk page (if interested, see here:[3]). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC) Winkelvi has just begun harassing me on my talk page after I clearly requested on Nov. 5, as he had previously demanded of me regarding his own talk page, to not post there. I don't know what to do to stop him. I stay off his page, I asked him to stay off mine. Does anyone think that's fair behavior on his part?--Tenebrae (talk) 19:02, 2 December 2014 (UTC) As for his claims of "personal attack," I'm quoting his own words, such as his insult to me "getting your panties in a wad". It's also not a personal attack to say truthfully that he is following me around and instigating contact when I've made clear I find that to be harassing. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC) In response to his edit of his original post, no one "forced" him to post on my talk page when I had asked him not to. Claiming I mystically have a hold on him and "forced" him to do something is evading responsibility for his own personal choices. Additionally, it is false to claim I am making personal attacks when Winkelvi is the one saying "getting your panties in a wad", "wrongheaded" and "battleground mentality", among his other highly personal attacks on me, and who has been baiting me virtually from the day I returned to Wikipedia. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:47, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The "California Birth Index" is a raw public records dump, not a reliable source. There's no sense the records have been verified for accuracy or that they match-up with a specific individual (multiple John Smiths, etc). We're discouraged from using primary sources without care per WP:BLPPRIMARY because of concerns like these. Raw government records are expressly covered by: Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses. This is policy. __ E L A Q U E A T E 10:27, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. My grandfather's date of birth and his mother's maiden name are both listed incorrectly in the BCI. No doubt there are many other records listed incorrectly, as well. Definitely not a reliable source. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

More importantly, the Birth Index is not an indicator that this information has any import. We are not here to recreate the Birth Index. If we cannot find this information being reported in locations that indicate that it's important, then there is no reason to assume that people's privacy should be trumped by the need for us to report it. The who-are-we-to-say-whether-Chet-is-notable argument is an easy one: we are the editors of Wikipedia, so yes, we decide what qualifies for this work. We have established (if sometimes loose) standards for notability, and they are constantly in use here. Merely being an actor does not hit our standards, this is not IMDb. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Simply a point of order: Once parents send out press releases to an audience of millions or pose their children on the covers of national/global magazines, privacy, by definition, is no longer at issue. I'm in complete agreement that If parents do not announce it and the only "sources" are anonymous and unattributed, then it doesn't matter how RS the publication is since anonymous, unattributed reports are simply rumor, and we don't report rumors.--Tenebrae (talk) 18:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. We could put the specific heights of the children as well, but, like birthdays, sources don't generally treat that as information that needs to be obsessively detailed in order to convey biographical context. If it's important to have hyper-detail to understand the biographical narrative, such as "His son was born on the day he was released from prison" then multiple reliable, non-tabloid sources will make it clear it's an important detail. If they don't, it isn't. The fact that Tom Hanks has kids is a significant biographical detail that has had an impact on his life. Whether one of those kids was born in late or early May has had trivial and negligible impact. (Maybe their hair color is as significant to his biography?) __ E L A Q U E A T E 19:45, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree: verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. The discussion is over privacy, which is removed as an issue when the subject puts out press releases to an audience of millions. And as mentioned, a child's birth is a major life event and normally included in any biographical book, for instance. Hair color generally is not.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Tenebrae, I agree with most if not all of what you have said above, but I still fall on the side of caution rather than bold inclusion when it comes to facts about the non-notable children (and other non-notable living relatives), and especially minor children, of article subjects. The California birth index is a primary source, not a secondary source we would normally accept as a "reliable source" per WP:RS. I have from time to time accepted facts sourced to birth records, Social Security death records, military service records, etc., that are now often available online for dead persons through Ancestry.com and similar online genealogy services, but I would not employ them for living persons because of privacy concerns, nor would I treat them as independent published sources for purposes of establishing notability. Your question involving a press release regarding the birth of an article subject's child is a much more interesting case. While I would hesitate to treat a press release as a reliable source, it does signal that the parents' primary concerns are not the privacy of their children. Here are two key analytical questions: How do you know about the press release? Did any reliable sources publish the contents of the press release? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Dirtlawyer1, and thank you for your polite and temperate comments. I actually haven't said anything to advocate the California Birth Index, and in fact, if it's genuinely not a reliable source, I'd urge editors to remove it from the Kardashian articles, for instance.

The press releases are generally given by the subjects' publicists to the media, often in the form of a short statement confirming name, date, and place. Countless sources, including the Associated Press and periodicals from Time to the LA Times run this information. For example, Scott Foley's publicist recently released: this: "'Scandal star Scott Foley and his wife, actress Marika Dominczyk, welcomed a baby boy, Konrad Foley, on November 13th. He joins big sister Malina, brother Keller and their dog Frankie. The Foley family is overjoyed." This reached literally tens of millions of readers. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Tenebrae, if the substance of a press release has been published (even if it is published verbatim) in the news sections (i.e. it is not a paid announcement/advertisement) of a major publication, or picked up by AP or another wire service, it's not really a "press release" anymore. If a major newspaper or wire service has published it as their own content, I would treat it as a reliable source. There are, however, online sites that memorialize press releases without any editorial control of the content; they simply post press releases verbatim, sometimes as PDF images of the original releases. I would be far more cautious about using those as sources, and may or may not use them depending on the circumstances. Also, please keep in mind that press releases are not independent sources, and even if you use them to substantiate a particular fact in an article, you may not use them to substantiate the notability of the subject per WP:GNG.

In any event, I don't think Wikipedia editors have any business going through online birth records for personal information about living persons (and especially children), as I believe that raises serious original research issues per WP:OR. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you completely, and I thank you for noting what I should have, that I was speaking about editorial RSs that run the contents of a press release, as opposed to a site that runs press releases (where these sorts of releases never appear, anyway.) --Tenebrae (talk) 21:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

A person can be the subject of a single press release and still be covered by WP:NPF. Your Kim Kardashian example isn't very helpful, as few children in the world are ever going to get that level of coverage, and even then not usually among high-quality secondary sources. "Kim Kardashianizing" the level of detail for children who had a birth announcement in the local paper would not be showing the proper amount of caution toward people basically unknown except for maybe having a famous parent. Multiple higher-quality sources that treat the material in a non-tabloid way will always be needed, or we're replicating tabloid journalism.__ E L A Q U E A T E 22:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

But your press release example that provides information about "their dog Frankie" is helpful as an example. The fact that it "reached literally tens of millions of readers" is not an argument that it's proven to be significant biographical material required in article-space. This kind of thing is seen by millions, but that doesn't make it less trivial for the purposes of making an encyclopedia article. __ E L A Q U E A T E 22:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

With all respect: Apples and oranges. The Daily Mail is a tabloid, and I've never once advocated using tabloid content. The Associated Press and the Los Angeles Times, to name jut two outlets, are reputable news organizations with high standards, ethics and, equally importantly, news judgments. We're also not really not talking about a birth announcement in a local paper, but about public figures issuing press releases. I'm completely with you on the "dog Frankie" bit — the AP certainly didn't cover that!   : )  As any biographer will tell you, the birth of a child is one of the most major life events. Getting a dog really isn't comparable. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:36, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

A child is significant, a wedding is significant, listing off the detailed individual birthday dates of celebrities' (otherwise non-notable) children is often trivial. Dates of birth are obviously significant to the subject but not every birthday is worth including. Not everything AP covers should be considered lasting or immediately worthy of encyclopedic notice. We try to have better standards than "seen by millions" once. "Press release published" usually isn't enough. The majority of items that receive fleeting one-off coverage on the wire services are never going to get repeated on Wikipedia. That's not a bad thing. The Los Angeles Times is considered a generally reliable source, and it's because they make sure to explicitly label this type of material celebrity news/gossip, explicitly sourced from US Weekly. __ E L A Q U E A T E 23:57, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Side note: In this case, LA Times was attributing what it considers a reliable source. Other times the Times, The Hollywood Reporter, Variety and many other trusted publications report births, deaths and weddings on their own. If desired I could find examples, though I think it's not unreasonable to stipulate that these publications all do original biographical reporting as well. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, it sounds as if we're approaching a middle ground. I can't imagine anyone here saying, for instance, that we should not include the birth dates of President and Michelle Obama's daughters, even though as minor children they're no different from any other celebrity children whose births the parents themselves announce and consciously make public. They may turn out to be astronauts someday or simply non-notable housewives, just like anyone. But to say it's not biographically appropriate to note their birth dates — no responsible presidential biographer would say that.

So unless we're saying we should censor those birth dates, there's agreement that some celebrities' otherwise non-notable children fall under the normal standards of biography — the standard seen in countless thousands of books, from Robert Caro's Lyndon Johnson epic to simpler bios of pop entertainers. So in order not to be arbitrary, I'm don't think there's be objection to defining objective criteria, since without objective criteria the only argument is WP:DONTLIKE (the examples of which there even include a term used here, "trivia"). The one obvious objective criterion, and there may be others, is the parents' own demonstrated wish to acknowledge births; there is no expectation of privacy when one sends a press release to the national/global media. What other objective, rather than subjective, criteria would be helpful? --Tenebrae (talk) 15:59, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

• "it sounds as if we're approaching a middle ground" Not in reality "we're" not. Consensus is for keeping the dates out. How is that "middle-ground"?
• "I can't imagine anyone here saying, for instance, that we should not include the birth dates of President and Michelle Obama's daughters" I will say it (and others have already said it without naming specific people): Specific birth dates of children of article subjects have no encyclopedic value. It doesn't matter who the individuals are, it's content published in newspapers and gossip rags, not necessary content for an encyclopedia article.
• "no responsible presidential biographer would say that" Uncivil, unnecessary comment that draws a conclusion about the worthiness of Wikipedia editors who don't agree with you. There have been several good editors here (including myself) who have told you that specific birth dates of anyone other than the article subject don't belong.
• "So unless we're saying we should censor those birth dates, there's agreement that some celebrities' otherwise non-notable children fall under the normal standards of biography" If what you're trying to say is everyone is in agreement with you, the answer is "No". The consensus so far is to keep the dates out. You have found an editor who sort of agrees with you and that makes for a consensus?
• "without objective criteria the only argument is WP:DONTLIKE (the examples of which there even include a term used here, "trivia")" I see WP:DONTLIKE occurring here, but it's not from the editors who disagree with you, it's from you. You don't like what they've said, so you have come up with reasons to dismiss their views and insult them. What they've told you is that birth dates of article subjects are trivial information and isn't encyclopedic and is not pertinent to the article subject and doesn't enhance the reader's understanding of the article subject. All very good reasons to keep such content out.
• "What other objective, rather than subjective, criteria would be helpful?" That's already been answered for you by several editors.

It appears to me that you are trying to ham-hand your request for comment into a result that will please you, rather than taking all the comments and seeing what the consensus really is. You asked a question, you got answers, you didn't like the majority of the answers so you dismissed them. Even the admin who suggested you come here says the consensus isn't going your way (on another's talk page). The consensus is: keep specific birth dates out. Yes, I think that pretty well sums it up. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:42, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP, if the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year. I still don't know what's confusing about this. It seems dead simple to me. __ E L A Q U E A T E 16:55, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Your entire premise is flawed. Responsible biography includes children's birth dates when that is non-private, public information. If you don't believe me, look at the thousand and thousands of books by professional authors and academic biographers. An analogy: Unless one is an environmental scientist, one has no factual basis for saying what that fields' scientific standards are. Otherwise, it's just inexpert opinion. We're all entitled to opinions. I like to think we made decisions based on informed opinions.

"It's trivia" is, in fact, an example of WP:DONTLIKE, and one editor used it here. Conversely, I've given well-supported examples for what I say, including the examples of thousands and thousands of serious book biographies. So saying that I'm the one indulging in WP:DONTLIKE is a falsehood and another example of smokescreening.

There is no consensus to change WP:DOB. Editors of good faith are working on a consensus to clarify one thing that WP:DOB does not address one way or the other. __ E L A Q U E A T E, Dirtlawyer1 and others are trying to reach consensus, rather than issuing pronouncements based on nothing but personal feeling.

No objective criteria has been offered other than the one i suggested. I'm not sure why you believe that having no objective criteria is useful or workable. Saying we should remove President and Michelle Obama's daughters birth dates for no objective reason is what's insulting. If you really believe that, it would be hypocritical for you not to go remove them from the article. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:02, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Your entire premise is flawed. This is just blanket argumentative. It's absurd to imply that Wikipedia editors are somehow disqualified from making judgments about articles if they haven't published academic biographies. If you have a specific proposal, give it, and please give some basic respect to other editors even if they disagree. You seem to be running around a tree at this point, asserting how verifiable certain information about children is, without dealing with editors who want to follow BLP and err on the side of caution when it comes to those non-notable kids. (And your multiple references to WP:DONTLIKE aren't helpful here; this isn't an article deletion discussion. Weighing whether something's trivia makes for a weak argument in an article deletion discussion, but it's a fundamentally necessary thing to do when building articles. People are following and citing a specific policy, BLP, and their arguments follow some common agreement about how we deal with coverage of non-notable people.) __ E L A Q U E A T E 17:50, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

BLP, and specifically WP:DOB, doesn't address this one way or the other, so nothing is actually being cited. What I thought we're trying to do is to address the fact that DOB is silent on this by devising with objective criteria. I'm really not sure how "let's devise objective criteria" can possibly be controversial.

I've indeed suggested that one objective criterion is when parents issue press releases to the media ballyhooing their children. And I asked if others here had other objective criteria. So far, its all been subjective: "I don't think it's important." "I think it's trivia." That's not objective criteria.

I've never said we personally have to publish biographies, though I've done so myself. What I've said is that it's irresponsible to pretend that there is not an entire academic and professional field of biography, filled with authoritative experts, that has well-established ethical and research standards. Saying that such objective standards don't matter and that that our personal, subjective opinion trumps all is perplexing. Again, how is "let's devise objective criteria" possibly controversial?--Tenebrae (talk) 18:19, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Tenebrae and WV, y'all need to dial it down a notch. There is room for reasonable middle ground here, and, yes, perhaps it would be wise to adopt a clarifying amendment to WP:DOB at some point. That having been said, here are my preferred positions on birth dates of family members:

1. Article subject's birth date: Default to including the exact birth date, keeping in mind that WP policy is to include only the birth year if a living article subject requests it.

2. Children's birth dates: Include the birth year only, and only include that if the birth year or exact birth date has been widely disseminated in mainstream publications. There is no need to include the exact birth date, and even celebrity parents who have dropped press releases with exact dates may later come to regret it when weirdos send their children messages on their birthdays, or when paparazzi stalk the children for photos on their birthdays. Frankly, I think this same guideline should equally apply to the Obama daughters or some obscure, but notable scientist's children: default to birth year only. As for what professional biographers would include in a 250 to 500-page book, let's keep in mind that we are an encyclopedia, not a single-subject, stand-alone biography; by necessity, we must pick and choose what facts and details are most important in a well-written, but obviously condensed 10,000 to 50,000-byte biographical article in order to produce a representative summary of an article subject's life.

3. Spouse's birth dates: Same treatment for the subject's spouse as for the subject's children.

4. Other family member's birth dates: Ditto.

5. Wedding anniversaries: The wedding year should be adequate in most instances.

There may be exceptions where the exact date takes on some greater significance in the context of the article subject's life, and then we can discuss such exceptions on a case-by-case basis. I also want to reiterate this thought: there is also usually no reason to include the children's full legal names, either, and I would strongly discourage other editors from doing so in most instances. First name or commonly used nickname is adequate, and even then I would only use the children's names if they have been widely disseminated in mainstream publications. Names and birth dates of living relatives should never be sourced to the first-hand knowledge of editors and/or government birth records; these circumstances raise serious privacy issues.

These are my thoughts on point. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:12, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

This sounds like a good-faith effort to reach compromise and common ground.

My immediate reaction is that 1, 3 and 4 are all sensible: Years only for non-notable spouse and other non-notable family members — and most of these probably won't even be available outside OR public-records search anyway — and the subject's year only as per policy if the subject requests.

With 2, the years would have to be cited, obviously, and the cites themselves would contain birth dates, so we're essentially making people link to an outside source that has this information. If the information is that readily available, I'm not sure why we want to force inconvenience people to do a two-step process. But this is a discussion, so it's good to talk about these things. (And again, unless the parents / representatives themselves confirm, giving specific dates is inadvisable on privacy grounds, which aren't at issue in the case of press releases/statements.)

With 5, I dunno. With adults announcing their marriage date, we're talking two grown people who've made a pretty non-controversial and extremely common choice to say, we married on such-and-such a date.

So, three points of complete agreement, and two points for continued discussion. This is how Wikipedia at its best works. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:33, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm with @Dirtlaywer: on all of it to be honest. I would say that IMHO it will usually take less extraordinary circumstances for an anniversay date to be worth including than a birth date but that's something that consensus will agree over time. IP REDCATED (talk) 18:37, 3 December 2014 (UTC) <-- Previous comment by SPACKlick (talk))

No, Tenebrae, no one is being "forced" to do anything. We're just choosing not to be the conveyance for the information. Whether they wish to go find the information we're not providing elsewhere is up to them. Now you've come here, you've sought input, and you've gotten clear consensus against your stance, some grounded in DOB guidelines that suggest that we should forego birthdates on even borderline notable subjects due to privacy concern, so it seems mere pedantry to suggest that at least that level of privacy should not apply to non-notable non-subjects. I recommend you listen to that consensus. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:17, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Consensus? @Dirtlaywer1: posted his proposal only an hour ago. And only two people besides me have responded: You and an anon IP. What is the rush, especially now that marriage dates have been brought in? And you're mixing apples and oranges: When the proud parents themselves send out press releases to let tens of millions of people know of their child's birth, privacy by definition is no longer an issue in those specific cases. Incidentally, "consensus" is not a matter of voting; it's a matter of all parties trying to reach a compromise all can live with. (BTW, the WP:DOB guidelines don't require or prohibit anything we're talking about. Please read that link.)--Tenebrae (talk) 19:34, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

You're right about a word I choose; I've struck it and substituted a more accurate word.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:38, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be a mistaken notion that I am against the use of birth years. I'm not. As far as me dialing down...I'm not the one who's making ridiculous demands, drawing lines in the sand, refusing to accept obvious consensus, and bringing up old bullshit from the past that has nothing to do with this thread. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:22, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Really? It seems like you're doing such rehashing right now. You're cursing again, and you're mischaracterizing again ... and I wasn't even the one who said anything; another editor was!

No one else here is cursing or losing their temper. And "lines in the sand"? Wow. I've laid no conditions of any kind whatsoever. Indeed, most of the other editors here are being perfectly collegial and cordial — politely disagreeing and working toward a common middle ground. In my personal experience of nearly 10 years here, nine times out of ten a workable compromise is reached without anger or cursing. Which is what most of us are doing here now.--Tenebrae (talk) 23:40, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

"No one else here is cursing or losing their temper." I used the word 'bullshit' (not a big deal) and I haven't lost my temper once. If the use of blunt language some consider cursing is offensive to you, then you really shouldn't be on the internet. Or you need to get a thicker skin and learn to stop judging others for how they communicate. "I've laid no conditions of any kind whatsoever." That's a lie. I'm not the only one who's pointed out your ridiculous conditions for who can and can't edit BLPs and comment here as well as your belief that those who don't speak a certain way or have specific credentials and qualifications are disqualified from commenting in this thread. I'm collegial, just not your approved version of collegial. Get over it. You're not superior or special because you've been here nearly 10 years and are quoting a statistic that's unmeasurable. People you don't like or rub you the wrong way are going to comment on your requests for comment and are going to tell you you're wrong regarding policy (just as Bbb did today elsewhere) and disagree with you. That's life, dude. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC

):::::::Yes, consensus. Many people have posted since you started this thread trying to hear an okay on running full birthdates of children of notable people, and they have repeatedly and consistently said no. No, consensus is not a system trying to reward the most obstinate individual in the discussion whether or not their concerns have any legitimacy. Yes, I've read WP:DOB, including the part where it says "If [...] the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year." Really, it is in there. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

That quote refers to subjects who are "borderline notable." We're talking about non-notable children, not "borderline-notable" subjects themselves. And what the policy states is without giving such an exception is: "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources."

And Dirtlawyer1 is making a good-faith effort to seek consensus, so perhaps it would be proper to work with his attempts at compromise and not say, "My way or the highway." I've certainly been moving from my original stance toward Dirtlawyer1's ideas, and with more calm and civilized give and take, perhaps sensible middle ground and not something extremist will evolve.

In a response to Winkelvi, cursing at someone is not collegial. It's verbal abuse, and verbal abuse is neither collegial nor civilized. It's a self-indulgent attempt to intimidate and harass another user. Saying "get over it" is like telling women who get catcalls on the street to "get over it." I'll say again: Do not curse at me. You do not have a right to curse at another user. It's a form of harassment. And please don't tell me about Web etiquette: I've been a Web professional since the mid-1990s. The only people are curse are trolls. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

You think WP:DOB implies we should give less protection to non-notable people than we currently give to borderline notable people? That's a novel way to interpret WP:BLP. I haven't seen a single editor other than yourself who thinks we should list the exact birth dates of non-notable living children of Wikipedia article subjects. Birth years are enough.__ E L A Q U E A T E 17:48, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Did I curse at you? No. I used the word 'bullshit' in response to someone else. Get over it. Move on. Or leave the Internet (which is full of cursing). Stop making everything about you and stop making pronouncements about others based on your own personal standards. Wikipedia is not censored and cursing is allowed. Your obsession with me and my presence is the real incivility here. In fact, I'm starting to hear faintly in the distance echoes of "Net negative". Chew on that for a while. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not novel to professional journalists, biographers and academic researchers. The birth of a child is a major life event for the subject — it's tangential in terms of the child. And it is absolutely one of the most important dates in the subject's life. This is a non-controversial standard for biographies and autobiographies from mainstream to academic press. When privacy isn't an issue, as in the cases of parents announcing it to tens of millions of people, I'm not sure the reason for defying norms of conventional biographical-author behavior. The only reason I'm hearing is variations of, "I don't want to." That's not a reason. At least I'm giving a reason: That it's part of standard, mainstream biography. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Stop with the mantra re: professional journalists, biographers, and academic researchers. Wikipedia is a community of volunteers and regular folks who do what they can, not professional blah-blah-blahs. That's why Wikipedia has its own set of rules. The birth of a child and the exact date of that birth is important to the family of the child, not readers of an online encyclopedia. Unless you're a "fan". Which brings us full circle back to "Wikipedia is not a fan site". Question: How long are you going to continue to beat this dead horse, Tenebrae? Because, so far, the only person in favor of what you want is you. Consensus is clearly for what policy already says: birth year, not complete birth date. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Granted I'm new to this conversation but I get the gist of the it and pardon me for not reading the entire subsection, there's a lot and I see a lot of bickering but here is my two cents, I think where the kid was born (city, hospital, etc) and full birth dates aren't necessary because as Winkelvi said, this isn't a fan site, we don't need those kinds of details. But I think just the name and a birth year should suffice because that to me is an encyclopedic information in terms of talking about someones family and if they had children. Granted, names and birth year need to be reliably sourced but I don't see how that is an invasion of privacy. LADY LOTUS • TALK 18:40, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

To answer WV, policy does NOT already say: "birth year, not complete birth date." Read WP:DOB. And re: "Wikipedia is a community of volunteers and regular folks who do what they can, not professional blah-blah-blahs." I sense some anti-intellectual bias here. When an academic field exists with certain basic standards of information and ethics, why is your argument,"Well, we're just regular people, not high-falutin' authors and social scientists. Yeah, they may have their fancy ways of providing pertinent, non-private information based on hundreds of years of developing the form, but we don't hold truck with the book-learnin' types. We's happy doin' things are own way, even if they ain't the best way."

Ask yourself this: For anyone who's not a professional biographer, why do you think you're better and more knowledgable than a professional biographer? What gives you the foundation to say, Well, it's not my field, but I know better than the professionals do? Seriously: I'd like to answer to why you feel that way. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:25, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

You know what biographers are discouraged from doing? Making up sentences with misspellings like We's happy doin' things are own way, even if they ain't the best way. in order to ridicule people with words they didn't say. (It's hard to take anyone seriously as some kind of spokesperson for journalistic ethics if they think that kind of approach is appropriate.) WP:DOB clearly says if the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year. That's "person", not "article subject", as BLP covers all living people mentioned. I note it was misrepresented earlier as only applying to the subject of the article. I think children of celebrities are people too. I haven't seen any other editors disagreeing about how much detail to provide about them, beside yourself. And I don't think you're going to convince people by straight-up ridicule, either. This also isn't a great place to question the whole idea of Wikipedia editors deciding Wikipedia content either. That's far out-of-scope of this noticeboard. __ E L A Q U E A T E 02:33, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree 100%, Elaqueate. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 07:57, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I was afraid the satire of "are / our" and the like was too subtle. If you've been reading my posts here, you know perfectly well I know how to spell. Re-read that sentence and ask yourself if those deliberate misspellings within quote marks weren't a making a point about a familiar pattern among many "just plain folks" Internet commenters. Perhaps satire wasn't the best response, but consider that to which I was responding: someone saying we should have sloppy standards because "Wikipedia is a community of volunteers and regular folks who do what they can, not professional blah-blah-blahs." Really: "professional blah-blah-blahs." In what world is it a bad thing for an encyclopedia to have professional writer-editors volunteer their time?

And the WP:DOB passage refers to the subject: I find it remarkable that you would leave out the object of the sentence. "If the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year." Anyone who has ever diagrammed a sentence in eighth grade knows very well that this sentence refers to "the subject" and that the object of "the person" is "the subject." I'm dismayed we have to go to this level of pedantry in order to objectively read a sentence's meaning.

RE "I haven't seen any other editors disagreeing about how much detail to provide about them": I can't do this, because I'd be accused of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. But if you want to hear other editors defending biographical integrity, go to Barack Obama and remove the birth dates of his non-notable (non-bluelinked) daughters. See if that doesn't get reverted, and if removed again, see if that doesn't raise a discussion there about the biographical appropriateness of those dates. There is no objective reason to include those dates and names and not those of Jimmy Fallon's children, which Fallon's representative made perfectly public. It is hardly unreasonable to ask that we have objective standards rather than to be purely subjective. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:03, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:DOB refers to more than just the subject of an article. BLP applies to every living person who is the subject of any article material, any sentence, on Wikipedia (Your pedantry is off as well; take an analogous sentence "If the supervisor complains, or if the customer objects....") As for your "satire", it obviously wasn't your own ability to spell that was the subject, but your opinion of other editors, expressed in an inappropriate way. You're making fun of other editors by likening them to people who can't spell correctly. That's not "making a point", it's an unfair rhetorical device. I don't think Jimmy Fallon's children are public figures in any way that requires us to treat them less than we treat borderline-notable people. But this is going around in circles to no purpose. You need more editors than yourself who want to document non-notable children's information to the degree you're proposing. I haven't seen editors agree with you on this point, so I am failing to see the point of this thread.__ E L A Q U E A T E 17:31, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Just a factual point re: grammar, which is something I'm involved with for a living: Unless a customer was mentioned specifically earlier, you don't use the definite article ("the") but the indefinite article ("a"). So in a paragraph about a supervisor, unless a customer was mentioned earlier than this sentence, it's ungrammatical to say, "If the supervisor complains, or if the customer objects...." It would have to be "If the supervisor complains, or if a customer objects...." Otherwise you're introducing some customer from out of nowhere. I'm sorry I'm being put in a position to go all Scalia on his, but I think we can all agree we should not make decisions based on an ungrammatical reading of a text. Does anyone really think we should? Seriously, I'm asking. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:48, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I wish now I had never edited the Tom Hanks article to include full birthdates of his children, thus opening this can of worms. However, I also think I can close the matter simply and succinctly. I read a random sampling of Wikipedia articles on people I believe to be just as notable as Mr. Hanks, including Tom Cruise, Matthew McConaughey, Bill Gates, Meg Whitman and quite a few others. In 95% of the articles, children's birthdates are referenced as "(b. year)." The other 5% included the month. None included a specific day. Had I done such a search BEFORE I tampered with the Hanks article, and had I read the abundance of WP articles that have been cited throughout this discussion, I would have left things alone, and this whole discussion would probably never have happened. I humbly apologize for being the cause of so much time consumption on the parts of everyone who has been involved. In the future, I will be more careful and watchful of my edits and revisions. There is one thing I would like to say, as I feel it needs to be said, and that is I think Winkelvi is wrong to verbally attack people for expressing their thoughts and for asking questions. His replies to people are often caustic, sarcastic, uncalled for and just plain unprofessional... and I realize that my comments now will probably draw his wrath and ire directed at me. I just don't think that level of tactlessness that he has displayed throughout this thread should be tolerated. I also can't sit still and not say something about it, either. Thank you all for an enlightening experience. I have learned a great deal (both good and bad) about Wikipedia from this matter, and what I've learned has been taken to heart. ShowMeTheMagic (talk) 06:12, 7 December 2014 (UTC)ShowMeTheMagic

First, my thanks to you for your measured response advocating civility. Your surveying was a good idea. Sampling is always an issue, though: I've just looked at six TV stars and five had children's birth dates.

This speaks to my main point: a lack of objective criteria. We have the birth date for Kim Kardashian and Kanye West's child. Why? Because they made it public through a press release. You might say, "Oh, well, that Kimye." But that's no answer to what makes them different from Tom Cruise. They're certainly not more famous than Tom Cruise. So why aren't we addressing this elephant in the room — this lack of objective criteria. How are no standards better than clear, objective standards? --Tenebrae (talk) 16:00, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

It is hard to believe that Winkelvi is still banging these drums and wasting more time again on this. WP:DROPTHESTICK already. - Cwobeel (talk) 06:24, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

What "drum" would that be? The one that practically everyone else who's commented here is "banging"? Yes, it's terrible to belong to a majority that sees WP:DOB for what it really is. And for the record, the only individual who has wasted the community's time over this issue is the individual who started this discussion thread and refuses to recognize consensus. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 07:13, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

With all respect to Elaqueate — who did not answer my Sasha and Malia Obama question — the very sentence he quoted at WP:DOB refers to the article subject, not any person. That's not my opinion: That's grammatical structure. If WP:DOB was meant to ay "any person", it would have said "any person." Does anyone have a reasoned counterpoint to that, other than, "Well, I say the heck with grammar, it means what I say it means."

That passage does say that if the subject's birthdate is reported in reliable sources, we run it. And with children, the subject has all legal rights, so if the subject himself is releasing the birth date in a press release going out to millions of people, the subject not only doesn't mind the information being public, he wants that information public.

And to my biggest point: We need objective criteria. Why are Sasha and Malia Obama's birth dates given? Why is that of Kim Kardashian and Kanye West's child? Can anyone give a reasonable response? Or is it it just, "Well, I feel like putting it in because, well, it feels right." In which case, what makes any one editor's "because it feels right" different from anyone else's? Would someone make a reasonable argument for why objective criteria is a bad idea? --Tenebrae (talk) 15:40, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

This is tedious at this point. I could forgive you being this pedantic and bludgeoning if you weren't misreading WP:BLP in a potentially dangerous way. WP:DOB does not only cover subjects who are named in the article title, but subjects of any material on Wikipedia. This is basic. BLP applies to any living person who is the subject of material presented in any article, anywhere, and there aren't two standards, one for people with article titles and one for people without. You are repeatedly misreading the word "subject" to only mean "article title subject only", and not "subject of material in an article".

As for the Obamas, there's probably a consensus on that page that they are beyond "borderline-notable" on their own merits, as they've had in-depth, non-passing, non-trivial, non-one-off-birth-announcement coverage in multiple non-tabloid sources. Applying that result to all other non-notable children with a single birth announcement is clearly not supported by other editors, policy, or practice. __ E L A Q U E A T E 16:39, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed on all points. Heartily so. Could someone please close this out? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:42, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

To __ E L A Q U E A T E: I'm reading it grammatically for what the passage literally says. How is it unreasonable to ask where in BLP it says it "applies to any living person who is the subject of material presented in any article, anywhere."

Second, and I'm sorry to be blunt, but you are deliberately misrepresenting facts when you suggest that sources such as the AP and Entertainment Weekly are "tabloid." That is purely and factually untrue. Could you address that point, please?

BLP allows the subject to make the call about birth date. And some subjects, who have all legal rights over their children, release this information out to the media in press releases. Some even put their children on non-tabloid magazine covers and talk about it, unless you consider Vanity Fair and other such magazines to be tabloid.

You're arguing for a subjective lack of standards, rather than an objective standard. Why? What is wrong with objective criteria? --Tenebrae (talk) 16:58, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

You're re-hashing too much. But because I was pinged, and because you've apparently started edit-warring BLP-material in actual articles (!), I'll respond to a couple of things as briefly as I can here. 1. Consensus is not a "subjective lack of standards"; it's fundamental to Wikipedia editing. 2. BLP is about all living people mentioned in an article. The policy that "living subjects" are not just subjects named in a specific article title, but are any people who are the subject of any material found on Wikipedia, is central to WP:BLP and is a principle that has been explicitly upheld in multiple arbitration decisions. "Subject" is not "merely the subject of the entry" but the subject of any reference. There's not a second, more protective standard for people with their name on the article, than for other people mentioned. If you can't recognize this point, you're missing something fundamental about WP:BLP. __ E L A Q U E A T E 17:31, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

If I "rehash" it's because you're avoiding answering most of my questions. WP:DOB doesn't say what you want it to say, so you claim, "Well, everybody knows what it means between-the-lines." OK: If things have been "explicitly upheld," then why isn't that reflected at WP:DOB? A few words there would clarify everything. Unless it hasn't been upheld. So my question: If what you're saying is true and not your interpretation, why doesn't WP:DOB "explicitly" (to use your word) say that?

Do you consider AP or Entertainment Weekly tabloids? You said celebrities' children's birth dates only appear in tabloids. Why is it an unreasonable to ask you to clarify that claim? Because — and I'm not being impolite to ask, since it's a question that follows logically — if one claim you make is false, what does that say about other claims?

Parents are the ones who have rights over children. If they are releasing the information via press release to tens of millions of readers, are you saying it is not their intent to make this important date in their lives known?

I'm not even going to ask about why amateurs with no expertise in biographical research believe they know better than professionals. But if science amateur Sen. Ted Cruz, who denies climate change despite professional scientists telling him otherwise, can head a science subcommittee, I shouldn't be surprised to see this happening here. --Tenebrae (talk)

An aside to Winkelvi: Stop threatening me, a you just did in an edit summary. As another editor rightly mentioned, your basic mode is to attack other editors and to behave angrily and uncivilly, which I personally know includes hurling foul-mouthed obscenities and then misinterpreting a Wikipedia guideline ("Wikipedia is not censored") that applies to verbatim quotes in articles and using it as an excuse to say, "I'll curse anybody I want to at any time, and if you don't like it, leave Wikipedia." --Tenebrae (talk) 17:49, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Allow me to repeat: The birth of a child and the exact date of that birth is important to the family of the child, not readers of an online encyclopedia. Unless you're a "fan". Which brings us full circle back to "Wikipedia is not a fan site".

This discussion is going nowhere. Consensus has been reached. Could an uninvolved administrator please close this out. We're just doing pete-and-repeat now with IDHT becoming the predominant theme with the person who opened this thread. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:53, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Consensus isn't reached when there are still open questions. I've asked __ E L A Q U E A T E three reasonable questions. Just because you don't like the questions doesn't give you the right to say he's not allowed to answer them. He can speak for himself. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:55, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

As for "fan site," no professional biographical author or professional academic biographer would say that a subject's child's birth date, among other major life-dates, is not pertinent and significant information. It's not "fan-site" information according to authoritative experts in this particular field. Disagree about including it all you want, but saying it's "fan-site" information is like Ted Cruz calling climate change "just theory." --Tenebrae (talk) 17:58, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

1. WP:BLP applies to the subject of any material found in articles, etc., and not just the subject who happens to be named in the article title. This isn't "between-the-lines", it's not presumed, it's explicit in BLP. I don't know any other editor who would dispute this.

2. You said celebrities' children's birth dates only appear in tabloids. No. I didn't. This is a patent falsehood.

3. There's a long-standing consensus that BLPs deserve protection even when they're aggressively self-promotional. BLPs can publicize their phone numbers, but that doesn't mean we would then choose to publish that information in the article. BLP is about the reasonable avoidance of harm to our subjects (whether they have an article or not). In both practice and policy, information about people of little-to-no independent notability are treated with more care and caution, even in cases when they self-promote.

And finally, this is tedious at this point. I'm responding because you're soliciting me on my talk page and pinging me here, but this all seems to stem from your repeated inability to understand which living people BLP policy covers. Again, and hopefully for the last time, let me repeat: any living person who is the subject of a reference on Wikipedia.__ E L A Q U E A T E 18:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I hope its OK if I address a couple of points. Regarding professional biographers and biographies: biographies are necessarily more inclusive than an encyclopaedic article. Therefore, a biography will contain information, like children's birth dates, that an encyclopaedic article will not contain. In other words, just because something would be included in a biography doesn't mean it belongs in a Wikipedia article (although information in a Wikipedia article should definitely appear in a biography).

Regarding press releases: information in a press release being read by millions of people does not automatically imply that the information must be included in an encyclopaedic article. Not everything needs to or should be included in an article. We can protect the privacy of children even if their parents have sent out a press release. Ca2james (talk) 19:19, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, you do answer questions that Elequate would not. I may disagree with some of your points, but at least you addressed them politely and reasonably without resorting to personal comment.

I do need to address Elequate saying I stated "blatant falsehood." I did not: He said: "they've had in-depth, non-passing, non-trivial, non-one-off-birth-announcement coverage in multiple non-tabloid sources" and "Multiple higher-quality sources that treat the material in a non-tabloid way will always be needed, or we're replicating tabloid journalism." Unless you're saying multiple sources like the LA Times, EW, the AP and Vanity Fair are tabloid, these dates do appear in multiple, high-quality sources.

As for "It's not presumed, it's explicit in BLP": Not according to the laws of grammar. "I don't know any other editor would would dispute this." Who you personally know and don't know isn't at issue. Clearly, many editors who have added these dates, some of whom who have been here for years, do in dispute it. And you are not backing up your claim about "well, arbitration has explicitly said this. If arbitration really did say that explicitly why doesn't WP:DOB say that explicitly? That's a fair question.

And since Ca2james has brought up a reasonable reply, which I may not agree with but I do recognize its logic and validity, let me say only that no one is sending our press releases publicizing their phone number. That's a deliberately absurd analogy. Unlike a private phone number, no professional biographer would ever question that a child's birth date is an important date in a subject's life, and that if a subject sends a press release announcing it, it's public, not private, information.

Be that as it may, could we please have an answer to "If arbitration really did say that explicitly why doesn't WP:DOB say that explicitly?" --Tenebrae (talk) 19:26, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

1. You said celebrities' children's birth dates only appear in tabloids. Nope, I didn't. Your quotes aren't me saying that in context, or taken out-of-context. Still a falsehood.

2. I answered your questions, numbered, with links to policy. Saying I didn't try is bizarre at this point.

3. BLP subjects aren't just those people named in article titles. This should be a dead simple, non-debatable point. It's too bad you're not seeing it, but it's basic. It's not an error of grammar, children are considered BLP subjects even if they don't have their own articles.

4. You're confusing who gave the phone number analogy. Regardless, the point is that self-promoted information does not guarantee inclusion, even when verifiable. This is especially so if the subject of the material is of passing or minimal notability or is not generally a public figure. Most children (most people really) fit this description, even if the topic of a single widespread news spike.

5. I'm sure other people are tired of all this. If you respond by asking me to re-answer things already addressed, I won't. I tried to deal with your misreading of BLP in good faith. __ E L A Q U E A T E 20:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I suppose you're right that it's futile. 1. Saying that a fully quoted sentence at 2 December 2014 (UTC) is out of context is simply not true. 2-3. Also not true. The WP:DOB policy that you linked to does not say what you claim it says. When confronted with the simple grammar that demonstrated this, you cited mythical "arbitration" that apparently doesn't exist since the no one ever transferred the results of that supposed arbitration to the policy.

4. How can you say, "You're confusing who gave you the phone number analogy" when it was __ E L A Q U E A T E at 18:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC) saying, "BLPs can publicize their phone numbers, but that doesn't mean we would then choose to publish that information in the article. (And may I add addition that "possible harm" is a straw-man argument since even the parents releasing this information to tens of millions of people see no harm. 5. You've avoiding answering such questions as where the supposed "arbitration" exists that makes WP:DOB say what you claim it says, so, no you haven't answered some of my questions: including the most pertinent, which is why vague, subjective standards are better than objective criteria.

And so, once again, metaphoric plumbers and retail clerks and people between jobs who live at home get together to lecture journalists and academics about, in this case, biography. Making Wikipedia vaguer and less useful, and below the ethical standards of biography, helps no one, and there's only so much effort I or anyone can put in. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:29, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

The arbitration cases are clearly not "mythological", you just didn't bother looking at them.Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#cite_note-3 And I never said celebrities' children's birth dates only appear in tabloids. The quote you referenced wasn't "a fully quoted sentence" and was specifically about the Obamas. It certainly wasn't a claim that the only place a birth date could ever possibly appear was in a tabloid, a claim I never made. The most distressing thing from your comment is that you assert that the sentence BLP subjects aren't just those people named in article titles. isn't true. If you learn nothing else from this, please learn that BLP applies to more people than those listed in an article title. It applies to all living people who are subjects of material on Wikipedia, not just those named in article titles.__ E L A Q U E A T E 17:51, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Although you are correct that WP:DOB does not currently prohibit the publication of the birth dates of children, I'd like to draw your attention to WP:BLPNAME, which says The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons. The names of any immediate, ex, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject. However, names of family members who are not also notable public figures must be removed from an article if they are not properly sourced. If including the name of someone's child is questionable for privacy reasons, it follows that including the birthdate is also questionable for the same reasons.

Moreover, even though the BLP policy doesn't specifically say that a subject's child's birthday should be omitted, it is incorrect to draw the conclusion that it's ok to include it. BLP policy says we are to err on the side of privacy, which means that an article subject's child's birthdate, even if it could be reliably sourced, does not belong in the article. I realize that you're arguing that the date is necessary for the reader to understand the subject because the birth of one's child is an important life event, but we can make mention of the life event without having to give the more than the year of the child's birth. Ca2james (talk) 21:53, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

And I again thank your enormously for discussing this in a mature and reasonable fashion. Thank you, too, most of all, for seeing what I see in good faith and proper English: that WP:DOB does not prohibit the publication of the birth dates of children.

I agree with you completely that "If including the name of someone's child is questionable for privacy reasons, it follows that including the birthdate is also questionable for the same reasons." I would never advocate searching birth records or tabloids for information on Christian Bale's or Kristin Bell's children, whom the parents have chosen to keep private. Conversely, when the parents issue a press release to the media, that's the highest-quality RS and an objective, quantifiable line that says those particular parents themselves consider privacy not an issue. There's no erring on the side of privacy since privacy is specifically not an issue once the parents ballyhoo it to the world — occasionally eve on magazine covers.

All I've ever advocated is an objective standard, so that these issues can have biographical integrity without sinking to the morass of different editors' subjective opinions. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:40, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

• WP:DOB doesn't really apply here: we're talking about children of notables. Tenebrae and others seem to think that because a. notables are notable and b. celebrities post DOBs and pictures of their children, ergo c. we should included this observation. This is a fallacy, of course. Inclusion of this information (even the very names) is a matter of editorial discretion, and I find it sad that this discretion for some editors means "we print what EW prints". "An objective standard" is impossible to ask for: the notability of the child should be at the heart of the decision, and as such is a case-by-case decision. Finally, it's not about the sourcing. I'm sure EW and TMZ and whatnot can correctly print the press release of the famous person. But that something is verified doesn't mean we should include it. Drmies (talk) 23:57, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

At least we're getting somewhere, in acknowledging that parents sending out a press release is as verified as it gets. Thank you for cutting through the clutter about sourcing.

RE: "the notability of the child should be at the heart of the decision, and as such is a case-by-case decision." There are few more famous children in the world than North West, for example. So if that birth date, which was stable here since the day she was born, has been removed today, what case-by-case is left? If we're going to try to hide the birthday of Kim Kardashian and Kanye West's highly publicized child then who's would we list? You say case-to-case, but extremist editors won't allow any at all.

An objective standard is not impossible. People may not want an objective standard, but one is possible: When a notable person announces the birth in a press release that goes out to tens of millions of non-tabloid newspaper and magazine readers. (And EW and People are Time Inc. publications with the same corporate journalistic standards as Time. There's nothing to be sad about when you have a major global organization committed to factual accuracy.) Without some objective standard, even if not that, these types of arguments and extremism won't stop.

And ultimately, these are important dates in the life of the subject. No professional biographer would ever suggest otherwise. Surely there's a sensible middle ground between outright prohibition (which isn't in WP:DOB) and every-man-for-himself subjectivity and fighting. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:43, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

• Tenebrae, I find it difficult to read and appreciate what you say here, given that you speak of "extremist" editors (I suppose I'm one of them) who try to "hide" dates of birth. Esp. the latter comment is just...well, I'm trying to be civil these days. There's no censorship involved. No celebrities are being oppressed. To repeat my argument using your own example, we don't have to doubt the accuracy of the Kanye West publicity machine, but I don't see why we should reprint their copy; you're basically arguing that the children are relevant in some inherited way, and that we should list that info because the celebrities themselves make the info available and the gossip press repeats it. "Hide the birthday"--no, we're not "hiding" anything. We're just not the news, for instance. Again, just because something is verified doesn't mean it has to be included. Drmies (talk) 03:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I can't support our reporting the exact birth date of a non-notable person (or even a notable person who hasn't published the date him-/herself). It is an excessive intrusion into their privacy. Year of birth is fine in an article on them, since their age is noteworthy, or in an article on their parent, since the birth of a child is a significant event in the parent's life. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:34, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Whatever other points are made, I do have to say that privacy is, factually and objectively, not an issue when the parents issue a press release going out to tens of millions of readers. That's a straw-man argument.

And if milestone dates such as birth and marriage are important to professional biographers, what reason do we have to say professional biographers are wrong? To use an extremely simple example, If I'm writing (using a true and widely published recent incident), "David Beckham and his 15-year-old son were uninjured in an auto accident," it's important for the sake of accuracy to be able to say "15" and not " around 14 or 15."

I'm really not sure why objective criteria is objectionable. Or why suddenly people are saying there's a ban on widely verified, non-private birth dates when no such outright ban exists at WP:DOB. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:56, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

The fact that a press release about the birth of a child has been sent out and read by some number of people is not justification for including the child's full birthdate in an article. Privacy comes first for each and every living and recently-deceased person mentioned anywhere on this site. We editors can still maintain a child's privacy by not mentioning the month and day the child was born even if the parents have sent out a press release. Not everything that can be verifiably sourced can or should be included in an article.

Besides, including only the year of a non-notable child's birth does not hinder article-writing. In your example, the sentence can be rewritten to say, "David Beckham and his teen-aged son were uninjured in an auto accident," which provides sufficient detail and accuracy.

I agree with Drmies that an objective criteria is unnecessary because we have BLP, notability, privacy, and reliable sourcing policies and guidelines. In almost all cases, including more than the birth year of the child is not necessary. There may be exceptions - for example, if the mother dies in childbirth and this tragedy has been extensively covered in mainstream media - but it's unrealistic and unnecessary to write a guideline that includes every possible case and exception when we have policies and guidelines that already cover the situation.

Please remember that we are writing an encylopaedia and that, per WP:NOTEVERYTHING, [a]n encyclopedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. Moreover, per WP:NOTDIARY, [e]ven when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are. For example, news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia, but using all these sources would lead to over-detailed articles that look like a diary. Not every match played, goal scored or hand shaken is significant enough to be included in the biography of a person. In other words, the information contained in a biography on Wikipedia is more limited than would be found in a professionally-written, published biography. This is not to say that professional biographers are wrong, just that their content requirements differ from ours and cannot necessarily be applied here. Ca2james (talk) 20:01, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

We'll have to agree to disagree: Writing, "David Beckham and his teenaged son" is imprecise and needlessly vague; that's why every professional account of it includes the age. Privacy isn't an issue for the parents, so I can't understand us saying we know better than the parents. And comparing a singular life event like the birth of a child to "every match played, goal scored or hand shaken" ... I don't know what to say, other than that I'm flabbergasted that anyone could compare a birth date with some soccer-match score. To me, that stretches WP:NOTEVERYTHING to the breaking point.

But I can see I'm not having any more luck as a professional journalist and author and nearly 10-year Wikipedian convincing (and I mean this strictly literally and not judgmentally) non-professional editors of basic biographical standards than does a professional climatologist of convincing Sen. Ted Cruz about scientific standards. All I can do is hope that someday this will change and we'll all have to use real names and credentials, and that Wikipedia will be limited to academics, journalists, and other professional researchers, like traditional encyclopedias. Things generally do get less Wild West as they grow older and evolve.

In the meantime, could we at least cite or remove the plethora of uncited birth dates and alleged mothers' maiden names that appear all over WP:BIO, and which come from who-knows-where? --Tenebrae (talk) 21:01, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

• As per established practice, Wikipedia does not favor providing exact dates of birth for non-notable children of individuals covered in articles. There's no need to go further and discuss other situations; the tendency seems to be against exact dates of birth more generally, but that can be a debate for another day if someone wants it. I'm now closing this discussion. Metamagician3000 (talk) 14:15, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#When did David Irving lose respect as a mainstream historian?

This discussion assumes various per se defamatory claims against a living person without providing evidence. Regardless of our opinion, ref desk space is treated as article space, and either references should be provided or comments removed. μηδείς (talk) 22:02, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The editor asking the question probably should have included a link to the article on David Irving which does clearly label him as a Holocaust denier with references (including a reference in the lead). Given that, I don't see the need for a reference there. References are included for the statement in our article and while he may not like the label, I don't think him being called a denier is controversial. Ravensfire (talk) 22:09, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The question is not, "is X a holocaust denier", but has X lost respect in his profession, which is defamation per se. Given the subject is alive, I don't think there should be any unattributed and unsourced comments saying a British Subject is professionally incompetent. Is Ravensfire confident there's answer to the question as posed? If so, the reference should be provided or that question be closed, if not deleted and overseen. μηδείς (talk) 00:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Are you quite sure that the two statements aren't equivalent? I mean, is it not the case that historians do not look kindly upon holocaust deniers? Holocaust_denial#Public_figures_and_scholars says:

The American Historical Association, the oldest and largest society of historians and teachers of history in the United States, states that Holocaust denial is "at best, a form of academic fraud".[139]

That sounds pretty strong. It's not just "it's controversial" or "scholars disagree". I am not a historian, mind, but would venture that being considered to be guilty of "at best, academic fraud" is a sign of some loss of respect. --GRuban (talk) 01:52, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

In any case, should not all such claims be either attributed and referenced, or stricken? This seems hugely clearcut, and GRuban's comment seems so polite as to be reactionary, if I were to use the progressive dysphemism. μηδείς (talk) 02:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I've been taking part in discussion at the biography talk page for years. First off, Irving was never a "mainstream" historian; he was always a bit fringe. The specific answer to "when" he lost the respect of his peers is that Irving started a libel suit in September 1996, and when he lost the case in April 2000 he was finished as an historian, with the last of the doubters turning against him at that time. See our article about the case here: Irving v Penguin Books Ltd. The status of Irving as a defrocked pseudo-historian is not even controversial. Yet there is a regular visit to the article by various usually new editors who try to repair some of Irving's reputation. These visitors are just as regularly dismissed with extremely solid sourcing backing up the assertion that Irving has lost all credibility. There is nothing to do here, folks, no action to be taken by administrators or the community. Binksternet (talk) 03:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

He was never an historian, merely someone who wrote about history. The positive reputation he attained was in finding original documents about Nazi Germany. 06:19, 4 December 2014 (UTC)TFD (talk)

Actually, part of the decision process in Irving v Penguin Books and Lipstadt centered around Irving's high level of competence in finding genuine source materials, but that his interpretation of the source materials was wilfully biased. This led to the conclusion that Irving deliberately and consciously denied that the holocaust happened, when any reasonable interpretation of the documentary sources would prove otherwise. But it did not say that he was incompetent. In any case, the "respect of ones peers" is rather subjective - it is not something that can be measured. And who are his "peers" exactly anyway? I don't think he was ever regarded as a mainstream historian. Shritwod (talk) 10:26, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

It seems clear to me that nearly everything that has been said in that thread is supported by the various linked articles, particularly the David Irving one, which although it wasn't linked by the OP, was linked about 1 hour and 20 minutes later and long before μηδείς got involved. It's true that we greatly prefer inline refs to contentious claims, however when a case like this when there's clearly little dispute over the claims and they are supported by references provided. I find this thread a little ironic since c has in the past made contentious claims about living people on the RD, either without providing a ref, or where the ref didn't actually support their claim. I've sometimes felt we are a little too free on the RD in BLP areas, but it doesn't seem this is one of them. (I have greater concern when the claims are barely supported, don't appear supported or not mentioned in the articles on the people, perhaps because they aren't considered significant.) Nil Einne (talk) 01:37, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

That would be extremely helpful, Nil, if you would deem to lower yourself to providing links to such terrible violations on my part. I could then either defend or retract them, innit? Given you don't bother to do so, should I just assume you are correct this matter is vile, and ignore your innuendo? I have no problem apologizing when I know what it is I am apologizing for. Until then I'l just assume the calumny is unsupported. μηδείς (talk) 02:01, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Medeis, had you never heard of David Irving before this? That's the only explanation I can think of why you would open this thread in this way. Surely you were aware that an English court has already determined that he is an author who deliberately misleads and manipulates historical evidence? Or is your point that he can't be called "incompetent" because it was deliberate? BLP citations are required for contentious statements. The fact that Irving is utterly discredited is not contentios. BLP doesn't for instance result in every time we say "Peter Sutcliffe is a mass murderer" having to provide citations. Some things are just too well known. DeCausa (talk) 11:37, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I regret my comment above, not because it's untrue but because in the interest of fairness I had to either withdraw my claim, or provide evidence (and I should have recognised μηδείς would deny what's evident to probably 90% of RD regulars). First I should mention I never said anything about terrible violations. I just said you'd done stuff which I consider worse in the past. Most of your violations are silly stuff relating to highly notable people who've have so much silly stuff it's barely worth worrying about. (The David Irving case is similar, but in that case the claims mostly weren't particularly contentious and as I said were present and should have been obvious to anyone familiar with the subject matter which from your comments you are.)

Evidence, collapsed for readability of this page. Nil Einne (talk) 22:00, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Let's start with serious statements by which I don't mean these are serious problems but rather, it sounds like you are being serious even if you are also taking the mickey. Although I long gave up working out if you were serious, so it's likely many are misclassified. A good example here Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 February 2#US Presidential Staff you suggest Obama has 2 movie projectionists to play DVDs or possibly Blurays. In fact the evidence that emerged and even from your sources strongly suggests this isn't the case, and the projectionists are to run the White House Family Theatre, which despite you apparent incredulity, does or did mostly use film. (I wonder if they've long since moved to mostly digital. Actually I thought I read that but couldn't find it again, may be StuRat's comments are what I'm remembering. I suspect they may still have film, for those that need it.) You also seem to be making a big deal about this in relation to Obama, when the role have existed for a long time now, although I'm not sure I ever found out when the second projectionist came along (I AGF it's true, although I wonder if it's someone training to take over). Here you imply that Obama spends too much time playing golf Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 October 8#Woman president, no refs were provided. I guess there's probably something about Obama & golf somewhere on wikipedia, but the claim is definitely contentious and wasn't sourced. Here Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 May 9#Why is there a liquor ban during the days around the 2013 Filipino presidential election? you effectively claim both Bush and Obama didn't care about marijuana use but were just politically posturing (personally I suspect this may have some truth, but it wasn't sourced & I suspect it isn't anywhere on wikipedia because it's too minor and difficult to prove). Here Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2014 February 19#Postrace, it's fairly obvious your effectively saying Obama is unqualified to be president. A common claim of course one in our article in some fashion but not one you provided sources for. Here Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 November 15#Speaking in the House of Lords you claim "Jimmy Carter, or, especially, Either Bush, or Barack Obama" "could speak on their feet or speak spontaneously when challenged". I'm sure this sort of opinion isn't uncommon but you provided no sources and it's definitely going to be contentious and I get the feeling it's probably only mentioned in a roundabout fashion in our articles. Here Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 June 16#With fuel prices these days, could it be cheaper to ship gasoline from Venezuela? you accuse Chávez (still alive at the time) of using petrol and electricity to stay in both (I'm sure this accusation could be sources, perhaps it's even in our article, but you didn't link to anything). Here Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 December 9#Big government you suggest Obama is a communist. Some examples where I have no idea if you're joking or what. Here Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 October 18#Earliest written record of the leg transplant of Saints Cosmas and Damian, you say we can't be sure who Obama's father is since his original birth certificate was never released. I have no idea if you're serious with the dumb birth certificate claim, but the paternity thing is obviously offensive and unsourced. I haven't heard of much contention over his father anyway (not that I follow wacky conspiracy theories), if anything his father isn't disputed because it fits in to the "he isn't native born American" claim. In the absence of good reason, someones claim of who their father is is accepted. Your comment is particularly stupid because you appearing to be talking on a genetic basis, not a legal basis. A birth certificate isn't much better evidence than someone's appearently genuinely held believe. And genetic testing would actually outweight any birth certificate. (See BB pointed out something similar.) Here Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2011 October 24#Why is the New Haven Line so darn slow? you say Obama is a "Wall-Street funded reactionary", no sources. Then there are the facetious comments or jokes where you may not being intending to actually imply the claim about the person is true, but you make a silly comment anyway often without it necessarily being clear what you're doing to people who aren't familiar with your history or didn't read earlier comments. E.g. here Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2013 April 26#Crossing Legs in America? you make some dumb joke based on earlier comments about Obama having a small penis and testicles. You obviously didn't and can't provide ref for this since it's a dumb joke. Similarly here you call Gaddafi a drag queen (this was while he was still alive) Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 August 22#War Powers Resolution lawsuit. And here Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 July 4#bumpersticker of the day you say "Obama an atheist ex-Muslim". And it's apparent at least one person thought you were serious on this point. Here Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 November 17#Is Islamism typically considered right-wing... you suggested Paul Krugman got a Nobel Prize for their work with Enron. It's fairly obvious this isn't the reason for their Nobel, I'm presuming you just wanted to mention Paul Krugman's very minor work with Enron at one stage. (And minor seems to be correct, it isn't mentioned in our article, probably because $50k ultimately isn't much for such a large company to be paying and the time frame is fairly short.) I won't mention your other stuff there as they can both be easily sourced to our articles, even though they aren't sourced either. Of course there's also cases not covered in my earlier comment but which I perhaps should have. Like Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2012 October 19#Terri Schiavo, which is perhaps the most serious violations I came across. While you did provide sources for your accusation that several people, including a number of judges and a private individuals, are murderers. This claim isn't (and I'm guessing wasn't) mentioned in our article, probably because it's too much of a minority view point to mention. To some extent it's a matter of semantics, but calling someone a murderer is a serious enough claim it should be done with the utmost care. Perhaps this highly contentious BLP-vio minority view would have been a bit acceptable if it was actually a useful answer to the question, but it wasn't. As was pointed out by multiple people there doesn't seem to be any dispute that under most legal definitions the person was alive, for the majority of people who supported the right to end her live based on her accepted desire, this was never the issue. No one seemed to think it would help the OP and notably your sources aren't likely to cut it in an actual BLP. And while Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2011 October 16#American potatoes calling a specific named individual a negro isn't perhaps a BLP-vio, it is unnecessarily offensive, particularly since the only reason it seems you said that is to try and make a dumb point (which unsurprisingly failed). I perhaps should also mention Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 October 25#Why does Obama vote in Chicago? where you ask whether Obama voted for "Green, or Socialist" (only 2 options you gave). And Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2014 October 17#Dialysis plus where you said Bill Gates stole money. You did provide links although I doubt these links actuall use stole or any similar word, still it's too much a matter of semantic for me to worry much about. But you also said that Kim Jong-un consumes "the blood of virgins". Our article which you linked to, doesn't and didn't [4]. I find some sources referring to claims he injected (not ate/drunk which most people would take to be meant by consume) the blood of virgins but I'm guessing this isn't mentioned in our article intentional. For all the wacky stuff about people like Kim Jong-un that's true, there's even more that isn't true (and some of the sources likewise just mention it was one of the number of weird rumours floating around). Finally Wikipedia:Reference #desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 September 16#list of political criteria, where you say Obama's "status as murtadd, an apostate, is widely documented", but the sources you gave are an op-ed and another also unlikely to qualify as an RS in a BLP. (You didn't link to the Obama article, so whether or not it mentions anything remotely similar I would consider mooot.) These are only a few examples, I consider them enough to prove my statement and won't be replying further. I only got through about half the links I opened (and ignored the language desk). And just to repeat my earlier statement, I never suggested these are major problems, simply that it's a case of pot, kettle black for you to be making big deal of this BLP issue which as mentioned is well covered in the article which was soon linked in the discussion when you've done stuff which while not that bad either, is seemingly worse quite a few times. Many of these examples are from Obama. Not because I think Obama needs super protection or I give a damn about whatever nonsense you talk about Obama (and frankly some of the less silly stuff I may agree with you even if I try to avoid saying them on the RD although I do say stuff like this on occassion I know for sure). Simply because Obama is one example I know that you seem to have problems with (these examples show he isn't the only one even among US presidents, but he comes up more being the current president and I get the feeling one you dislike more). I do have a bigger problem with your soapboxing which I saw many times in my searches including here. Similar to this case, particularly since you are one who was always complaining about, and trying to hat or close soapboxing. And yes some of these examples are old but some of them are new. I do hope your understanding of BLP has gotten better. In particular, one thing I was reminded by my searches. While you aren't hatting so much, I hope you understanding hatting an existing BLP vio is serves no useful purpose except to try and stop followups. Although your frequent references to defamation per se do make me think you don't reall understand what BLP is about (while we should consider defamation, it isn't primarily about editors random opinions on what's defamatory particularly since it should not get that far). Back to my earlier statement, it's largely a moot point since I never said I was only thinking of recent cases.

Nil Einne (talk) 22:00, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Complaining about someone who is only notable as a holocaust denier being referred to as a pseudohistorian after calling Obama an ex-Muslim atheist goes well beyond pot and kettle. If it was in article space, there'd be a topic-ban discussion at ANI right now. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

To be fair, "only notable as a holocaust denier" is probably taking it too far. Irving was a well known author on WWII, and actually quite respected, long before he took up holocaust denial. I think he probably only gained notability (notoriety) specifically in the US as a result of his holocaust denial from the 1980s. Prior to that his work received a fair bit of mainstream attention. DeCausa (talk) 22:54, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of Irving's earlier career, the first thing about him in our article is about him being a holocaust denier. Medeis's posts have generally left me with the impression that he's American or has spent more time there than in England, and given the far-right bias he's demonstrated, it's extremely unlikely he was truly only aware of Irving's prior career while somehow completely unaware of the rest. If he was enough of an Irving fan from well before the 80s (required to know of Irving's reputation before then), then it'd be all but impossible to miss the trial and downfall. If he had no prior knowledge of Irving, the first thing in our article is "holocaust denier." Ian.thomson (talk) 23:20, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

IsAnybodyDown?

Could I ask for some eyes on IsAnybodyDown? - we've had a user repeatedly trying to remove the names of one of the people listed as a founder of the site, saying that he was not a founder (this is a site with some negative reputation, so false identification as a founder would be legitimately a BLP concern.) I was the most recent undo-er of this deletion, but I was also the person who most strongly defended the inclusion in the first place, so I'd appreciate a pair or two of eyes on this (no offense intended to the monocular) to either back me up or to note if I've gone wrong. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:10, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

The problem with this article surfaces every couple of months or so. Last time it was agreed (IIRC) that the information is sourced correctly and the removal of the founder's name is not warranted. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:18, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I had forgotten about this discussion. Thank you for reminding me. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:56, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm wondering if we could broadly apply WP:BLP1E to this (since the founders and the website came and gone in a blink of a relative eye and haven't done much that's notable since) and send it to AfD? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:27, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

There may be a case to be made at AFD (although it survived it before), but I don't think BLP1E plays here, as the topic is a business run by multiple people. There may be a better case to remove the redirect currently under the name of one of the named founders under BLP1E, particularly since he seems to qualify as a low-profile individual (the other did an On The Media interview about the site, so is harder to fit into that low-profile description.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:11, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Jacob Bragg

This is a situation where the subject is editing his own Wikipedia page. What he is adding is either unsourced or simply not verified by the sources given. I have tried numerous times via the Talkpage or his own Talkpage to advise him on this and the importance of verification and reliable sources. The reponse is to "leave my Wikipedia page alone" or "this is personal information and can only be verified by me!". I have run out of advice and the article is just going back and forwards. Would welcome advice/another editors intervention. Thanks.--Egghead06 (talk) 15:23, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• I've posted a warning on his talk page and on the article page. I didn't think about it until I got to the talk page, but I don't think he realizes how public all of this is as far as his actions go. I left a bit of a mention of this on the article talk page, so hopefully that will kind of get the "cut it out" gist across. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:14, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Anna Netrebko

Needs some eyes after recent stories in the European press re her posing with a flag of Novorossiya (a self-proclaimed confederation in Ukraine) and presenting a donation to Oleg Tsarov (an alleged pro-Russian separatist politician). Additions which have been removed so far: [5], [6], but there are no doubt more to come. Voceditenore (talk) 10:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Justin Lee (criminal)

Some eyes needed on this quick - many of the sources appear to be in Chinese, so that skill would be additionally helpful! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

The article as written names at least one rape victim. Probably not a good idea per WP:BLPNAME even if the names are from sources. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:00, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

And the second section is almost completely a copyvio. I've blanked, marked, and reported to Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2014 December 10. The rest of the article could use some scrubbing. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

@Mendaliv: I've nominated one of the two linked names for CSD (not notable and violation of WP:CRIME). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Risto Näätänen (in English)

In the article the Risto Näätänen appears in the past tense (e.g., "Risto Näätänen was") although he is still alive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.116.224.130 (talk) 08:26, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I replaced all the was with is throughout the article because he is in fact still alive. Meatsgains (talk) 15:25, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Beck

On the page "Beck" about the singer, in the personal field there is a sentence which I believe is mistaken.

The sentence "Marissa and Giovanni Ribisi were delivered by Beck's mother, Bibbe Hansen.[109]" is telling us that Beck's own mother delivered the Ribisi twins, one of whom would later marry Beck. It sounds too unbelievable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.211.240.19 (talk) 20:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Seems well sourced. http://www.eonline.com/photos/2505/rock-s-steamiest-romances/91365 http://tv.aol.com/2013/10/22/giovanni-ribisi-four-things-you-never-knew-about-the-dads-sta/ --GRuban (talk) 20:50, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

But are they reliable sources?--ukexpat (talk) 02:55, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Maral Ibragimova

Maral Ibragimova (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I'm not sure where to take this, but since it involves a BLP I'm bringing here. The recent history of Maral Ibragimova is of a relatively-important-looking bot reverting itself repeatedly, over a long period of time. I'm not aware of sources to fix the underlying issue with the article. The talk page of the bot redirects to a user on wikibreak. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:57, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I removed the only link on that page, as it looks like an unusable social-media/UGC link. The bot looks like it was a beta version and it was out of control! (You may have saved all humans.)__ E L A Q U E A T E 02:22, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Overuse of Template:911ct

This nav template for 9/11 conspiracy theorizing is dropped on a lot of BLP pages, and lists (in my opinion) more people than are warranted. can we talk about reining this in? Mangoe (talk) 20:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Well clearly the template should not be used on any BLPs unless there there is a relable source linking the subject to one or more 9/11 conspiracy theory, because that would be a viuolation of BLP. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Sonja Morgan

Interns

Sonja claims to have as many as "no less than 35 people" in Team Sonja, including her interns. In Season Six Sonja is seen working with the interns such as Tyler Mills, Naomi Meulemans (whom Sonja nicknamed Pickles), Rachel McMahon and Rachel Kirkland — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.255.12 (talk • contribs)

References

• I don't really understand what it is that you want to report or have us do. I don't see where Morgan currently has an article and I also don't see where any of this would be anything that should be added to the main article for the RHoNY. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 01:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Andrew Harvey and Andrew Harvey (journalist)

Can someone take a look at the BLP articles on Andrew Harvey and Andrew Harvey (journalist). There are discrepancies in some dates and, looking at both articles together, it seems that what is written the Early Life section of Andrew Harvey (journalist) may be based on the life of the other Andrew Harvey. Rather unlikely that both share so much more than a name. Chris Fynn (talk) 09:26, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Holly Weber

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Holly Weber article was nominated for deletion several months ago; I rewrote it using various sources I found and it was kept. However, there is some sensitive but public information on her website, which I summarized with only one sentence on her Wikipedia article ("She also worked as an escort"). However, an anonymous user claiming to be Holly Weber is constantly removing that info. I want to stress out that this information is explicit on her official website, http://goholly.com/. I would like to receive some feedback on this. Thanks. --Λeternus ^(talk) 09:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

If it's not mentioned in reliable secondary sources, I'm not sure how relevant it is. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:BLPSPS if it's contentious material, it needs reliable secondary sourcing, even if it's mentioned or self-published at some point by the subject of the material. This protects us from situations where the subject tweets something in jest, like "I go crazy every Monday" and us adding it as an admission of mental illness or somesuch. It also protects us from repeating non-factual boasts, promotional hyperbole, and other completely fictitious claims that people make on their own websites. If there's some reasonable doubt about potential authenticity of a person's claim, especially regarding potentially criminal activity, we can't use it sourced only to a self-published source, even if said by the subjects themselves, per WP:BLPSELFPUB. __ E L A Q U E A T E 15:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Just to add, that website looks super-dodgy. I don't think there's even clear enough proof it's "official", considering it's selling 2013 calendars. Not a source for iffy BLP claims.__ E L A Q U E A T E 15:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

• We have something of a consensus to leave it out. Such material should be included only if highly relevant and supported by the best possible sources. Otherwise, err on the side of being conservative with people's reputations. Metamagician3000 (talk) 11:36, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Apostle Lebo

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Apostle Lebo born 1986 18 August, was born in the famous hospital called Natal Spruit @ 2:00am he than lived with his mother and other family members Apostle Lebo attended 5 different primary schools due to the traveling job's his mother had, he than finished his standard 5 @ Khayelihle primary school as a prefect and one of the best public speakers the school every had, he than moved to his higher learning @ Erusumas Monareng High school, @ Age 17 he was made youth paster @ his church than age 19 he became assistance to his paster in church in the community he played a big role when it come to Students Church Ministry, where he was part of the leadership of a movement that changed the cause of salvation among's students all over the Ekuruleni district, he since has been ordained as a prophet of God and is working as a Tent revivalist, hosting crusades with Gods presents mighty and Miracles taking place every second, God has favored him in this generation, his currently working in the kingdom of God! As a full-time minister and the Lord is using him mighty for more inform on this living legend in the making visit his page on face book Lebohang Noah Tshabalala shalom — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apostle Lebo (talk • contribs) 06:40, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bill Cosby allegations not yet proven

I don't know that the facts about Bill Cosby's case have emerged yet. While I can appreciate the intensity and seriousness of the allegations, there is a glut of sensationalistic hearsay and speculation on the Bill Cosby wiki. It does not belong there, as per the rules for a living person's biography. Can someone please clarify next steps? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galactiger (talk • contribs) 08:17, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, it does belong there. Per WP:PUBLICFIGURE, "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." Only those allegations which are not supported by multiple reliable independent sources should be left out. Msnicki (talk) 09:05, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

To qualify its inclusion - it belongs in the article PROVIDED All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation., it does not violate the 3 core principles of BLP, and is presented in a neutral manner. Atsme☯^Consult 14:28, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

The allegations and denials might belong in the body of the BLP, but that does not mean it is of sufficient nature to warrant being placed in the lead of the BLP as we are required to edit BLPs conservatively. Collect (talk) 14:30, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Robert P. McCulloch (prosecutor)

Robert P. McCulloch (prosecutor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

ChrisGualtieri is deleting [7] well sourced material about the role of McCulloch in the grand jury proceedings related to the Shooting of Michael Brown. He is arguing WP:COATRACK and that the material is a grossly negative an attack on McCulloch made by Huffington Post and other low grade sources, while the material is sourced to reputable media sources such as CNN, USA Today, Fox News, St.Louis Post-Dispatch, Washington Post, and others. I would appreciate comments from uninvolved editors. Note that and this is the single most notable case in this prosecutor's career and deserving of a full representation in his bio. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:44, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

The main problem here is that ChrisGualtieri is taking a very novel interpretation of NPOV and BLP, stating that the material sourced to these reliable sources, is mostly sensationalist and opinions by people about McCulloch instead of the plain disinterested facts, which understandably, with that kind of interpretation, a mass deletion of content would be warranted. I'd appreciate some experienced BLP/N patrollers to weigh in. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:33, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

• Just a note, Cwobeel added the sum part of the content to Shooting of Michael Brown page in numerous edits.[8][9][10][11][12][13][14] Then he copied it over to Robert P. McCulloch's page.[15] After I removed it he reinserted it again.[16] Then he "removed the Huffington Post piece" as if that was the sole issue and added it again.[17] So 10 different opinions with a negative slant to 1, Rudy Giulani, is WP:NPOV? You are taking a bunch of so-called reliable source opinion pieces surrounding a sensationalist event and actually copy and pasting the "controversy" to a subject's biographical article. The negative comments comprise the bulk of the text and most are just parroting the same exact thing with different wordings. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:51, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I have made considerable trims to the original content,[18] as a compromise to find middle ground. Just note that it does not matter if you think the NYT, the WaPo, USA Today,CNN, SCOTUSblog and all the other reliable sources are "sensationalistic". - Cwobeel (talk) 20:15, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Death of Eric Garner

Death of Eric Garner: Anonymous editors keep entering info in a vandalistic fashion that I and other editors believe probably violates BLP. Example change here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Death_of_Eric_Garner&oldid=637812036. Concern is regarding the statements about the police officer. I and several other editors have removed these changes because we believe them the be BLP violations and not NPOV; however the users keep replacing them. I suggest semi-protecting the page. GoddersUK (talk) 20:09, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Eric Carmen

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

Someone using an IP address has been deleting cited info about Eric Carmen's personal life which includes linked citations regarding his DUI arrest and his divorce. Steelbeard1 (talk) 20:14, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Given that almost half the 'personal life' section was devoted to the DUI incident, maybe the IP has a point. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:40, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Olga Holtz

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

No Proof of notability, article is poorly cited. Recommend that steps must be taken to prove or improve such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpruck (talk • contribs) 09:04, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

It looks well sourced to me. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:25, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

It seems somewhat reliant on WP:PRIMARY sources (the sites of the people that awarded her the awards), but assuming those awards are themselves notable in the field of mathamatics, notability does not appear to be an obvious issue. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:48, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Marianna Hill

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

Dear Wiki Volunteer editors,

At the behest of Mrs Marianna Hill, please remove the details about where she lives in the world. You have kensington London, - there is no reason that any fans need to know where she lives. As a famous actress she must be careful that she is not stalked by fans - such as those of startrek or the God Father II. Furthermore, Mrs Hill is still active as an actress and you are damaging her ability to be hired as you have posted her DoB. Please remove this, not only is it inaccurate according to her own birth records, she doesnt wish it to be posted on line.

Best regards,

Mr J.Rees, assistant to Mrs M. Hill. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.92.16 (talk) 11:19, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

• Done. Not necessary nor desirable to include such information, and it was unsourced. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:27, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
• DOB and some extant personal information (such as birth name) also removed, as they were supported by primary sources. Once more the actress-doesn't-like-her-DOB-advertised situation, so I advised user that if a reliable secondary source is found for that, the removal would not be so simple. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:32, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Bart Sibrel

I think the section on the vandalism incident is inappropriate. We do not include information on minor crimes when it is unrelated to notability, with the exception of people who are major public figures where there is great public interest. That the person is notable only for fringe does not justify making an exception to his discredit. I'm bringing it here because on the basis of discussion on the article talk p., removal is sure to be resisted. DGG ( talk ) 00:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

criminal organisations and interwiki links

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

Propaganda Due was a criminal organisation and article as a list of 'Notable people on Gelli's list' (a list of probably members) implicating living people in said criminal organisation. There are many red links on that list, but many of those red links are to people who have articles on it.wiki. It is acceptable to inter-wiki link those names or do they have to be completely removed? Stuartyeates (talk) 08:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Man Haron Monis

Man Haron Monis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article has high interest due to an incident that has been reported internationally. Another name is mentioned in the lede and Infobox. The lede name has a [cite needed] tag, the existing source does not support the name given. (Sources may, in the future, do so). This has been raised on the Talk page and ANI [19]. Could the [cite needed] name be removed until a source is provided? Or a source provided for it? AnonNep (talk) 19:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Mariam Nour

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

Could someone with experience in BLP issues - ideally an Arabic speaker - take a look at Mariam Nour? I've stripped out a huge amount of probably-libellous anecdotes (ranging from an affair with Colonel Gadaffi to conspiring to poison her viewers), but in doing so have reduced it to a sub-stub. Could I get a second opinion as to whether I've reverted too far (or not far enough)? Mogism (talk) 20:08, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Most of what was deleted seemed to be unsourced or poorly sourced, so I see no issue with your intervention. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Shooting of Michael Brown

Shooting of Michael Brown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This article has disputed BLP issues, namely that the article has some heavy-handed criticism about how the investigation and grand jury proceedings were conducted. It also has a lot of opinion pieces that may also violate WP:NPOV. Outside suggestions or edits would be appreciated. --RAN1 (talk) 21:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

There's also a preceding entry on the topic at AN/I with some related information. GraniteSand (talk) 21:55, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Eugène Diomi Ndongala Nzomambu

It was suggested on the Humanities Reference Desk that Eugène Diomi Ndongala Nzomambu and Eugène Diomi Ndongala are the same person although two different dates of birth are shown. Note that both article link to the same article on French Wikipedia. If they are the same, the articles need to be merged (and details from the French one added). If they aren't, then the links to the French need to be corrected and a hatnote (like not-to-be-confused-with) added. --65.94.50.4 (talk) 04:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The French article is under fr:Eugène Diomi Ndongala, but gives the full name as Eugène Diomi Ndongala Nzomambu, further supporting the case that both articles refer to the same person. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:32, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Nick Griffin

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There is a consensus that the two UK tabloid sources (Hastings and MacKenzie) can be used in the article. However, Ritchie333's proposal regarding using secondary sources has also garnered consensus over using those two UK tabloid sources. I'll remove the full protection as this should solve the edit war. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:27, 13 December 2014 (UTC)}}

a few opinionated comments does not overide policy wp:blp - Govindaharihari (talk) 01:42, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

User:John claims that as they're generally considered unreliable, we are not allowed to cite two UK tabloid sources for a BLP. This is a position I would normally agree with. But the citations are to editorials from notable authors (Max Hastings and Kelvin MacKenzie), writing for those tabloids, offering their opinion on a controversial television appearance the article's subject made the night before. It's impossible to find a better source for these quotes - they exist nowhere else. I think John does not understand the policy and I would appreciate it if someone could confirm that I'm correct. Since he has not removed similar opinions on the same topic from more reliable newspapers, his actions are, in effect, censoring editorials written in tabloid newspapers. I do not see how this can be considered neutral. Parrot of Doom 21:12, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

By "tabloid" here we're talking about the Daily Mail (Hastings) and The Sun (MacKenzie). The Mail is an awkward one: it's a disgusting rag for its editorial bias. However, like all newspapers working under the UK's onerous libel laws, it's far better on simple accuracy of facts (it can't afford not to be!) than most US papers. The whole term "tabloid" is skunked for use on WP. In the UK that's an accusation that a paper is trivia and celebrity-obsessed but usually still trying to have some grasp on reality (even the Sun). In the US though, "tabloid" means a thing sold in supermarkets for amusement value only.

The particular statements here are two highly subjective judgements on Griffin's character, made by both Hastings and MacKenzie. Both are presented straightforwardly as opinion pieces by named writers of some stature. Such writers are allowed to be subjective, and we're allowed to record what they said. There is no credible case that either Hastings or MacKenzie are being misreported here (even in the Sun). Similarly there is no case that Griffin is being treated unfairly by WP cherry-picking obscure comments upon him by biased commentators: neither Hastings or MacKenzie are left wing ideologues with a prejudicial grudge against Griffin.

Both of these statements, as recently included, should be restored to the article. Andy Dingley (talk) 03:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

The Mail and the Sun are disgusting rags with a proven reputation for making up lies and challenging the victim to sue. Kelvin McKenzie is not a "named writer of some stature" but (to quote from our article on him) ..."was responsible for the "Freddie Starr Ate My Hamster" front-page headline. The claims made in the accompanying article, that the comedian Freddie Starr had placed his girlfriend's hamster on a sandwich and proceeded to eat it, turned out to be entirely untrue and an invention of the publicist Max Clifford. The headline is often held up as the prime example of The Sun's supposedly celebrity-obsessed, sensationalist and often inaccurate journalism." Nick Griffin is a right-wing ideologue but that does not mean we should repeat the claims of a proven liar and purveyor of tabloid trash regarding him. Max Hastings is a writer of some stature but even there, if this opinion is of any weight, it will have been repeated, covered or quoted in more serious publications (Hastings has written many books; has he included this material in any of them? If not, why not?). BLPSOURCES as written prohibits us from using material sourced in this way, and it contains no get-out clause that allows us to rubbish living people because we don't like their politics. On a separate note, the behaviour of the complainant may well be considered blockworthy; having a strong opinion about Nick Griffin or misunderstanding BLPSOURCES are both forgivable but edit-warring to restore contentious material to a BLP is pushing it. --John (talk) 07:16, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't care less what those newspapers have done or are doing, the quotes are opinions not statements of fact. You are misconstruing policy and need to stop, right now. There is absolutely nothing unreliable or contentious about the material quoted. Parrot of Doom 10:30, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

To paraphrase you John, "Kelvin MacKenzie is of no stature and here's a quote from WP, where he has implicitly passed WP:N, to prove it".

Hastings and MacKenzie can find themselves a seat on Paxman, Question Time and their like, a role that is not open to you or I. Neither of us may like their politics or opinions, but these two men of letters have a stature within the media that is demonstrated by the willingness of editors to pay them substantial money for their words. They are not merely bloggers or twitterers. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:05, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

disputed detail is just attacking opinionated against the person (griffin) - if you want to attack him add it - if you want to write a wp:npov bio then remove it - Govindaharihari (talk) 08:01, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Did you read the remaining quotes in that section? Parrot of Doom 10:50, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

The two sources are WP:RS but for contentious claims about living persons they may be challenged, but so may any source making contentious claims. They are "tabloid" in format, but it is well-established that "tabloid journalism" is not the same as "tabloid format." When it comes to opinions of notable persons writing in those journals, however, they are fully reliable. Collect (talk) 11:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• Actually, I'd dispute most of that - The Mail and The Sun are generally not RS for most of their content because they've both got long histories of making things up and then challenging their victims to sue. When they do, they usually win and a groveling apology from the paper appears in a tiny hidden corner of Page 39 (when the lies about their victim were on the front page). However, I'd prepared to agree with Collect's last sentence, I'd have to agree; the opinions of their own columnists, especially if notable as here, can happily be quoted as long as it is made clear they are op-eds. Black Kite (talk) 11:55, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oh? From what I can tell, the claims are that opinions are held by people who expressly wrote those opinions for the papers. Unless you mean to suggest the papers are not reliable sources for material expressly written for them, then the sources are RS as long as the opinions are presented as opinions. Collect (talk) 12:10, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes, that's what I said. There is no evidence that op-eds in those papers are unreliable, regardless of how problematic those papers' news content has traditionally proved to be. Black Kite (talk) 12:28, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
• For what it's worth, Kelvin Mackenzie is a known liar. No judgment on the content. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:16, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I seem to be missing the part which proves he's a liar instead of a misled journalist. This 'is' the BLP noticeboard, right? --Onorem (talk) 17:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
• So there are people saying that even though Kelvin Mackenzie is a proven liar, and even though he was writing in a publication known for printing lies, it is ok to publish his opinion on a BLP on Wikipedia because it was an op-ed? That doesn't make sense. Nick Griffin is a living person, and however much we may dislike his political views he deserves the same protection that any other living person does here. --John (talk) 16:39, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

John is deliberately misleading here. His original deletion of content was simply marked BLPSOURCES with no attempt to suggest why, either in his deletion rationale or in more detail on the talk page. His second removal had no reason given whatsoever. His third said "WP:BLPSOURCES worth a read at this point", as if I hadn't. His fourth and fifth deletions simply say "BLPSOURCES". At no time has he attempted to instigate a discussion on the article's talk page - I did to avoid a 3RR situation - and gave proper reasons for reinstating the material. Another editor, Parrot of Doom, took up the issue and also gave reasoned justifications for reinstating the material. Both of us have received what amount to threats on our talk pages. This is not acceptable. John has still not addressed the issue and, indeed, has compounded it, by seeking justification in this discussion.

The issue is a really simple one: The section of text at issue is prefaced with the words "The programme dominated the following day's newspapers." Now there a number of daily newspapers in Britain. John wants only The Guardian to be quoted. That is not "dominated" and giving a single example does not demonstrate "dominated"; a selection is required. The selection we had includes the leading left leaning broadsheet (Guardian), the leading right wing paper (Mail) and the best selling tabloid, also right leaning (The Sun). None of these is quoted for evidence of Griffin's nature, activities, views or life. They are quoted as evidence of "The programme dominated the following day's newspapers." No matter that the authors in the papers' articles are highly experienced commentators (who, as it happens, I would rarely find myself in agreement with) the question of reliable sources is totally irrelevant. Where are you going to find evidence that the Mail said this? Well, in the Mail. Where are you going to find evidence that the Sun said this? Well, in the Sun. It's really a no-brainer. And it's not as if the two papers are inherently non-reliable - they're not, as countless other Wikipedia discussions have shown. "Use with care" is the best description, and in this case that is how they have been used.

It seems to me that this discussion is only taking place because John has happened to come up against two editors who have stood up to his bullying attitude and refusal to so much as consider reasoned comments. Emeraude (talk) 17:12, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Quick point of order, it was I who started this thread. I should have made a note on the article's talk page but I was tired and not thinking straight. Parrot of Doom 17:17, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• John, of course we should observe BLP in relation to Griffin. We should accurately report whatever dreadful words Hastings and MacKenzie used against him. There seems no solid challenge on that basis. Now are they relevant in this case? That would seem to be the only good grounds for removing these quotes: do they form a worthwhile part of encyclopedic biography of Griffin?. As part of reporting mass media reaction to Griffin's highly notable appearance on QT, they surely are and so are justified for their appearance here. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:26, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• Allow them. I really don't see what all the fuss is about. There are only four (maybe five) vital questions that should be asked to satisfy Wikipedia policies in a BLP regarding adding op-ed quotes: (1) Are the quotes Parrot of Doom produced veriable per WP:V and not the product of original research? Yes, they are verifiable. Parrot of Doom didn't make them up. (2) Are they accurate, yet brief, quotations that satisfy both WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE? Yes, Parrot of Doom didn't attempt long citations that placed undue weight on these two opinions regarding Nick Griffin published in the Sun and in the Daily Mail. Parrot of Doom did the right thing; he made them brief and to the point. (3) Are they the product of a WP:COATRACK? No, they're not. Parrot of Doom placed the brief opinions of the two authors in exactly the right place in the article to offset the opinion of the Guardian regarding the event. (4) Are the newspapers reliable in the Wikipedia sense that they have editorial control and oversight and are not self-published internet pieces discussing third-parties? Yes, they are reliable. The argument (which strikes me as original research and a little tendentious) that these two newspapers are inherently unreliable because of their perceived rightwing political bent by a few Wikipedia contributors strikes me as irrelevent. Equally irrelevent is the argument that because a Wikipedia editor personally dislikes Kelvin Mackenzie (i.e., "He's a proven liar") that his opinion published in a newspaper directly related to the subject cannot be neutrally cited. It's the reader's responsibility to weigh the various opinions of the event that are published in reliable sources. It's not our place to decide because Wikipedia is not censored. I agree with Parrot of Doom, Andy Dingley, Emeraude, Black Kite, and User talk:Collect. Oddexit (talk) 18:46, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, allow them. For all the reasons Oddexit stated. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:18, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• Ok. Let's say someone wants to add to our article on Russell Brand that Richard Littlejohn called him a "disgusting hypocrite" in his column in the Daily Mail. Here is the reference. Would those defending the tabloid sources defend this? All the same conditions are met. No, it's still not working for me. --John (talk) 21:54, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Absolutely. Firstly, no one is, as you put it, "defending the tabloid sources". But, without reading Wikipedia's article on Brand or Littlejohn's article, the answer is quite simple. If there has been a media reaction to Brand's speeches/writings that needs to be covered, then it would be perfectly acceptable to write something like: "Several media sources were highly critical, including Richard Littlejohn in The Daily Mail who wrote that Brand was a "disgusting hypocrite", Fred Bloggs in the Gleaner who said he ought to know better and Fanny Adams in the Daily Post who thought he was deluded." (With referenced sources.) And, no doubt, similar from those commentators/papers that were sympathetic. Emeraude (talk) 13:18, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry but I cannot square that with the BLP policy that I know and help enforce. Let alone with ethics. Why does the vile drivel of the tabloid press "need... to be covered", when it concerns negative material about a living person? Oddexit, thank you for at least thinking about this rather than making a "me too" response. I fundamentally disagree with several of your premises. The material contravenes NPOV, UNDUE and COATRACK, but more importantly it contravenes BLP as currently written. It would need special reason for us to bend this important rule and I am not seeing it. It is not a personal dislike of the two sources we are discussing nor of the one particular journalist that rules this material out, but the well-established mendacity and unreliability of the sources and this journalist in particular. To follow up the Brand example, I would be less uneasy about including this material in Littlejohn's article, but I think it could not be used on Brand's unless it were covered in better sources. I feel the same way about this. Finally NOTCENSORED is a dreadful argument when we are discussing BLP, which we are. --John (talk) 00:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

John, it's unfortunate that you're using language like "disgusting rags", "dreadful shit," and "trash" to describe the newspapers and cited columns for the article. Not because you're using profanity on Wikipedia (I'm not offended), but because it signals to other Wikipedia contributors that you've made very clear normative judgements about the newspapers and authors. As contributors, we're supposed to be neutral when editing. How much of your refusal to abide by WP:CONSENSUS is the result of your (mis?)reading of Wikipedia policy and how much of it is your desire to keep the specific citations out of the article for personal reasons? Yes, it's certainly true (you're right) that part of WP:BLPSOURCES reads "Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism." But the material to which they're referring are alleged facts appearing in supposed tabloids which cannot be found elsewhere. The intention was to avoid Wikipedia contributors adding specious claims from (say) the National Enquirer alleging that Elvis Presely is alive and well, or alleging that actress Sandra Bullock just had given birth to her ex-terrestrial love child. That policy was never intended to be used as a weapon to exclude political opinions from columnists published in newspapers with third-party editorial control. Had the intention of the Wikipedia Community been to include op-eds in that clause, they would have most definitely revised WP:BIASED which reads: "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective (emphasis added). Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. While a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context (emphasis added). When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking. Editors should also consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source, as in "Feminist Betty Friedan wrote that...", "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff...," or "Conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that...". Ultimately, what needs to happen is that quotation needs to make clear to the reader that so-and-so writing in such-and-such newspaper argued/opined/stated that [fill-in-the-blank-briefly]. That's all. Oddexit (talk) 22:57, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

• There are at least seven people who disagree with John. Despite this, he shows no sign of relenting. Can someone please unprotect the article and restore the quotes? Parrot of Doom 21:11, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
  • We're still discussing it. A discussion is not a vote. I need to see more replies to my question of 21:54 5 December. I have had one so far. I am sure you can wait a few days before you spoon this dreadful shit back into the article on a living person. Why would anyone want to do this ? Is it because you dislike his politics? --John (talk) 00:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
    • The discussion appears very much over to me, with several people explaining why you're wrong. You need to step away from this subject since it's clear you don't understand the BLP policy on sourcing. And frankly, for accusing me of being biased against Griffin, you can go to hell. For daring to improve an article on such a controversial figure I've already suffered people accusing me of supporting his politics. Parrot of Doom 08:52, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
      • If your idea of "improving" it is adding snippets from The Sun to it, perhaps it is you who need to step away from it. --John (talk) 15:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
        • This whole argument boils down to you not liking the opinions of two authors published by two tabloids. As I and everyone above has already told you, there is nothing unreliable about anything added. I will be taking further action to redress this situation. Parrot of Doom 19:48, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
          • It may say more about you than about me that you see it this way. I am an administrator on this project and I am entrusted with (among other things) enforcing user conduct. Among all the other rather vague behavioural guidelines, BLP is one of the few clear-cut policies we have. At present, the relevant section says: "Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources." There is no proviso saying "... unless it is an op-ed", "... unless the subject is an unpopular right-wing politician" or anything else. Perhaps there should be. In the meantime we are discussing how best to enforce the policy as it is written, and not as you would perhaps like it to be. I find it funny and sad that while those of us able to grasp the underlying principle of BLP are discussing this matter, you have run off to AN/I to complain about me. So be it. I am still requesting further replies to my post of 21:54, 5 December 2014. I have so far had one. --John (talk) 20:06, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:SOURCE: The word "source" in Wikipedia has three meanings:

1. the type of the work (some examples include a document, an article, or a book)
2. the creator of the work (for example, the writer)
3. the publisher of the work (for example, Oxford University Press).

All three can affect reliability. (emphasis mine) Furthermore WP:NEWSORG explains "opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, " So, although publication in tabloid sources is reason to scrutinize them vary carefully, it doesn't necessarily preclude their use. In this case, excluding them results in the article ending up NPOV. NE Ent 20:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

• I'm going to side with John on this one. The Daily Mail and the Sun have absolutely no place in a BLP, and I don't give a damn about what they're being used for. There is one exception; an official notice that they've hired the subject in question, or parted company with them. Tabloids are unreliable sources, and as such, we don't put the opinions of their journalists into BLPs - that's just flat-out wrong, especially when they're inflammatory statements about controversial figures. Likewise, we wouldn't put people's opinions from blogs into an article, would we? And yes, that would be exactly the same sort of thing. Yes, sources are not required to be neutral - but they sure as hell are required to be reliable. This is a clear violation of BLP in my eyes, and I'm disappointed that so many people think it is appropriate to include information from two of the very worst tabloids of all (and make no mistake about it, both truly are woeful) in a BLP. And there are plenty of people condemning Griffin in reliable sources; we don't need tabloid ones as well, and we don't need a comment from every Tom, Dick and Harry. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:24, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
• Keep Hastings quote, remove MacKenzie's. I'm trying a moderate position but overall John has a point. First question: why is this dispute on this page and no one here is asking for it (or a toned-down version) at Question Time British National Party controversy where it could be more relevant? Just a random aside. I think John's point is that we shouldn't allow attacks on him if the attacks aren't from reliable sources. That's a plausible interpretation of BLP to me but I agree in part and disagree in part. The opinion pieces are clearly written by the outside authors. No matter how much discredible the Mail or the Sun are, it's a primary source that they wrote them and that it's their views. John, are you saying that because the papers or because Hastings and MacKenzie are not reliable sources, then saying what they say isn't reliable? If the front page of the Sun said tomorrow "X" then saying "the front page of the Sun said X happened" isn't an issue of reliability. I think that's a matter of weight and I'd say it's an WP:UNDUE issue but not a source issue. We aren't arguing whether or not Griffin seemed slippery, repugnant or was a lying piece of work, we are arguing that those quotes from those individuals calling them those names isn't particularly relevant and is basically gossip. Looking over each of the points of WP:BLPSOURCES: (1) the fact that those two said those things about Griffin's appearance isn't likely to be challenged because it's clear they said their opinions in their op-eds; (2) this isn't conjecture of their opinions, it's verbatim quotes. If there is any dispute, it would be between Griffin and Hastinsg or MacKenzie on whether the op-eds pieces are themselves accurate but that's not Wikipedia's job to determine. (3) This may be an accurate point. It's not a feedback loop but it's gossip that is not "relevant to a disinterested article on the subject." The subject is Griffin's appearance. Hastings is discussing his appearance when he says the panel made Griffin "seem slippery and repugnant" (akin to the Guardian view that Griffin "looked just plain shifty" here). That's a criticism of how Griffin came off. It's like any television debate or interview: how the person came off is different than what people thought of the person overall. MacKenzie's attack that he "emerged as the lying piece of work" is equally a criticism of Griffin's appearance but is more of an attack in line with gossip than how Griffin's appearance within the show came out. Skipping ahead (4, 5, 6, 7): we aren't using the primary source of the television presentation itself, this isn't a self-published, this isn't Griffin's self-published source and this isn't related to the other sections. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
• Comment I'm not going to say "Keep", "Delete" or something else, as I believe the solution that will hopefully gain consensus is a little more complex than that. What the quotations were doing is to show the ranges of opinion in British newspapers the day after the Question Time appearance. Perhaps, as a solution, we could instead produce a secondary source that sums those views up? The discussion upthread has discussed the reliability of the op-ed, and its suitability, but one thing I noticed that hasn't really been disagreed is that the opinions are all primary sources. The event was notable enough for its own article (and rightly so in my view) - why don't we use secondary sources that talk about the papers' response at arm's length instead. For example, we could use this New York Times piece that says "The early reading by many of Britain’s major newspapers was that Mr. Griffin lost heavily on points." Question Time British National Party controversy contains a number of other sources cited in the article like the NYT piece, but doesn't expand on them other than to say they exist. Perhaps that's the answer. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:57, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

• That sounds like a thoroughly sensible suggestion. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:27, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
• Great approach. By the way Ritchie333, there's a dispute about a baby... NE Ent 23:08, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
• It's a great suggestion and it accords with one I made a week ago. --John (talk) 06:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
• Solely because we have a more specific article on the QT appearance itself, I'd be happy to cut this back to a secondary source, per Ritchie333.

With the following observations though: 1) There is consensus here that the two direct quotes would be permissible in Nick Griffin under the sourcing rules. I would remove them from here under UNDUE, as they can be covered in the QT-specific article. 2) Those two quotes are permissible, and I would encourage them, in that QT-specific article. 3) When the QT-specific article is deleted or merged back to Nick Griffin, the two quotes should follow it back here. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

That sounds fine to me, provided all the existing primary sources are replaced with secondary. At the moment, the article has a problem with WP:NPOV as the current quotations from primary sources that weren't removed give the impression together that Nick Griffin was misunderstood and the programme was bullying him. That's not neutral. So, can the article be unprotected to do this, or would an admin like to edit those changes first? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:07, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm happy with that, but I want it understood by all that in this context, such sources are absolutely fine in a BLP. We cannot censor views that we disagree with based on nothing more than the medium they're published in. The policy appears to be rather badly worded. Parrot of Doom 10:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

:::That's funny User:Andy Dingley. You don't get to make conditions like this. Being "permissible" does not mean we need to use them or should use them. On what basis would you want to make such a stipulation? Ritchie333 has a better point; in such cases we should always use reliable secondary sources over trashy primary ones, or we will be back here again constantly. Which I don't think anybody would want. --John (talk) 16:46, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

John, I would ask you for a little more respect than comments of "lol". Andy Dingley (talk) 17:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, I see I have to make this even clearer. DO NOT accuse me of "blackmail" over this issue. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Lets be clear - these desired additions are only required to attack the person of the biography - here they are, sourced to opinionated blogs in low quality sources ... Max Hastings wrote "... the panel had little difficulty making Griffin seem slippery and indeed repugnant ..." in the Daily Mail, and The Sun columnist Kelvin MacKenzie said "He emerged as the lying piece of work you always suspected." - insulting opinionated comments - they are not notable positions, not opinions that have been commented on on in other reliable sources - Govindaharihari (talk) 10:45, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

They're interesting enough to be published by two newspapers with very large circulations (they're read by many more people than the Guardian, Times etc) and independently their authors are very notable. And is it really your contention that we should not include material that attacks living people? If so then that is possibly one of the more stupid things I've read of late, not including your misunderstanding of what a blog is btw. Parrot of Doom 10:57, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing neutral about your edit warring this purely insulting opinionated content into a biography wp:blp- they are columnists, opinionatedly blogging in a tabloid - When there is a bad guy you don't need to attack them, you just write a neutral article well sourced and that will reflect the reality in a much better way. Govindaharihari (talk) 11:18, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[

I think PoD knows how to write a well sourced neutral article - you do know that he's the the biggest contributor to Nick Griffin, and helped improve it to GA status, right? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

That and his edit warring this disputed content into the biography only worries me more. Govindaharihari (talk) 11:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I think it's clear for all to see that you don't have the first clue what you're talking about. And please stop lying - it is John who was edit warring to remove content that had been there for years. If you have a problem with the article's neutrality then perhaps you should put your money where your mouth is and question it's GA status. Parrot of Doom 12:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Parrot of Doom - it's not a good article at all - its an attack piece - - I won't take it for reassessment as looking at the historic it is a rubbish article supported by opinionated peeps supporting each other - Govindaharihari (talk) 10:06, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Yep, you definitely don't know your arse from your elbow. Thanks for confirming this. Parrot of Doom 18:34, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I see the article has been full-protected for nearly five days. I can't recall a BLP being full protected for more than three or four in the past. We have at least a short term consensus to replace the primary news quotations with a secondary follow up, so what's keeping the article locked? Should I go to WP:RUP and explicitly request it? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi User:Ritchie333, you claim a "short term consensus to replace the primary news quotations with a secondary follow up,, "Please post your desired addition here so we can check it out - Govindaharihari (talk) 11:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

They are reliable sources. They get sued more than the broadsheets because they write about things the broadsheets ignore. For example, the Indescribablyboring probably would not have sent investigative reporters to find out if a certain writer was paying prostitutes. Nonetheless they make errors and omissions too,[20] just that they are less likely to be libelous. TFD (talk) 03:21, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

if or not reliable is not important - it is just that the content is just worthless attacking opinionated insults, so why is it so important? Govindaharihari (talk) 18:39, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Paula Poundstone article -- WP:COI and lewd acts upon a child

There is an editor -- Lilliebelle (talk · contribs) -- who is engaging in WP:COI editing at the Paula Poundstone article; see here for confirmation that this is the case. And see here (followup note here), here and here for where I have reverted the editor. Before the aforementioned confirmation, or rather acknowledgment, I commented on Lilliebelle's talk page about what appears to be Lilliebelle's fan editing (editing like a fan); see here. So that Lilliebelle has acknowledged the WP:COI connection is not surprising. My questions are: What should be done about this WP:COI editing, and how much, if any, WP:Weight should be given to the "lewd acts upon a child" aspect regarding Poundstone? Flyer22 (talk) 06:19, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, the editor in question must declare their COI, not in the context of claiming a special right to edit the article, but rather in the context of accepting limitations of their editing of the article. That being said, I think that we need to be very careful not to overemphasize this incident in her biography. We do not and cannot possibly know what actually happened many years ago. But if the offenses were as severe as the word "lewd" implies, then it seems likely that the courts would have taken far stronger action. Accordingly, I recommend erring on the side of de-emphasis rather than over-emphasis in this particular case. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:03, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree we don't need to overemphasise it. But we can't make editing decisions via speculation about what the courts would/should have done... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:25, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I've been bold and semi-protected this for a month. Please feel free to reduce the time, or change the protection level. Bearian (talk) 17:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what impact this will have -- the editor Flyer22 posted about is surely auto-confirmed. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Bob Beckel

Bob Beckel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The 'Controversial comments' section in the Bob Beckel article seems to pull a lot from the Huffington Post and tilts the article more about his comments than about the person itself. The article contains a POV tag entered this year. Concerned about Coatracking and appropriateness of how the information is being used. Basileias (talk) 13:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Regina Calcaterra

There has been edit warring over some allegations. This is a BLP, and the subject has had, to say the least, a difficult life. I would like some eyes on this article. Please see this diff and the history of the article. I think the allegations are false. I'm staying out of editing this article as much as possible, because the subject and I were classmates in college. Bearian (talk) 17:22, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Shem von Schroeck

Shem von Schroeck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Dear Editor(s),

I am Shem von Schroeck.

The article written about me contains grave inaccuracies, falsehoods, and negative opinion without providing any source material. I never requested, nor desired, a Wikipedia page about myself at any time. I do not consider myself a public figure and request heartily that the Wikipedia article, Shem von Schroeck, be removed.

For example, I direct you to the paragraph which discusses the 2001 solo project, "Shem - Son of Arthur". In accordance with Wikipedia's BPL Policy, this highly subjective paragraph, lacking credible source material, reads like an opinionated review or blog (while containing false, albeit slanderous, information) and clearly does not function within the BPL guidelines.

While I appreciate the contributions of those attempting to inform the public of some of my accomplishments, as a "living person," attempting to live a desired private life, I believe it is my right to request that this page be removed.

My sincerest thanks,

Shem von Schroeck — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.225.205.65 (talk) 20:43, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Given your notability it is unlikely that the article will be deleted. I have removed the offending statement, as it was unsourced and in violation of our WP:BLP policy. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:59, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Continued

Dear Editor(s),

I request that the following be removed from the article, Shem von Schroeck:

… " but also betrayed his mostly "side man" status as the majority of the recordings were reviewed as sounding very much like his employer of many years, Kenny Loggins. The one refreshing cut on the record was the opening track, a cover of Jimmy Spurgin's (James Clay Garrison) "Feel It". The song remains the 2nd most popular and downloaded number on the recording behind Joe Pesci's "Tiffany"."

The preceding are statements of opinion and do not cite source available reviews nor statistics. They are not of a NPOV and lack the required verification. In all, they do not contribute necessary nor essential information to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.225.205.65 (talk) 00:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

That's not a problem, given the statement was unsourced. Thank you for going about this the right way and not attempting to make the changes yourself. If there's anything else contentious or problematic in the article, please let us know and we'll take a look. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)