Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive213

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

Angelique Boyer

Myself and McVeigh are in a revert struggle over the "Partner(s)" section of the article subject's infobox. I am trying to remove a reference in the "Partner(s)" slot to the article subject's recently-ended three-year dating relationship. I don't think Wikipedia should be deciding and declaring that such non-committed relationships rise to the level of "Partnership" because of mere duration. If they'd gotten married or had some other strong indicia of lasting commitment, I'd think differently, but I haven't seen evidence of that. McVeigh obviously disagrees with me. He can state his own case here if he so chooses. But at this point I don't want to violate WP:3RR, so I respectfully request advice from this noticeboard. Thank you. Townlake (talk) 18:15, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

@Townlake: I would not characterize anyone's significant other, boyfriend, girlfriend, etc., as a "partner" unless one or both persons have publicly characterized the relationship as one of "partners." If the subject is married, fine, say so. If the subject is not married, we should be extremely careful how we as editors characterize relationship of an article subject per WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:RS and WP:OR. As I understand the term, "partner" is the equivalent of husband, wife or spouse -- or its very near equivalent of a person in a committed, long-term relationship. In the absence of reliable sources that use that term, or first-hand commentary from the subject using such term, I would avoid using it. It's not our job to define the relationships of article subjects, when they don't. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:03, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you, Dirtlawyer1. Your understanding matches mine. (That said, I'll wait a bit longer to change the article in case anyone, including McVeigh, wants to contribute their thoughts.) Townlake (talk) 19:51, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree that it should be removed per Dirtlaywer1's remarks. I've always heard the term used to describe someone that is the equivalent of a spouse, not just a boyfriend or a long term lover. Unless she has repeatedly described him as a partner in this aspect, it shouldn't be in the spouse/partner section of the article. Length of a relationship isn't really a factor in this- it boils down to what Boyer has said about her ex-boyfriend and I can't see where she's ever called him a partner. Labeling him a partner because they dated is kind of the equivalent of saying that because they dated for a long time, he's her fiance or husband. It doesn't work that way. This is pretty much why we have personal life sections in articles, because the partner/spouse section is supposed to be reserved for the ones labeled spouse/partner and so on. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 22:35, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

- - According Townlake, it said its most notable couples should be added. In this case it was three years with José Alberto Castro. The problem is that every day comes from different ips add that has a relationship with Sebastián Rulli. I think that should be allowed to add their relationship with José Alberto and so far has been one of the longest relationships. in 2009 he had an affair with Sebastián Zurita, but that only lasted months, however hard years is. Then I ask myself; Why there is a parameter to add romantic relationships, if nothing else will be allowed to add, for those who are married ?. I wish I read more reviews. Because if you are not going to permiter these relationships, then the parameter "partner" should not exist. For now I can not answer quickly because I do not have internet.--McVeigh / talk 16:35, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Pardon my impoliteness for saying so, but it is evident that your first language is not English, McVeigh. In modern English usage, the word "partner" used in the connotation of a romantic relationship implies a great deal more than a simple dating relationship of significant other, boyfriend, or girlfriend. In LGBT relationships, it often implies a marriage-like relationship that does not have the sanction under law of being a legal marriage within the jurisdiction; in heterosexual relationships, "partners" are often the functional equivalent of husband and wife without the benefit of a marriage license, sometimes sharing property and children. Per WP:BLP, Wikipedia editors should not include material about a living person that cannot be verified by reliable sources -- and that includes classifying or characterizing the relationships of Wikipedia article subjects. If the subject is married, and that marriage has been verified by one or more reliable sources per WP:RS and WP:V, then it may be included in the article -- that's easy. We should not, however, and are arguably not permitted to, characterize a relationship for the subject, which the subject (or multiple, independent, reliable sources) has not characterized as that of "partners." That is unsupportable under WP:BLP and WP:V. Whether you do it, or some IP user does it, does not matter; it's not out job to put a label on a relationship that may or may not reflect the realities of that relationship. Use the generic word "relationship" -- if it is verified by reliable sources -- and leave it at that. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok, but in this case there are references that speak, that they have had three years of relationship. Why can not put that relationship ?. So far it has been the single most significant relationship Angelique Boyer.--McVeigh / talk 22:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

McVeigh, many articles have a section called "Personal life." Information about this relationship could be appropriate for a Personal Life section of the Angelique Boyer article; you can create that section if you want. But you can't keep ignoring people who are telling you that a "Partner" is something different from a regular dating relationship. At this point, you are simply being stubborn. It is OK for the Partner section to be blank. Townlake (talk) 06:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I have removed this item from the "Partner" section of the article based on the feedback obtained from the discussion here. Townlake (talk) 06:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Not that I'm stubborn, but then so is that parameter ?, says clearly that if there is to add people with whom they are not married.--McVeigh / talk 21:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Graham W. J. Beal

Anyone familiar with fine art in Detroit might be helpful at Graham W. J. Beal (Director of the Detroit Institute of Arts), where the coverage of recent financial allegations has just been removed by an obvious COI IP, self-identifying as the subject. Incoming. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

It looks like that article was created as an attack page right from the start. The content removed by the IP may merit some mention, but I think it had WP:UNDUE weight. Ravensfire (talk) 21:01, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes a well-sourced cigar really is a cigar. As it stands now it's an unsourced (one SPS) BLP. However you read the article as it recently was, there is clearly an underlying issue here that has raised a lot of angry press in Detroit. WP is now allowing the subject to blank that and to ascribe deliberate malice to other editors. I know that is the way WP works, but it isn't the way WP should work. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Can't really disagree with your point - the version before the IP's edit seemed to have a fair number of edits. And the article now is, well, not exactly well sourced. And the main paragraph about his tenure at DIA has a slightly hagiographic feel to it. Secondary sources that cover his tenure would also allow a brief mention of the salary controversy. Given the issues Detroit has faced and some of the proposed options to deal with them, the apparent response is entirely reasonable. I just think the article history shows the attack elements and it just plain went too far as it was. Ravensfire (talk) 21:56, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

sayuki

DAJF removes any positive content at all from this page and has been doing so for nearly eight years. This affects the lives of Sayuki and of her apprentices and other geisha who work with her. He only edits a few pages on Wikipedia and is clearly obsessed with damaging Sayuki's reputation. What he doesn't understand is that he damages the opportunities and income of all the people who get work through Sayuki. Please have him banned from editing this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.24.62.233 (talk) 16:49, December 18, 2014‎

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

I had a look at the talk page in particular, and it looks like DAJF has been discussing edits with other users there and working toward consensus. I don't see any ulterior motive. —C.Fred (talk) 03:03, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Pending change protection for gamergate personalities

Completed at PP --DHeyward (talk) 20:18, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

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.

and any other names that come up? Frank Wu must have recently expired and was vandalized requiring 10 oversights for IP BLP violation. Pending Changes lets IP editors add info but doesn't create massive oversight issue. It's semi-protected until ~~tomorrow~~ but no reason to let it troll back up. No reason we can't have a pending changes set for a really long time is there? Request duplicated at PP board. Whoever is first. --DHeyward (talk) 00:37, 18 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.

Federal Way Public Academy

Over the past six weeks an individual has been adding a criticism section to the Federal Way Public Academy site. The content is based on a summary of student opinions from Rate My Teacher Website. The links clearly identify four individuals, and attribute inappropriate and possible illegal behavior. All the claims are based on unsubstantiated claims from an opinion website. Three different editors have removed material and shared reasons for removal. We have also used the talk page. The person posting has already been warned by Wikipedia about posting comments that do not take a Neutral Point of View. Since individual names are clearly mentioned in the links - it is a serious violation of the BLP policy. Even without the links, the posting are in appropriate.

Hallway monitor (talk) 06:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC) Hallway Monitor

Yeeks, looks like some obvious socking going on there- I'll open an SPI and semi-protect the page itself. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:54, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
On a side note... if you are involved with the school in any way, you need to state this up front somewhere per WP:COI. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Jonathan Romain -- repeated insertion of unsourced material

An anonymous user (or users) has repeatedly inserted unsourced and defamatory material in this article about a living person. I have reverted appropriately and with explanatory comment each time but it's leading to an edit war. Can administrators help, please?

Perhaps edits can be restricted to registered users only so that the culprit(s) can be deterred or identified. Or perhaps there are better ways of dealing with the problem.

Thanks! JoeMCMXLVII (talk) 04:58, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Article now sem-protected for three months. JoeMCMXLVII (talk) 14:25, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

categorization as Mormon

It appears a great many persons are categorized as Mormon (LDS) sans any actual reference for self-identification. Spot check shows this is true of about 50% of those in Category:American Latter Day Saints. I am not about to try removing the possibly as many as 1000 entries - but is this covered by WP:BLP? Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:08, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLPCAT more specifically - and yes you are to fine to remove unreferenced content about living people. Giant Snowman 13:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I know I can -- but I am disinclined to undertake the entire project, thus the post here was a semi-solicitation for those with the same understanding of policy to weed some of the worst cases out. Thanks. Collect (talk) 17:25, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Raj Chowdhury

WP:NPF : Should be removed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.219.48.10 (talk • contribs)

Subject of blp racist?

Commentators continue to reference/allege Card's piece involving a fictional, future Obama's coup d'état by way of urban guirillas as racist (eg see here in Slate, 2013; here, HuffPo, 2013; here, Wired, 2014). Should our article mention this aspect of controversy with regard to the piece here: "Orson Scott Card#Politics"?

(Also see a 2013 blogpost by M Aspan citing this from Card in 2000 rgding allegedly non-racist use of nigga'.)

See discussion here: Talk:Orson Scott Card#RfC: Subject of blp racist?

--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:24, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll reply on the page, but offhand I'll say that blog posts are not a good way to establish something because they are almost always self published and therefore unusable in most situations. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:20, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

katerina ksenyeva

1. self published page
2. no credible sources
3. verifiably false information. for example "became a Grammy Pre Nominee"

I'm cleaning out the puffery and false claims as I write this. There's enough to where she may be able to squeak by notability guidelines, given her TV role and the film, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

A Rape on Campus‎ article

Kelli Finglass

Hi, this is Kelli Finglass

My biography was apparently changed on Nov 30, 2014 to include an arrest and assault charges in Atlanta. This is absolutely not true and harmful to my professional career.

Can you help me remove it? Can you help me with IP address of contributor. ~~I will press legal charges~~

Thank you

Hi, Kelli. I will take a look a the article for you. In the mean time, I have struck your comment regarding "legal charges"; Wikipedia has a strict "no legal threats" policy, and blocking persons making any such threats per WP:NLT. Please refrain from making any further such references to possible legal action on-wiki -- many administrators will block on sight and without warning. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:15, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Kelli, I see that the offending reference has already been removed. Per our WP:BLP policy and guidelines, we will not include allegations of criminal or civil wrong-doing unless the charges/allegations are amply verified by significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources per WP:V and WP:RS. Even then, we may remove such allegations if no charges have been filed, the charges are minor, or they are deemed to give undue coverage to events that have limited relevance to the subject. The footnote included with the original offending edit did not substantiate the allegations in any event. I have watch-listed the article and will remove anything that violates Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Hope this helps. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:27, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Shiloh Jolie-Pitt

In response to this newspaper article wider input at Talk:Angelina Jolie#Changing "Shiloh Jolie-Pitt" name would be welcome. Giant Snowman 09:45, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Contentious BLP content in sources that are cited for other reasons

This is a question of general principle rather than in reference to a particular article or source. It has become a point of contention at Talk:Gamergate_controversy#Preliminary_collation_of_balancing_sources as to what sources could in principle be cited. For a general feel of the types of sources under discussion, see [[1]] and [[2]]

Are there existing guidelines with regard to citing a source for claims not about a living person, when the source also contains contentious claims about a living person? Assume the two claims appear within the distance of a physical paper page or computer screen from one another, such that someone verifying one would be likely to see the other.

I know this is rather broad, so if it helps it may be assumed that the source would be considered reliable for the non-BLP claims and questionable for BLP claims. The BLP content may be assumed to be contentious but not appearing prima facie as defamation, with applicable Defamation#Other_defenses such as as being opinion, vituperative, or made in good faith using supporting evidence.

Rhoark (talk) 21:26, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I suggest that where the source proffered has substantial material which would run counter to WP:BLP and where a reliable secondary source which does not have that problem is available, that we deprecate the source which may cause BLP issues in favour of the more neutrally worded source. Where multiple sources are available, editors may reasonably choose that which is least problematic. Collect (talk) 22:29, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Collect and I seldom see eye to eye, but I'd agree with his assessment. If a source contains libelous or contentious information about a LP, it should be avoided in favor of other sources that may have similar content sans the negative material. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:54, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

America: Imagine the World Without Her

Is

Commenting on the reception, Breitbart editor [[Ben Shapiro]] said “It is absurd to have [leftist] movie critics critiquing the politics of documentaries professionally; they seem unable to separate their artistic sensibilities from their political ones.”<ref>{{cite web|last1=Shapiro|first1=Ben|title=7 Movies Critics Like Better Than D'Souza's 'America'|url=http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2014/07/15/7-movies-critics-America|website=Breitbart|accessdate=16 July 2014|date=July 15, 2014}}</ref>

"contentious claims about third parties from a questionable source which is against WP:QS, WP:Aboutself, and WP:BLP" or is it a proper use of a source using opinion properly cited as opinion about a large group not aimed at a small group of identifiable individuals? Talk:America:_Imagine_the_World_Without_Her#RFC_-_Is_Breitbart.com_a_reliable_source_for_its_own_film_review? is an RfC on the same source which has the closing statement Consensus is yes/acceptable/reliable in response to the question. Samsara 06:50, 29 October 2014 (UTC). Collect (talk) 12:31, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:FORUMSHOPPING. This is the same question asked at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Breitbart_again, which was a repeated thread as well. A claim about people who review movies is different than a movie review. Different context, different subject.__ E L A Q U E A T E 13:21, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Nope. This is about a specific cavil just raised in an edit summary, for which this is the proper and only noticeboard. The question about Breitbart being a "reliable source" was settled in the affirmative -- here the person is asserting that it is a BLP violation, which was not the issue at the RS/N noticeboard. Is this quote a BLP violation? Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:21, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Breitbart was not determined to be a reliable source for all claims. It's questionable for claims about living people. __ E L A Q U E A T E 14:35, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

It was specifically determined now several times to be a reliable source for opinions cited as opinions. Are you saying that an opinion about unnamed film critics cited as opinion is a violation of WP:BLP? That, indeed, is the question here. I would point out that opinions cited as opinions about groups of unnamed people has not, heretofore, ever been considered a BLP violation. Clearly your mileage differs in this. Collect (talk) 14:42, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

The citation of opinions from questionable sources about living people is still subject to BLP and RS. An opinion about a movie is simply a different thing than an opinion about people. If the source is questionable, then there is no difference between adding "Mr X eats children" and adding "It is the opinion of Questionable Weekly that Mr. X eats children." In context, that quote is referencing six named critics. __ E L A Q U E A T E 14:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

(The opinion piece goes on to imply that one of the reasons Transformers: Age of Extinction received widespread bad reviews because people don't like Kelsey Grammar's politics. Is this a self-referential use of "unable to separate their artistic sensibilities from their political ones "? This does not look like a high-quality source for article material. It's political invective from a minority source aimed at named people.)__ E L A Q U E A T E 15:11, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

You seem to aver Shapiro makes "contentious claims" about specific living persons. Pray tell, which specific living persons are he referring to? I suggest the group of "film critics" is so broad as to make the argument risible. And the "Mr. X eats children" example you proffer is a few thousand miles off the mark. Collect (talk) 15:22, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

The article names names. The "they" in that quote is not talking about anonymous critics; it's talking about the specific critics who reviewed this movie, and they are named immediately previous to the quote.__ E L A Q U E A T E 15:30, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Elaqueate, it appears that Ben Shapiro has provided extensive conservative commentary about film and television for National Review here. Reviewing WP:BLPGROUP, the "group" in question is not formal, meaning that Shapiro is collectively critical of film critics who are not colluding in any active sense. I think these separate opinions contribute to its largeness. I've delved into the issue more on the talk page, and I've added content to the article so that this political opinion is marginal among a large set of mainstream opinions. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:48, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

That could be a good approach, but it should be noted that the material is not about "all movie critics that review all movies". We are talking about a much smaller group, namely the smaller set of critics that Shapiro disagrees with, and names, in relation to specific reviews to a single movie. This is the article for the specific movie, not a general essay on movie critics. If the quote is offered as his general comments about all critics, then it's inappropriate as out-of-scope for a specific movie article; if it's offered as commentary on specific critics, then it is a small group of people. __ E L A Q U E A T E 15:59, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Shorter: If the quote is essentially a blanket "Liberal movie critics can't be trusted to review any political movie" then it's not appropriate or specific commentary regarding this film; it's a general belief.__ E L A Q U E A T E 16:04, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I feel like this is overly restrictive. It is common for there to be collective criticism of film reviews. Conservative outlets have criticized how critics receive films with political messages, and there has been a different kind of collective criticism toward film critics that speak favorably of jingostic films (Zero Dark Thirty comes to mind). Surely when the scope is wider, we summarize that politicians criticize those of other parties on both general and specific issues; do we avoid this kind of criticism in political articles? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:08, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we avoid it if it's coat-racking a specific article about a much narrower topic. Opinions about critics in general could arguably be included in general topics, if from high-quality sources, but not as coat-racked commentary in a specific article. This is like saying "Transformers was a film with a budget. Budgets are often used by businesspeople......[long rant against capitalism in general]" This is an article about a specific film, it shouldn't be used as an opportunity to include quotes complaining of the biases of "liberal" movie critics in general (even setting aside that specific critics are named.)__ E L A Q U E A T E 16:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:COATRACK only applies to coatrack articles, and this article is far from being a coatrack. "Coat-racked commentary" is just another term for biased/opinionated sources, and these are acceptable if the source is considered reliable in the specific context. Ben Shapiro is a noteworthy conservative voice, as evidenced by his commentary being scrutinized in mainstream media, as well as his pieces in National Review. As I've stated on the article's talk page, explicitly conservative and liberal opinions are appropriate as long as they do not overshadow the mainstream opinions. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:01, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

You linked the essay, not me. Coat-racking is a concept that applies beyond the bare existence of articles. It's about whether material is being included that is tangential to the topic of the article. Coatracking can be any bias (positive, negative or neutral), so it has nothing to do with whether a source has a bias, only whether it's using the article to stray from the article topic. It's similar to using an article about Ronald Reagan to include tangential opinionated complaints about Obama or Bush. If this is a comment about how liberal Breitbart thinks these named editors are generally, then it's not suitable material for an article about a specific movie. It's a tangential point.__ E L A Q U E A T E 19:01, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Proper use - For one thing the segment isn't a "Biography" of a living person. It's a very widespread (see noteworthy), subjective opinion about the state of a profession, particularly regarding explicitly political films. What's more, the BLP states that the policy doesn't even normally apply to specific legal "persons" like "corporations, companies," or other such entities. It adds that a harmful statement about "a small group or organization comes closer to being a BLP problem than a similar statement about a larger group." Even harmful statements about a very small group don't necessarily fall under BLP, and this is a very large group, plus the statement is an opinion, not libel or defamation. Certainly no one has tried to sue over it. The sleazy comments personally attacking D'Souza on legal issues (and marital ones in the sources) from partisan Huffington post bloggers currently in the same section come far closer to being a BLP problem. VictorD7 (talk) 06:41, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

This is an article about a specific movie, not a place to opine about "the state of a profession" generally, or adding material criticizing named movie critics because the questionable source, breitbart.com, doesn't like their politics. (And BLP applies everywhere, not just in specific biographies.).__ E L A Q U E A T E 19:01, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

What an absolutely absurd argument. By your logic, most of the negative reviews should be removed because they are BLB violations against D'Souza. Are you going to argue against the others as well? Arzel (talk) 19:19, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Those are reviews of the movie, not reviews of movie reviewers. The article's about the movie, not the state of movie reviewing.__ E L A Q U E A T E 20:27, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Not relevant to the argument you are making. A BLP violation is not dependent upon the topic being discussed. Furthermore you are basically saying that if a reviewer makes a BLP violation against a movie maker it is fine, but if a defender of that movie maker makes a BLP violation against those reviewers in their defense of the movie maker it is not fine. The tone of the reviewers is far worse than the tone of the defender, thus it is hard to take your argument at face value. Arzel (talk) 19:23, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

You say: A BLP violation is not dependent upon the topic being discussed. What does this even mean in this context? The article we're citing singles out Rafter Guzman, Martin Tsai, Peter Sobcynski and others. I think movie critics that write for RS are considered quotable in articles for the contents of their movie reviews. If they're not published by RS, then the same standard should apply to them as Breitbart. I just don't think Breitbart has a reputation for accurately reviewing the people who happen to be movie reviewers, or other people for that matter. If this was a source with a better reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, there would be no issue about using its published opinion about third parties. But everything I see in the archives makes me think this is widely considered a challenged source. __ E L A Q U E A T E 22:07, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

You say that those other editors cannot be making a BLP because they are simply reviewing the movie. That is an absurd argument. (FTR none of this is a BLP violation, just showing the absurdity of your argument). I think pretty much anyone can fact check an opinion. Yep, it is true, that is his opinion and the edit didn't single out anyone specifically either. Arzel (talk) 00:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

No, that's not what I said. Of course a BLP problem could theoretically come up in the context of a movie review. That's one of the reasons we try to cite material (especially opinion, and especially when it's about third parties, groups or people) from sources that have a good reputation for accuracy, or are somehow widely considered experts in the field, or represent a non-fringe view. You can verify that a movie review on Facebook is verifiably published by somebody, but it's better to source opinion from higher quality sources. I don't think breitbart.com is considered to be a great source for its opinions on the movie reviewing world, and especially not when the cited article is packed full of names of actual people. __ E L A Q U E A T E 01:26, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

As Arzel observed, your arguments are confused and off point. Your reply to me claimed that the article is about a specific movie and "not a place to opine about "the state of a profession" generally". That would be a topical debate, not a BLP one. Shapiro's comments don't violate BLP in any article, whatever the other merits of inclusion might be. A general political opinion about the state of a profession doesn't violate BLP, nor does taking issue with a film review. For the record, you're also incorrect about the topic being inappropriate for that page. Shapiro's article is entirely about the reaction to the "particular movie" in question, and therefore important for us to cover if we're covering political commentary, which the section in question is explicitly dedicated to. VictorD7 (talk) 21:50, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

When the question at hand is how well this quote aligns with BLP policy, I've, on the one hand, been assured that the "they" in question is about movie critics in a wide and general way. When the question is how it relates to the specific article it is proposed for, then it's suggested it's about those critics who gave this specific movie a bad review (especially those critics prominently named in the article). Whichever case it is, there are policy reasons that would discourage using a contentious, highly challenged questionable source like breitbart.com for the material. You can't simultaneously argue that it's general political commentary unconcerned with living people and relevant to the article by being about the specific critics linked by their movie reviews. Both interpretations fail WP:QS, while one of the proposed rationales for inclusion (not proposed by me) would still require better consensus that it agrees with WP:BLP. __ E L A Q U E A T E 01:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Disagreeing with film critics doesn't violate BLP, whether the quote is about a specific individual or the profession in general, any more than a critic commenting on specific people involved in the movie (like D'Souza) does (though the HuffPo bloggers attacking him over his legal issues come far closer than anything Shapiro said). Breitbart is no more a "highly challenged questionable source" than the other sources currently used in the section, and the "QS" argument has already been rejected by RFC.VictorD7 (talk) 03:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Elaqueate, I'm not sure there's much to be gained by repeating this and other arguments that have already been enunciated on various threads. The burden is on those who wish to include this bit, and there's clearly no consensus to do so. SPECIFICO talk 01:59, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The last consensus was to include the Shapiro quote, so a new consensus is required to remove it. That consensus does not exist. VictorD7 (talk) 03:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't see a previous consensus to include the Shapiro quote on that talk page. There's a sprawling back-and-forth about whether to include it, but no clear and definite consensus was ever reached there. The RfC previous to that discussion doesn't mention Shapiro or a Shapiro quote at all. If there was no consensus, and there currently is no consensus, then it's still a matter of WP:ONUS. __ E L A Q U E A T E 04:27, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

No, a consensus was definitely established. The segment was restored in early Nov., reverted only by Gamaliel, and then put back in by Gamaliel on Nov. 6. It remained without removal until Dec. 3, when a couple of editors began edit warring to remove it. The only edit at all I noticed on the segment throughout that month was an IP address performing what appeared to be a good faith removal of a tiny parenthetical portion of the segment that he may have thought was POV paraphrasing, and that was reverted by another editor on the basis that it was actually part of the quote. That's it. Then Scoobydunk and Gamaliel edit warred to shove new material (the aforementioned Huffpo Blogger segments that we should be discussing on the BLP page if anything) in, and despite reverts by multiple editors, they continued to edit war without consensus until the new material was included. They also started an edit war to remove Shapiro, but have so far failed to gain a consensus for removal, and indeed are outnumbered by the editors who oppose removal.

The Shapiro quote wasn't even discussed on the Talk Page throughout the month after Gamaliel restored it, and certainly no other editors attempted to revert it. Gamaliel did add a neutrality tag to the section, but never started the talk page section editors are supposed to start when adding such tags. I actually started one for him, and when he finally replied his comments were focused on Toto's review, an entirely different segment. Shapiro wasn't mentioned at all.

WP:EDITCONSENSUS states that "Consensus is a normal and usually implicit and invisible process across Wikipedia. Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus." No one disputed, reverted, or even mentioned the segment for about a month as it stood in the article. That's the last consensus. VictorD7 (talk) 20:29, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The RfC was closed with a consensus that was very specific and narrow - the Toto Review on Brietbart should be deemed as authentic Toto opinion/review. Period. There was no consensus about whether it should be used and particularly no consensus that it should/could be used to present opinions about living people. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The consensus I'm referring to isn't the RFC, but the fact that the Shapiro quote stood for a month without challenge. That said, the RFC is also relevant to this discussion since it rejected the same sourcing policy arguments being used now, and found Breitbart RS (at least) because we are quoting its own, attributed opinions. Same as with Shapiro. I'll add that a film review is about living people, but posting opinions about living people doesn't mean such opinions violate BLP. VictorD7 (talk) 22:59, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

At best that's a local consensus, and there's no denying it's disputed now. I don't think a claim that movie reviewers shouldn't review documentaries because they're "leftists" is an ordinary claim about people. And again, this isn't an article about movie reviewers. __ E L A Q U E A T E 00:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

No, when there's a lack of consensus for a new change the status quo reigns. There's certainly no consensus for removing the segment, which would be the change in this case. In fact, a majority of editors oppose that alteration. VictorD7 (talk) 05:16, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

That claim, juxtaposed with the article's presentation of the opinions of specific named individual critics will be read by most WP users as a SYNTHED BLP-violating denigration of those individual critics. Even if it were made clear that Shapiro's statement somehow referred to others or to some other widespread unnamed group, it's off-topic for this film article and film criticism is not an area of Shapiro's expertise such that his opinion, of itself, is noteworthy. SPECIFICO talk 01:15, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

False. Most editors reject the BLP and other BS policy claims. WP:SYNTH is especially ludicrous, as that refers to combining different sources to say something neither source says, or editing a single source's material in a misleading way. The segment, a direct quote from a single source, does neither. The quote is straightforward and not taken out of context, so no SYNTH, and it does apply to negative reviews of the film in general, so, again, no SYNTH. Also, disagreeing with critics' reviews is no more a BLP violation than the critics themselves are guilty of. We're allowed to cover political opinions, even if you disagree with them. Shapiro is a professional political pundit (political scientist by training and multiple best selling author) and media analyst, so this is precisely his area of expertise, and a notable author writing an entire article about the reception to this movie definitely belongs in our coverage of the movie, especially since we have a "Political commentary" section created expressly for that purpose. VictorD7 (talk) 05:16, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, they are clearly contentious claims about third parties being made from a source that fits nearly every aspect of WP:QS. They are also claims that violate multiple aspects of WP:BLP.Scoobydunk (talk) 09:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't violate BLP any more than the critics' comments do, and your QS policy has already been rejected by community RFC. VictorD7 (talk) 19:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

It does violate BLP and I've quoted multiple parts of BLP that it violates and explained precisely why, which is a lot more than you can say about your baseless assertions. Furthermore, the RFC ignored WP:QS and didn't refute its relevance. You keep referring to this RFC of yours as if it overrides WP policy...it doesn't. For an RFC to override relevant policies, then the policies themselves must be changed, and that's directly from WP policy. Just because you and a few others want to ignore WP policies, doesn't mean they stop existing or are no longer applicable. If Breitbart.com is a questionable source, then its inclusion in articles is very limited and you've tried nearly everything you could to try and sidestep this fact.Scoobydunk (talk) 07:11, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Nope, your interpretation of policy is incorrect, was rejected by the RFC (the closer directly told you as much), and multiple editors here have quoted from policy and explained the various reasons why the Shapiro quote doesn't violate BLP. For one thing he's generally discussing a large group, not a single person, and for another he's merely disagreeing with reviews. Expressing broad political views and/or opinions about published works isn't a BLP violation. If it were, then the critics' opinions on this and every other film and book would also be BLP violations (even more so due to the specificity involved), a vital point you have yet to really address. BLP is supposed to protect individuals from potentially libelous or personally harmful comments, not to shield entire industries from subjective political criticism. WP:BLP even normally exempts specific "corporations, companies, or other entities regarded as legal persons" from policy protection. VictorD7 (talk) 22:40, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Nope, I'm not interpreting WP:QS, I'm quoting it explicitly and you're ignoring it. Also, you keep pretending that a closer decides WP policy and that's not true. You nor the closer of an RFC get to ignore WP policy. Also, no one refuted the multiple parts of BLP policy that I cited and explained exactly how Breitbart.com violates those policies or is, at least, not aligned with those policies. You and others have only made assertions. Shapiro is directly criticizing a group of people that he categorizes as "leftist movie critics" and BLP policy explicitly says that when there is doubt determining what qualifies as a group that you use high quality sources which Breitbart.com is clearly not. I quote "When in doubt, make sure you are using high-quality sources." This is yet another example of you and others ignoring policy to try and shoehorn in your unreliable source into articles it doesn't belong. Not to mention, WP:QS and WP:Aboutself state that questionable sources can't be used to make contentious claims about others or third parties. It's clear you're ignoring multiple policies and don't have leg to stand on.Scoobydunk (talk) 10:25, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

No, we've both quoted from it and other policies, and I've repeatedly explained why your interpretation is incorrect for reasons you've failed to adequately address. Your failure to answer whether you consider the section's other sources, many of which rely entirely on personal opinion, to be "QS", destroys the integrity of your position. Regarding BLP, as I posted on another page, WP:BLP states that "This policy does not normally apply to material about corporations, companies, or other entities regarded as legal persons", so the notion that these general comments would apply to the far bigger category of an entire profession is untenable. That said, even if they singled out one person, simply critiquing a publicly published work doesn't violate BLP anyway. If it did then the entire Reception section ([3], [4]) would violate BLP, as even (more like especially) the pro critics' statements are contentious, and certainly the other political commentary is. You presented no argument that Breitbart is any more "questionable" than the other sources used, which include blogs like the Daily Kos, Media Matters, Salon.com, etc., or for that matter The Atlantic, Indiewire, Slant (the very name is a red flag!), etc., nor did you explain why an alleged reputation for fact checking matters when we're merely quoting properly attributed, subjective, political opinions. Removing one but not the others would be a huge WP:NPOV violation. VictorD7 (talk) 22:15, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Rebecca De Mornay

Some more watchers would be useful at this article, where for years at least five SPA accounts plus IPs have been trying to introduce material about two step-brothers. The first was blocked for legal threats, the most recent one has a short block for edit-warring, but they or another will probably be back. The information about the step-brothers is (a) unsourced, (b) apparently being added for promotional purposes (e.g. here) and (c) in my opinion irrelevant to an article about Ms De Mornay and her career.

The persistence of the attempts may be explained by this book extract. JohnCD (talk) 22:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

JohnCD, I've added it to my watchlist and looking at the edits, I think that this would benefit from a temporary semi-protection because of how much edit warring there has been. (Which I've added.) I'm not sure how effective that may be, but I figure that I'd do that before moving to the next level, which would be requiring review before any edits are added. I do note that there was a previous protection years ago due to sockpuppetry. Offhand do you know if these people are related to that? You may want to open an SPI if you or someone else hasn't done that already. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:39, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I did a little digging and it looks like the information they're trying to add is similar to stuff that User:Robertj290 was trying to add ([5]) using various sockpuppets. I'd say that it's probably likely that this is probably him trying to do a bit of the same with new accounts (along with his previous old and known account, of course). I'm not as entirely savvy with all of this as you likely are, but this looks kind of like a WP:DUCK scenario. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:42, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to DUCK block at least one of them so there will at least be that. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

@Tokyogirl79: I have gone back through the history and found three more SPAs. This all needs bringing together in one place, so I have raised WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Drjdemornay. JohnCD (talk) 18:55, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Sources used at Jeff Smisek

There's currently a dispute about the references used at Jeff Smisek. In particular:

Is it appropriate to use this HuffPo piece as a source for the claim that "one commentator named Smisek the worst CEO in the airline industry"?
Is this Crain's Chicago Business piece better summarized as "... one commentator concluded that Smisek has regained the trust of Wall Streeet analysts" or as "... Smisek had regained analysts' trust"?

Personally I think the HuffPo piece is a blog post by a musician with no apparent qualifications in either economics or journalism. Lauraface32 claimed that "many, many, MANY" reliable sources cited that HuffPo article, but upon request could not provide any such citations. It should be de-emphasized, possibly removed entirely. The claim Lauraface32 cites it for is not in fact supported by the source anyway, as has been pointed out before by MusikAnimal. The Crain's piece, on the other hand, is not just a personal commentary but a news report on the prevailing sentiment of analysts, written by an experienced journalist; by an equivalent of WP:RS/AC we can use it to make the regaining of trust a statement of fact, not just of the author's opinion. Huon (talk) 00:20, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

The Crains piece does not quote a single analyst. So saying "one commentator . . . " is the truth. No other article mentions this. And he does not provide sources. And it is clear that he is speaking of Wall Street analysts, not customer service analysts or psycho-analysts. So why not designate it as such? Just because someone writes something doesn't make it a fact. Rather, it makes it a claim. I have been careful to treat the negative reporting the same as the positive reporting the same on this point.

Your claim that "I could not provide additional sources" is complete hogwash. I'm at work. You can't demand this stuff and expect an instant response. I don't work for you. Give me till Monday. The HuffPo piece is very well written, as another commentator on the Talk Page who seems to have a lot more experience in this than you has pointed out.

I think this gets to the root of the situation. You say "cannot provide" when you really mean "I don't like it and since she hasn't responded fast enough (an hour or two) I am going to railroad her."Lauraface32 (talk) 01:16, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I asked for the sources citing Fagin's HuffPo piece on December 18, 22:38 (UTC). Since then you made a dozen edits to the talk page and added sources that don't mention Smisek to the article. You had ample time to respond, you have responded at length, you presented sources and claimed those were the ones; they're not. What was I to conclude? I'll be happy to wait until Monday for those many legitimate outlets treating Fagin's piece as a serious critique. Huon (talk) 01:42, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I should say that I used to work as a corporate officer of a US airline. But I am retired now, and have never met Mr. Smisek. I don't think that should matter, but I thought I would disclose it anyway just to be safe. I have been following this debate for a while now from a distance.

Here are my two cents: I like how the page currently covers both the criticism and the rebuttal. I think it is probably best to keep these things in separate paragraphs.

I think the Huffington Post piece is well done. As a former corporate officer in the airline industry, I can tell you that just because someone knows a lot about music does not not mean that she can't hit a home run when it comes to criticizing a CEO. I do find it a little strange that we of all people would question his qualifications. Are any of us professionally trained to be encyclopedia authors and editors?

Huon is attacking Fagin's personal narrative rather than his published analysis. I do not think this is appropriate. This is a published article. As a former executive, I can say that I found it an interesting and persuasive read. It is not up to us to judge whether Fagin is smart or experienced enough to be allowed to write an article. It really just comes down to whether the article is well-reasoned. It seems to me that the best thing to do in this situation is keep things as they are. The Wikipedia entry simply says that this is a published claim. Which it is. What is wrong with that?

That being said, it is certainly an opinion piece. It is merely one person's well-reasoned analysis. But all financial reporting of corporate performance essentially boils down to mere opinion. For whatever it is worth, I like the way the current author represents it as coming from "one commentator." From my perspective, that is the best way to go.

It doesn't matter if other outlet's treated Fagin's piece as legit. Did any other outlets mention Crains' piece. The rules should be applied equally and fairly. If the standard is whether or not other outlet's cited the article, then we must delete BOTH Fagin AND Crains.

Topdog76 (talk) 01:48, 20 December 2014 (UTC)Topdog76 (talk) 01:46, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

After a quick read, I don't think the Huffington Post article is problematic. It seems find to me. The Wiki editor does not overemphasize it. It is fine.Adamduker (talk) 15:18, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

The HuffPo piece is fully unusable - it is an opinion piece entirely, written by a person not known as an expert on business, or on airlines in any way at all. Heck, it is based on a conversation with an anonymous person who works for United -- a really strong source - not. Joe Cahill's piece is also "opinion" and is not a "news article" as one normally uses the term. Cahill's opinion is usable as opinion cited to Cahill. Collect (talk) 15:53, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Having noted the opinion nature of both pieces, it makes no sense to say that one is usable and the other isn't. I'd almost guess that you agree with one opinion but not with the other... (unsigned)

An opinion from a person known in the field is usable. An opinion from a person with no known connection or reason to believe has a notable opinion - isn't. I have absolutely no opinions about the person whatsoever - own no airline sticks, and do not give a rat's ass - but the policies are clear. Opinions from a persons whose opinions on the topic would appear notable are usable. Opinoions from a person with no rational basis for holding opinions, and whose opinions are not notable, aren't. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:16, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree that an opinion from "a person with no rational basis for holding opinions" is unusable. So if you would like to remove the source, then please make that argument on the basis of the author's reasoning. If you feel it is about rationality, you must disprove his rationality. Instead, you have merely attacked his person and background. The article contains a lot of solid evidence . . . much more than the Crains' piece. I have served as a corporate officer in the airline industry for many years, and I found the piece to be well-reasoned and rational. If you have an issue with the article, argue for it on the merits of the argument . . . not on the fact that you don't like who wrote it. The wiki author didn't say "according to a world-renowned expert . . ." Instead, he said "according to one commentator . . . ." Commentary should be judged on the basis of the analysis itself, NOT on the basis of who is making it. Topdog76 (talk) 17:51, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

The HuffPo piece is based on a "conversation" with an anonymous person - and the person writing the opinion has apparently zero background either in the airline industry or in business in general. This rather limits any rational use of such anecdotal opinions - if I talk with a person who just got off a cruise ship, and extrapolated their anonymous experience into a condemnation of the CEO of the cruise line, that would also fail. Opinions held by people familiar with the field are the opinions which count. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:54, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry to point this out, Collect. But you are not being truthful when you say the "HuffPo piece is based on a conversation with an anonymous person." That simply isn't true. It is also based on an employee website on which complaints against Smisek are frequently voiced, a write-up in Businessweek, as well as other points of evidence. Besides, a commentator relying IN PART on an anonymous sources is completely acceptable. The Crains article does not mention the name of a single analyst who feels more positively about Smisek. His sources are also anonymous. Again, the opinion is what matters -- not the person itself. Crains has no experience flying airplanes or being a CEO. But that doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is whether his opinion is viable. So I agree with TopDog76 here -- if you have an argument to show that Fagin's analysis is illogical or irrational, I will be the first to jump on your side. Failing that, the citation should stay.Adamduker (talk) 03:35, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

1. WP:NPA and calling me untruthful does qualify as a personal attack. 2. When no names are given for the persons being quoted, they are "anonymous." The writer of the Crain's opinion piece is an expert on businesses in general - read his c.v. As such, his opinions are "notable" under Wikipedia standards. A musician, on the other hand, with zero c.v. evidence of having a notable opinion either about the airline industry or any business at all, does not have a notable opinion. When we cite opinions which are by non-notable people who have no apparent basis for their opinions other than quoting anonymous people, we have a major problem - particularly when dealing with living persons for whom articles must be written conservatively. Collect (talk) 14:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

You made a claim that is objectively untrue. You said his article was based on an anonymous source. Only a very small part of the article was based on an anonymous source. You have done absolutely nothing to show that Crains is an expert in the airline industry. You have not challenged a single aspect of Fagin's analysis. The only thing that you challenge is that in addition to be a writer, he is also a musician. So what? Again, you say he has no apparent basis for his opinions. This is objectively false. He quotes from Businessweek, cites employee websites, and has a source. Crains is the one who does not name a single source, EXCEPT IN REFERENCE TO ANDERSON -- NOT SMISEK. Again, if you don't have a clear and good objection to the basis and content of the piece, then it is just a matter of you preferring one person's opinion over the other. 103.27.230.6 (talk) 13:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the above. It doesn't matter if he also is a musician. He identifies first and foremost as a writer. And in this case he has written a good piece of commentary on an executive. It is based on many sources, not just an anonymous source. Either the Fagin stays, or both the Fagin and the Crains go. Adamduker (talk) 15:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

So I just checked. Fagin has testified on Capitol Hill and has lectured at Harvard. He has written many financial and leadership pieces. Dismissing him as a "mere" musician is reductionistic.Adamduker (talk) 16:06, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

illridewithyou - is this really a violation of the policy?

OP would rather this be closed. Given it doesn't seem to be going anywhere, I've decided (though I participated) to simply be bold and close it. Object? Feel free to come and have a chat. St★lwart¹¹¹ 09:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

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.

The article illridewithyou, created by User:The_Almightey_Drill, had an edit undone by an administrator, based on a claim it is a violation of BLP: [6].

I looked at it pretty thoroughly and it seems to flow on nicely with the paragraph before it, is well referenced, and there doesn't seem to be anything even remotely related to a BLP violation.

Given that the person who undid the revision, User:Nick-D, also blocked the creator almost immediately after creating the article: [7] and given that the article was then put up for deletion (albeit by a different editor): [8], I question the legitimacy of this apparent BLP violation.

I undid the edit: [9] and it was reverted by the same blocking editor: [10] with what appears to be a threat.

I'd like some other people to look at this to see if they really think that a BLP violation has taken place here, and also, related to this, if the block and related AFD nomination were made in good faith. I know that I am supposed to assume good faith, but it looks very much like some manipulation has taken place here. KrampusC (talk) 02:32, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Additional: I also got threats for creating this: [11] [12]. I never got that kind of treatment from other articles I edited, just this one. Something funny is going on here. KrampusC (talk) 02:33, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

The block was primarily made in regards to a BLP violation on another article's talk page which I had to revision delete (and hence is not publicly viewable, and rightfully so given that it was clear-cut libel). The material here isn't quite so severe, but accuses the woman of "fabricating the story" with a reference which plainly does not support such an accusation (and is a bit of a smear-piece anyway). Nick-D (talk) 02:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect, I'd like some commentary from someone other than Nick, as Nick would seem to be biased. KrampusC (talk) 02:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

And to be very blunt, the article very clearly states that the woman made it all up. So there is no BLP violation if it is fact. KrampusC (talk) 02:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

This is the article in question, from reputable newspaper The Australian: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/sydney-siege/sydney-siege-backtrack-over-post-that-inspired-illridewithyou/story-fnqxbywy-1227160626854 KrampusC (talk) 02:44, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

You want another view? The source does not say that she fabricated her story.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:49, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

The article I read says: "However Rachael Jacobs has admitted that she “editorialised’’ parts of her story.

“Confession time. In my Facebook status, I editorialised. She wasn’t sitting next to me. She was a bit away, towards the other end of the carriage,” she wrote.

Detailing her thought process, Ms Jacobs now says she wondered if she even needed to help.“She might not even be Muslim or she could have just been warm!,” she wrote."

That's admitting to fabricating the story. Or at least editorialising it.

Interestingly, the Brisbane Times ran a story relating to her being exposed for fabricating the story, saying that she shouldn't have been exposed as it was from her private Facebook page. That (and only that) could be used as the basis of a BLP violation: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/sydney-siege-illridewithyou-raises-questions-about-facebook-privacy-20141219-12agyg.html KrampusC (talk) 02:52, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

No, it is not admitting to fabricating the story, which would be the case if someone was sitting at home and made up the entire story. Fabricate is not a synonym of editorialise, and is not supported by the source.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:01, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(Agree with Jeffro77) All she admits to is that the woman wasn't sitting next to her. Instead, she was sitting towards the other end of the carriage. The way the information was presented in the article suggested that she lied about the whole thing/made it up. --Onorem (talk) 03:03, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Nick-DT and Bbb23 that the Australian article does not support an assertion that Jacobs "admitted to fabricating the story," and neither do the Brisbane Times pieces by Jacobs [13] and Michael James. [14] "Editorialized" is not the same thing as "fabricated". --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:04, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. So why can't we re-insert the link and just change the text to say that she editoralised it, as opposed to fabricated it? Then there is no issue of BLP. It seems like a very minor and petty thing to warrant reverting edits, banning people and starting AFDs over. KrampusC (talk) 03:09, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

It possibly could be included if worded better. It absolutely wasn't minor. It should have been reverted. You were wrong to revert the deletion. The block (not ban) was supposedly more about other edits. The AFD doesn't mention this issue. Would you care to set up any more strawmen? --Onorem (talk) 03:14, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

If we have consensus for it to be returned then please can you return it. You at least are not being threatened with being banned if you dare do it. KrampusC (talk) 09:25, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Curiously, the blocked editor inserted a link that seemed to provide a reason for the article being hidden: [15]. It would seem that the person that created the Hashtag is a politician who is concerned about the damage to her professional reputation caused by "editorialising" the story, which is seen by many as the same thing as "fabricating". Given that, I have decided to change my stance on him being blocked for 48 hours, though I still think that the article should have been re-inserted but with the change to the text so that it says "editorialised" rather than "fabricated". It does seem to be relevant in putting it into perspective, especially given the inaccurate reporting of the chocolate shop hostage situation as a whole. KrampusC (talk) 03:13, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Your accusation that I did not submit the AfD in good faith[16] is inappropriate, and you are to withdraw it immediately. I had no knowledge the editor had been blocked when I submitted the AfD, and at the time, I wasn't even aware they had substantially contributed to the article. Additionally, attempting to use a deleted Facebook page as a 'source' may be an even more serious BLP violation, as it has not appeared in reliable sources.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:19, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Enough threats please. It is not helpful. KrampusC (talk) 03:23, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Where is the threat? --Onorem (talk) 03:26, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

That is a very clear threat from Jeffro77. I deleted his earlier threat and demand from the AFD. He is behaving very inappropriately and unprofessionally. KrampusC (talk) 09:22, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Ms Jacobs' professional reputation is not the issue here: the issue is that the material smeared her honesty. It doesn't matter who she is. Please take the time to read WP:BLP. Nick-D (talk) 03:33, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

The Public Figure(as listed on her own Facebook Page)... and Greens Candidate Rachel Jacobs reputation is being smeared? Original story: The woman was a Muslim. Confession Story on Fairfax: Okay she might not have been a Muslim, who knows? Original Story: The woman was in tears when I offered to walk with her. Confession Story: "While the woman appeared to appreciate my gesture, we had both left defeated and deflated." Original Story: She was wearing a Hijab. Confession Story: "I spent the rest of the journey staring – rudely – at the back of her uncovered head. I wanted to talk to her, but had no idea what to say. Anything that came to mind seemed tokenistic and patronising. She might not even be Muslim or she could have just been warm! " So possibly not even a Hijab, just a head convering. I mean are you seriously claiming Nick-D that she defamed HERSELF? I agree we need some more eyes on this one because some people are so blinded by their bias and ignorance of the facts they just can't help themselves.124.150.110.129 (talk) 04:48, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Obvious BLP violation and entirely appropriate admin response. Its right to suggest that portions of the story were editorialised or even "made up" but suggesting the whole thing was fabricated is both incorrect and not what the sources say anyway. KrampusC, I'm guessing you're pretty close to being the subject of an ANI report. Strongly suggest you withdraw your accusation of bad faith on the part of an editor completely uninvolved with the original violation or block. That sort of accusation requires evidence and you've presented none. In fact, all evidence would appear to be to the contrary. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:48, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

So the fact the woman probably wasnt even a muslim... wasn't crying... and possibly not even wearing a Hijab in your mind is "editorilising". What if someone claimed to be raped... but actually.. no someone just looked at me wrong, would you claim that was editorilising as well? Where do you draw the line between editorilising and just make crap up?124.150.110.129 (talk) 04:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

It's a stretch going from "she might not even be Muslim" straight to "probably wasnt even a muslim", and I'm not aware that summer is typical headscarf weather in Sydney. It sounds like more of a reasonable assumption than you're trying to imply. It is sufficient (but not essential) to briefly state what the Facebook status said that prompted someone else to start the hashtag. Indeed, even if the story were entirely made up, the same story would still prompt the hashtag for the same reasons. Comparison of an embellished anecdote with lying about a serious crime is just stupid.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:05, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

This isn't about the hashtag, that's a seperate issue. This is about some muslim woman went bolting off a train in tears. We know that never happened because the original author of the facebook post told us so. ^[1] The only question is if Rachel Jacobs is defaming herself by admitting her originally story was full of so many "editorisilised" ideas that one could say it was made up. 124.150.110.129 (talk) 05:15, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

The only notable element is the popularity of the hashtag, and it is optional to briefly giving some background about where the person who started it got the idea. You seem to have an axe to grind against this woman who wrote a private Facebook post about an anecdote, and it seems that you are trying to defame her.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:22, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Once again you are claiming she is defaming herself which is ridicilous. I have no issue with Rachel Jacobs, in fact I commend her for coming clean and giving the true story on what actually happened. What I have issues with is the fallacy of the whole debate. A muslim woman, who probably never existed, pulling off her hijab, which may have just been a head scarf, bursting into absolute tears... which never happened... at the great injustice on her people, which didn't occur... and in flies the knight in shining armour... a greens candidate to offer her support to save this poor girl from the horrors of Australian society... which isn't what actually happened. The whole thing is built on a false premise, a fabricated story and a lot of cojecture. And frankly it wouldn't bother me except it's inside an article about something that did actually happen... 2 people... murdered by an islamic extremist and frankly I think it is an embarrassment to their families for this absolute nonsense to be there at all.124.150.110.129 (talk) 05:44, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

You are the only person here claiming she has 'defamed herself', and your claim that I am claiming that is a lie, which you should retract. You then go on to conflate an anecdote with your own imagined fictional version of the scenario, which is entirely pointless. It's clear that you don't like where (and apparently, who) the story came from, but that doesn't matter. The notable element is about the response to the hashtag (which was started by someone else), which became popular irrespective of whether the anecdote really happened or not.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:23, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

References

^ http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/how-illridewithyou-began-with-rachael-jacobs-experience-on-a-brisbane-train-20141216-128205.html

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.

Nick Griffin

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

A new user keeps adding a religion to the infobox without any support for it in the body of the article (at least none that I could see - it's a long article) in violation of WP:BLPCAT. I've reverted the editor and warned them. Another user has also reverted, although the user reverted again. I've now warned the user about edit warring. I would be within my rights to revert based on the BLP violation, but I'm not keen on claiming the exemption in an edit war and would prefer to have others look at it. Thus far, the user never talks.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:43, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

You are correct on policy grounds but the better place may be to make a request at WP:AIV if the editor goes again (or WP:RFPP if it keeps up). That article is regularly full protected so it's not new. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:48, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Gamergate controversy

HJ Mitchell has revdel the history. Thanks Strongjam (talk) 12:57, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

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.

Serious defamatory claims were added to Talk:Gamergate controversy, which I believe require a rev-del.

Unfortunately I cannot connect to the #wikipedia-en-revdel channel at the moment to request this. Many thanks. — Strongjam (talk) 12:51, 23 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.

Lisa Raymond: sexuality

I would like to get the input of other BLP/N discussion participants regarding one element of the Lisa Raymond article. The last sentence of the lead is "Raymond is openly lesbian.[1]" There is no other mention of Raymond's sexuality anywhere within the article, and the article does not presently include a "personal life" section or something similar. It is fairly well documented in reliable media that Raymond is a lesbian, but she has not been particularly forward about it, she is not a LGBT activist, and has not sought to be publicly defined by her sexuality. Personally, I think it is not appropriate to include a single sentence in the lead defining her sexuality without sourced main body text, anymore than it would be to include "Clinton is openly heterosexual" in the lead of the Bill Clinton article. Reactions? Suggestions? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:12, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

It should not be in the lead; I would relocate it to a new 'Personal life' section. If her sexuality has been covered in RS then so should we. Giant Snowman 14:19, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

The source does not make the claim about Redmond but only about Rennae Stubbs. Nor does she appear to "self-identify" as "lesbian". Collect (talk) 14:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

While we don't have a RS which says she is a lesbian, we do have a source which confirms she was in a long-term relationship with a woman. Giant Snowman 16:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not on us to define her sexuality based on that, and even if we could, it doesn't sound like that relationship was key to her notability or contexting of her, and thus shouldn't be in the lead. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:27, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Um it's not in the lead and she is not described as a lesbian... Giant Snowman 16:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

It was in the lead until I removed it :) Collect (talk) 16:56, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Yep, your edit was entirely justified - as was mine adding back some of the material, re-worded and with a proper reference ;) Giant Snowman 17:01, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay, y'all, there's no sense picking a fight over the points on which we appear to agree: so far, no one has said they believe this belongs in the article lead. Raymond is notable for being a tennis player, not being a lesbian (or having been in a long-term relationship with another woman), and therefore arguably her sexuality does not belong in the lead. The question now is whether to include some reference to here sexuality in the main body text, and, if so, how to address it in an appropriate manner. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:07, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

No, actually, your edit was not justified. It contains misinformation and a confusing claim. You state that she was in the relationship in 2006, when the article from the first week of 2006 was speaking of the relationship in the past tense. You refer to her "former doubles partner" as though they were already former partners when they were having the relationship, which is not clear from the article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:46, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

There is no strong reliable source to make categorization of her sexuality at all. See WP:BLPCAT. Thus we can not make reference to it. Collect (talk) 17:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I have to also kind of argue against including that she's a lesbian. Sexuality is actually a fairly tricky matter and I've met more than a few people that have held relationships with people of the same gender but do not identify as homosexual. For that matter, I've heard about people who identify as homosexual but have held a relationship with someone of the opposite gender. They basically describe it as "I identify as straight (or gay) solely, but I acknowledge that this one specific person is otherwise the exception to this rule- I am not otherwise sexually attracted to anyone else of that gender." Until Raymond describes herself as a lesbian we should not call her one because we don't know how she personally identifies as far as her sexuality goes. It could be that she is a lesbian and just doesn't feel like talking about her sexuality with the press, but it could just be that she was sexually attracted to that one person and started a relationship with them. I mean, it happens and that's the whole premise for the show Bob & Rose, which was based on the experiences of a friend of Russell T Davies that was in the same situation. ([17]) However if there is coverage of their relationship then there's no reason that this can't be mentioned in a personal life section of the article. I just don't think that it belongs in the lead, especially since the woman in question has apparently never self-identified as a lesbian- which is the most important part. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

There is coverage of their relationship, so it's a public fact, but the source we have is not in a story about the subject, so there is the question of whether it's a significant piece of information about her. Particularly given the absence on other facts of her life, making this the only element of a persona life section may be creating the suggestion of an importance that this may not have. --Nat Gertler (talk) 07:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

On balance, agree with Tokyogirl79 about not including anything here. We have a reliable source for Stubbs identifying herself as a lesbian and saying she hd a relationship with Raymond. Do we have a source for Raymond confirming this statement by Stubbs? If not then we should approach any use of this claim with care. A third-party claim about the sexuality of an article subject has tenuous validity, especially where it's peripheral to the subject of the BLP. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:48, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

In the absence of further comment I've gone ahead and removed the reference, per apparent consensus here. We have a reliable source confirming that Stubbs says there was a relationship; we have no sources making the statement directly (as in, the source stating Raymond's sexuality directly rather than as a third party claim). The best we could say is something like: "In a 2006 newspaper interview, fellow tennis player Rennae Stubbs stated she had previously had a long-term relationship with Raymond." And hearsay like this is hard to support - not suggesting Stubbs is lying, simply that this one source is insufficient to entirely confirm the claim. But feel free to revert the removal if anyone disagrees, or can find a source that directly confirms Raymond's sexuality rather than simply other people's claims about it. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:28, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree that making a positive statement about her sexuality is unjustified; we would never mention that another person was straight under similar circumstances. μηδείς (talk) 02:51, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Jeremy Kewley (Talk page)

Disruptive edits, and BLP violation by User:Couldn't think of a decent username. Offensive language, which was removed by myself and another user, but is being repeatedly readded by the user with offensive edit summaries. --Dmol (talk) 12:42, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there are grounds to remove the comment necessarily. It's not BLP violation to use a swear word to express your opinion of someone on a talk page. That said the comment is a forum-y one and that should be noted.SPACKlick (talk) 12:46, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored, but all editors do have to abide by WP:CIVIL. In this case the only thing to really do is to just ask CTDU to please refrain from swearing and to probably add that it isn't a forum. That doesn't mean that CTDU has to stop swearing, but I do think that posting "fuck off you rock spider" isn't really helping the matter either. CTDU, I've noticed that quite a few editors have taken offense with your particular way of posting comments on Wikipedia and while again, Wikipedia isn't censored, you do have to take into account that none of us are face to face and very few of us are actually very familiar with one another enough to pick up on sarcasm, blue humor, and other jokes or comments that are otherwise made with no true offense. Saying stuff like this probably wouldn't be so bad in person, but it just doesn't come across well when we don't have the basic body language and inflections that make stuff like this otherwise fine in person or over the phone. Plus you have people on here from all different cultures, so something that seems inoffensive to you could be seen as a big deal to somebody else. I've learned that lesson myself more than a few times, both on Wikipedia and on other sites in general. Just apply a little caution to what you write on here, is all. I do see where you've had some run ins with various editors over stuff you've written and while we do try to have WP:GOODFAITH with stuff other people say on here, if enough people think that you're being disruptive then you could still run the risk of being blocked as a disruptive editor even if you honestly don't mean any offense by what you write. That's just my two cents on the matter. You don't have to pay much heed to what I write, especially since this is running a little long now, but I do recommend that you just be more cautious and take all of this into consideration. (Oh, and editing while you're drunk isn't a good idea. I edited once while high on cold meds and I can't remember what I did, but it was pretty embarrassing.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Some pretty serious cold meds, TG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:14, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Fair call m8. CTDU (talk) 06:36, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Touré: two final questions

Hello all, I'm back once more with a final request for editors' thoughts on the article for author and television personality Touré.

For anyone who missed my prior requests, I'd previously asked here for input on some material at the start of the Writing career section, which focuses on criticisms regarding a student publication Touré founded at Emory University. At the time, I mentioned that the biggest issue was the main cited source from The Daily Caller, since its first bylined reporter is the now-notorious Charles C. Johnson (discussed by David Carr in the NYT and Dave Weigel at Slate). Initially, an editor reviewed my request and removed everything cited to The Caller, however a second editor then added in a compromise wording that I'd offered initially as an option if editors felt that the details absolutely had to stay. The first editor disagreed with this addition but although I've asked both for a further considerartion, neither returned to the discussion. It would be great if some other editors could take a look and see what they think about removing the information cited to The Caller altogether.

Secondly, I'm looking for input on the number of times that Touré's former surname appears in the article. Given that he has formally changed his name to drop his surname, does not use this name, has never used the name professionally, and it is mentioned in just a very very few sources, it seems perhaps a bit much to mention the name three times in a fairly short article. I'm curious if editors would feel comfortable with reducing the mentions of the name to the introduction and infobox only. I have started a discussion on the Talk page and welcome comments from editors here. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 21:48, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussed in past. Found proper. Collect (talk) 14:33, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

1,1-Difluoroethane and Skye McCole Bartusiak

Resolved

Hello everyone. I was looking at Skye McCole Bartusiak's article and her death was partly caused by 1,1-Difluoroethane poisoning. However the 1,1-Difluoroethane article posits that she intentionally inhaled the substance which is not mentioned in Skye McCole Bartusiak article itself. I'm unable to access the source that might support this assertion in the 1,1-Difluoroethane - if someone could look into this I would appreciate it. This looks like a tragic case and we shouldn't be implying someone intentionally abused a substance without proof. Thank you. Quintessential British Gentleman (talk) 14:26, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Removed. Edits about recently deceased persons must meet the WP:BLP standards, and the claim at issue failed. Collect (talk) 14:32, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Much obliged. Quintessential British Gentleman (talk) 16:41, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Moussa Sow

The section about Burton Albion is a scam. Someone replaced the section about his current club Fenerbahce. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:9:500:A90:4CA2:874A:AC5D:7B37 (talk) 15:38, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Done Giant Snowman 15:55, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Unverified supercentenarians

At a number of supercentenarians articles (List_of_living_supercentenarians#Unverified_living_supercentenarians, List of European supercentenarians, List of North American supercentenarians, List of supercentenarians from the United States, etc.) there are a number of people listed as "pending" or "unverified." WP:DOB would side against listing the birth dates of BLPs (or possible BLPs) so I'd supporting removing names with no reliable sources. The articles here all based whether or not the person is the oldest based solely on Gerontology Research Group which is called the main authority for the subject. Two concerns: it feels like we're throwing out our entire WP:RS policies in favor of citing a single sources. When looking at something more generic on world records, there are various sources (RecordSetter versus Guinness World Records) so if WP:RS state that someone else is older, shouldn't that be included? Alternatively it could fall under WP:FRINGE and be removed. That leaves the "unverified" claimants: if the GRC has not verified it, then that as a reliable source has not verified it. However, whether we should continue to list names that are unverified by GRC by using other RS is based on whether we are solely using GRC as the basis for the claims or not. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

The GRG is a body that aims to keep databases of supercentenarians for whom there is evidence to support their claimed age. They are the leading authority on supercentenarian verification and I do not know of any other major body that does the same thing. About unverified claimants: the whole point is that they are unverified and their ages are subject to doubt. But just because a claim is unverified now, does not mean it won't be in the future, nor does it mean that the claim is false. As long as there is a reliable source giving a date of birth is cited, what's the issue with including them? - Ollie231213 (talk) 17:10 23 December 2014

GRG. Sorry. It's pure speculation and I think a BLP problem to create a list of people who could be supercentenarians especially when it's completely up in the air when it's resolved. What's gained by listing someone for years based on speculation that no one (not even the GRG) has confirmed? What about their privacy? These are relatively unknown people that we are putting up speculative birth dates and listing literally guesses. It's not about whether anyone else does it, it's about reliable sources overall. If there are other reliable sources that list someone but the GRG does not rate it as verified (such as everyone at List_of_living_supercentenarians#Other_cases), are we only going by GRG's determination? That seems outside of policy to me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:57, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean "what about their privacy"? In the vast majority of cases listed at List_of_living_supercentenarians#Other_cases, they have been reported on by a media outlet, so presumably have given permission for their claimed date of birth to be released. They are not "literally guesses". The point of listing them is because all claims start out as being unverified. And another point: the International Database on Longevity also validates cases (although only for deceased cases). There is a free market information system out there and if other groups choose to validate/debunk supercentenarian claims, they are free to do so, as long as they are considered reliable by the scientific community. In that sense we are not only going by the GRG's determination. However, if we're dealing with "verified" claims, then the verifying body needs to be reliable. Claims that have not been verified are clearly categorised as "unverified" and so for those we only need to cite a reliable source which gives us the claimant's reported date of birth. - Ollie231213 (talk) 11:02 24 December 2014

In the vast majority of cases in List of European supercentenarians, the only source listed is the GRG, and there are many entries that are not sourced at all. Either way, the fact that an entry appears in a GRG table does not mean that there is no privacy concerns according to Wikipedia guidelines. Ca2james (talk) 18:18, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Any independent (i.e. non-governmental) organization which specializes in longevity research can be used for any supercentenarian-based article. There was at one time a reference from such an organization which was used for 4 people (2 men, 2 women) not included on the GRG list. They were subsequently verified by the GRG so the other reference became superfluous. I have also seen references to other similar organizations but none seem to publish any material which would be useful for these pages. This is most unfortunate as it means that the GRG dominates the references and many editors, past end present, have concluded that anything and everything the GRG publishes should be included in Wikipedia. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 05:17, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I think I saw some discrepancy for Betsy Baker (supercentenarian) between the GRG listing and the fact that she was listed in the 1973 Guinness Book of World Records (which can have different criteria). The problem is when the GRG has not verified the listing. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:42, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Further, according to the project's own standards, "Gerontology Research Group data from grg.org should be attributed and used only as backup for reliable sources." This is far from what's being done right now. This may require a wholesale re-write of all these articles and lots of information being ripped out. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:22, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I suggest that you read more into the subject, such as at List of people reported to have lived beyond 130 and [18]. By your standards, we should report En-men-lu-ana as the oldest person ever, who died aged 43,200 years - not Jeanne Calment. Longevity claims and myths are still the most contentious Guinness world titles. The fact is that we have two types of sources: One of reliable sources which we can reference longevity claims to 110 from, and world renowned organizations such as the GRG who officially document and verify cases of extreme longevity. It's about scientific observation. Second of all, you're incorrect in the assumption that all the birth dates are speculative - they are taken directly from the sources that are cited on the page. If you feel there are missing sources, then I would suggest you make constructive changes to fill in those gaps. Please remember that Wikipedia is about making constructive changes, rather than destructive ones. SiameseTurtle (talk) 16:48, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

En-men-lu-ana has no sources so that strawman makes no sense. And I highly doubt you will find a source that says anything beyond "myths claim he lived 43,200 years." This is getting off topic. I'm asking again about what to do with the sources that the GRG has not verified. You seem to propose that when GRG says it's not verified, they should still be listed with the fact that it's not verified for whatever reason. By that logic, if GRG suddenly decided to list En-men-lu-ana as an unverified claim of 43,200 years, you would be listing it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:00, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with SiameseTurtle's opinion. I would like to add, that the Gerontology Research Group is an scientific organization, which is cited within many press and internet reports throughout the world as the leading authority in terms of extreme longevity, gerontology and supercentenarians' study. The determination of the authenticity of human's age requires much professionalism, sensitivity and patience. That is why the GRG was founded. The GRG is an organization very well organized with main body located in University of California, Los Angeles and over 50 international correspondents, who are respinsible for the extreme longevity tracking in their respective countries. The fact, that the Gerontology Research Group is an scientific organization is in my belief beyond doubt; the titles of publications published by the GRG members are available for insight from its official website. Yes, it is true, that the GRG is not the lone organization, which conducts research on supercentenarians. It is closely related with other scientific associations like Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research International Database on Longevity and also the Guiness World Records. All the organizations respect each other's reseach and this is true also for the GRG, which recognizes the research of Kestenbaum Study, GWR, Mr. Roger Thatcher and others. Each verification of supercentenarian claim is the result of months of hard work of international correspondents, who track documentation for every single case dating back 110 years and more and often also perform the research "in field" by visiting the supercentenarians themselves and interview the supercentenarians and their relatives. Then the gathered knowledge is being put under a detailed analysis by the GRG senior claims investigators before the final verification is done. The process involves many researchers affiliated with universities in many countries on different continents. The Wikipedia only reflects the final outcome of this research. It's the true tip of the iceberg. And that is exactly how this should function, because any encyclopedia is to provide the reader the discovered, checked and validated information. Wikipedia is here not an exception. The readers know about the phenomenon of evolution thanks to Darwin's discoveries and research and samely, the reader can learn about the phenomenon of longevity thanks to the GRG's discoveries and research. I would advise to respect the Wikipedia's significant role in helping of education of the society by not erasing and questioning when not necessary its content, which is developed by tireless efforts of many other Wikipedia contributors, who rightly trust in the GRG source and work for the sake of the greater knowledge of our international society. Waenceslaus (talk) 20:02, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

White savior narrative in film

This article asserts as fact that many main-stream Hollywood movies are racist, based on the opinions of various commentators and scholars. Movies are made by people. To say that they are racist based on someone's opinion seems like a BLP concern to me. The article just went through AfD. I voted to keep because the point of view is notable and well-documented. The list of movies is what I have a problem with. I also suggested this on the article's talk page, but I'd like some other opinions on it.Borock (talk) 06:07, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

~~I have tagged that section with {{original research}}, as there are no sources provided that describe these films in the context of the title of the article.~~ - Cwobeel (talk) 21:04, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Each film has accompanied sources referencing a "white savior narrative". Given this, I see no issue with the list. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:07, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

My concern is that the article presents opinions as facts, not that the opinions are unsourced or even not notable. Borock (talk) 06:23, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

There is a suggestion on the article's talk page to remove the list of movies. That should take care of the problem.Skylark777 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:29, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Karen Goodison

Done

At University of Maryland Medical System, @Karen Goodison: has added this grossly defamatory BLP violation again after having been warned not to repeat it. I think the revisions containing it need to be removed from the history too. Squinge (talk) 09:25, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Revisions deleted, user indefinitely blocked, article semi-protected. Black Kite (talk) 11:18, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Squinge (talk) 11:26, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Cairns child killings

There is a disagreement about whether Cairns child killings should be included in "murder" categories. A suspect in the case has been named and charged, but not convicted. Further opinions are requested in the discussion at Talk:Cairns child killings#Categories: murder. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:11, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

There are several logical steps that must be made between the article being in the category to concluding that a particular person is accused of murder. I say let the reader decide. However, naming the suspect seems a very clear violation of WP:BLPCRIME and the need to name victims is questionable under WP:BLPNAME. (Policy applies equally to the recently dead.) Rhoark (talk) 23:51, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I have removed identifying information about the suspect from the article itself, leaving a citation that a person has been charged. That source does name the suspect, so further action may be required. I'm not confident on where policy stands on that. Rhoark (talk) 00:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I would say it depends on whether or not the names have been widely published in reliable sources; if there's only one or two tabloidy-type sources that are going there, then I agree it ought to be left out. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

The name is available in multiple sources. But what is your view in respect to inclusion of the categories, particularly now that the article does not name the suspect??--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:32, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that removing the suspect's name from the article is necessarily required, and is not the correct approach to the issue of categorization.

I also suggest that this discussion might be better held on the article talk page, as there are already multiple BLP issues being raised there (including identification of the suspect). Mitch Ames (talk) 13:42, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Removing the suspect's name is about WP:BLPCRIME, and would have been needed regardless. With the name gone, there does not seem to be any BLP dimension to the categorization whatsoever. Rhoark (talk) 23:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Input is sought at Talk:2014 Cairns child killings#Poll on disputed BLP items. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:32, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Las Chicas del Can

there is an error in one of the names disclosed in this ariticle, see the copy/paste below

(1982-1986) Vilma Frias (1982-1989) instead of Vilma Frias is Irma Frias

Thank you!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C:4E80:242:FD92:F344:20B0:5013 (talk) 01:30, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

THe article cites no source - and the only evidence I can find either way is via a Google search for '"Las Chicas del Can" Frias', which finds material refering to Vilma, not Irma. If you have a source to the contrary, post it at Talk:Las Chicas del Can. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:40, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Standards for defamatory material

I have recently received an editing warning from Wikipedia regarding a potential double standard in what is allowed in Wikipedia biographies. To excercise the greatest sensitivity, I will restate my concerns without identifying the party who may be receiving preferential treatment from Wikipedia.

Briefly, I note that the Bill Cosby biography contains a section on "Sexual assault allegations and fallout." To the best of my knowledge, these allegations are just that - allegations. However, there exists another Wikipedia biography where the subject has been convicted of lewd and lascivious acts on a child under the age of 14 years. There is no mention of this conviction in this person's biography except for a zero-context statement on the talk page concerning whether the LA Times (one source of published information about this conviction) is a reliable source. My added source of confirmatory information was from the California Sex Offenders database.

My question is quite simple. Why can as-yet unproven allegations of sexual misconduct about Bill Cosby be allowed on Wikipedia and information about confirmed sex crimes about another Wikipedia biographical subject be disallowed? I await a coherent answer from a responsible party to explain this apparent double standard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:2462:BB60:18A8:49FD:D5AF:24E (talk) 20:04, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

See my comments on your talkpage. The significant difference is that Cosby is a major public figure, and the allegations have received widespread coverage in major independent media specifically focusing on those alleged events. The California Sex offender's Database (a primary source) may not be used, absent significant coverage in secondary sources. Acroterion (talk) 20:27, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that someone who is already notable does not have a secondary source noting he is a registered sex offender. Afronig (talk) 20:55, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Maybe because the person is not notable? I am going to propose that article for deletion. Afronig (talk) 21:00, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt reply. This person's crimes were reported in the Los Angeles Times in at least two separate articles that can be located via Google. (I do not include the URLs here lest I be banned for defaming the subject since both articles give the subject's name.) As to the notability of the subject, he was a featured performer on network and syndicated television over approximately 20 years, and has released numerous recordings under his own name on major national recording labels.

I find it troubling that unproven allegations receive such prominent placement in Wikipedia while criminal convictions published in major national newspapers are ignored. Cosby is undoubtedly more famous than the subject at hand, but both are legitimate public figures.

More worrisome, however, is the similiarity between this case and Wikipedia's treatment of another celebrity, James Stacy. Mr. Stacy Wikipedia biography states that, "In November 1995, Stacy pleaded no contest to a charge of molesting an 11-year-old girl.[8]" The single reference in this case is the Star-News, arguably an inferior source to the Los Angeles Times.

Again, why does Wikipedia treat these two public figures differently? Both involved underage sexual activity and both individuals pleaded no contest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:2462:BB60:18A8:49FD:D5AF:24E (talk) 22:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

The individuals you reference are two totally different individuals with greatly differing levels of notability. Thus, your comparison might be a bit unfair. In reference to the individual that is being discussed here, I think he is not notable and thus any potentially derogatory information is not notable.

I believe your edits have been in good faith (though I can't see deleted edits) but there is a legitimate BLP issue here. I believe this article should be deleted in its entirety because it is not sourced at all aside from a personal webpage. If the subject were indeed notable, which I don't believe, I would actually be inclined to agree with you that citing LA Times articles regarding potentially derogatory information would be notable, legitimate, and not in violation of WP:BLP. Since I don't believe the subject is notable, I believe the information should be kept out. I believe the information should be kept out while the deletion discussion is still pending. (If Prod is removed, I'm nominating it for AfD.) Afronig (talk) 23:17, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I just checked James_Stacy#Personal life, and there are sufficient sources for including that information in the article. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:20, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

After doing a Google search for sources, I believe the same standard for James Stacy would apply to this individual if he were notable. Afronig (talk) 23:24, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

The issue for me is far more about the consistent application of Wikipedia's policies than about about whether the subject is notable. Deleting the subject's biography on the grounds of lack of notability would avoid rather than resolve the issue of Wikipedia's consistency. Two points should be made here (1) former drag racer Gene Snow is perhaps a better example of someone of comparable-to-lesser notability who receives very different treatment from Wikipedia. Wikipedia has no problems noting Mr. Snow's similar legal issues in his biography using references that appear to be blog entries and (2) concerning the subject's notability, I note that individuals such as Johnny Zell, Mary Lou Metzger, Jack Imel, and Bob Havens (similar performers of less prominence than the subject) have their own Wikipedia biographies.

This will conclude my comments on this subject. Wikipedia remains a remarkable institution, and I wish you well in you efforts to maintain and improve this amazing resource. This exchange has given me greater appreciation of the work involved in this endeavor! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:2462:BB60:18A8:49FD:D5AF:24E (talk) 02:19, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

The biographies you list probably need to be reviewed for BLP and/or notability. Namely, the first biography is referencing UK law as a disclaimer when the project is based in the US? That may not be a BLP issue, but it is definitely a style issue. (I'm not taking a position yet on redacting an alleged victim's name from a quote. However, the disclaimer should not be there.). I think, though I don't know since I can't see deleted edits, is that you initially sourced a primary source rather than the news articles and that's why you received the administrator response that you did. Afronig (talk) 07:21, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

One of our principles is proportional coverage. As I understand it personally, this applies particularly to the coverage of crimes of minor public figures. If the material on the crime would overwhelm the article, we may mention it, but not cover it in detail. I think we ought to avoid giving the impression that an individual is notable mainly because of their crimes when that is not in fact the case. Sensational newspapers generally do just the opposite, but it seems to me that we have often followed the degree of coverage in the more responsible and less sensational newspapers.

As for relative degrees of notability, WP's decision processes do not lead to consistency and never will, since we rely upon decision making for individual cases by whoever is interested in the particular discussion. There might be a point in having a free encyclopedia with a centralized authoritative way of deciding on coverage and content, but that would have to be some other project. Such a project would have other problems: consider Citizendium, which relied on central authorities some of whom who proved to have been poorly chosen and irresponsible. DGG ( talk ) 10:48, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Amir H. Ladan

Reported death in 2003 is an error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.4.142.3 (talk) 00:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Our article says nothing about a death in 2003. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:43, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I think I see the problem - a Google search comes up with a statement that he died in 2003 - but it isn't despite what Google implies, sourced to our article. We have no control over what Google does unfortunately (if we did, we'd stop them from attributing their errors to Wikipedia), and if you want this remedied, you will have to contact them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:46, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

There's a "Feedback" link right below the infobox on the side of the Google search results. --GRuban (talk) 01:11, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Possible WP:BLPCRIME vio at Microsoft licensing corruption scandal

I would like to get some eyes on Microsoft licensing corruption scandal which is thinly-sourced to some non-English sources. Several names of living persons are listed as being involved in the corruption scandal.- Mr X 15:10, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I killed the section, as the source that listed the people was a primary source.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 15:31, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Natalia Poklonskaya redux

At Natalia Poklonskaya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I have reverted for the second time the addition that Poklonskaya was rated by the sexist Maxim magazine as one of the 100 sexiest Russian women. I think that the opinion of a sexist publication which bases its success on presenting women as sex objects is not relevant to the article of this professional woman. The reverting editor went in with all guns blazing, mentioning the cliché of censorship in the edit summary. Not wanting to escalate matters further I bring this matter to the board and I would appreciate some advice from the editors here. Thank you in advance. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd prefer it if you didn't cling to old gripes and grudges with me, and start off with a character assassination. Although we've had conflicts in the past, I'd expect that something that's happened in ancient history remain ancient history. Please reword your above post. --benlisquare_T•C•E 18:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Where do you see old gripes, old grudges and character assassination in the post above? Please explain otherwise retract your absurd hyperbole. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:14, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

You're being needlessly snarky in both your edit summaries and your post here. Had I been someone else, you would have written with a bit more respect.

(edit summary) "Heavy-handed accusations of censorship don't help your BLP-violation" - A more mature way to say this would have been "I disagree with your accusation of censorship, this is a BLP violation". "Your" is accusative, and this was User:Starship.paint's addition, not mine.
"The reverting editor went in with all guns blazing" - please, it was one edit, no need to exaggerate the situation when asking for help.
"mentioning the cliché of censorship in the edit summary" - that's definitely unnecessary snark and you know it. "Oh, look at this loser, and his clichés! Meanwhile look how reasonable and mature I am!" If I were an editor that you personally liked, you would have been much more professional in your writing.

"Not wanting to escalate matters further" is quite the dubious claim when you're intentionally baiting an emotional response out of me. --benlisquare_T•C•E 18:23, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

All of this is your personal interpretation. I did not even mention your name in my oiriginal post, in an attempt not to make things personal. And I fully stand by remarks. Directing the cliché of censorship at your perceived opponent is both cliché and disrespectful. All your other interpretations, including your comment" "Oh, look at this loser, and his clichés!" etc. are your own and bear no relation to reality. I would have thought that you would have the courtesy not to put words in my mouth. Your talk of character asassination is both unjustified and a nasty personal attack. I think you should retract it. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:31, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I strongly believe that you are being disrespectful, and I will not retract this accusation. --benlisquare_T•C•E 18:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

You can believe strongly whatever you like. That does not give you the right to attack other editors and shred AGF while violating NPA and CIVIL. Also your comment you're intentionally baiting an emotional response out of me is AGF-shredding. You should retract that too. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:47, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I suggest heeding your own words and following WP:CIVIL then, Dr.K., refraining from unnecessary snark in the future is a good start. Would you go to church and listen to the priest do his preaching, if you knew he indulged in vices? Speak to me in the same respectful manner which you would speak to anyone else, in line with WP:CIVIL. --benlisquare_T•C•E 19:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Spare me the preaching please, especially when based on artifacts of your imagination. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:47, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

And here we're back to the incivil snark. "I don't care" would have been a much more civil way to put that. Again, had I been someone else, you wouldn't be as snarky as you are. --benlisquare_T•C•E 19:58, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Since you keep putting words in mouth and keep telling me what you would have liked to hear from me, rather than acknowledge your mistakes, it is best I left you talk to yourself. Please carry on, or not. It depends entirely on you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I would have liked to hear from you polite and respectful language, actually. --benlisquare_T•C•E 20:11, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Well... the magazine being perceived as sexist doesn't automatically mean that it shouldn't be mentioned in the article and we should try to avoid making decisions like that based on our personal opinions of the magazine. This may not have been Ben's intention with how he wrote his opening argument, but that's how it comes across. That said, I know that on occasion various reliable source news outlets will report on someone making one of the Maxim lists and if this is the case then there's no reason for it not to be added into the article somewhere- probably under the internet popularity section since her inclusion on the list likely stemmed from all of that. However if this isn't heavily mentioned anywhere then there's really no true reason for its inclusion other than a bit of trivia or to further show that she is extremely popular online- something that's already fairly well established in the article. So far it seems like it has received some coverage but not an awful lot of it, so I'd probably just recommend waiting a little before adding it back into the article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

based on our personal opinions of the magazine. I disagree. The magazine makes its money by sexually objectifying women and the quality of its journalism may well be even lower than that of a tabloid, and we know that generally tabloids are not acceptable sources for BLPs. This is something that should be taken into consideration when reporting that Poklonskaya has also been objectified and ranked according to her sex-appeal and in a stereotypical fashion. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:45, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

There is a difference between using a problematic publication as a source for something, and mentioning something relating to aforementioned source via an indirect third-party. Maxim isn't being referenced within the article itself; rather, what was inserted as a citation was a news report which covers information on the 100 list by Maxim. Based on this edit summary of yours ("→‎Internet popularity: Let's not go there. Maxim is a sexist magazine."), it appeared from the very beginning that this removal was solely due to your disapproval of the magazine being mentioned (since you consider it sexist), which made me lead to the conclusion that you're selectively omitting information from the article because it's objectionable. This is precisely what my edit summary explains - that the removal seemed out of place based on the reason you provided within your original edit summary. It is specifically because I did not find your reasoning acceptable that I reverted your removal, not because I personally endorsed the content inserted by Starship.paint; it relied on a rationale that was, for the most part, personal preference rather than something objective. --benlisquare_T•C•E 19:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

No, my decision was not based on a personal preference as I explained just above. It was based on the GIGO principle. That is, if Maxim produces sexist garbage and that garbage is reproduced by others, it is still garbage. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Let me repeat: Your edit summary relied on a rationale that was, for the most part, not something objective. Either you're viewing your own opinion as absolute fact, or you're not really good at writing edit summaries. "Let's not go there. Maxim is a sexist magazine" is not a convincing rationale, and I revert edits if the rationale is not convincing. --benlisquare_T•C•E 20:06, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

No need for repeating, thank you. My summary was very clear. All you had to do was to realise the obvious equation: "sexist magazine" = garbage journalism. Back to the GIGO principle. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:10, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

"My summary was very clear" - No it wasn't, obviously, otherwise we wouldn't even be talking here. --benlisquare_T•C•E 20:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Dr.K., not only is Maxim a sexist garbage publication, it is also a highly notable sexist garbage publication. Hence, the Jessica Alba article reads "In 2001, Alba was ranked No. 1 on Maxim magazine's Hot 100 list", Anna Kournikova reads "Photographs of her scantily clad form have appeared in various men's magazines... such as FHM and Maxim", and Maria Sharapova reads "In 2006, Maxim ranked Sharapova the hottest athlete in the world for the fourth consecutive year." Quickly eyeballing this, I'd estimate that over 120 biographies on Wikipedia link to Maxim (magazine); if you have a gripe with the content that was inserted into the Natalia Poklonskaya article, would you have a gripe with the entirety of Wikipedia's handling of these topics as well? --benlisquare_T•C•E 20:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

you probably have a gripe with the entirety of Wikipedia's handling of these topics as well diff. Again, please do not be heavy-handed putting words in my mouth. This is a subtle form of a personal attack. Unlike the other examples you put forward, Poklonskaya is not a glamour model or a woman known to promote that part of herself. She is primarily a legal professional. Sexist classifications of that type don't belong in her biography. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Maria Sharapova is not a glamour model, nor does she work in entertainment. Furthermore, there are many more examples that I haven't mentioned, go look through the list of articles. --benlisquare_T•C•E 20:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Sharapova, Kournikova etc. are tennis stars who are treated as glamour models because part of their professional conduct is also based on glamour, so that may be ok. As far as others, let's just focus on this one for now. We can't fix everything at once. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

This is a noticeboard, any disucssion as to the validity of Maxim as a source for Natalia Poklonskaya should occur on Talk:Natalia_Poklonskaya any discusion of Maxims reliability in general should occur at WT:Identifying_reliable_sources or some other such location. CombatWombat42 (talk)

I thought it was a noticeboard too. I also thought that sexist classifications were dealt on this noticeboard as probable BLP violations. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

noticeboard: "A board for displaying notices" CombatWombat42 (talk) 20:10, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I did that. It's just above at the beginning of this section. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

"This page is for reporting issues regarding biographies of living persons. Generally this means cases where editors are repeatedly adding defamatory or libelous material to articles about living people over an extended period....Place the BLP noticeboard template on the talk page of articles that are being discussed here, and remove it when the discussion is resolved. For general content disputes regarding biographical articles, consider using Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies instead." CombatWombat42 (talk) 20:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I think a sexist classification by a low-quality magazine is defamatory for this person. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:15, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes and you have reported that, good job, now discuss it on the talk page. CombatWombat42 (talk) 20:19, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Please do not issue directives or appraisals based on your opinion. I prefer to not split the discussion. Rather than going back and forth between us let's wait for some other editors' opinions. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Do you think the Maria Sharapova BLP article is also defamatory due to the Maxim mention? Or is a tennis player not "professional" enough compared to an Attorney General to warrant concern? --benlisquare_T•C•E 20:35, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I replied above on that topic. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Omit silly and subjective labels attributed by space-filling media outlets. Text like "Maxim magazine rated X one of the sexiest women" is not encyclopedic information about X unless a reliable source shows that being one of the sexiest women contributed to her career. If anywhere, the text belongs in the Maxim article to show how they assess political figures. We would not be having this discussion if the proposed text were "Such-and-such magazine rated X one of the ugliest hags on the planet"—that's just obviously inappropriate in an article on X. However, the two statements are the same from an encyclopedic point of view—articles on sports people show their height and weight because those personal attributes are generally considered relevant; articles on politicians do not show their height or weight or sexiness factor. Johnuniq (talk) 22:52, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: then articles on sports people or actors or actresses showing their sexiness factors ... relevant or irrelevant? starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 01:56, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Fortunately we are only being asked to consider a particular article about a politician, and do not need to make a decision about more generic issues. FYI, your notification did not work—no idea why. Johnuniq (talk) 05:45, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I think almost all editors miss the point here, the point being that claiming Maxim to be "sexist garbage" (and especially the "garbage" part) is an opinion, not a fact. Many, many magazines have their own niches in which they choose to report in; with Maxim focusing on women and, just as an example, Computer and Video Games' focusing on video games. A magazine should not be discounted simply due to its focus area. Therefore, @Dr.K.:'s entire argument is based in its entirety upon personal opinion, and discounting a particular viewpoint/magazine simply due to its focus area/target market is censorship, no matter what attempt at whitewashing, and is exactly what is happening here.
That being said, though, "krymedia" seems to be the only source reporting on this, and it's a poor source. It would be better to cite Maxim itself, or more preferably, a third-party source (English-language if possible). And as that won't happen, it should be removed until a better article becomes available. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 22:55, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
- The actual point is that articles do not record the opinion of every organization that has issued their thoughts on a subject. If infoboxes had a "sexiness factor" field, we could discuss whether it should be used in this case. However, articles on public officials do not record personal attributes such as hair color or sex appeal because it is not encyclopedic information. Johnuniq (talk) 00:38, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- Re: [My] ...entire argument is based in its entirety upon personal opinion, and discounting a particular viewpoint/magazine simply due to its focus area/target... I disagree. Tabloids like the Daily Mail are not RS for BLPs. Maxim is on the same level as a tabloid or perhaps even lower. In addition a video game or a car magazine are respectable because they delve in subjects that need some knowledge to examine. There is no knowledge required to appraise the sexiness factor of a woman, other than the stereotypical view of her as a sex object. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:23, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
  - I strenuously oppose inclusion of "sexiness ratings" in any BLP of a person whose notability comes from their intellectual accomplishments, as opposed to their physical body. Such subjective and objectifying rankings are irrelevant and inappropriate in a biography of a lawyer and politician. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:36, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

@Dr.K.:@Cullen328: Nice strawman you pulled there, I like how the conversation was derailed from one about whether content should be censored/removed to whether we should include "sexiness ratings" in BLP infoboxes (which is obviously a no). Yes, "articles do not record the opinion of every organization that has issued their thoughts on a subject", but we do record the notable ones. You guys keep citing BLP, now what I'd like to know is what exact part of BLP is being violated (and supported by quotes, please). As per BLP, the article must adhere to Wikipedia's 3 core policies, namely NPOV, V, NOR. Is it a NPOV violation? Nope, it's stating a fact without giving an opinion. Is it a WP:V/NOR violation? Nope, it's sourced. Here's another BLP quote for you guys: "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", and BTW Poklonskaya has NEVER claimed that she "dislikes all mention of it" (or at least as far as I know - if you prove me wrong, I'd be more than willing to change my stance). Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 08:02, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Is it a NPOV violation? Nope, it's stating a fact without giving an opinion. Not true. It is an arbitrary and sexist classification solely based on her gender and only reflecting the opinion of a subset of the male readers of a sexist magazine who chose to participate in an unrepresentative, unscientific poll about a meaningless metric which has nothing to do with her career as a professional lawyer and is specifically designed to ignore any meaningful contributions she has made as a legal professional, but instead focuses on sex, treating her as an object. It is a serious WP:WEIGHT violation. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 08:33, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

@Dr.K.: Your comment here and your nomination above is really starting to read more like a WP:IDONTLIKEIT rant than anything based upon policy. For two reasons: 1) Like it or not, Maxim is a widely published magazine and therefore it should not, and does not represent an "extremely small (or vastly limited) minority", as I quote from WP:UNDUE. 2) It would be undue weight if the most of the article focused on her appearance while poorly covering her professional achievements. A single sentence is hardly undue weight, but omitting it entirely is censorship/POV-pushing. And BTW, I won't be responding until tomorrow, as in a couple of hours, due to time. It's getting late here. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 09:55, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Throwing an insulting essay at me, as well as other stuff in your previous comments such as "wp:censor" and "whitewashing", indicates that you seem to miss my well-explained reasons. This is a strong indication to me that we are not going to agree, which is fine. But instead of continuing this unproductive exchange let's just agree to disagree so that we don't waste any more time. And you don't have to ping me. I have this page watchlisted and in the very unlikely case I wish to continue replying I will do so. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:42, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

You're no shining example of civility yourself, and while I actually make an effort to address the points you bring up, in all honesty all you have done is chuck around a few strawmen and your comment above isn't even a legitimate argument, it's an ad hominem rant. Perhaps you should actually explain why it isn't censorship and whitewashing, and perhaps a wiser option would be to actually respond to my argument - such as, as I have repeatedly requested, quote exactly which part of WP:BLP has been violated. Guess agreeing to disagree is the only option here, if you just ignore the other party's arguments. As for the pinging, that is because certain editors have in the past requested that I do so, or else they just whine that I don't notify them. Ah well, can't please everybody I guess. Thanks, Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 06:21, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

What part of the BLP is being violated here? Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:51, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

No part whatsoever, just juvenile name-calling and attempting to pass off personal opinions as fact/policy. The other party still has not responded to my request of quoting exactly which part of BLP has been violated, and when confronted with actual BLP quote, such as "if an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative", the response is to skirt the point and mount an attack. A bit frustrating, really, as the closing admin probably won't even take this into consideration. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 06:21, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Nate Moore (actor)

Nate Moore (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) There are two editors, Shark310 and Hemi.pwr, who have a history of removing the information about the subject's involvement in a case. If I am not mistaken, the fact that the case has been dispensed of with a no contest plea allows the information to be included under the WP:BLPCRIME policy. I have started a discussion on the article's talk page, and invited these users to the discussion. I don't want to get caught in a 2-on-1 edit war here, however, and would appreciate any input or assistance as to how this should be handled. Thank you for your time. —Josh3580_talk/hist 01:06, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I just did a major edit (relatively speaking) on this article. I did some formatting and added as much as I could based on the existing sources. I looked for other sources, but there are several Nate or Nathan Moore's in the Entertainment world (including another actor, but I guess he's not SAG since he has the identical name, but is clearly younger than this Moore) which makes it difficult to attribute sources to correct Moore. The article is what it is and unfortunately the guy is now "most notable" for killing another actor. Maybe that will change in the future, but I don't have a WP:CRYSTALBALL. I also updated the article for Dave Oren Ward, the actor that Moore killed, and did some cleanup on the associated DISAM page, Nathaniel Moore (disambiguation). --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 07:01, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nate_Moore_%28actor%29 - Govindaharihari (talk) 12:54, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to the both of you, I appreciate your time, Scalhotrod (Talk). And to Govindaharihari (talk), an AfD listing is probably the best option, in light of very few sources existing. Thanks again! —Josh3580_talk/hist 16:19, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey Josh3580, thank you for your posting and being civil about everything. The two you mentioned have generally been making a mess of the Moore article and the associated one about the man he killed, Ward. This probably isn't news to you. Personally, I'm not opposed to the AfD, but I think it should be decided by uninvolved Editors that have not Edit Warred on either article. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 07:02, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree, Scalhotrod. It's unfortunate to see people go on personal quests with article content. Deletion seems like the best option for all involved, but I'll stay out of that discussion, to avoid being accused of having a dog in the race. It's times like this that I am relieved not to be a reviewing Administrator. :) Thank you for commenting, both here, and in the AfD entry. I appreciate your contribution. —Josh3580_talk/hist 14:34, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

To update - the creator of the two biographies that are now at deletion discussion Nate Moore (actor) and Dave Oren Ward is now creating an article about the death, what do editors think about the notability of this death? Killing of Dave Owen Ward and its existence and creation in regards to WP:BLP and WP:BLPCRIME Govindaharihari (talk) 19:11, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Brandi Glanville

I just added considerable factual content to a Living Bio page and it was deleted, while defamatory gossip and private family info was restored. I require assistance.— Preceding unsigned comment added by NancyPants (talk • contribs) 06:15, 27 December 2014‎

Could you be a little more specific as to what information you believe violates our policy and should be removed? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:37, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

By the edit summaries on the page, the editor appears to object to the childrens' names being on the page, the inclusion of the actress's middle name, the names of her parents, and similar things. ([19]) It also appears that there were some changes to the sections dealing with the affair. Now I do have to say that the article could use a pretty through cleaning. The section on her time with The Real Housewives is pretty extensive and more than a little WP:UNDUE in that it puts a lot of emphasis on her time with the show and is kind of told in a tabloid-esque manner. While we do cover major events in reality shows if there is coverage, we do need to be cautious in how it is written. Although that said, there's no reason to remove her middle name or her parents' names if these are in the public record, as it is the norm for Wikipedia to include this information. That can extend to the children as well, although it can be slightly different in that aspect since they are minors. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:11, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I just made some significant edits to the Real Housewives section of that article, as explained in my edit summary there. Please have a look, all. Townlake (talk) 07:24, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Looks like you beat me to it- I was about to make a similar edit. I've made an edit as well, but feel free to revert it if you like. My biggie was that the podcast shouldn't be in that section since it doesn't seem to have been done as part of TRH show. It would probably merit its own section (for the podcast as a whole), but it's not entirely accurate to put it there since it isn't run through Bravo as far as I can see. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:38, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I've done some overall cleaning of the article. I've moved the podcast to its own section- it does look to be an independent thing. I've made some small reference to the various criticisms, but I'm not going to go in overall detail about them since they didnt' get a huge-huge amount of coverage. It should pass BLP now for the most part. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:21, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

NaturalNews

Article wholly appears to have become an attack page on the website owner. A lot of the sourcing is to blogs etc. Please review and take action as appropriate. Thanks.OrangesRyellow (talk) 10:31, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with the article - it doesn't appear to be attacking the owner. I just added a non-blog citation. Where it does cite blogs it is usually posts by well-known scientists. Haminoon (talk) 11:28, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Material directly about Adams did need editing, moreover. Collect (talk) 12:33, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

It seems mostly well sourced, but needs improvement. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:55, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

The website is getting millions of hits per month, which indicates that lots of people see some good in it. But our article only seems to be demonizing the website and its owner. So, it seems we are conveying something which is against the general perception of that website and its owner. I can easily understand that a lot of people should offer criticisms on a website like that, and support noting criticisms to an extent. But it seems that we are focusing only on criticisms and turned the article into a coatrack of criticisms because we wikipedians see ourselves as enlightened folks with a duty to spread the scientific temperament, or something like that. This sentiment is laudable, but is it neutral to depict something in a demonized manner only when there are lots of people who appreciate it as well ?OrangesRyellow (talk) 05:59, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we should presume too much of the website readers - it is a popular site to "hate-read" and all the critics would have read the site. Mentioning the popularity in the lede is enough, without speculating on why people are reading it. Regards, Haminoon (talk) 06:09, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I think WP:MEDRS comes into play here. We are obligate to present health information in a way that reflects what is found in reliable sources for medical information as defined in that document. And almost everything that appears in Natural News is directly contradicted by those reliable medical sources, including but not limited to

The www.naturalnews.com/045584_natural_antibiotics_superbugs_herbal_medicine.html ^{[unreliable fringe source?]} suggestion] that one should treat one's bacterial infections with herbs instead of seeking professional medical help.
The www.naturalnews.com/047072_MMR_vaccine_autism_government_coverup.html ^{[unreliable fringe source?]} suggestion] that vaccines cause autism www.naturalnews.com/047571_vaccines_sterilization_genocide.html ^{[unreliable fringe source?]} and are contaminated] with drugs designed to sterilize African Americans
The claim that drinking hydrogen peroxide www.naturalnews.com/042577_cancer_treatment_hydrogen_peroxide_alternative_medicine.html ^{[unreliable fringe source?]} prevents cancer]

This site is a real problem, however many people may "enjoy" it, it is giving them bad healthcare information and many are likely suffering because of it. WP:MEDRS requires that we call this horseshit what it is. Formerly 98 (talk) 06:17, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

List of Magical Negro occurrences in fiction

List of Magical Negro occurrences in fiction has much the same issues as the other article on "White saviors" in movies. It presents opinion as fact and includes a long list of living people (in this case African American actors) in a negative way. Borock (talk) 14:34, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Not sure they are all "negative" but I do not personally think the topic is encyclopedic, and is not "fact based" but intrinsically "opinion based" claims about roles played by living persons, etc. Nor am I convinced that theroot.com is intrinsically a "reliable source" for any claim. Collect (talk) 14:43, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Within the context of African American tradition to say that an entertainer is pandering to racial stereotypes is very negative.Borock (talk) 15:08, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Every item in this list has a reference. We can look to see if other references mention them to make sure of their inclusion. In the case of Jim in Adventures of Huckleberry Fin, Time references the connection here. Regardless, the very topic itself is notable. It is prominent in Google Books and Google Scholar. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:01, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this is a legitimate encyclopedic topic. Many of the examples listed, however, are a stretch to fit the scholarly/cinematic definition of "magic negro". That's one of the many problems where we have editor-compiled lists like this one: they need to be constantly and consistently patrolled and maintained by the handful of editors who actually understand the nuances of the subject. That's the primary reason that I believe we should require that such list topics be amply supported by significant coverage in reliable/reputable sources, not isolated mentions of individual list items. Too many of these lists involve borderline original research and synthesis in their compilation -- and that can be a real problem for the BLPs involved. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

What exactly is "original research" here? All the items have references. In addition, WP:NOTESAL says, "Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles." It seems an appropriate limit that each item is backed by a reference that assesses the film as having this literary trope. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:22, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Let's start with I wrote, Erik. No one said that each list item had to be notable; that's a red herring. What I did say is that these types of editor-compiled lists often run into problems when they rely on marginal sources. For instance, no one with an understanding of what constitutes a "quality source" is going to say that The Onion/AV Club, TheRoot.com or TV Tropes represent reputable sources, let alone quality or scholarly sources. And, yes, the examples of Bubba Blue from Forrest Gump or the Sidney Poitier character in The Defiant Ones are a stretch to fit the definition. An article like this, which carries a measure of inherent controversy in its subject matter, is on much more solid ground when it avoids using pop culture media. Please consider carefully. There is no need to respond defensively. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:06, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I was explaining that an item does not have to be part of a preexisting list to be included here. You mentioned "borderline original research and synthesis" as if this approach cannot be taken. It can be taken, but I think we can agree that we need reliable sourcing for each item. Reviewing the article, I've made a few removals and one improvement. What do you think we should consider in terms of sourcing? I am wary about raising our standards too high because certain people have been pushing personal dislikes, as evidenced from discussions at white savior narrative in film and its recent AfD, even when the sourcing is of the highest quality. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:25, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Dorothy_King

I know she has asked in the past for her page to be deleted as she does not think she is notable enough.

Having seen the things people have written, and the really unpleasant edits constantly made mostly recently by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/91.180.48.239 I can understand why.

Who cares that she was not in Playboy? Neither were 99.99999999% of women, and including this suggests female academics should not have any value other than her breasts.

Also since she wrote recently she was 41, she clearly was not born in 1975.

Who cares re "being too old to expose her wrinkled curves."? Why write that? Are women of no value over a certain age? And who says she does expose herself or wants to? Every photograph in the press I have seen, she is perfectly modestly dressed?

The editor thinks her book is "controversial"? And his source is an obscure blog with a very one track opinion on the issue. For god's sake even Mother Teresa had critics, everyone does, but is Wikipedia the place for them?

I do not even know what to make of the claim she "is a self-proclaimed" archaeologist. I've seen her at conferences at Oxford and Athens and all over, and she seems to be accepted as one by her peers, and to have given lectures at the Courtauld, several museums, colleges, etc. That and several heavy historians thanking her for help with their books surely is a better source than one angry person in Belgium?

The talk section baffled me with the claim she sued people; actually it was Gillian McKeith who treatened to sue her over libel, and was quite a large cause celebre in the UK, if anyone Googles it, Ben Goldacre covered it in the Guardian and in his book Bad Science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.144.185.140 (talk) 19:58, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I checked the article and in its current state, it is a stub with basic info. There are some concerns about notability, which could be addressed in talk or through an WP:AFD if needed be. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:43, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Tim Laudner

The last paragraph about Laudner's playing career is filled with too many "woulds", such as "Laudner would be/have/return" instead of just saying "Laudner was/Laudner returned". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.2.72.168 (talk) 00:46, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Joshua Clover

I have been trying to improve this Joshua Clover entry, which had a lot of problems and was spottily or incorrectly sourced. It seems, however, that the subject of the entry--Joshua Clover--is editing the entry. He uses a variety of pseudonyms, including Janedark and, most recently, Janeplain.

In a 2007 exchange with another editor, recorded in the "talk" section of his entry, Janedark says, "I won't edit this page, as it has been explained to me that this would be poor form." But Janeplain is now doing just that. As you can see from one of the most recent edits by Janeplain, Joshua Clover sometimes writes under the pseudonym Jane Dark. Here is what Janeplain added to the Joshua Clover entry:

"Under the pseudonym "Jane Dark," Clover has written a number of film and music reviews for various outlets."

The main issue right now is that Jane/Clover keeps taking out reference to the fact that he studied with Jorie Graham while at the Iowa Writers' Workshop. I don't know why this is being taken out, since Jorie Graham is a notable American poet and Jorie Graham is also quoted earlier in the entry saying very positive things about Clover's poetry.

Thank you for looking into this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JCBerkeley (talk • contribs) 06:28, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

You're not Mr. Clover, but you're impersonating him with your username? I think this warrants an ANI report. Afronig (talk) 08:49, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't know what that means. That I should make a report? I don't know where to do that. I'm just trying to get some help. Is it acceptable for subjects to edit their own entries? My additions to the Joshua Clover entry are factual and plainly stated with ample citations and yet the subject keeps taking them out and saying they're irrelevant. Thank you for your help.JCBerkeley (talk) 18:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I have been on the wikipedia since 2002 and have been a Wikipedia Ambassador at UC Berkeley. I do not have a vested interest in the Joshua Clover page per se except that I have been informed by several people IRL that JCBerkeley is a pseudonym used by the estranged father of Joshua Clover and the edits are a form of harrassment. The Joshua Clover entry is the only entry JCBerkeley seems interested in editing and he has used other pseudonyms in the past to edit the page. It's an ongoing problem and I have no idea how to solve it when the dispute is a family matter. I know the user who calls herself Janeplain and she is not related to either. Thanks Saudade7 06:08, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello Saudade7: Thank you for your note. I am not Joshua Clover's father. I do not know him. Nor have I edited the entry before, using other usernames. As a Wikipedia Ambassador, do you have thoughts about whether subjects should edit their own entries, as Clover is here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JCBerkeley (talk • contribs) 16:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Katrina Kaif

If anyone has some time, going through to de-gossip page Katrina Kaif would be appreciated. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:50, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Stitches (rapper)

page is totally inaccurate — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.136.26.41 (talk) 20:54, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

It was also entirely unsourced, and I've accordingly removed almost all the content. Given the lack of evidence that this individual meets Wikipedia notability guidelines, I've also proposed it for deletion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:06, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

List of state and local political scandals in the United States

[20] with the edit summary scandal implies immorality and/or impropriety, illegality is not required. There is certainly enough notability re-adding people who were mentioned but not implicated in any illegal activity.

The lead of that list states: A good guideline is whether or not an action is, or appears to be, illegal. Since everyone, particularly a politician, is expected to be law abiding, breaking the law is, by definition, a scandal. The finding of a court with jurisdiction is the sole method used to determine a violation of law—though not all scandals reach a court.

I rather think that implying anything remotely illegal or improper requires stronger sourcing than "someone mentioned them." [21] is an insufficient source for saying " Christie's Deputy Chief of Staff was fired" in a list of people involved in scandals - noting that the NYT piece stops well short of that claim.

Nor does [22] make claims sufficient to say "Christie's No. 2 appointee at the Port Authority — who attended high school with Christie — also resigned" as a link to a "scandal". And so on.

Lists of "people in scandals" is not a carte blanche of being able to shame people who have not been implicated in anything illegal as far as any legal claims are concerned, in my opinion. I invite others to determine whether that list should be restricted to those who have been actually implicated in any illegal acts, not just any vague "scandal" where the investigations so far do not make implications that these people violated laws. Other opinions? Collect (talk) 22:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

If something is illegal, that might well be sufficient to be scandalous for a politician -- but I do see the point that it might not be necessary. Something could well be a scandal even if not illegal. As with other elements of Wikipedia, what matters is how it is treated in reliable sources: if it is commonly referred to as a scandal, then that's how it should be portrayed here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:42, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Where a person is a relatively minor functionary (not an elected official), investigation reports have been released, and those reports do not accuse the person of any crime, ought a list of scandals then in Wikipedia's voice implicate that person as though she had committed a crime? This is not about deleting all information about something which has been called a "scandal" but about whether we link people to it who have not been alleged to have committed a crime and who are not elected officials. Collect (talk) 23:13, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Breitbart (website)

Currently has a section on an article from that site which mistakenly conflated two Loretta Lynches.

The writer of the article is identified by name, which I rather think means claims about his writing fall under WP:BLP

Two editors are changing:

On November 8, 2014, Breitbart.com posted an article headlined "Obama's attorney general nominee Loretta Lynch represented Clintons during Whitewater." The article, written by Warner Todd Huston, said that Loretta Lynch, President Barack Obama's nominee for attorney general, had been part of Bill Clinton's defense team during the Whitewater scandal. The two Lynches are, in fact, different people. After this mistake was publicized, Breitbart initially did not withdraw the story, but rather posted a correction which noted that the two Lynches were different people. This correction was criticized by several media outlets.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]The New York Times editorial page editor Andrew Rosenthal noted, "The appended correction didn’t really do justice to the scope of the misidentification."^[3] Breitbart deleted the story from its website.

To:

On November 8, 2014, Breitbart.com posted an article headlined "Obama's attorney general nominee Loretta Lynch represented Clintons during Whitewater." The article, written by Warner Todd Huston, said that Loretta Lynch, President Barack Obama's nominee for attorney general, had been part of Bill Clinton's defense team during the Whitewater scandal. The article was untrue, as the two Lynches are, in fact, different people. After this mistake was publicized, Breitbart initially did not withdraw the story, but rather posted a correction which noted that the two Lynches were different people. This correction was criticized by several media outlets.^[5]^[2]^[3] PolitiFact rated the claim "Pants on Fire" and noted that the false claim had "already spread to other conspiracy, opinion and conservative news websites," as an example of how fast false information can spread on the Internet^[4] The New York Times editorial page editor Andrew Rosenthal noted, "The appended correction didn’t really do justice to the scope of the misidentification."^[3] Breitbart deleted the story from its website.

The section already states that there are two Loretta Lynches, but the addition of "The article was untrue" is SYNTH as placed in the revision, implying a deliberate untruth from a living person. The Politifact article is specifically about the spreading of the story, and has nothing to do with the original error by a living person, other than to be used to imply that no article ever written for Breitbart is true at all (editors saying the website has a 100% "Pants on Fire" rating as a website)[23] Media Matters has a 100% "True" rating while Breitbart.com has a 100% "Pants of Fire" rating , The RS standard isn't "just as bad as this arbitrary set of examples", the standard is a reputation for factchecking and accuracy. It's clear from the evidence linked above and the 100% Pants on Fire rating from Politifact that it has the opposite reputation. Gamaliel (talk) 16:48, 24 December 2014 (UTC) , scroll above to see the links offered by TRDOD and the discussion of the 100% Pants on Fire rating from Politifact. Gamaliel (talk) 16:08, 25 December 2014 (UTC), etc. The NYT cite is now used twice for a single paragraph, seemingly only to criticize the original correction, but which has little to do with the actual article. The main point is that since we mention a specific living person, the entire section must conform to WP:BLP and the use of SYNTH to make an implicit statement that the author deliberately wrote a falsehood is a contentious claim under WP:BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

References

^ Dustin Levy and Katie Takacs (November 12, 2014). "2 Amusing Corrections and a Confession on Common Mistakes". American Journalism Review.
^ ^a ^b Breitbart News attacked the wrong Loretta Lynch . McDonald, Soraya Nadia. The Washington Post, 10 November 2014
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d No Comment Necessary: The Wrong Loretta Lynch. Rosenthal, Andrew. The New York Times, 10 November 2014
^ ^a ^b Breitbart gets the wrong Loretta Lynch in Whitewater claim. Sharockman, Aaron. PolitiFact, 10 November 2014
^ Dustin Levy and Katie Takacs (November 12, 2014). "2 Amusing Corrections and a Confession on Common Mistakes". American Journalism Review.

A statement that the article in question is "untrue" or "false" does not in any way state or imply that the untruth and falsehood was deliberate. The English language simply doesn't work that way.

Nor is it in any way SYNTH to state that the article is untrue or false, as a wide number of reliable sources, helpfully linked here, directly state that the article was substantially false. The New York Times and PolitiFact (published by the Tampa Bay Times) are indisputable reliable sources and their discussion of the article's falsity (and what it may say about the publication's journalistic reputation) are highly relevant. Collect's statement that editors saying the website has a 100% "Pants on Fire" rating as a website is a non sequitur as no such language appears in the article, nor has any editor proposed to insert such language into the article. It is an accusation fabricated from whole cloth. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:24, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't see this as a BLP issue. "The article was untrue" is not the same as "the author lied". That said, the wording is a little awkward. Rather than say that "the article was untrue", perhaps it could say "The article incorrectly stated that Loretta Lynch, President Barack Obama's nominee for attorney general, had been part of Bill Clinton's defense team...".- Mr X 21:32, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Makes sense, and I've applied that suggestion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:35, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with NorthBySouthBaranof that "untrue" does not mean or imply that the author consciously lied. The incident indicates a serious failure in fact-checking and detracts further from the website's already poor reputation for reliability. I also agree that MrX's wording is better. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:45, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree as well that there is no BLP problem here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:31, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

"Untrue" does not equal "a lie", and even if it were a lie, if the content is properly sourced, we can use it. BLP does not prevent properly sourced information, claims, and opinions from being used. When in doubt, just attribute the content. Breitbart as a person (now deceased), his friends, and his website, have been exposed as deliberate fabricators of lies many times. They were willing to "punk" opponents all the time, and they were caught with their pants down. That source is good for documenting its own opinions in its own article here, and that's about it. It's beyond dubious. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:12, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Collect, your over the top exaggerations really destroy your credibility. Here's the actual statement: "PolitiFact rated the claim "Pants on Fire"". The "claim" was rated, not the "website". I agree with NorthBySouthBaranof, who wrote: "Collect's statement that editors saying the website has a 100% "Pants on Fire" rating as a website is a non sequitur as no such language appears in the article, nor has any editor proposed to insert such language into the article. It is an accusation fabricated from whole cloth."

Based on that, I suggest this dubious thread be closed and Collect be warned and possibly topic banned. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you look at RS/N On Politifact Breitbart.com appears with a 100% "Pants on Fire" rating [24], [25] Media Matters has a 100% "True" rating while Breitbart.com has a 100% "Pants of Fire" rating , The RS standard isn't "just as bad as this arbitrary set of examples", the standard is a reputation for factchecking and accuracy. It's clear from the evidence linked above and the 100% Pants on Fire rating from Politifact that it has the opposite reputation. Gamaliel (talk) 16:48, 24 December 2014 (UTC) , scroll above to see the links offered by TRDOD and the discussion of the 100% Pants on Fire rating from Politifact. Gamaliel (talk) 16:08, 25 December 2014 (UTC), etc. The editors made the comments I said they made - and no one can gainsay that fact. Kindly note the actual statements before leaping off a cliff <g> Collect (talk) 01:36, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I can see how confusion might reign when you take informal and ambiguous language on a talk page (it doesn't have to mean what you think) to object to actual content on the article. An objection to the actual content would have gotten you nowhere. I guess we're objecting to your attempt to conflate the two. You'd make a good employee at Breitbart, because that's a typical tactic of theirs. It's a straw man argument you're making, and we're not buying it.

Since you are obfuscating by objecting to your critics' comments, rather than dealing with the actual content (thus getting into forbidden violations of TALK), how about discussing the actual content? We'll do that with you, otherwise we won't play your word games. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:54, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I was accused of lying. I cited the actual comments. Cheers -- Breitbart was accused of doing essentially the opposite of what I did, and I would make a hell of a poor liar on such stuff. The other editors agreed to remove the individual's name (which was where the major BLP issue was) and we already agreed not to use a comedy show as a source. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:59, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Your objection to using The Colbert Report is a bit ironic, since it has won many awards for telling the truth better than actual news agencies and politicians. Why? Because it is serious satire, IOW using comedy to tell the truth, unlike Fox News, where they present GOP propaganda and lies with a straight face. They use different tactics to get their messages across, but never make the mistake of thinking that Colbert wasn't a deep thinker or telling profound truths. Fox is Roger Ailes creation to publicize GOP policies and act as an unofficial GOP media arm. Look at his history, his previous position in the GOP, and his declared reason for starting Fox News. It's no secret, except to its fanbase. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:14, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

My political slant is far more labile than yours is - I accept positions from everyone from the Trotskyites to the ISIL (who are basically Mahdi supporters reborn in the 21st century) as being of interest to readers here - eliding those one does not agree with is, last I looked, not embodied in any policy here. Nor ought it be. Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:23, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

The BLP claim here, insofar as it is comprehensible, seems extremely weak. As best I can tell, Breitbart published something untrue (not exactly an isolated occurrence); reliable secondary sources covered Breitbart's error (and lackluster response); and we use these reliable sources to describe the incident. It looks like Wikipedia 101 to me, but maybe I'm missing something. What exactly is the supposed BLP violation here? Could Collect attempt to describe it more concisely and coherently? MastCell ^Talk 06:23, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Snark noted. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:01, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

None was intended. I'm trying to be direct. As an experienced editor and admin, I see no evidence of any BLP violation here. You presumably do. I'm trying to understand the basis for your concern. As I found your original post rambling and unclear, I am asking you in good faith to clarify. If you prefer not to do so, then just say so, rather than being evasive. MastCell ^Talk 23:25, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

[1] ttp://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/how-illridewithyou-began-with-rachael-jacobs-experience-on-a-brisbane-train-20141216-128205.html

[2] Dustin Levy and Katie Takacs (November 12, 2014). "2 Amusing Corrections and a Confession on Common Mistakes". American Journalism Review.

[WaPoLynch-3] Breitbart News attacked the wrong Loretta Lynch . McDonald, Soraya Nadia. The Washington Post, 10 November 2014

[NYTLynch-4] No Comment Necessary: The Wrong Loretta Lynch. Rosenthal, Andrew. The New York Times, 10 November 2014

[PolitiFact-5] Breitbart gets the wrong Loretta Lynch in Whitewater claim. Sharockman, Aaron. PolitiFact, 10 November 2014

[6] Dustin Levy and Katie Takacs (November 12, 2014). "2 Amusing Corrections and a Confession on Common Mistakes". American Journalism Review.

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]