Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.
Shortcuts WP:BLPN WP:BLP/N WP:BLPNB WP:BLP/NB This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input. Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem. Search this noticeboard & archives Sections older than 7 days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. Additional notes: Edits by the subject of an article may be welcome in some cases. For general content disputes regarding biographical articles, try Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies instead. Editors are encouraged to assist editors regarding the reports below. Administrators may impose contentious topic restrictions to enforce policies.

What is regarded as best practice when a contentious BLP has no English-language sources? The above is sourced entirely to Portuguese-language newspapers and websites. I can't tell how notable they are. Some of the claims seem to be correct (the man was charged with some form of organized crime), but others are convoluted and involve other members of his family, some of whom have complained, including during an AfD last year—these posts, for example, are from someone who says he's the subject's grandson.

My preference would be to stub it down and request English sources, but having looked on Google there don't appear to be any, so it would probably remain a stub. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:09, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you posted it at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pages_needing_translation_into_English ? This is a good place to find foreign language-fluent editors for clean up, even when the article is already in English. Jonathanwallace (talk) 23:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a perennial problem. Foreign language sources are (all other things being equal) no less reliable than English language sources. However, the only quality control wikipedia has (and thus the only protection as subject has from libels) is the ability of one editor to check the accuracy of what another has submitted. That doesn't always happen anyway, but where the source is less-accessible either because it is foreign language or offline or hard to get, the chances of anyone being able and willing to do that are significantly reduced. It can be done, but mostly it won't. Personally, I think we should insist on reliable english on-line sources for all negative BLP material, but that's going to be a hard fight to win.--Scott Mac 23:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to both of you. A family member has now turned up on the talk page objecting to various points. I think we should try to change the BLP policy on this, because it's not only a question of checking that the source says what we claim it says (which can be checked, sort of, using Google Translate). It's also checking that the source is a high quality one, and that the story is carefully written, and these are nuances we can't be expected to recognize for non-English sources. Having to arrange for a knowledgeable translator who's familiar with these issues is very time-consuming, so most editors understandably won't want to do it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

100% agree. If you need any support in trying to change things, let me know.--Scott Mac 22:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. I'll try to put something brief together and give you a shout. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sympathetic with the potential problems and issues, but I don't think the answer is to insist on online English-language material for all negative material. I am, for example, fluent in French, and well able judge newspaper quality issues in that language. Sometimes the best sources are in a foreign language, one that many editors know well. Unsurprisingly perhaps, the best sources about Klaas Carel Faber, convicted Dutch war criminal, are in Dutch and German. I agree that that the article listed above is problematic, with absolutely no English sources available or provided. But I think tightening of policy needs to be carefully directed to the core problem here, rather than to hamstring bilingual editors writing about notable subjects, where the detail and perhaps the best sources are mainly available in another language. --Slp1 (talk) 22:57, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A more flexible approach that still addresses the problem might be to insist that if negative BLP material is cited to non-English or offline sources, it must first be verified by someone other than the contributor of the material before it is allowed to remain. For non-English sources, the person verifying it should be fluent enough in the language to speak confidently about the quality of the source and the accuracy of its use in the article. Material based on sources not yet verified should be moved to the talk page, and maybe a notification template and/or noticeboard can be crafted to alert interested editors that their language skills or access to offline sources are needed. alanyst ^/talk/ 23:25, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's worth considering, Alan, though it wouldn't necessarily help in a situation where we have partisan editing going on, and where other accounts could arrive to confirm the contents. Slp, what would you suggest? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it could be gamed with false verifications by partisan editors. But, so long as the rule is framed as a necessary but not sufficient condition for use of the source, that might not be a fatal flaw. Concerned editors could seek additional verification from non-partisans, or challenge the source on other grounds as appropriate. alanyst ^/talk/ 23:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It raises the questions: "best sources" for what purpose? I agree that the best sources for writing articles are not necessarily English language, and not necessarily easily accessible to the reader. I'd agree that the best sources for pointing the reader to may well be specialist, particularly if the article implies a specialist knowledge. However, there is also the question of Quality Control. In a print encyclopedia this is given by the author who is named and responsible. The reader is invited to trust the author - who has put his professional reputation behind all facts asserted. Wikipedia has anonymous and (largely) unaccountable authors, so the only Quality control we have is "crowd sourced fact-checking". That's hit and miss as it is. But if the source can only be checked by the small minority of Wikipedians fluent that language, knowledgeable in the reliability of sources in that language, and having access to those sources, then our Quality control is almost non-existent. I don't think anyone wishes to disallow foreign language sources, however is isn't unreasonable to say that if we are making negative claims about a living person, we need to have sources that can reasonably be checked by the limited quality control we have. I doubt that an application of this would exclude much that's not of marginal notability anyway.--Scott Mac 23:35, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't agree with that last comment, which, you'll forgive me for saying so, seems to imply a rather anglo-centric view for a global encyclopedia. I have been sourcing unreferenced Canadian BLPs, and unsurprisingly as a bilingual country, have found articles about notable subjects which it would be impossible to source without using French sources. Here's one from today, François Labbé. Luckily to date most (all?) has been uncontroversial biographical stuff, but what if a negative thing or two had emerged? It doesn't seem right to institutionalize "positive" material only such situations. As mentioned above, the English language sources for Klaas Carel Faber's life are very limited, and even contradictory, as compared to sources in Dutch/German. English media very often does not cover non-English, or especially non-Western subjects well at all. As a project aiming to provide encyclopedic coverage of notable subjects in all countries and cultures, I couldn't support a policy that would forbid the inclusion of well-sourced information from non-English sources, nor, incidentally from offline ones, since these may be the most accurate and even least "biased" sources available.

Having said that I totally agree with the necessity of verifiability and quality control, and clearly see the problems that foreign language/offline sources create most particularly in BLPs. Some possible solutions to ease the fact-checking and prevent damage: require the foreign language/offline source for negative material to be quoted as part of the citation in its original language (just like translated quotes are required to be); per Analyst, permit any editor to remove negative BLP material cited to foreign language/offline, with the requirement that it can only be replaced if it has been verified by an independent editor contacted via Wikipedia:Translators available or babel boxes (for languages- not sure exactly how to manage this for offline sources). --Slp1 (talk) 16:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should stand on principle when it comes to BLPs, Slp. We have to be practical. Yes, we want to be a global encyclopedia using the best sources. But we can't judge whether they're the best sources if they're all written in Icelandic. Finding editors who can, or trying to muddle along ourselves, is incredibly time-consuming, so it doesn't get done. And it's not as if we don't have a multitude of other-language WPs where editors are in a position to check. It's arguably anglo-centric to assume that everything in the world must be on this Wikipedia, even if almost no one can make head or tail of the sources, but where we're nevertheless accusing living persons of serious crimes.

Having said that I do think your suggestions have merit, though remember that it's not only about getting a translation, but also being in a position to judge how good the source is. Someone who's learned Spanish in school may not be able to tell us which are the best Spanish-language newsapers. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the list at Wikipedia:Translators available, many volunteers (including the Icelandic ones!!) are native speakers who likely would be able to offer insight into multiple aspects of a foreign language source. (BTW, I wonder if User:Husond would be able to help you with verifying the Portuguese verification, since he is a native speaker- and there are others if needed). And I would certainly agree that unless and until it is possible to engage an independent fluent speaker to verify material, most especially if it is about serious crimes etc, then out it should go. Perhaps it is because I live in Montreal and know so many people who are fluently bilingual-bicultural that I think finding people for most language verification wouldn't be so very arduous.

I would argue that I am being practical: the article that has sparked this discussion makes very serious allegations, is very long, and contains many sources in a language that relatively few WP editors speak as a first or second language. As such, it seems something of an extreme case, and hard cases make bad law. I would be loath to see major policy changes, such as forbidding the use of such non-English sources, springing from it. Lesser changes such as those suggested above, would, I believe, also have the desired effect. Slp1 (talk) 18:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to come up with wording for a proposed change to BLP that takes into account what you say, and which perhaps only strongly encourages English sources. I'll ping you when I've written something, because I want to have a think about it first. Thanks for letting me know about Husond. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Slp1 here; hard cases make bad law. BLP concerns are paramount, but it is also very important that we do not discriminate against foreign language sources. Portuguese-speaking editors are listed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:User_pt -- I am sure there will be some admins and familiar names among those listed there. Perhaps it would make sense to form a WikiProject for checking contentious BLPs where editors with language skills make themselves available for verifying BLPs with foreign-language sources. --JN466 13:12, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am Brazilian and I am fluent in Portuguese and English. I have been working with Don on the article Castor de Andrade. I can verify and translate sources, if needed. Best regards, Idontknow610^TM 21:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Objection to stubbify the article

I object to the unilateral decision by SlimVirgen to stubbify the article about Antonio Petrus Kalil. The deletion of most of the article is made by someone who, by her own admission, does not even speak Portuguese. As such she is not qualified to judge the article. I think the decision should not have been taken before a Portuguese speaking editor could have had a look at it and assess if the article reflect the sources. I fail to understand the sudden rush. I request a re-assessment of the decision by neutral admins. - DonCalo (talk) 19:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If material is questioned, we remove it until we can be sure it is safe. Here, the right thing to do is to remove it until we've had a Portuguese speaker verify it - not to leave it in place until one turns up. The principle is sound. If questioned, remove until there is certainty.--Scott Mac 19:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The BLP policy requires us to err on the side of caution. It would be more harmful in real-world terms if the material in the article violated BLP and it were left in, than if it did not violate BLP and were removed. Material cited to foreign language sources that have not been independently verified by a proficient speaker should, in my opinion, be omitted from the article until such verification occurs. I'm sure if a Portuguese speaker with a good understanding of BLP can verify the material against the sources, there should be no problem with re-adding it. I support SlimVirgin's actions given the circumstances, and would equally support restoring the material once it's been verified. alanyst ^/talk/ 19:32, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice if someone who does not belong to the inner circle of SlimVirgin would look at the case with a neutral point of view. - DonCalo (talk) 20:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fit that qualification, actually. We've had very little direct interaction. alanyst ^/talk/ 20:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Agree with the action of SlimVirgin, once the material is verified it will be very easy to return it to the article, on the other hand if it is not ok there could be serious damage done to the subject by leaving it in the article. J04n(talk page) 20:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) That's not what's happening here, Don. The people who respond to this board are editors with a particular interest in BLPs. Your version of the article is only 800 words long, so that won't take long to rebuild. The point of asking you to do that is to emphasize that each sentence has to be well-sourced and must not deviate from the source. It's easier to rebuild from that perspective, than for other editors to try to search for problematic sentences where the sourcing is so unclear. Also, you've had a lot of time to do this—at least since the AfD in September 2009, where the same concerns were raised—but you've taken a passive approach to it, not changing things until multiple editors have pointed them out.

What would be helpful is a pro-active anticipation of the points other editors might find contentious, and a willingness to source and write those points very clearly so they can withstand scrutiny. The burden of evidence always lies with the editor who wants to add or restore material, particularly with BLPs. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Objection to unnecessary page protection

OK, so I now commit to the growing consensus that the article has to be rebuild, I start rebuilding – adding as much English language sources as possible and adding Portuguese quotes and translations of those quotes, as well as summaries of articles by another editor (see this edit) – and SlimVirgin protects the page from editing, arguing that it first needs be done in a draft version hidden from the general audience. I completely disagree. The rebuilding is better done in the open than in some backward page nobody can find. I request unprotection of the article. - DonCalo (talk) 17:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you to start rebuilding it at Talk:Antonio Petrus Kalil/draft, making sure everything is sourced very clearly, with no ambiguities. I did that precisely so that it's not on public view immediately. Instead, you started rebuilding on the main page, again with reference to murders, where at least one of the sources doesn't say exactly what you said (see the talk page). At this point, Don, you're creating a lot of work for several people, when the onus is 100 percent on you to produce a BLP that's crystal clear in its sourcing and writing, and where you err on the side of caution when it comes to the very serious allegations.

Please rebuild the article on the draft page, and get consensus from the editor who has been complaining. If there are issues that the two of you can't agree on, then other editors can be asked to comment. Once that's done, the consensus material can be moved back into article space. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuilding the article in the draft would make it very difficult for other editors to be engaged. It is impossible to reach consensus with somebody who wants me blocked editing this page, who thinks that a judge is an unreliable source and thinks academic studies are biased and should be removed. In the new version everything is even more referenced than in the old one. You don't understand the subject, you cannot read Portuguese and you make it impossible to edit this article. You seem to have quite a reputation to uphold in harrassing editors you don't like. I am wasting my time here. - DonCalo (talk) 17:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some editors (IPs and user accounts) have been repeatedly removing and readding the IMDB link, which is an acceptable link to add to various articles on voice actors, to the Rachael Lillis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article at various times since late 2007. Today, one such removal can be found here, but I have swiftly reverted the IP who has removed it. Can someone please look into this external link issue? Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 14:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, its not really a BLP issue, more minor vandalistic type unexplained removal, just keep it on your watchlist only 3 in 3 years is not so bad to revert. I had a look and one possible issue is that there is a nine year age difference between our article and the IMDB article and someone might not like that - just my thought. The article is basically uncited although we know who she is and that she has a bit of note, it would help if someone could find an independent report about her in at least one wiki RS. Off2riorob (talk) 15:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I know it is not a BLP issue, but I wanted to bring this up. The IPs and user accounts who have removed it in the history section might be an IP hopper based in New York City in my opinion. Today, another IP from the same user removed it yet again, but it was swiftly reverted. It would also help if someone could watchlist this page for such removals like these. By the way, would this reference help clarify the birthdate issue? Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 14:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Today, this link was removed again by another IP from the same user, but I reverted it yet again. I have already added Filmreference.com for the birthdate source earlier, since no one had answered. Can someone please watchlist this article in case there are any IMDB link removals? Thanks in advance, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 14:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article text of List of Hispanic and Latino Americans includes the slightly strange paragraph:

Note: Only people who have biographies at Wikipedia should be included on this list. Reliable sources are optional (for now) when including people belonging to any of the above-listed groups, but are required for others. Thus, for an American who has Spanish ancestry, but was born (for example) in Germany or the Philippines, it should be shown that he or she self-identifies as a Hispanic or Latino American. No flags should accompany the names—the flags currently in the article are in process of removal. This list may be incomplete.

Presumably this note should be hidden from view so that it's only visible when editing the list, but it seems to be openly encouraging the flouting of BLP policy. Unsurprisingly, the list itself is pretty much unsourced. Any views on what should be done here? Cordless Larry (talk) 10:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks pretty much like the earlier lists. Probably the same thing should happen. John lilburne (talk) 11:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The whole list is kind of silly since Hispanic people make up such a large part of the US population. What's next a list of "German Germans"? Steve Dufour (talk) 13:30, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is crap, and a direct violation of BLP policy which explicitly states that such lists require sourcing (actually, I think that all lists require sourcing anyway). In principle, it would be perfectly correct to simply delete any unsourced inclusion of a living person, but a better procedure might be to move them to the talk page, as was recently done here: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#British_ethnicity_lists. Frankly, the list is so long that it is worthless anyway, to anyone but the ethnoboosters. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moved as was done here: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#British_ethnicity_lists. John lilburne (talk) 20:49, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for dealing with it. If anyone has time to fix some more, plenty of the lists in Category:Lists of American people by ethnic or national origin suffer from the same problem. I'll try to get around to removing unsourced entries from them, but I'm being kept busy by the British ethnicity lists and articles right now. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, an editor has chosen to repeatedly revert this list to it's unsourced state, without giving an adequate reason to do so, even while apparently accepting that is in breach of policy (see the talk page). At this point I think it may be as well to ask for further input. Any thoughts? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have now raised this issue at AN/I: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#A_dispute_at_List_of_Hispanic_and_Latino_Americans. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed

Many of the facts on her info box are unsourced, such as weight and measurements.

• Avoid victimization
• Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy.

Considering she was underage when these films were made and considers herself a victim of child sexual exploitation, it would seem that the use of the 'adult film star' biographical template violates this 'conservative' principle. It also violates the 'POV' and 'no original research', since claiming that she is an 'adult film star' is a bit of a stretch.

Decora (talk) 16:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sympathetic to the first part of this, but Lords did make an adult movie as an adult. Dayewalker (talk) 22:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Measurments are sourced here http://www.adultfilmdatabase.com/actor.cfm?actorid=19201 . But I agree that the template is wrong. Especially, as the template uses the words "No. of adult films", which really ought to be "No. of pornographic films" in this case so as to not be misleading... Furthermore, this is a case of childhood sexual abuse and exploitation. There are thousands of Adult film stars. She is not notable for her single film as an 18 year old. She is notable for the exploitation case, and maybe for her B movie acting career... Tim.thelion (talk) 12:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given the subject matter, I think this article needs to be much better sourced all round and some care to be taken over what is included. For example, it includes the unsourced information that Lords' underage movies are available on the internet, which might be taken as an advert for illegal porn. --FormerIP (talk) 12:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The page has a lot of wrong information about Mohamed Salim AL Awa, Al Awa spend his life fighting for the minority rights, Christians, Baha'is,.... the post cut some of his speech from the middle and miss you use, plus Al Awa was always against terrorist activities all his books, speech , interviews shows that. http://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%85%D8%AD%D9%85%D8%AF_%D8%B3%D9%84%D9%8A%D9%85_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D9%88%D8%A7 http://www.el-awa.com/new/PlayVideo.php?VideoID=142 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mglil7 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for raising this issue. I have removed a variety of poorly sourced and unsourced negative statements about Mohammed Salim Al-Awa from the article. (Coincidentally, this has turned the article back into a very short stub.) I think allegations of this nature need, at the very least, a single source in English to support them. The one source in English that was cited as supposedly backing up the allegations, didn't even mention the guy's name.

Perhaps you could add some additional biographical information to the article, if you have reliable sources available (especially in English)?

It would also be good for the article to be consistent as to whether he is called Mohammed Salim Al-Awa or Mohammad Selim El-Awa. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removed some OR bullshit about link to a recent bombing. But could someone check the arabic sources being used, according to google translate they vaguely check out, but needs someone who can actually read them.--Misarxist 13:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To Arabic speakers: In this case, DO NOT be afraid to edit the article! Even if you do not speak English well. We are VERY HAPPY to correct your English for you/help you improve. Tim.thelion (talk) 13:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that means you'll be doing this, Tim. Meanwhile, I see the edit Misarxist has been replaced. I've removed it again to be on the safe said, and if it keeps being added I'll protect the page until it's sorted - contact me on my talk page if I miss something. Dougweller (talk) 15:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've had to revert the material again, I've given the editor a 3RR warning (they are at 4RR now IIRC. Dougweller (talk) 16:57, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just added the article to my watchlist :D Tim.thelion (talk) 22:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time to read them now, but there are is no lack of English sourcing on this subject: http://www.google.cz/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=Copts+Awa Tim.thelion (talk) 22:43, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just sugested this page be merged with the subjects that he is famous for commenting on. What do you guys think ? Tim.thelion (talk) 01:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tempted to take this straight to AFD, but thought some discussion here first might be helpful. The article seems to me just an excuse to record tabloid tittle-tattle and a, whole lot of "it has been reported" stuff. Read through it. Should this exist?

"Reporters from Holmes's hometown have wished that they would "just go away", but also stress that they know it will not happen" WTF?

"It was reported" and variants seem to breach WP:WEASEL

Thoughts. --Scott Mac 22:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's current form should be redirected to WP:WEASEL/Worst Example and any actual information should be copied into a stub titled Operah Winfrey Tom Cruise Couch Jump Excuse the humor... Tim.thelion (talk) 22:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Putting aside the larger issue, the sentence you (Scott) quoted does not even conform to the (lousy) source. First, it's not reporterS plural, it's just one reporter. Second, it's not clear that the reporter is referring to Tom and Katie "going away" - it's such drivel it's not clear what she's saying at all, but my interpretation of it is that she's saying that she wishes the news about Tom and Katie would go away. Anyway, for those reasons - and for so many others - I'd remove the sentence and the (lousy) source.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some day — after we've managed to destroy all life on Earth — some intelligent beings will happen upon this rock and discover a single Wikimedia server hard drive. It's troubling to ponder that this article may occupy the only sectors recoverable. Not that it would matter much to us at that point. But, perhaps it will be a warning to other galactic creatures that wish to avoid the fate that became us. jæs (talk) 00:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the first sentence you quoted as it wasn't what the source said. In terms of the article: there is a lot of verifiable information available, probably enough to write an article (rather than just a section in their respective articles). But a lot of this information has little notability, and comes from sources of dubious quality. You could try AfD (again) but I wouldn't be surprised if it survived. Trebor (talk) 01:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like that earlier deletion debate was significantly disrupted by canvassing, which may or may not have ultimately impacted the outcome. (The closing administrator counted all of the delete !votes as one, since all were strategically "invited" to the discussion by the nominator. The closing administrator also indicated the content of the keep arguments was more persuasive. I can't say I agree, but I digress.) Perhaps another debate would be appropriate, although it would be difficult to predict what consensus would be at this point.

I generally think the "forking" of articles, especially biographies of living persons, in this way is potentially harmful. The more clicks you get away from the main article, the fewer eyes you generally have analyzing changes for wp:blp trouble. The reliably sourced content could easily — and more appropriately — be accommodated within the respective biographies. Just my 2^¢. jæs (talk) 02:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say the article is a complete loss: it reminded me to look up portmanteau (IRL, I recently heard that it was Lewis Carroll who created that term, and wanted to read more). I am now watching the article. Johnuniq (talk) 03:29, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Add that a good portion of the links don't work, which is a good sign as to how much import the reliable source put on the article. What's the section on the kid doing in there, what value does that have? John lilburne (talk) 10:11, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should we have an article on the Relationship of George Washington and Martha Washington? :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 14:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AfD2 is the place for this. The previous one was in 2008, and I think our standards for material such as this have become more properly discriminating. It's useless to speculate whether thiswould be kept, when we can find out directly. DGG ( talk ) 16:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that this is problematic, and I've almost redirected it in the past to Tom Cruise. It's particularly unfortunate that the baby's birth certificate is discussed and linked to, in violation of BLP. There's a secondary source, but it's not clear what it's saying. In fact, I think I'll remove that section now if it's still there. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the paragraphs with weasel words. They all reffed to this article [1] which is from a fairly small paper anyway, and they often generalised one example from said article into the collective group ("the media...", "gossip magazine editors..."). Trebor (talk) 22:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I've gone ahead and redirected the page to the personal life section of Tom Cruise. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for dealing with this. Any thoughts on Brangelina? It looks like Bennifer has already been redirected, though. jæs (talk) 00:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not one I've looked at before, but I think I'd say of all of them that they should be merged and redirected. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a dispute at the Freeman article again. The dispute arrises about whether he actually tested positive for seroid use or merely allegedly did. I cannot really say. He posted a document on the matter, and did not explicitly deny the allegations. This, to me at least, is rather strong evidence that the allegations are true. But of course I cannot use my own reasoning to argue for well, my own reasoning.

However, unless there is some source where the allegations are challenged, I don't see the reason we should call them allegations. If everything written in a newspaper is mere allegation, then the article should be re-written "Toney Freeman was allegedly arrested, while allegedly being in Sweeden, and allegedly he was released without charges, and allegedly he tested positve...." Which, well, you get my point...

And if you still don't see where I'm going with this, look at the log of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/AresXV with whom I'm disputing this. Tim.thelion (talk) 23:24, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In law – Nordic law at least – being arrested has a very precise meaning. It is different from being taken in for questioning. Do you have a reliable source for the "arrested" allegation? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 05:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anything about nordic law, and I don't see a problem with changing the words to "he was taken in for questioning." I think it is fairly well sourced that he did test positive. The argument is whether he actually tested positive or not... Tim.thelion (talk) 13:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations against Toney Freeman

"Allegations" is the appropriate term for what is under discussion here. When police arrest/take someone in for questioning, criminal and civil law state that they have to declare a charge within 6-12 hours. ^[1] In Freeman's case, this did not occur. The Swedish police did not have a prima facie case against Freeman, who had arrived in Sweden a few hours before. This is to say, there was no objective evidence on hand with which the local police could candidly charge Freeman for abusing drugs within their jurisdiction. Here is a paper written on the Swedish government's treatment of the war of drugs ^[2]

They took him in because he was a bodybuilder and hoped to build a case against him either under questioning or via testing. Such practise is "profiling" and has been proven to achieve very little in law enforcement terms as "driving while black" and abuse of stop and search practises show. It is also prejudicial and therefore an infringement of civil rights. Added to this, the police did not permit him to have an attorney, a US representative, or make contact with his family. They also forced a urine sample without justifiable cause. All of these are human rights infringements (Violations of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966 Article 7, Article 9 parts 1-5, Article 14, 19, 20- this list need not be exhaustive) ).^[3] All of this made fellow competitor Jay Cutler cancel his visit to Sweden ^[4]

Back to the allegations. Freeman was not charged and was released the same day. He committed no offences under Swedish law. Had he been (a) in possession of illegal drugs (b) tested positive for consumption of illegal (c) been therefore found guilty of the charges raised- suspicion of drug abuse, he would have been detained, brought before the courts and sentenced. The sentence would be determined by the seriousness of the drug abuse. If the police had confidence in their case, they would have detained Freeman under a charge and remanded him. This never happened.

Freeman is reported to have cooperated. He answered all questions and actually gave a urine sample to assist with enquiries. He also offered to have his physician consult with the police if they wished. They did not. Seeing that they had no case, the Sundsvall police turned to character assassination. They ran pictures on the news, biased reports and an aggressive statement effectively saying "BODYBUILDERS STAY AWAY FROM SWEDEN" ^[5]

Finally, there is the "reasonable man's test". What has this matter got to do with the price of fish? How does violating the human rights of a US professional bodybuilder aid the Swedish government in their fight against steroids and drug abuse? Freeman, was not required to answer anything other than the charge put to him, so Tim.thelion's dalliance with academic notions of denial and admission being the same thing are out of the scope of this forum, and further evidence that the focus is more personal than on objective fact. Again, Tim, your notions are in clear violation of Article 14, part 2 and 3g.

God forbid the day when we are justifying actions like this against a group of people we don't identify with. AresXV (talk) 02:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC) AresXV[reply]

Propaganda328 has been adding some troublesome material in the Tony Frangieh article, that I view as a violation of WP:BLP (Samir Geagea is a living person). I've had problems with this editor before, who has a clear bias against certain political and religious groups in Lebanon (in a previous AN/I brought case against them, Propaganda328 described Lebanon's assassinated former Prime Minister as "an executed criminal, a criminal who robbed a country dry, out of every last 2irish, to make his tens or hundreds of billions, and is the very definition of corruption and immorality," which pretty much reflected the POV they were attempting to push in that article). In this case though, the target of their edits is a living person, which is why I'm here. The edit in question is this one, which I reverted as a BLP violation. The editor then re-added it, this time citing a YouTube video and some non-English web forum as sources. I've reverted the addition again, but given the past actions of this editor, I suspect they will keep pushing the point while failing to provide reliable sources. Would appreciate some intervention. ← George ^talk 01:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am inclined to agree with George. Propaganda328 has some serious BLP issues. Should we block this user? Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I take it that by 'troublesome' you mean adding one of the only sourced comments in the articles, and removing only some of the many unsourced claims that happen to satisfy your personal views. For someone accusing others of having bias, you seem to be extremely biased towards a particular side, whichever article it is, about the Lebanese civil war or about present Lebanese politics, describing the "dangerous Iranian Hezbollah" in the very same article which you took my quote from. In the Tony Frangieh article, you failed to mention in your complaint that you purposely removed the source that backed up the comment, calling it 'nonsense', and replacing it with a completely unsourced claim. You also conviniently kept all the recent unsourced edits to the article which clearly where in favor of your POV. Such as the other unsourced accusation against Elie Hobeika. The fact that you don't understand the arabic language, which sources about Lebanon-related articles could be in, even though you are so passionate about all Lebanon-related articles, comes as no surprise to me, since you have no knowledge of even the most basics Lebanese politics, such as the fact that you have no clue that Sleiman Frangieh, the present leader of the Marada party, and son of the killed Tony Frangieh, is the one who accuses Samir Geagea of killing his family [2] and said and I quote "Geagea is the devil himself", well that's his point of view, but you get the picture.

I take it the admins can see that if any edits this user makes are sourced, it would be merely a coincidence.

And thank you so very much for not informing me at my Talk Page that your were trying to get me blocked, so I couldn't defend myself.

I beg admins not be one-sided on this. You can clearly see what this user does, he replaces sourced material(sourced in the arabic Lebanese language, but still sourced), and replaces them with completely unsourced material simply because it satisfies his biased views, then attempts to get the other editor blocked without his knowledge.--Propaganda328 (talk) 13:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• By "troublesome material" I mean content that violates WP:BLP.
• I've never written "dangerous Iranian Hezbollah", so whether it's intentional or not, you are misquoting me. You also have no idea of my personal or political views, so kindly comment on content and not contributors.
• This isn't the Arabic Wikipedia, and there is no requirement that I understand Arabic to contribute to articles about Lebanon. If you want to edit the Arabic Wikipedia, that is located here. On the English Wikipedia, you should use English sources, or be able to provide translations of non-English sources when requested.
• You've repeatedly failed to cite reliable sources (as you've been told before, the sources you have cited are not reliable enough for what you're citing them for), and you've violated Wikipedia's BLP policies by slandering a living person. Nothing that you've written or done has changed that, and you seem to ignore the issue completely.
• Did I request that you get blocked? No, I asked an uninvolved administrator to intervene. The last time that was necessary, an uninvolved administrator sent you a message, which you promptly ignored, and you were eventually blocked. While I suspect you're going to get blocked, repeatedly, based on your past behavior, maybe you'll eventually learn to follow Wikipedia's policies instead of trying to inject your person viewpoints. That's up to you. ← George ^talk 22:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Content does not violate WP:BLP if it is sourced, and written NOT as a definitive fact, which is how it was written.
• [[3]], you say you find it 'troublesome' that an Iranian based IP address inserts any material into wikipedia when the iranian hezbollah is implicated in the killing of Hariri. Your edits in Lebanon related articles show you have "a clear bias against certain political and religious groups in Lebanon", mainly against Hezbollah. And I have no bias against any religious groups in Lebanon. Not to mention your own user page speaks for itself[[4]].
• I know this isn't the Arabic wikipedia, and you are welcome to edit Lebanon-related articles whether or not you understand arabic. However, if you personally can't understand the language in an important source, it doesn't mean that source should be removed. It just so happens that all Lebanese politicians speak in non-other than their own arabic language, and thus all primary sources for their opinions are in arabic, which is very seldom translated. And there is hardly a Lebanon-related article without arabic sources if you'd notice.
• There you lie again. You repeatedly failed to cite ANY sources at all for the material you revert, and dismiss any sources already existing as "not" reliable and as "random forums" and youtube videos unrelated to the article, even though you said yourself you haven't a clue what they're about and haven't viewed them.
• I suspect perhaps someone will realize that you are a constant POV-pusher who hypocritically accuses others of POV pushing. And bringing up false information that I was blocked previously because of "POV-pushing" in the Hariri article, when I was really blocked for another reason unrelated to the article, so you would encourage other admins to block me (or intervene as you nicely put it). Please stop injecting your own personal views.--Propaganda328 (talk) 12:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Content that is sourced and not stated as fact may still violate WP:BLP, please don't assume that it can't. We virtually never use forums as sources and YouTube only rarely (when an official site perhaps). Dougweller (talk) 13:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If in this video [5], Sleiman Frangieh, the son of Tony Frangieh, and present leader of the Marada party, says that Geagea killed his father, is it inadequate to say in the article that Frangieh accuses Geagea, or that "there is another theory that Geagea killed Tony Frangieh". And the "forum source" as he mentioned is not a forum at all, but a link to a primary source video, a little fact he didn't mention(as I said he didn't really view the sources before removing them).--Propaganda328 (talk) 13:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're either missing the point, or intentionally trying to deflect administrator attention. Citing unreliable, user-uploaded content as evidence that a Lebanese politician "brutally killed [another politician's daughter]... in a bathroom sink" is not okay. The source is in Arabic, and you've failed to provide an English translation of it. You've never passed the source—or any of your sources, despite my repeated requests—by the reliable sources noticeboard to verify that it is reliable for what you're citing it for. Your source is hosted on a website associated with a political enemy of the person whom you're attributing "brutal killing" to, and you have a history of adding defamatory content about such people. I think your clear personal biases against these politicians presents a conflict of interest in this topic area, and given your comments and editing history, I would suggest a topic ban from editing articles about Lebanese politicians. ← George ^talk 02:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There have been a dozen attempts so far today to edit and re-edit this article, especially the "Controversies" section in what seems to be a clear case of POV pushing. It seems like there is a concerted attempt today to put across a certain POV showing the individual in a favorable light. This goes against the grain of neutrality of POV.

The controversies section is supposed to highlight the controversies surrounding the individual without trying to apportion credit or excuses for them.

The ENTIRE introduction has been rewritten by User:Amitchandra123 which now provides a justification for EVERY allegation made against Pradip Baijal. Repeatedly going in and editing the article by removing the negative references (including links to media articles) and replacing them with flowery phrases justifying the controversy is clear POV pushing and vandalism.

The original line read: """His tenure as TRAI chairman coincided with multiple policy changes that are alleged to have directly benefited telecom companies like Reliance Telecom and Tata Teleservices."""

it was changed to: """His tenure as TRAI chairman coincided with multiple policy changes (people call them flip-flops, but were normal and expected for any emerging sector) that are alleged to have directly benefited telecom companies like Reliance Telecom and Tata Teleservices."""

the original line: "sold to Tata Teleservices" was changed to "sold by a transparent auction process to Tata Teleservices". Transparent according to whom?

One of the lines used was "Guess many of the controversies listed below are part of the stick which is seen in other geographies as well. " - I really dont know what to say after that! it is clear that the user(s) in question have some kind of agenda with the individual Pradip Baijal and interested in keeping the news of controversies out of wiki records.

Recommend immediate blocking of his account to put an end to this nonsense.

What is surprising is that at first the user called ArjunNagra was making repeated edits on a similar line to this article. And now it is Amitchandra. Are they the same individual? --Ashlonerider (talk) 11:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the article in its original state is with phrases like "that are alleged to have" the main source for all this is peppered with phrases like "You could argue, be that as it may ... " and "You could further argue why .." IOW the source used is an opinion piece. John lilburne (talk) 12:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Date of birth was definitely 1962/1963- school records "Stokesley Comprehensive School". This has been repeatedly changed to 1966 or 1967 without justification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.148.119.3 (talk) 12:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Ashlonerider is on a witch hunt and charater assasination of one of the most respected officers in the Indian Administrative Service. He has repeatedly added opinion pieces and non-factual inferences to push his agenda. He has made over 100 changes on Pradip Baijal's page, with only one agenda - to link him to the scam, and not give any benefit of doubt. All individuals who have worked with the officer talk about his impeccable integrity.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Amitchandra123 (talk • contribs) 13:08, January 3, 2011 (UTC)

First, don't call other editors "a paid hack" in your edit summaries. Second, I'm going to clean a ton of WP:WEASEL wording out of the article, before I make any other edits. The entire article reads like a high school essay, praising the subject's work. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Information with no source keep getting added back. Article also claims he is a Rabbi with no reliable 3rd party sources; did not graduate from seminary; the 3 people with supposedly gave him ordination, no one knows who there are or if they exist. --SevaSevaSeva (talk) 14:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Only two comments at the moment. That's quite an edit war there, so I hope others get involved. And I see no source besides the subject for his ordination as a Rabbi, so I'm not sure how we deal with that. Dougweller (talk) 14:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Too much of the removed material is insufficiently contentious for removal, such as the "professorship and research" section. Also SevaSevaSeva in his earlier edits removed the assertion that Tikkun is Jewish from "is Jewish and interfaith" on the grounds that Tikkun has not labeled itself as Jewish for some time. Actually it still does on its website. It is true that Michael Lerner's ordination is controversial, and no one has disclosed publicly the identity of the 3 rabbis who ordained him- however, the WP "who?" template is specifically meant to be used to challenge violations of the policy WP:WEASEL which uses vague terms like "some critics". Most of the published challenges to his ordination come from sources like FrontPage which Wikipedia considers an unreliable source. Furthermore, district Jewish organizations have affirmed his ordination, which was sourced in the article last I checked. Methinks this is a bit like the Barack Obama birth certificate issue. And SevaSevaSeva has also removed material about his UC Berkeley PhD!!! Really, now!!

Disclosure. I am moderately acquainted with Rabbi Lerner, though really only distantly.--WickerGuy (talk) 15:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1) I put back Jewish from "is Jewish and interfaith" 2) The burden of proof that he is a Rabbi is not on all the doubters, it is on whomever posts it on Wikipedia. You can't just say "I am a Rabbi, I did not go to rabbinical school, I have mystery people who told me so", "my numerous doubters are not neutral, please believe me." --SevaSevaSeva (talk) 15:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sourcing for the claim that this person is a rabbi seems absolutely sound to me. There is no reason that we need independent sourcing for this, since it is a straightforward statement and Tikkun appears to be a reliable source for statements about its editor.

The article contains information about the attitudes of some Jews to Lerner's style of ordination, which should be removed because it goes against WP:SYN and WP:COATRACK. If we have reliable sources for noteworthy criticism of Lerner's ordination in particular then that would be okay. But we cannot have information not directly related to the subject and intended to lead us to a critical conclusion in a BLP.

Lastly, Lerner appears to be more notable as a literary figure than as a rabbi, so perhaps the title of the article could be improved. --FormerIP (talk) 15:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as "style of ordination". Someone is ordained, or they just call themselves "Rabbi" He publishes a magazine that he claims he was ordained. There is ZERO evidence of this outside him publishing it in his own magazine. No rabbinic certificate, no news ANYWHERE of a well established person about who was on the the 3 person beth din. It not like he claims the persons were A, B, and C, and we can't verify. There is no claims of anyone. --SevaSevaSeva (talk) 15:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's all slightly interesting, but there don't appear to be any sources for any of it. All we have is a source that says he's a rabbi, so that's all that we need to include. If a source can be found that questions this, then that might change things. It goes quite squarely against policy to make insinuations in the absence of reliable sources to back it up, particularly where we are dealing with BLP. --FormerIP (talk) 16:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are many sources that doubt and dispute that he is a Rabbi. "WickerGuy" says they are not reliable. Why is Frontpage and all the others not reliable, but a subjects own bio is? If some one doubts and disputes he is a Rabbi, it that biased? --SevaSevaSeva (talk) 16:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He is the rabbi of a Jewish Renewal congregation in Berkeley. Certainly, other Jewish sects can and do disagree with his status as "rabbi", just as some can and do disagree with anyone outside of their own sect identifying themselves as Jews, but they have no authority over his congregation, his ordination, or his choice of nomenclature; there is no Jewish Central Authority. By the way, SevaSevaSeva, please fix your signature so it doesn't mess up the formatting. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NYT [6] [7] [8] inter alia (many) identifies him as "Rabbi" and that should be sufficient. The "issue" about the title is referred to in a television review [9] states "Michael Lerner, the editor of Tikkun magazine, is not a rabbi." but without any supplemental information. WP, last I checked, is not in a position to define who is, or is not, entitled to be called "Rabbi" or "Reverend" etc. at all, all we do is use what reliable sources call the person. Collect (talk) 17:19, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is my point. Anyone can describe themselves as a Rabbi, whether you tell the NY Times, or anyone else. Call yourself a Rabbi, people repeat it, have ZERO evidence, no problem, lots of doubts, no problem.

Also, there was lots of non-sourced (not disputed sources, just no sources at all) information in there that I took out, that was the main point of listing here, the "rabbi" issue was secondary. --SevaSevaSeva (talk) 17:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Insert

If the rabbi issue was secondary, why was it what you started this discussion with? 3rd evidence these are not WP:good faith edits.--WickerGuy (talk) 20:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm fine with calling him Rabbi, since it can't be defined here. Let's put in a section on "Rabbinical Ordination" that lists all points of view. We can put in sources on both. Just don't say the ones who call him Rabbi are good references and the ones who dispute are all "biased" or "not reliable", as Tikkun magazine, the primary source could also be called the sames things. --SevaSevaSeva (talk) 19:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The entire section of Positive Judaism was quite adequately sourced(!!!) and removed in its entirety. It's removal is a sign that SevaSevaSeva's edits are not either entirely in good faith or are at least rather careless. I have just restored it.

The New York Times is generally regarded as a reliable source- FrontPage is not for obvious reasons.--WickerGuy (talk) 19:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be contrary, Seva, but the ones who call him rabbi are good references and the ones who dispute are all biased or not reliable. Frontpage magazine is not a reliable source, particularly not for sourcing material which concerns the personal integrity of a left-of-centre intellectual. --FormerIP (talk) 20:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, the Left Wing publication Tikkun is good for sourcing material which concerns the personal integrity of a left-of-centre intellectual but a right wing publication is not?

--SevaSevaSeva (talk) 20:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SevaSevaSeva also gave no adequate reason whatsover for his/her drastic reduction of the External Links section!!! This too is being restored. I am working on sourcing some of the other deleted material. Self-published stuff should be adequate for the academic career if it is not "unduly self-serving".--WickerGuy (talk) 20:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From a non-conservative local SF paper: Some local rabbis disagree with his credentials. The president of the Northern California Board of Rabbis and JTS graduate Rabbi Alan Lew states "That is arrogant nonsense" "I spent six years in extremely rigorous, round-the-clock study in the classic texts of our tradition. Authentic Jewish spirituality is in the texts, not in some fancy New Age ideas or watered-down kabbalah [Jewish mysticism]" ^[6]

--SevaSevaSeva (talk) 21:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seva, if you're going to start doctoring sources now, I think it's time to close this discussion. The source does not say "Some local rabbis disagree with his credentials". It says "Some local rabbis would surely disagree", which is in reference to Lerener's opinion of traditional rabbinical schools, quoted in the paragraph immediately prior. --FormerIP (talk) 21:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seva, you have a POV problem -- the sources don't say what you want them to say. Are you prepared to accept at this point that as far as Wikipedia is concerned Lerner is a rabbi insofar as there are reliable sources such as the New York Times that identify him as a rabbi? If not, you need to step back. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I already said so. There is no way anywhere to define Rabbi so I am fine with calling him Rabbi. I just feel that the people who disagree should also be in the article. --SevaSevaSeva (talk) 21:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But what are the sources that indicate disagreement? FormerIP is correct in saying you are misreading the one you have provided. "That is arrogant nonsense" appears to refer to Lerner's comments about seminary programs (in the previous paragraph), not to Lerner's ordination or status. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the Rabbi in article is referring to "the nonseminary track", and that's where Lerner went, then that goes to his credibility.

There are right wing sources as well, I feel that they should be included with the left wing sources.

"He calls himself “Rabbi,” although he never graduated from any rabbinic seminary and has no rabbinic ordination recognized by any branch of Judiasm. " http://frontpagemag.com/2010/05/07/poor-michael-lerner%E2%80%99s-petunias/

--SevaSevaSeva (talk) 22:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See here for an RSN discussion of Frontpage. Also note that this is a "post" by Steven Plaut. I seriously doubt you will make headway in arguing that this ought to be used in a BLP. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So left wing sources like Tikkun are acceptable, but not right wing. So Lerner is acceptable, but not Plaut. They are equally politically, one pretty left and the other pretty right. --SevaSevaSeva (talk) 22:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who said anything about Tikkun? In this context it might be considered WP:SELFPUB. But it doesn't matter -- we can use the New York Times. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Up until today, the primary source for him being a Rabbi is Tikkun, a magazine he publishes. It is still used as a reference. It is self-published, it is also considered left wing; "the liberal and progressives alternative to the voices of Jewish conservatism and the neo-cons" .

So this is a good source, but a conservative one is unacceptable here. So the rule on sources is: liberal is good, conservative is bad. --SevaSevaSeva (talk) 22:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you like. Seva, I think you should just drop the issue now. You're obviously on to a loser here and it's looking more and more to me like you have been disruptively editing the article as well as showing appalling bad faith in this discussion. Cut your losses. --FormerIP (talk) 23:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/, SevaSevaSeva blocked as a sock puppet. Dougweller (talk) 15:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jaime Ornelas Camacho (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

To whom so ever it may concern, I want the point to be noted that the biography of Mr.Jaime Ornelas Camacho is not at all considerable and very inadequate as it does not have any sufficient sources and references.I've gone through many books and articles across the net as well as in life but do not find much about the former Portugal President.This is the cause supposedly because there have been negligible written records of the Portuguese History i.e. before 1978.This also marks the start of the tenure of the country's current president Alberto João Jardim.So I request the concerned authorities to simply remove the article since it does not passes several Wikipedia Citations and I find no scope at all for the improvement of the article. BY - $![)$![)... 15:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the Portugese language references from the Portugese version of the article. Hopefully another editor will be able to expand the information in due course. The subject meets our notability guidelines so the article is unlikely to be deleted. --Pontificalibus (talk) 15:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thats very considerable but its of no use at all since its the same matter in Portuguese when it comes to the Portugal Wikipedia.$![) 3lmO $#@[)y 20:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

An editor using two different ips is challenging a specific assertion that this Playboy Playmate was a competitive skiier that had placed fourth at a youth championship in the giant slalom in Sweden in 1989. The winner of that event was future Olympic skiier, Pernilla Wiberg. This assertion was reported by the two largest newspapers in Sweden as part of Silvestedt's history. He wishes to remove the mention of this race because he could not find it any skiing records and conjectures that this repeated story is a self-fabricated lie that originated in some interview that was not fact-checked by the newspapers. This discussion is happening in the talk page of the article.

My question is what evidence does the editor have to provide to remove the assertion? I would also like third parties to participate in this discussion. Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the information is verifiable (as it seems to be) and comes from a source meeting WP:RS standards, it would not be appropriate to delete it. The user in question seems to be performing original research (contacting people in Sweden, etc) which is not permitted for an encyclopedia. If the user can also find a reliable source, such as another Swedish newspaper, reporting that Silvestedt never skied competitively, it would make sense to insert another sentence after the contested one: "However, a report by ____ asserts etc." Jonathanwallace (talk) 19:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The statements in the seventh paragraph of the article, with the exception of the last sentence, are all hotly contested by all persons who were in the community, and are all unproven. There were absolutely contradictory opinions held by members of the community, and none of the statements made are provable, or uncontested by the people involved. This paragraph should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scaccerus (talk • contribs) 16:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be correct. This is unsourced, and I will delete it. Unfortunately, the remainder of the article is likewise lacking in reliable external sources, and frankly does little to establish that Walter Nowick is sufficiently notable to merit a Wikipedia article at all. Perhaps others might take a look, and decide how best to proceed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notable - I found an NYT article which covers much of the material in the article. (I only added one - there are several which would be useful, but this is well enough for notability concerns) Collect (talk) 17:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've mentioned the article at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buddhism in case anyone from there can help in improving it. Scaccerus, you may also be interested in joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Buddhism if that's where your interests lie. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

G'day all, I haven't been participating in the wikileaks debate here, but I've come across one quite perjorative statement sourced indirectly to a wikileaks cable: [10] It appears problematic to me that we would report such serious allegations made in wikileaks cables. The allegation is of course reported in a reliable source but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be more discerning. I thought I'd bring this here for views before reverting on BLP grounds. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted this as according to the source the cable "alleges that a 'VVIP' later identified as Rais Yatim, raped his...maid". It's not clear who "later identified" the VVIP as Yatim. His name is apparently not in any cable, and I can find no other sources except this one article. With more robust sourcing I feel we can mention allegations that are widely reported, but I'm not seeing that here right now. --Pontificalibus (talk) 20:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Think this should be included - it is very clearly noteworthy. It would be good to have other sources but it should be kept in mind that Malaysia doesn't have the world's most open media. --FormerIP (talk) 20:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The difficulty with Malaysia is that news sources like the Asia Sentinel tend to try to "balance out" the pro-government media. That's quite evident in this news article, which is quite a hit job (see in particular the paragraph about Shahidan Kassim which is gratuitous rumour). --Mkativerata (talk) 20:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was a discussion on whether Wikileaks cables – or in general any primary sources – should be used as references. I believe when primary sources are available, they should be referenced in conjunction with the secondary sources (and secondary sources that do not confirm with primary sources should be handled with care.) One problem with this hit job is that the claimed original cable does not seem to exist, or no one has been able to link to it. When you find the original cable it will most likely not confirm what is stated in the Asia Sentinel. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 05:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The part about Ms.Bertin mother sound libelous and do not offer any source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slilith (talk • contribs) 19:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I blanked the controversy section at Sarodj Bertin as it was highly OR and POV. There's a huge issue of undue weight since the controversy section is longer than everything else in the article combined and much of the material is unrelated to the subject of the article. The text does cite sources, but it does it in a way that cherrypicks bits and pieces to use against the Bertin, rather than in a way that actually reflects what the source is saying. GabrielF (talk) 20:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

see the army carrier section

Please identify the language which concerns you. Jonathanwallace (talk) 19:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Accusations not in article space?

User:Rjanag has closed this thread on the premise that "the accusations being made aren't in article space". I do not think this is a relevant argument. WP:BLP is increasingly being used to "censor" talk page discussions. Besides, Rjanag should not be closing anything here, he seems to be heavily involved. I will be removing the crap from the talk page. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article about the Scottish footballer mentions a mysterious dance off at the end of the biography without citing any sources. I suggest that video evidence is submitted, or that the information is removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.176.86.84 (talk) 14:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This was vandalism and I have reverted it. --Pontificalibus (talk) 15:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How much weight should be given to the Wikileaks leaks on the articles of Chinese politicians? Zhou Yongkang and Li Changchun both have a dedicated paragraph respectively on comments from the cable leaks connecting them to cyber attacks on Google, yet the sources themselves has been disputed, noting that "Even author of the State Department cable is careful to say that the U.S. government cannot confirm the report".--PCPP (talk) 14:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

somebody is messing about with this record suggesting arca now plays for man city — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterb200 (talk • contribs) 15:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted back to December version which has club as Middlesborough. Seem to have been various changes to the club in the last couple of days, some based on rumours of a move to Wolves and others that were just vandalism. January ^(talk) 16:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Adeney died on 16th December 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.151.38 (talk) 16:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article has now been updated. --Pontificalibus (talk) 17:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Antonio Damasio's name should not have any accent marks. Adding accent marks denotes improper pronunciation. The accents in the title of the article need to be removed, as to references to the name throughout. Dr. Damasio has never used accents on his name, as evidenced by all of his published works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Damasiowiki (talk • contribs) 18:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be correct - there are no accents used in his faculty page bio nor in his name as author on the books he has published. I have made a formal request on the article talk page since the target page already exists as a redirect and the move requires an aministrators tools. Active Banana (^bananaphone 19:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this article not referred to in the wikileaks page on Boris de Rachewiltz?

Is it incorrect?

Check: http://boards.ancestry.co.uk/thread.aspx?mv=flat&m=46&p=topics.royalty.russiann — Preceding unsigned comment added by PyramidCat (talk • contribs) 18:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is a thread on a message board, and as such is unlikely to be seen as a reliable source, I'm afraid. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RFC now raised. January ^(talk) 21:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

I've reverted content copied from the blog of a campaign group, Peter Munk OUT of UofT, and attempts to add the blog as an external link several times over the past few days. The user making these additions has just identified herself on talk page as the co-founder of http://protestbarrick.net (Munk is chairman of Barrick Gold) and one of the organisers of Peter Munk OUT of UofT. January ^(talk) 19:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is Sakura Saunders, the person who added the factual additions to Peter Munk's wikipedia page. I don't understand why my association with protestbarrick.net and Munk OUT of UofT would bar me from adding factual additions about Peter Munk. I source the Toronto Star and Embassy Mag, both major news sources in Canada and a pdf of the actual contract between Munk's foundation and the University. The only time I reference my websites is to reference that organizations do exist that are critical of Mr. Munk and his company Barrick Gold. ProtestBarrick contains over 670 articles, the majority of which are from mainstream news sources, about Munk's company.

As a past financial contributor to wikipedia, I am very upset and disappointed that this space where the corporations are supposed to have an equal say as citizen activists is shutting out the voices of those activists (like you, I am a volunteer). I am primarily a media activist and have been involved with Indymedia and other indy outlets throughout the year. If I continue to be censored by Wikipedia, believe me that there will be an article about it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cherryblossom1979 (talk • contribs) 23:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't being censored. You are merely being asked to provide sources which reach the Standards Wikipedia requires: see WP:RS. I'd have thought that as 'a past financial contributor to wikipedia' you wouldn't like to see us being influenced by threats of 'articles' - that would be a breach of our integrity. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More eyes would be appreciated, the user is continuing to add the information which is a copyvio and contains BLP issues which I have explained on the talk page. January ^(talk) 06:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User has come up with some better sources and I think has stopped adding the WP:COATRACK content. Closing for now to avoid this being open in two venues as I've raised an RFC on the weight and use of a primary source. January ^(talk) 21:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've refactored [18] some of the comments by 96.231.142.178 (talk · contribs) at Talk:Quackwatch per WP:BLP. Attacks against Barrett rarely occur in isolation, so I thought it best to bring to the attention of others right away. --Ronz (talk) 23:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After I listed on the talk page of the Carl Hewitt article, five reliable and quite mainline sources on what is the most widely noted incident in the individual's career, an administrator deleted the material (from talk page) without comment and locked down the talk page from any discussion.

The notion that one should ignore on-going world-wide mainstream news coverage concerning Carl Hewitt over a period of several years-- perhaps because it entails an essentially very minor controversy involving Wikipedia-- may be open to question.

Shutting down discussion of this matter on talk page is especially perplexing.

How does this serve the reader?

Two sources are from U.S., one from UK, one NZ and one from Germany, as follows:

Investment Weekly News January 1, 2011 (online link only available through subscription databases). Also the following with available online links; The US technology news Website "Tech Radar" [[19]] A major UK newspaper, the Guardian, here [[20]] NZ Herald [[21]] The German technology news Website "Heise Online" [[22]]

Calamitybrook (talk) 23:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm writing this from memory, and therefore may be wrong in some of the details, but the broad picture is that Carl Hewitt, a retired academic, was banned from Wikipedia after being taken to the ArbCom in 2007. The case was initiated by an editor who was a member of the ArbCom at the time, someone who seemed to have strong personal feelings about Hewitt. I know this from various emails that were flying around at the time. After Hewitt was banned, the same Arb approached a freelance journalist that he knew, and acted as the source for her on a damaging story about Hewitt's banning for the Observer. [23] It was an unfortunate situation BLP-wise, though in fairness to everyone our BLP rules were not as strict back then.

Since then, various IPs and little-used accounts have occasionally tried to add a section about this to Hewitt's bio, thereby completing the circular sourcing. I've resisted these efforts with page protection, including talk-page protection when necessary. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this out, and off the talk page. Poking sticks in people is not a good idea. The best source is a Guardian Technology column which reports "allegations" of what he did on wikipedia. That hardly belongs in a short bio on his academic position and achievements. See also Wikipedia:ASR. Yes, a case for inclusion on "reliable citations" could just about be made here, but the incident is notable (if at all) in a history of Wikipedia - not in a BLP.--Scott Mac 00:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The incident seems highly notable per sourcing above. I don't know what is the better context to put the information in, but our BLP policy explicitly allows us to report well-sourced, relevant, notable allegations: . If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it.. "Relevance" is probably the matter here, but the information should be somewhere. In any case shutting down discussion of a well-sourced fact in a talk page is a shame. --Cyclopia^talk 00:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion can in itself be not a neutral enterprise. Indeed the discussion can quickly, on occasions, become harmful. In this instance the discussion of the article DID and to discuss that discussion is simply adding to the problem. There's a certain vicious circularity here, where the interaction of a subject with Wikipedia is harmful, doubly so because it is reported and thus has real-world effects, and then we report those "facts" harming the reputation of the subject again. Wikipedia doesn't exist in a vacuum where can apply abstractions and forget the consequences. This is one of those cases where experienced admins need to use wise judgement, and I think SlimVirgin has done that. It would be a "shame" if this was now picked up as an in-house debating point to the detriment of the subject. The short version? Cyclopia, please drop it. We can debate Wikipolitics, but not over this.--Scott Mac 01:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Slim and Scott, who see the big picture here rather than concentrating on Wikipedia internals. We are not working in a bubble, where the only considerations that matter are Wikipedia's internal rules. --JN466 01:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "Wikipolitics", it's a serious issue that has to do with the integrity of the encyclopedia. What is debated here is not a gossip or doubtful claim, it is a well known incident strongly sourced from multiple sources. It's not a "fact" - it's a fact. Now, respecting living people does not mean removing factual negative information about them. I entirely agree that WP does not exist in a vacuum, but , you know, we're here to build an encyclopedia, not to cherry-pick positive information and leave out negative information. So, while we have to take care of consequences, the point is that we're here to report what reliable sources say -doing that in the least harmful manner is OK, but that's what we're here for. On the precise issue, I fully agree that there could be a problem of relevance, and as such I'm not too disappointed if the info is out of the bio, but again, the fact has to be somewhere in my opinion. I think that who doesn't see the big picture here are instead Scott and Slim -in the long run, do we want to make WP a collection of promotional leaflets on living people or a NPOV collection of sourced information? Since everyone here is concerned with ethics, well, there is a long-run ethical imperative in providing unbiased and complete information as well. We're here to make a service to our readers, before everything else. --Cyclopia^talk 02:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While not condoning Hewitt's actions, including this in his bio is the type of circle jerk that needs to be avoided. Wikipedia editors sometimes forget that what people do on Wikipedia is remarkably unimportant to those who aren't editors. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the event is footnote in overall career of the man. Where I diverge from those that favor inclusion is this implicit idea that every sourced fact belongs in a biography. It does not, and it is essential to remember that as editors we have the discretion to leave material out. This need not be censorship, and need not be a BLP issue. It's simply editing. It's permissible to recognize that the man's notability historically is as an academic, and that the wikipedia incident has no lasting significance to that. Having said all that, I'd unprotect the talk page and permit this discussion there. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As much as Cyclopiamay wish to present inclusionism as some type of moral imperative, the fact is that the encyclopedia does not fall down if a minor "fact" is excluded, nor is any harm done. The are places to simply be pragmatic rather than have a Wikipedia Messiah-complex that ends up squashing people. The wise (and gracious) thing is to know when to drop it.--Scott Mac 08:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't be dropped. It goes rather to the heart of credibility question.

A particular editor may regard this as a "minor" fact. " I regard the entire article as "minor."

Editorial staff at various media outlets around the world have made independent judgments that the incident was worth reporting on. Indeed it was the only incident concerning Hewitt that excited such worldwide attention.

No reasoned argument has been made as to why it should be excluded.

There is some hearsay that a friend of his wrote the article. But freelance writers don't generally edit or publish their own work.

Calamitybrook (talk) 18:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not the news. Simply because something makes the paper does not in any way at all mean that it is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia article. In the overall review of his life and accomplishments the little hooha about wikipedia is insignifcantly trivial.Active Banana (^bananaphone 19:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c)@Calamitybrook, you wrote No reasoned argument has been made as to why it should be excluded. This is simple not true. User Xymmax maks a very good case, imho, above, which I would endorse/support. A few foreign articles, specific to tech issues and this equals some noteworthy "material"? Still not convienced but willinging to be. --Threeafterthree (talk) 19:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

COI

Though the COI tag is often abused, it seems possible that the admin "Slim Virgin" has a conflict of interest in participating in this topic. It may be that this person was directly involved in the events in question. If so, this person ought best to abstain from involvement article, rather than placing it under lockup.Calamitybrook (talk) 22:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"it seems possible" - many things are possible. Do you have some evidence, or is this just muck raking?--Scott Mac 22:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One sees from edit history that Virgin's very active involvement in the page includes the period in question. I am not the supreme judge of these matters, nor have I made a full investigation, but perhaps Virgin can enlighten us about his actual involvement?

Let me also mention that perhaps Wikipedia is not the news. But its editors can't unilaterally determine notability. The sources cited above include one of the largest newspapers in the world located in a country that practically invented modern, responsible journalism.

Heise.com in Germany is also a very major news source. Techradar.com is owned by one of the largest companies in the UK. Large worldwide media sources, in publishing any story, typically employ layers of multiple, highly competent, well-paid & talented journalists as participating editors. Hewitt is only mentioned in any such publication in connection with the incident in question.

So Wikipedia is to instead to rely on the judgment of a single, anonymous administrator, in this instance?Calamitybrook (talk) 23:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You made an allegation. SlimVirgin doesn't need to "enlighten us" - you need to back up your allegation with some evidence or else withdraw it. Slurs and cowardly ad hominem attacks have no place here.--Scott Mac 23:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what it would mean for me to have been "directly involved in the events in question": if CB means the ArbCom case, then no, I wasn't. I made a couple of minor edits to the article over three years ago. [24] [25] Otherwise my only involvement has been as an admin concerned with the BLP violations, and all my posts to talk have made that clear: see here in July 2009 as an example. The effect of the admin action was to calm down a troubled article and talk page, and I'd like to see that period of calm continue. I have no editorial interest in Carl Hewitt, and almost no knowledge of him. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The chatter that caught my notice, though it seems to include a misunderstanding of how news gathering works & also of libel law, is here: [[26]]

If SL has been thus involved in the events at issue, then she ideally ought to recuse herself from the page. I gather that no particular editor has a unique and indispensable role.

Five reliable sources, including one of the largest and most respected newspapers in the world, is ipso facto enough to establish notability.

Instead a few editors seem to be second-guessing the obvious.

Calamitybrook (talk) 18:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

again yes again, just cause something is verifiable dont mean that it belongs in an encyclopedia article. The consensus here is clear that the content does not merit inclusion. how many times are we going to have to repeat that?? Active Banana (^bananaphone 18:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a viable approach is to look at the talk page before it was shut down by SL.

Many comments suggested that the wide coverage of incident in question is worthy of inclusion. These were obviously ignored.

It's the "elephant in the room" which a few Wikipedia insiders think can be ignored.

But it's still an elephant & any minimally informed reader will immediately recognize the animal as such.

So the insiders are, to use another metaphor, cutting off their nose to spite their face.

Which is very unfortunate (and needless) maiming of both nose and face.

Understand that I've no opinion regarding so-called "controversey" Point is merely that is most widely known & notable fact about the minor technoid known as "Carl Hewitt."

71.235.237.175 (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that's me immediately above.

Probably if you want a "vote," the preponderance of comments on now-defunct talk page was to include material --in some neutral form-- from the various reliable sources.

Obviously this won't be possible.

Calamitybrook (talk) 22:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this is a BLP issue, but I'm asking here because it might be and I want to be sure. Does the addition of unsourced information saying someone has died violate BLP? I've reverted several edits on the article in question (Fred Heron diff 1, 2, 3) from several different contributors saying that Fred Heron has died. If I revert one more time, I'll be in violation of WP:3RR, unless the unsourced edits claiming he's died are violations of BLP. I couldn't find anything on the policy page about this kind of situation. I've done googling ("Fred Heron" OR "Frederick Heron" death) and I've looked at nationwide obituary sites and can't find a source.

Note: I don't think the edits are bad-faith, but I do believe this kind of thing should be sourced. Any help is appreciated. Thanks, --- cymru.lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 01:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, unsourced edits claiming someone has died DO violate BLP, and the 3RR does not apply. Ask the contributors for citations, if they are not provided, explain again, after that treat as vandalism.--Scott Mac 01:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per Scott. Someone being alive or dead is a fact that must be reliably sourced, and in fact BLPs are regularly vandalised by IP editors inserting unsourced statements to the effect that someone has died, or is about to die. Note that an edit like this also falls foul of WP:NOR and WP:V policies. --JN466 01:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the above. --Cyclopia^talk 02:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All right, thank you all! I though as much, but I wasn't completely sure. Better safe than sorry :) --- cymru.lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 03:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the most recent revision (re-adding to "Living People") is going over the line of reason. I didn't mark him as "dead" per se; I simply removed the "living" tag. I'm probably going to be attending the man's funeral on Saturday of next week; I think it's ridiculous to explicitly list him as "living" when we know that to be false.

Note the critical distinction here: I'm not saying to list him as dead without a source. I'm just saying not to list him as living. --Roger McCoy/រ៉ាចើ (talk) 08:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, the claim of him being in the "Living persons" category is equally unsourced and moreso unverifiable, since it is inaccurate. Please do not add him back in to that category. --Roger McCoy/រ៉ាចើ (talk) 08:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The is history here, you may be unaware of. We've had problems with people who are alive being marked as dead, to their embarrassment and Wikipedia's public media humiliation. Thus we MUST have sources before changing someone's status to dead, or removing the living category. "I know he's dead" isn't good enough. The point is that a bio being out of date and listing as living someone who's not is no big deal. (Print encyclopedias will list him as living for years). If a notable person is dead, an online obituary will emerge fairly quickly - "living person" cats stay until it does. We can't hurt the dead by being out of date, we can hurt the living by premature notices.--Scott Mac 09:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But you can hurt credibility by intentionally listing false information. I'm not even asking to put him in the "Dead persons" category without a source. I'm just asking not to keep him in the "Living persons" category when three users have independently verified that this is false. The family hasn't had an obituary printed in the local paper and they aren't likely to. (I've had several friends where this has been the case.) Do you intend to still explicitly list him as alive 30 years from now if this doesn't happen? He's been gone for over a week and I have yet to see any listings. He's a 66 year old man whom you haven't had any publicly sourced updates since 1972. I'll say it again: I'm not even asking you to list him as "dead"; just don't explicitly list him as "alive" when the only available evidence indicates that he's not. Doing so hurts Wikipedia's credibility. And if this listing isn't a "big deal" to you, please have the respect to follow the wishes of those who *do* consider it a "big deal". --Roger McCoy/រ៉ាចើ (talk) 16:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, I'll admit I undermined one of my points above by finding and citing a 2010 source in my last edit to his page (which I found after writing the above). The rest still holds true. --Roger McCoy/រ៉ាចើ (talk) 17:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• - On a bit of a tangent, when people are very old (perhaps late nineties or over 100 or if someone is disputing they are still alive but no cites can be found ) and perhaps of little note we have strong suspicion they may be no longer with us we have this cat - Category:Possibly living people which considering its doubtful status is strangely well populated. Off2riorob (talk) 11:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In reply Roger's comment about not being able to prove Heron is alive: There is also no way to prove he is dead using sources that fit Wikipedia's reliable sources guidelines. Per WP:BLP, a person who would be over the age of 115 is presumed dead unless listed at the oldest persons article (however, I suspect many people are probably presumed dead around 90 or so on here). Even if Heron has died, removing the category Category:Living people was a violation of BLP policy because it's an unsourced controversial edit. As such, the reinstatement of the category was not so much my saying "he's alive" as "wait until you can prove reliable sources for his death". I know it's a little antithetical, but otherwise, we could have any number of people claiming they know such-and-such and he said/did/is (insert something here). There's a pretty good essay located at WP:TRUE that provides some clarification on this. --- cymru.lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 01:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Every reply for this keeps turning into "can't prove that he's dead", but I never asked to list him as dead. I'm only asking not to explicitly list him as alive (via the "Living persons" category) when this is (at best) in dispute. Since when does removing a tag require a source? *Keeping* it is the unsourced controversial information.--Roger McCoy/រ៉ាចើ (talk) 16:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the removal of the category is an implication that he has died. While it's not a direct statement, it still carries the weight of saying he has died. This also runs a bit afoul of Wikipedia's "no original research" policy. I hope this helps, --- cymru.lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 23:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

His wikipedia page is libel, referring to him as a traitor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.10.145 (talk) 02:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm, I see nothing like that at the Daniel Herron page, could you be more precise? --Cyclopia^talk 02:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism, since removed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There used to be a page for the American (direct to video) actress and model, but that got deleted. She's confused often enough with the British actress so may I recreate the page?

I kid you not on the Juggy Dancer: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0640871/ Hcobb (talk) 03:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The title is a BLP violation. That would be like the following articles:

Bill Clinton (I did not have sex) Richard Nixon (I am not a crook) Dan Quayle (not JFK) Lloyd Bentson (JFK detector) Ryan White Jr. (talk) 05:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In fact Steven Thomas (HIV infector) was convicted for multiple cases of attempted manslaughter. The sentence was equal to what you would get for murder in Finland. I have always considered the case a miscarriage of justice, but this is what the sources say. (Maybe in 300 years we will compare this to witch-hunts.) -- Petri Krohn (talk) 07:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The title does look a bit attacking, I agree with Ryan - is anyone experienced in naming conventions? or have a suggestion for a better name? He was also Steven Thomas (rap artist) under the name Steven Thomas (Doggy Steve). we could move to one of these and add a note about the HIV infector at Thomas the disambiguation page. - actually its not much of a life story, its just about the crime, perhaps there is some list or we could move the article away from being a BLP which it really actually isn't. - just some thoughts. Off2riorob (talk) 10:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, his sad claim to fame is indeed having infected people willingly with HIV, not being a rapper (something that isn't even sourced by the way). The article sounds quite WP:BLP1E to me. Could it be perhaps be merged in Criminal transmission of HIV, where similar notable cases are covered, and the title redirected? --Cyclopia^talk 11:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) - ( Sorry Cyclopia, I missed your comment - but we both seem to have had the same idea! ) We have this article Criminal transmission of HIV which doesn't have a Finnish section, we could move the crime details there? and we have this cat Category:Criminal transmission of HIV with eight people and this person is the only one with such a contensious identifier - Off2riorob (talk) 11:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we should probably find a better title for this article. See also Aki Hakkarainen. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or condense them both into a Finnish section on the main article and redirect them both as WP:ONEEVENT notability. Off2riorob (talk) 12:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{od}If the article were to remain, then we'd be best to use an identifier that points to the issue and not the person. So perhaps Steven Thomas (HIV) or Steven Thomas (HIV infection) would be mildly better. I think we should always use imaginative ways of avoiding negatively labelling people in titles, while acknowledging that the "contentious issue" is the reason for notability. Steven Thomas (rapper) makes no sense to me, we'd be as well with Steven Thomas (New Yorker) or Steven Thomas (b 1961) if we want to use an identifier that isn't based on notability. Best to differentiate people by what makes them truly different. Having said all that, a merge seems the best way here.--Scott Mac 12:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merged in Criminal_transmission_of_HIV#Finland. --Cyclopia^talk 12:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know that this helps as far as the "attacking" issue, but wouldn't Steven Thomas (criminal) make more sense? I'd qualify "HIV infector" as oddly specific for a title. Note this is still an issue at the Steven Thomas disambig page, so the merge didn't completely solve this debate. --Roger McCoy/រ៉ាចើ (talk) 17:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cycopia - I think the redirect can be moved also as no one is actually going to type in Steven Thomas (HIV infector), and this one Aki Hakkarainen could also do with merging in as well. Off2riorob (talk) 15:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably so; I'd like to see the sourcing situation before because actually nothing in the article is attributed to a specific source and merge consequentially - want to preserve all that's sourceable/relevant and leave out the rest. --Cyclopia^talk 15:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have done that and found another source for the conviction, please have a look and correct any issues you see, Aki Hakkarainen - and I moved the other one to Steven Thomas (HIV) for the disambiguation, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 16:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! thanks. --Cyclopia^talk 17:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The biographical section of this article needs to be gone over by someone with a better grasp of the line between fandom and fact for actresses. The majority of sources for her bio seem to me to fail RS, and some material is likely unsourced. As an example, she was listed as being married to someone else other than who the article claimed she was living with, but most of her personal info is sourced to Yahoo and fansites. MSJapan (talk) 09:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed some poorly sourced statements, although the article still needs some work. --Pontificalibus (talk) 10:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Contains uncited "quotes" from various people (living, I presume) taken without any context, and categorized as "calls for death" and "calls for assassination" etc. I would suggest that assigning such a name to "quotes" from living people falls under BLP clearly. The redirect to that page is labelled "Smears, accusations and threats against Julian Assange" which may violate WP:BLP by its very title. Collect (talk) 15:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The page should be deleted, or at the very least re-written as a prose article exclusively from tertiary sources if they exist. Right now it's almost entirely original research. It also appears at present to be very clearly politicized in that it lists the ridiculous posturing of only right wing politicos. Didn't Hillary Clinton have some harsh words about Mr. Assange? Haven't other members of the current regime? (Disclosure: I'm a registered Democrat and have no "political" bone of my own to pick with this hatchet job of an article ... it just seems rather obviously like political mudslinging to me).Griswaldo (talk) 16:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a disaster in progress if you want my opinion. But speaking personally I was willing to give it a chance to at least improve somewhat. I'm going to tag the redirects though (as db-attack with no implication of bad faith). --Errant ^(chat!) 16:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article should be speedy deleted. Have a look at the article creator's talk page - User_talk:Templar98 - and see his rationale for creating the page. Also Wikipedia is not news.Griswaldo (talk) 16:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What a mess. How many WP policies can you violate in one article? A POV fork only created after a consensus that this issue didn't deserve the treatment creator wished in the main Julian Assange article. Delete. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update - I requested a speedy deletion [27].Griswaldo (talk) 16:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Declined ... but then deleted.Griswaldo (talk) 16:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Templar98 was strongly pushing for more coverage of this. This article was an attempt to redirect some of that constructively. It would have taken work, but I don't think Speedy was totally necessary. I was more inclined to see how it looked after a week, since discussion was ongoing. Either way, I suppose. Ocaasi (talk) 16:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced or improperly sourced contentious claims about living people must be removed. -WP:BLP does not say "outrageous claims should remain for a full week just in case someone finds sources". Collect (talk) 17:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The quotes were almost all sourced. The question was whether the article belonged at all. But the quotes checked out. The week was intended to improve NPOV, not V or RS. Ocaasi (talk) 14:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The possible deletion of List of HIV-positive people, a featured list, is being discussed at AfD. Much of the discussion is about BLP-related aspects.  Cs32en Talk to me  19:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The biography is NOT from a Neutral Point Of View but looks more like something his publicist has written. Also Scientology is spread throughout the whole article and is not limited to the category about his religion. The page even has a link to the general scientology portal. This violates the policy on biographies of living persons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rportti (talk • contribs) 19:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you looking at the current article? I'd agree that there may be a POV problem, but I don't see 'Scientology' as being overly prominent. In fact it doesn't seem to be mentioned at all, which makes the Scientology category and portal link seem somewhat unjustified. Perhaps someone with a bit more knowledge of the subject could take a look. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The use of the Scientologist category is clearly insufficiently supported - and removed. Collect (talk) 23:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He makes no secret of being a Scientologist. See the talk page for sources verifying his membership of that religion (and showing inclusion is correct per due weight) and also sources for his relationship with Bijou Phillips, mention of which was also removed. Fences&Windows 01:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jemiljan (talk · contribs)

This user appears to spend his entire Wikipedia existence adding non RS websites critiquing a living person. I've tried explaining to this editor how this does not comply with our WP:BLP policy, but to not avail. A number of possibilities on how to fix this problem come to mind, including trying again to explain our BLP policies to this editor, keeping more eyes on the article, blacklisting the sites, or a block. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the coatrack-y reference to the ostensible meaning of the name "Cordoba project", as it is wholly irrelevant to to this article, non NPOV, UNDUE. Based on the history, I suspect he will revert again, so it would be great if an admin would keep an eye on this. Jonathanwallace (talk) 22:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brewer, I ardently disagree. You insist that the sites I refer to are "attack pages", but that is your own personal POV. Robert Spencer is a blogger and controversial critic of Islam. Other blogs, such as the two that I have added, examine his claims in detail and criticize them, end of Story. Attack sites? No more so than the rhetoric generated by Spencer. The problem here is that the article is devoted to someone who makes their living primarily by self-publishing, and so others respond in the same format. To host a biographical entry for someone primarily engaged in that mode of communication, but then disallow others for using the same format, seems imbalanced. The same would also apply to the related entry on the JihadWatch site itself. Now, as a compromise, I would offer that perhaps these sites should be added to the JihadWatch entry, as it's not a BLP. As an aside, a cursory check of my contributions will show that my "entire existence on WP" has hardly been solely "adding non RS websites critiquing a living person" as you seem to think... Also Jonathan, did I have anything to do with the edits you've referred to? Do show me where...Jemiljan (talk) 00:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are quite a lot of BLP claims there. Quite likely many are reliably sourced, but the claims are serious and there's a possibility of some WP:SYN, some WP:WEIGHT, a "laundry list" of facts and claims of which quite a few are not very salient, and undue focus on alleged criminal records which in some cases are not proven in a court. Sufficiently uneasy to want a good review and 2nd opinion on it. The notability's clear but BLP aspects may need redacting - perhaps severely.

Per Scott Macdonald, when asked, the prose is also poor and mixes up reporting allegations with reporting facts. (hope that's ok to quote you on, Scott!)

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This one seems seriously problematic. Most of the information is taken from The Smoking Gun, which may not be WP:RS (original article certainly isn't NPOV), and most of the other newspaper sources are simply echoing large chunks of the Smoking Gun piece. Some references to the Lufkin, TX newspaper are broken links. Apparently a couple of the people have claimed they were wrongly identified. Sweeping, badly sourced allegations about living people, some of whom have not been arrested or formally accused of a crime. Either reduce it to a stub or get rid of it under WP:NOTNEWS. Jonathanwallace (talk) 23:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Broken links are not reasons to claim something is not a reliable source. See WP:LINKROT. And I would say that TSG is a reliable source. Everything in this article was sourced. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A reliable source containing allegations of criminal activity against a living person, which have not been charged or proven, gets set aside here sometimes out of concern for harm to the individual. I am usually in favor of inclusion, but in this case Smoking Gun as the sole source of allegations against private individuals not otherwise notable seems problematic even under the least expansive interpretation of WP:BLP, as well as raising WP:NOTNEWS and WP:1E concerns. I hope we can get some other more experienced eyes on this, as it appears to me to be a very problematic article. Jonathanwallace (talk) 03:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a query on WP:RSN specifically as to whether The Smoking Gun is a reliable source in this context. I let the editors over there know we are discussing the BLP aspects over here. Jonathanwallace (talk) 03:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sheria Ngowi (born October 1, 1982) is a ^[7] fashion designer[1] and a qualified law graduate.[^[8]]

Sheria's collections have been shown widely throughout India.[^[9]] His work features detailed inspired by the past since from 30's up to the early 70's suits,cut for comfort and not as fitted and mostly where double-breasted.So he decided to blend modern trends with the classic vintage looks to make his collection. .

His work has been featured in several International magazines;Mambo Magazine,G (Ghubar ) Magazine,Ellon Magazine,Baabkubwa Magazine,FashizBlack Mag etc.

Also his work has been featured in several International websites and blogs;MTV etc.1 00:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karibuwelcome (talk • contribs)

This isn't the place to create or propose biographies. This noticeboard is for reporting violations of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons. --- cymru.lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 00:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like some opinions on this BLP, Veronica Prego, a page I found because of the current AfD on List of HIV-positive people. I went to her entry because the list couldn't even specify her birthdate. This seems like a clear BLP1E to me, but to be sure, a notable event if the entry is correct.Griswaldo (talk) 13:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having a hard time finding a good place to merge the information or is it better to re-title?Griswaldo (talk) 13:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about the name of the lawsuit? Mention in tertiary sources like this make me feel that is much more appropriate than the current article.Griswaldo (talk) 13:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably yes. Move and restructure the article in the direction you suggest seems the best idea. --Cyclopia^talk 16:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Veronica Prego v. City of New York et al. but it needs some attention.Griswaldo (talk) 18:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be better to merge somewhere. Did a quick browse but couldn't find anything fitting though. But this article will remain a stub forever. Garion96 (talk) 18:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, but at least now it complies with WP:BLP1E. I'm surprised that there is nothing out there that covers the larger subject of HIV infection in the workplace.Griswaldo (talk) 21:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, note that I did some work on the entry. More eyes on it, and additional information would he helpful. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

When I created my wiki account, I read the fine print and believe it said something like: 'But please, keep a neutral point of view'. In the name of what neutral viewpoint does the author allow him or herself to judge Mr. Hofheinz's political career in such harsh terms. Shocking and a good case for libel in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 9hofhei (talk • contribs) 14:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You were right to remove negative material that was not sourced. I re-added material concerning his conviction, which is very much relevant to his biography, and improved the sourcing. --FormerIP (talk) 14:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed [28] information about Faith Popcorn referenced with a Gawker article (http://gawker.com/news/evil-bosses/new-yorks-worst-bosses-faith-popcorn-242413.php), because Gawker was quoting an anonymous source. In general, I don't think Gawker's coverage of Popcorn (http://gawker.com/news/faith-popcorn/) meets WP:BLP - it's tabloid-style sensationalism.

The article could use a lot of work. Large portions are regularly rewritten based upon Popcorn's own marketing, or based upon attacks by her detractors. --Ronz (talk) 16:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the 90's, I was in the business world, regularly reading publications which covered her. I think the article as it looks right now gives a pretty balanced impression, given Popcorn's own pronouncements and choices. By the way,. if your main question is whether Gawker is WP:RS, there is a board for that, WP:RSN. Jonathanwallace (talk) 19:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it best to bring up here given that WP:BLP is policy and is more restrictive on sources than WP:RS, which is a guideline. --Ronz (talk) 20:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How would BLP disqualify Gawker as a source? It's a mainstream media outlet (at least in NYC). Mattnad (talk) 00:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Gawker's coverage in general, and this reference specifically, is sensationalist in the style of a tabloid, and thus not suitable for this BLP article. BLP says, "Be very firm about the use of high quality sources." and "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." --Ronz (talk) 00:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the information comes from someone described as an anonymous tipster, I think that should be enough of a hint that it doesn't belong in a BLP. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(out)The cite given above is absolutely not RS for any BLP claims including the fact that it specifies the material is all anonymous opinion, and written by an unfindable author. IIRC, anonymous rumour does not make for an RS cite in any BLP. Collect (talk) 03:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that there's no by-line doesn't mean it's authorship is unattibuted. The entire editorial staff is on listed to the left of the article that leads with "We". I'm not sure why you would say it's rumor - the article cites an source claims to work there but wants to remain anonymous (for obvious reasons - I imagine Popcorn would have had a negative reaction to anyone voicing that opinon). Other publications take this approach on other wistleblower articles. Now this is not the most savory example of journalism, I'll agree. But it seems to meet the requirements of WP:RS.Mattnad (talk) 18:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing for contentious WP:BLP claims has different sourcing standards. Active Banana (^bananaphone 18:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. According to WP:BLP, Needs to be a RS. To me, Gawker is a published RS and the inline citation was clearly connected to Gawker. You are suggesting (I think) it's not. Hence, I think this is more an issue for the reliable sources noticeboard since it all hinges on whether the cited article is a RS or not. But as a separate item, the Wikipedia article is pretty lousy since there's not whole lot to go on either way. Most of the non-critical material is from PR driven bios that are effectively primary source from Popcorn, or people related to her enterprise (like her publishers). For all of her fame, she's not really covered by anyone serious, good or bad. Mattnad (talk) 19:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This desired addition by user:Mattnad has no actual value at all, its attacking in nature and worthless - this blog post on a drama website said that someone they didn't name said this living person was rubbish - Gawker is not a strong encyclopedic content source, its a titillation location. It isn't a RS noticeboard issue as the content is the issue not the website - for some content there may a case to support using a cite to gawker - personally in a BLP I would never support it, especially for content and claims that are vague and contentious as this is.. 19:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)Off2riorob (talk)

Support Off2riorob and the non-inclusion. Even if this content had appeared in a source that we will almost always consider a reliable source, such as the NYT or Guardian, the "true sourcing" to "an anonymous tipster" would fail the requirements of BLP content. Active Banana (^bananaphone 19:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don't care if the content is in or out, but to say a reliable source does not meet your requirements because they did not disclose a source (which can be done for good reasons) is questionable. I think you're going beyond the guidelines of WP:BLP with this line of reasoning. Mattnad (talk) 23:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How you can claim , "you don't care if the content is in out out" when you added it is beyond me. Actually, your desire to add this worthless weakly cited and poorly claimed attacking content to a wikipedia BLP is the only issue. Off2riorob (talk) 01:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mattnad, I think Gawker would be a reliable source in many instances, but that doesn't give any source a free pass, especially when it comes to BLPs. You need to read WP:BLP again. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the record Off2riorob, I did not add the material to the article. It had been there for several years, and I restored it since Ronz removed it with no discussion and in my view an unsupported complaint. And I have read WP:BLP - it's pretty specific about needing a reliable source for contentious material. How is Gawker a reliable source in many instances, but not this one? I'm more concerned at this point about people making up policy to be honest. Mattnad (talk) 12:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the record Matt - Contributors are fully responsible for any content they add to an article, this is irrelevant to the fact that it might have been in the article previously - if you replace it that is an addition - you are then the person with the responsible for that content - you added it. Off2riorob (talk) 12:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Easy on the bold face, you may pop a blood vessel in your finger tips as you stab stab stab stab at the keys in a petulant frenzy. Something that was there for years is not an "addition". However, If you can demonstrate Gawker is not a reliable source, then fine. But the BLP guideline only require a reliable source. You've decided Gawker is not. Then perhaps we should take it up with RSN. Mattnad (talk) 14:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You misinterpret, my emotion regarding this is zero. Your refusal to accept what is and is not clearly an addition is a further example of your refusal to listen and accept policy and guidelines. I bolded it for all readers of the page as that position is one that users often don't understand. I wouldn't recommend forum shopping it to RSN with the same content from a different angle, the content is being resisted here through BLP issues of weak titillating content and a similar citation - You seem to be continuing to insist that you can add any content you want to a BLP because you have a citation from Gawker, that position is the opposite of BLP. Off2riorob (talk) 14:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mattnad, any chance to have another source reporting the information? Otherwise, BLP or not, it doesn't seem more than a tabloid-ish blip on the radar. --Cyclopia^talk 15:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, here's one from the Huffington Post [29], The New York Daily News, [30].Mattnad (talk) 18:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its just the same valueless content at similar cites, hilariious, some editior somewhere has likely already tried and failed to create a list from it or add it to other BLPs what a non encyclopedia waste of time. Off2riorob (talk) 18:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another more grounded and less fretful interpretation is that other major publications (which are very often cited in wikipedia) with millions of readers felt this is worth publishing. WP:BLP requires us to have reliable source. I have now provided three including one, the huffington post, that is a couple of years after the original Gawker article. That they repeat the same information is not an issue as far as WP:RS or WP:BLP is concerned. Mattnad (talk) 20:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources are even worse than Gawker, for the same reasons. --Ronz (talk) 03:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done

Im Shannon Lucas and i dont know who made this wiki page for me but there are some things wrong that id like to be fixed. First of all i was born in 1983, not '84. I was born in Staunton, Va. not Lansing Mi. and my middle name is Micheal, not David. Please help me fix this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DickWhiplash (talk • contribs) 18:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the unsourced contested information indicated above. Thank you for pointing out the inaccuracies. Active Banana (^bananaphone 18:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Weak claims of comments related to a yet to be released article in the people on the 17 January, in regards to comments has about his sexuality in his yet to be released autobio. I just reverted an addition that imo at the present time and with the sourcing represents a BLP violation, please add it to your watchlist or have a look at the situation and make a comment, there is a degree of discussion on the talkpage here, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 22:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article's been released. It's dated 17 Jan, but it's on newsstands now. — AMK1211^talk! 02:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the AfterElton article has been reposted on his official website. http://www.figureskatersonline.com/johnnyweir/home/2011/01/johnny-weir-no-longer-skating-around-the-gay-thing/

And here's from the Associated Press: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ihtu6Vz_cX-AMSJkR354balB1LLw?docId=c8d2463b5234478f9fb3e98f0007680f  — AMK1211^talk! 02:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nothing has happened to this article yet, but it might be worth adding Prahlad Friedman to your watch list as a story that just broke is generating a lot of buzz (largely negative) in the poker world and around the poker communities.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 00:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Says he eats babies. Come on, guys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.15.86.6 (talk) 05:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism, rapidly reverted by ClueBot, one of the automatic vandal detectors that check edits. Thanks for the heads up though, the 'bots don't always spot vandalism (and sometimes call it vandalism when it isn't). It looks as if the edit only stood for a few minutes, so I don't think a great deal of harm will have been done. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I spoke too soon: the vandal is at it again. Semi-protect, or block the IP, anyone? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Does this article really need to be more than a stub? Right now, it reads like a horribly written press release or a puff piece for a Who's who? catalog. None of his films have their own pages and the IMDB page shows a few blaxploitation movies as all he's directed. 68.97.129.237 (talk) 16:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did some minor removal of unsourced material, and agree that the writing/sourcing should be greatly improved going forwrd. I am a pretty bad writer so I will leave it to others. --Threeafterthree (talk) 17:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask someone to take a look at this article. I came across it while looking at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_HIV-positive_people, but having raised it there I'd perhaps be not the best person to give a neutral assessment: it does however seem to be sourcing the revelation of his HIV+ status to Twitter, and much of the other detail to a (definitely NSFW) gay porn website. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this would be a much better source. Strangely enough this source was used on the list. :) Garion96 (talk) 18:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True enough, though one would have hoped that whoever added Wyler to the list would have added it to the article too. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One can always hope, but it doesn't always happen. There are unfortunately quite a few articles on the list. I removed some of the stuff and added the other source to the article. Garion96 (talk) 19:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

A lot of information on THIS PERSON HAS BEEN EDITED OUT JUST THIS LAST WEEK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.58.204.13 (talk) 21:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are a few experienced editors at the article and unless you have a specific WP:BLP issue then I don't see anything to do there. Off2riorob (talk) 23:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rob Couteau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Robcouteau (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Figlipped (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm not sure if this belongs here or the COI message board so as I am a bit short of time I will post it at both. Today I came upon this user Robcouteau (talk · contribs) who is adding external links to his reviews of various authors and books - I know that is a different problem for the EL page but I am just trying to give an overview of how I got here. As I checked the edit history [31] for the article for Mr Couteau it seems to have been created by user Figlipped (talk · contribs) whose only wikipedia edits are to create the RC article. I know that Fig started editing after RC but it looks like the RC article was created to have a page to connect his name to the external links that were being added to wikipedia's pages. If you all deem that this page is okay then that is fine with me but I thought that it needed more eyes than mine to determine its suitability. Thanks for your time in this manner. MarnetteD | Talk 21:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• - It appears to be weakly cited and inflated, the type of weakly cited promotional content that would suggest COI contributors. Off2riorob (talk) 23:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged the whole spamfest for speedy deletion. Feel free to cut it back to a short stub. – ukexpat (talk) 00:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And declined -- I am too tired to work on it now, so passing the baton to someone else.....and I see Off2riorob has picked it up and run with it magnificently. – ukexpat (talk) 01:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Pat, I ragged some of the worst weak claims out of it, to get started, the article could use an independent wiki editor local expert (visual artist, interviewer? from new york} to stub it back a bit more perhaps, there seems to be almost no independent note? Off2riorob (talk) 02:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Subject is not notable based on web checks. Wiki article itself suggests no notability. Recommend deletion. Pnoble805 (talk) 02:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article says he "is the apparent heir of his family's fortune estimated to be over 500 million dollars", which, if true might be notable. I've tagged this as needing a citation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I speedily deleted because the article as it stood made no credible claim to importance. Actually, I think this might have been a hoax, I can find no trace of such a person or his family. Fences&Windows 03:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In Illuminati#Modern_Illuminati, "Conspiracy theorists have claimed that many notable people were or are members of the Illuminati" is followed by the names of a number of notable people, mostly living, sourced to non-notable, non-reliable sources. It's contended in edit summaries and on the article's talk page that the "conspiracy theorists have claimed" preface renders both this claim about living people acceptable, and the use of non-notable, non-reliable sources acceptable. That sounds pretty questionable to me. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 04:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sources for the examples cited, specifically footnote 10 and 11, don't meet our standards for reliability; notes 12 and 13 are what would be considered fringe. My recommendation is to remove the entire phrase "including Winston Churchill...Zbigniew Brzezinski". Viriditas (talk) 11:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A nice issue -- should "conspiracy theorists" be given any weight at all in any BLP issues? My opinion is a sound "no." Collect (talk) 11:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have boldly removed the names and left a note on the talkpage informing them of this thread for discussion. There is also a bit of discussion on my talkpage here regarding the reliability of one of the sources that was re added. Off2riorob (talk) 14:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind removing the names... but... the sources are reliable in the context of what is being said in the article. This is a statement about the beliefs of conspiracy theorists... citing those beliefs to the conspiracy theorists who hold them is a WP:ABOUTSELF situation. It is the difference between saying "Obama is a socialist" and "Person X believes Obama is a socialist"... the first is a statement about Obama. The second is a statement about Person X... and a source written by Person X, where they say this, is reliable for that second statement.

This is one of those topics where the opinion of Fringe theorists has to be discussed to cover the topic properly. In this case, the opinions of Fringe conspiracy theorists actually carry a lot of weight. I absolutely agree that these claims would have no place in the bio articles on Churchill, Bush, Obama, Brzezinski etc.... but in the context of an article about the Illuminai, they have a place. Blueboar (talk) 15:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually... I have to question whether WP:BLP applies here.... the article is not a BLP, as it is not about a living person... its about an organization. The section in question is (in part) about Fringe theories concerning this organization. Yes, the section mentioned listed a few living people (in passing)... but that is not the same as a BLP. Context again. Blueboar (talk) 16:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BLP applies to all content about living people and to all citations containing extreme comments about them , whether the content is disguised as a conspiracy theory or not. I see you have replaced the names as well as the citation again , recreating the exact first complaint. Especially related to extreme claims related to the names you replaced Obhsama and bush and you added this citeation which I removed and you again added - its full of BLP violations and not reliable and just not needed to cite such a simple content addition that

• - all presidents of the USA are accused to be in the Illuminati - http://poweredbychrist.homestead.com/files/bush/rituals.htm - Off2riorob (talk) 16:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I tend to agree with Blueboar. If we are to document what conspiracy theorists believe and if sources report on their beliefs, provided that such beliefs are clearly marked as such (fringe views by conspiracy theorists) I'd say that names can stay, if they're notable and recurring in the conspiracy theory. If you want to talk about birthers you have to explain it's about Barack Obama. A similar argument can apply here. --Cyclopia^talk 16:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you support the use of this citation to support this content ? Off2riorob (talk) 16:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no, but not because of BLP issues, just more generally because it's unclear if it's a sensible primary source on the subject and for sure is not a secondary RS. I was referring to the general issue, but I agree sourcing is very problematic. --Cyclopia^talk 17:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, its a primary that is full of extreme claims such as baby killing by notable people that Blueboar has again named. That link it a BLP violating vessel and we should not be propagating and supporting its use through publishing it here on wikipedia. Off2riorob (talk) 17:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the point: if it was a proper primary source it would be OK (e.g.: if we're writing on a hypothetical conspiracy theory that thinks that Hollywood actors eat babies, a link to a primary source of them on their claims would be proper, provided it is used to source their wacky theories and only those). The point is if it's a proper primary source on the subject, like an official website of the conspiracy theorists. --Cyclopia^talk 18:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is being used as a primary source... and appropriately. When it comes to a statement as to the fact that someone makes a particular claim, the most reliable source is the book, document or website where they actually make the claim. I really think Off2 is stretching the concept of BLP. the policy is called "Biographies of Living People" after all... not "Mentions of Living People in articles about something else". Context context context. Sources and statements can be unacceptable in one situation and be acceptable in another. Blueboar (talk) 18:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blueboar, can you explain why that website is a reliable primary source? Is it an official website of the conspiracy theorists of some kind? (And yes, BLP policy covers also mentions of living people elsewhere)--Cyclopia^talk 18:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is a conspiracy website that we could call "official" (it's not like conspiracy theorists join a club or something)... That website is a fairly typical conspiracy website and it contains the claims we say it contains. It was chosen as being representative of hundreds of other conspiracy websites that make the same or very similar claims. As for what makes it reliable... Every source is a reliable primary source for statements as to what is contained within that source. Its why we say that no source is ever 100% unreliable. For a statement that says X make certain claims... You can't get more reliable than X's website where he says it. Blueboar (talk) 20:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. We don't choose unreliable sources to write articles, and whenever possible, we use the best sources at our disposal. The sources you added back into the article do not meet our inclusion criteria, and your reason for adding them isn't supported. When we provide examples, we choose reliable sources to do so. For example, look at our article on David Icke. In the Illuminati article, Icke is considered a source for for information about the "Modern Illuminati". In his biographical article, Icke claims that "..the Babylonian Brotherhood controls humanity, and that many prominent figures are reptilian, including George W. Bush, Queen Elizabeth II, Kris Kristofferson, and Boxcar Willie." This odd statement is sourced to journalist Jon Ronson in a reliable secondary source. And while Ronson depends on the primary source literature of Icke to make this observation, we do no have to depend on Wikipedia editors to do it for us. In the same way, we do not depend on Wikipedia editors to decide which personal websites should best represent an example, because we don't use them for that purpose. We rely on reliable authors to do it for us. Viriditas (talk) 21:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, Viriditas is quite right. I'd personally accept an unambiguously relevant primary source (e.g. a well known conspirational book) but as such, it's just one website out of many. I understand the point you are making and I sympathize, Blueboar, but it's not good enough, regardless of the BLP. --Cyclopia^talk 21:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, context. The article under discussion is the Illuminati article... not the Icke bio article or even the reptilian conspiracy article. The simple fact is... lots and lots of conspiracy theorists have claimed that various prominent figures are members of the Illuminati. The most common target for these claims are US Presidents (the claim has been made about every President since FDR... Bush and Obama are only the most recent). The idea that the President is an Illuminati is a major component of the theory. We can down play it, but we can't ignore it. And since we must mention it, we need to cite sources that support our mention... and these sources do so. Now, I agree that we want the best sources possible... These were the best I could find... but if you can come up with better I have absolutely no problem with replacing yours for the ones I provide. All I am saying is that in the context of a WP:FRINGE article, any source that makes a claim is reliable for the statement that the claims are made. The sources provided are "good enough". Blueboar (talk) 21:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, my only worry is that there is no indication that it is a "good enough" primary source. You said that it is a "fairly typical conspiracy website". This is your original research. You need a source which is clearly authoritative and representative of the conspiracists' thoughts, like a book they published. --Cyclopia^talk 23:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find one, please use it. Until then, we will stay with websites. Blueboar (talk) 02:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, no. A non-reliable source is not a good substitute of a reliable one. --Cyclopia^talk 02:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, seems like consensus support is for removing this cite. Off2riorob (talk) 02:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

While doing routine BLP checking, I found this unreferenced and incredible section alleging a sextape [32]. Given the unlikelihood of a production looking for consent, even if the underlying story is true, this version is probably libellous. I've removed it (obviously), but disturbingly it has been in the heavily-editied article since April 2009.

The article contains any other number of BLP violations, which I have removed [33] [34]. It is possible that some of these allegations are, in fact, true and that they might be replaced with referencing. It is also possible that stuff I've left in the article should also be removed.

I'd like some people to look over this. Is there anything else I've missed? Maybe someone will also be willing to reference and replace some of the stuff. Please also watchlist. This article is bad news.--Scott Mac 19:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I started to tackle some of it, but it truly is a mess. What I wanted to do was to remove ALL unsourced material (the article has been tagged for years), but ended up removing only a little. Deciding what to remove and what not to remove wasn't easy. Plus, I didn't finish looking at the rest of the article. Some of the article reads like a promotional piece (clothing lines, restaurants, etc.).--Bbb23 (talk) 20:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:BLPCAT says: "Categories regarding religious beliefs ... should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief ... in question; and the subject's beliefs ... are relevant to their notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources."

I removed Jewish categories from the Kunis article because even assuming she has sufficinetly self-identified as Jewish, her Jewishness is not relevant to her notability. Another editor reinstated the categories saying that being Jewish is not just a "religion" but also an ethnicity, and so this section of BLPCAT doesn't apply. I have trouble with that, not the concept of Jewish and ethnicity per se, but with the application of the policy. Are we going to make exceptions for religions in which someone may identify with the religion in certain ways but not with the religious aspects? Sounds like a slippery slope to me. Even assuming we wanted to make that distinction, how would we decide that a particular article subject self-identifies with the "ethnic" aspect but not with the religious aspect? WP:EGRS doesn't seem to help on this issue, either.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for a start, nothing in the article indicates she has self-identified as Jewish. She was born "to a Jewish family". Now, I realise many might say that makes her Jewish. Fine. But that's not the only possible definition of Jewish, and so it is POV to caregorise here as a Jew, when the article lacks self-identification.--Scott Mac 20:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True, but let's assume that stuff could be put in the article where she self-identifies. If you look at the Talk page, you'll see that the editor has identified a couple of references: here and here. They're not the best references as one is pretty old, and the other is perfunctory. However, for me, whether BLPCAT even applies is the more difficult issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Pretty old"? Speaking of slippery slopes, there's one if your goal is to waste the time of good editors arguing over something that is as incredibly self-apparent as categorizing a fully Jewish actress who has described herself as "Jewish" as a "Jewish actor". The fact is, the word "Jewish" refers to an ethnicity, which is why the article Jews is categorized under category:Ethnic groups in the Middle East and category:Semitic peoples (and the article also describes Jews as a "nation"!). For the record, Kunis also described herself as "Jewish" on the Craig Ferguson Show (at about 5:11 here), and I'm sure there are others. But again, I absolutely can not understand the fact that we're even having this conversation right now. This is so, so obvious, and all of us could be doing better things than repeating that obvious. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 20:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You certainly could be doing better things than being so full of yourself.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How do her beliefs apply to her notable activities or public life? Dougweller (talk) 21:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the reason for the category is her ethnicity, then the question should be how is this applicable, though the same point applies. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We're talking about ethnicity, not "belief". Ethnicity is not covered by BLPcat (in fact, a whole long discussion on whether to include ethnicity in BLPcat just this December had not resulted in its addition). Ethnicity is covered by WP:V and WP:NOR. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 21:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is surrealistic. It seems that everybody has forgotten that millions of Jewish were killed 70 years ago simply because they were Jewish. For most of them this was a religion, but for many others, especially in France, this was not their religion (either they had changed of religion, as the present Pope, or they had no religion at all), nor a nation (as they were French for many generations), nor an ethnicity (they do not belong to any community). To be Jewish was only their name and the religion of their ancestors. And their were horribly killed for that, even the babies.

This is the reason why, in France, it is forbidden to categorize people by their religion as well as by their ethnicity.

My opinion is that to not apply WP:BLPCAT to ethnicity (or to any other meaning of "Jewish") would be a shame.

D.Lazard (talk) 23:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this discussion is surreal, but not for the important points you raise, but for the hypertechnical Wikipedia-like points addressed and not addressed by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Just for the sake of argument, assuming BLPCAT doesn't apply to ethnicity, how do we determine that Kunis's self-identification as Jewish is ethnic, religious, or both? And how would we determine that for any other BLP? After all, if her self-identification is religious, or even ethnic and religious, then BLPCAT applies. The only way I can think of to resolve that issue is through reliable sources (e.g., "I believe in a Jewish god" or "I don't believe in a Jewish god"), and absent any reliable sources one way or the other, we must exercise caution with BLP articles and apply BLPCAT to Jewish categories.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you apply BLPcat to Jewish categories, you must also apply them to Italian, Irish, and Welsh categories. Or how about "Ukrainian women", a category she's in? Again, why are we having this discussion? Why? It makes no logical sense not to categorize a self-identified Jewish actress in the category "Jewish actors". If we don't, then this category shouldn't exist (and maybe it shouldn't, but that's a different issue). WP:V and WP:NOR exist, and they are excellent policies. What more do you want? What I find impossible to understand is why anyone would want to argue over something that is so, so, so patently obvious, sourced, referenced, and fitting with every one of Wikipedia's core policies. I think the Mila Kunis article has been categorized under "Jewish actors" for about five years now, without a single person attempting to remove it from it. That doesn't make its inclusion right, but don't you think there's a reason you're the only first person to try? (BTW, as to your statement about knowing whether the "self-identification is religious, or even ethnic and religious" - ethnicity categories do not require self-identification, because they're not covered by BLPcat. According to reliable sources, Kunis is Jewish, which fits in with the excellent criteria at WP:V and WP:NOR). All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 23:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is clearly vagueness - the whole Jewish labeling and cats need looking at - you have no idea if it is a religious person or not or if they have two Jewish (religious or ethnic) parents or if he has only one distant relative that was Jewish (religious or not unknown) or if hes not genetically Jewish at all but the person has converted from another faith. Off2riorob (talk) 23:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your entire argument assumes that Jewish can only be ethnic and never religious, a notion that might offend a considerable number of religious Jews. Otherwise, you wouldn't compare it to Italian, etc. Your argument also falls apart for the same reason. And if you see no justification for this discussion, then, by all means, don't participate.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not only ethnic but that's what the normal definition of the word refers to (notice how Kunis says her parents told her "you are Jewish in your blood"). That's why the article Jews refers to the term as describing a "nation" (!). The most religious of Jews especially, by the way, believe that the word "Jew" refers to a nation, an ethnicity, a group of people. That is why Orthodox Judaism defines "who is a Jew" by matrilineal ethnic descent. Someone who believes everything that Jews believe but does not come from a matrilineal Jewish line of descent would not be considered Jewish by the most religious of Jews (Orthodox Jews don't recognize conversion to Judaism unless they're Orthodox conversions). The whole principle of Judaism is that the Jews are a people, not just a group who hold the same religious beliefs (and such religious beliefs wouldn't make someone "Jewish" according to the strictest definitions). All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 00:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "normal" definition of Jewish. You're just picking the one you like. If you do even a cursory search on the web, you'll find that mostly Jewish is defined as either cultural or religious. Here's just one example, but many other wesbites say similar things, as do dictionaries. Nor do I see how the concept of matrilineal descent has anything to do with whether Jewish is religious or ethnic or both. See here for more information about the history of matrilineal descent.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, its all so vague and cats are not supposed to be vague, it defeats the object of them. Off2riorob (talk) 00:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is, it's an ethnicity. That can't be changed. I don't see how the fact that it's also a religion has any effect on this, since we're not talking about the category Converts to Judaism. I presume the "normal" definition of Jewish is the one given at the top of the article Jews ("a nation and ethnoreligious group". BLPcat does not apply to nations, nor does it apply to ethnoreligious groups.) Category:Jewish actors is categorized under Category:Actors by ethnicity. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 00:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, Category:Jewish actors is also categorized under Category:Jews by occupation which is categorized under Category:People by religion and occupation and under Category:Jews, the last of which has the following caveat: "See also the policy at WP:BLPCAT regarding categorization by religion or sexual orientation." As for BLPCAT, if you can find language in it that it does not apply to "ethnoreligious" groups, that would be helpful for you. As it is, it applies to religious groups, and as most concede, Jews can be considered a religious group.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why do I need to find language in it that says it doesn't apply to ethnoreligious groups? No language stating that it does is there. All it says is "religious beliefs", not "membership in an ethnoreligious group". That's about it. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 00:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I already stated, BLPCAT says it applies to religious groups and even calling Jews an ethnoreligious group makes them both a religious and an ethnic group. But I think that at least you and I are going in circles.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bb, you're only suggesting the removal of "Jewish actors"... right? Not all Jewish categories? Bulldog123 02:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bb removed all "Jewish" categories this morning. It was me who specifically started mentioning "Jewish actors", but really, I'm talking about all the categories. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 02:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AHW is correct. I removed all the Jewish categories except the descent category (as I recall). The same reasoning applies to all of the ones that categorize her as Jewish (American, Ukrainian, actor, etc). I think AHW would agree that there's no difference for the purpose of this discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You said it. It applies to "religious groups". But a religious group is not the same thing as an "ethnoreligious group". That's why we have a separate article to define an ethnoreligious group. These are two differente terms with two different meanings. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 01:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

The religion/culture/ethnicity multivalence of the term "Jewish" is a long-standing problem. A possible solution might be to make "Jew/Jewish" categories require self-ID per WP:BLPCAT, and to use "Jewish descent" categories in all other cases where only third-party RS descriptions are available, and no Jewish self-ID can be sourced. --JN466 23:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a constructive suggestion, but I doubt any consensus will be reached to adopt it. By the way, BLPCAT requires self-ID and notability relevance.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why BLPcat is problematic. Anything that has inspired a discussion so completely without logical or useful (or practical) purpose, and has wasted the time of so many good editors (I exclude myself), is obviously not a good policy (and that's why I'm glad BLPcat wasn't extended to ethnicity). All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 00:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's no consensus to require self-identificaiton in order to categorize people as Jewish. Many people would find that problematic, and particularly problematic to do so on grounds of holding religion up to be the paramount issue of Jewishness. What BLPCAT may or may not say on the subject is not going to answer the question - if BLPCAT did in fact prohibit this category then we would have to say that it does not reflect a consensus position. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But Wikidemon, the only reason we're having this discussion is because an editor is taking a minor provision in BLpcat and applying it to the word "Jewish", which is unquestionably an ethnic group and a "people", something not convered in BLPcat. If BLPcat did not exist, we wouldn't be having this conversation. There is literally no other debate or point of contention here. We are talking about someone, Mila Kunis, who was born to two Jewish parents, has publically and in print and especially on national television self-identified herself as Jewish, and of whose Jewish status there is no contention, either in the press, nor among Wikipedia editors. The categorization of her as a "Jewish actress", say, passes every policy in the book - like WP:V and WP:NOR. So, while I agree with you that "There's no consensus to require self-identificaiton in order to categorize people as Jewish" - that's not even the issue here. There is no issue here except policy wonking something that isn't even covered by the policy. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 01:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

cActually, Category:Jewish actors should be nominated for deletion anyway. It pretty much falls under WP:OCAT directly and I doubt we'd get many people disagreeing with that unless they're being disingenuous. There is no proof any of these actor's Jewishness affect their acting or life as actors, and Mila Kunis is really a perfect example of that. For most people, her being Jewish or of Jewish descent is just pure trivia and the category "American Jews" or "Americans of Jewish descent" or "Americans of Ukrainian-Jewish descent" is more than enough to report that. This whole emphasis on tossing people into Jewish categories is really just fancruftism purported by places like Jweekly, JVibe, etc...etc.... It's more rampant for Jewish BLPS than other BLPs because few places give a shit if an actor is half-Portuguese or not... or at least they don't report it with as much zest. One of the reasons we don't see Category:Portuguese-American actors under Tom Hanks. Bulldog123 01:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Portuguese-American actors doesn't exist, and if it did, I'm sure Hanks would be in it. The point here is not whether or not the category should exist (I don't usually participate in those, although I did vote delete on a couple of such lists). The point is since the category does exist, what possible reason would there be for Kunis not to be in it, since she obviously and verifiably satisfies both criteria for entry ("Jewish" and "actor"). The discussion isn't just about this category, though, it's also about "American Jews" and "Ukrainian Jews" in her case. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 01:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except the criteria is not "both Jewish and actor"... it's "Jewish actor." Per WP:OCAT, Jewish actor needs to be established as a cultural phenomenon (or topic)... [where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right. ]... and in order to be included in that category, she needs to be verified as part of that cultural phenomenon. You're thinking of the category, Category:People who are Jewish and actors. Doesn't exist. Thank God. Bulldog123 01:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"OCAT" refers to which categories should or should not exist, not which people should be in those categories. "People who are Jewish and actors" is the same as "Jewish actors". Yes, yes, we can argue endlessly that it's not or it is, but obviously, it's a matter of irrelevant semantics that I hope common sense can overcome. And that's not the topic of this incomprehensible discussion anyway. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 02:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not being disingenuous here, but one's ethnicity is not a matter of trivia. In the case of Jewishness, that battle has been fought and lost. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not being disingenuous here, but one's ethnicity is not a matter of trivia ...I hope that's not a response to my remarks... otherwise I'd have to assume you didn't read them at all, skipping over sentences like: "For most people, her being Jewish or of Jewish descent is just pure trivia and the category "American Jews" or "Americans of Jewish descent" or "Americans of Ukrainian-Jewish descent" is more than enough to report that." Not all trivia is totally unencyclopedic trivia, but it's still trivia. Bulldog123 01:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Should we have a Wikipedia:Neutrality in Judaism quasiproject/workgroup to go through all Jewish-designation categories and remove them from articles without adequate sources, and also to nominate for deletion Jewish people of uncertain notability? That's the solution being used for another relgious groups and the community seems to approve. Jayen466, would you like to initiate it?   Will Beback  talk  03:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article should say Mila Kunis is Jewish, as that is what sources say. She states here that she is Jewish: "Well I was in Russia. I wasn't allowed to be religious. My whole family was in the holocaust. My grandparents passed and not many survived. After the holocaust in Russia you were not allowed to be religious. So my parents raised me to know I was Jewish. You know who you are inside. You don't need to tell the whole world. You believe what you believe and that's what's important. And that's how I was raised. My family was like 'you are Jewish in your blood'. We can celebrate Yom Kippur and Hannukah but not by the book. We do it to our own extent. Because being in Russia...Bar Mitzvahs weren't held. When I was in school you would still see anti-Semitic signs. One of my friends who grew up in Russia, she was in second grade. And she came home one day crying. Her mother asked why she was crying and she said on the back of her seat there was a swastika. Now this is a country that obviously does not want you. So my parents raised me Jewish as much as they could and came to America. I love my religion. I think it's a beautiful religion but I took parts of it that I want for myself. I don't need to go to temple. I will, but I don't need to." That she was Jewish under conditions that were adverse to that identity should be seen as accentuating that identity. Bus stop (talk) 04:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC) Bus stop (talk) 03:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was recently shot. I've twice removed content from Sarah Palin referencing this story which states that Palin was a political opponent of Giffords', and had published a "target map" including her. The referenced map is here. Would appreciate opinions on inclusion of speculation that the shooter was somehow motivated by Palin, or even if that belongs in her biography. At this point it's all breaking news, but of course the partisan blogs are on fire with the story. Kelly ^hi! 21:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are the mainstream media commenting on Palin's "target map"? If they are, it might be worth a brief mention. There has been a similar debate with the Julian Assange article, as to whether the numerous suggestions from quite well-known sources that he should be killed ought to be reported. The consensus was that if this was seen as significant in the media it merited inclusion, but we shouldn't over-emphasise it, or rely on primary sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NOTNEWS, it's premature to include stuff like this. There's zero indication that the shooter even knew about Palin's opinion of the congresswoman, or even that the shooter was targeting the congresswoman as opposed to the other victims. Wikipedia editors have cherry-picked news reports for anything remotely negative about Palin, while omitting to add material from those reports to the Harvey Milk article (he's mentioned in the cited report) or to the Wikipedia articles about any of the other people Palin allegedly targeted.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is got NPOV issues as well because it makes speculitive implications both to the motives of Sarah Palin, and to the reasoning of the shooter. Off2riorob (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plain's people are likely to be regretting the map over the next week, but there's no way this is appropriate article content. --FormerIP (talk) 21:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can see the argument against including it in Palin's article, but not against including it in the article on Gifford herself. It's mentioned by numerous major media outlets. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think such a speculation should be included prima facie, and in fact I don't think it has been. But I do think the mere connection between facts (being on the hit-list and being shot) is relevant and worth mentioning, because the News report it all over the world. Clearly, we would expect Sarah Palin to intend her as a political target. Arguably Sarah Palin is (or was, as of today) more notorious than Gabrielle Giffords. Just mentioning the connection isn't open speculation about the shooter's motives, and even if it is, it's not stated how much his motive was moved by a real distortion of what he perceived was Palin's message. Sarah Palin is not directly responsible for what happened, and if everybody has tools to understand what she really intended to say and what happened, I don't see why the coincidence noted by tens of major newsagents around the world should be deliberately shadowed. --Gibbzmann (talk) 22:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That it is mentioned in the sources doesn't mean it should be mentioned in the article. It should only be mentioned in the article if it increases the readers understanding of the subject of the article. Which I think it is more likely to do the opposite of. Prodego ^talk 22:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"It should only be mentioned in the article if it increases the readers understanding of the subject of the article". I can't follow you. Understand what? Easyness for the readers' intellectual peace of thought shouldn't be a substitute for facts. First come the facts, next comes the how to better explain them. We are not yet discussing how best to report them to make them understandable, just whether or not to report them. --Gibbzmann (talk) 22:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's totally relevant. I hope this important issue gets included. Politicians should know better how their images, actions and campaign affect the mind of some loons. Map is visible here --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 22:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's loony to jump to the conclusion that the shooter knew of the map.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody's jumping to that conclusion. We're just following what reputable sources are reporting (or trying to, but it keeps getting blanked out). Even center-right sources such as the UK Daily Telegraph are noting it, so it's hardly a liberal plot. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't need to know the map, is the violent rhetoric and the misinformation what produces such kind of consequences. The map is just a sample of such rhetoric. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 22:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Violent rhetoric? Cite needed, please. Kelly ^hi! 22:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think a 2010 piece at Huffington Post has some examples: Palin's map has gun sights, gun sights on retiring Democrats are red-colored (a bloody colour choice), "We'll aim for these races...", "This is just the first salvo in a fight ..." --EarthFurst (talk) 00:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Politicians use polemical/military-style language all the time. I remember Obama asking his supporters to get in opponents' faces. After statements like that, the other side tries to gin up outrage. This is routine stuff. Kelly ^hi! 01:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The question isn't whether the shooter knew of the map. Are the mainstream media commenting on the map when they report on the shooting? If they are, then the map needs mentioning in the Gifford article. It isn't up to us to decide what to report based on whether we think the map was actually relevent. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we have to include everything the media says? It isn't up to us to report because we do not report. WP:NOTNEWS. We are writing an encyclopedia article, there are things news reporting does that we should not include, and one of those things is making speculative links. Prodego ^talk 22:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The speculation belongs in the article on PDS, not in any BLP. --Kenatipo (talk) 22:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even the Huffington Post was honest enough to point out that "There is no evidence at this time that the shooting of Giffords was politically motivated, . . ." --Kenatipo (talk) 22:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My feeling is that we should probably be cautious and not include somewhat knee-jerk speculation from news sources. There's nothing wrong with the article being stripped back to the confirmed facts (from multiple RS's), until things settled down. Some sources said at one point that she had died, but we did not include that in the article. That said, I don't think it's a huge issue as long as it begins "media sources have said...", and doesn't just say "Gifford was on the map...". Trebor (talk) 22:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Half the news articles I've read about the event have mentioned the Sarah Palin map. I'm frankly quite surprised by the omission in Wikipedia. Obviously we cannot (yet) link the map to the event, but it is worth pointing out the widespread speculation (in the news media at least) of the connection. 129.97.209.25 (talk) 22:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) Precisely. In the Giffords article I carefully worded the material as "Media sources noted..." We have no business making the connection ourselves. On the other hand we have no business hiding this from our readers if numerous high-end media outlets are mentioning it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with the editors saying that Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS and it doesn't belong in the Sarah Palin article. I'll also add that it might be appropriate for the article on the shooting itself. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it doesn't belong in the Palin article. It does belong in the Giffords article and in the article on the shooting. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk)

It does belong in the shooting article, and has been added several times. But of course editors who don't want it in can undo faster than it's being added.CardboardGuru (talk) 22:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

to quote anythinyouwant - it's premature to include stuff like this. There's zero indication that the shooter even knew about Palin's opinion of the congresswoman, or even that the shooter was targeting the congresswoman as opposed to the other victims. Media sourses noted doesn't mean its encyclopedic content or that it is connected to any reality to which the desired addition speculates - allow the dust to settle and see if it has legs at all - Off2riorob (talk) 22:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If mainstream sources consider it significant then it's probably worth mentioning. We can word it in a way that mentions the map (it's covered in multiple reports), but without claiming causation. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mainstream sources report all sorts that are not encyclopedic - I don't support its inclusion and I don't see a way of adding it and not asserting causation - unless the dust settles and it is correct that the teaparty advertisement was his reason to do anything it should be kept out of our article as trivia - its like john says I am going to kill you Harry and then Harry dies of a heart attack a year later - and adding although it was unconnected to his death John said he was going to kill Harry last year. Unless it has any basis in fact then it should not be adding, wait and she. Off2riorob (talk) 22:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Red herring. We're not asserting causation. We're simply following what numerous reliable sources are reporting. To argue otherwise—that we should substitute our own judgment for what the sources are doing—is not consistent with policy. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS. If the speculation turns out to be silly or wrong, there will be no sense in including it. Best to wait until more solid information develops. The information I'm seeing floating around in the media makes it sound extremely unlikely the shooter is a conservative or a Palin fan. Kelly ^hi! 23:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's no speculation going on. The sources are simply reporting that Giffords was on the list. As for WP:NOTNEWS, by that standard we wouldn't be reporting the shooting at all. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The connection between the map and the shooting is indeed made worldwide (I've seen Italian newspapers citing it). In any case, let's wait. We'll see what coverage says that situation cools down. --Cyclopia^talk 23:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any implication that Palin was responsible for this tragedy is simply against WP:BLP right on its face. The fact that some newspapers have a weaker view about living people does not abrogate WP policies. WP is not a tabloid, and tries to look at things from an encyclopedic perspective. I hope. Collect (talk) 00:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. There is no BLP issue, as this is a reliable source engaging in news analysis. However, the weight and relevance to Palin's biography is unclear, and a decision on including it is premature. If Palin does things that are embarrassing to a living person - herself - and they are found worthy of note by the major sources, then we don't expunge them from the encyclopedia. If Palin's map is somehow tied to the murders (it likely will not be) then we would report that. If she is falsely accused, and that is a noteworthy event, we report that. If she is critiqued as being among those advocating the politics of hate, and that critique becomes biographically relevant, we report on that. Although it's not a slam dunk at this point, I think Palin's intemperate statements and the repeated controversies over them are a very significant part of her public persona and political career, which are important to her biography. Fifty years from now, how will biographers remember her? Likely they will mention that she said and did a lot of controversial things on the national stage that drew public ire. Whether they will mention this particular one or not is hard to say. Likely, she will receive quite a bit of condemnation for that map. But we don't know yet, or to what end. It's more a question of WP:RECENT than BLP. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Wikidemon. It's a matter of NPOV, UNDUE and RECENT more than BLP. In my opinion the best thing to do is to wait. --Cyclopia^talk 00:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I still can't see one good reason the true and widely reported fact should not be cited in the Gifford article. The arguments put forward in the case of the Sarah Palin page do not apply. Any person who would shoot a politician based on some provocative and to some obnoxious "target list" made by an adversary is obviously a very insane person. Therefore, anybody here who claims the news reports are somehow implicating Palin directly, somewhat willingly, in the shooting, must be in bad faith. This is NOT what the media are doing. The question here is rather one of analysis of facts, which is being done all over the world. Palin herself must have felt the same way, uneasy about such unofrtunate coincidence, given that the "incriminated" page seems to have been taken down by her staff in a matter of minutes after the incident, despite it having been there for months before, without action having been taken. Does anybody here claim that, by doing so, Sarah Palin is actually speculating about her own implication? Insane. The connection, or coincidence, is a matter of bare analysis, very much relevant to the articles about Gifford. --Gibbzmann (talk) 01:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The page wasn't taken down, it's still up. Kelly ^hi! 01:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, my mistake, or I've been misled (maybe it was down for a while, or maybe people couldn't find it). For a moment there, I also got confused about the title, thinking to myself that it must have at least changed in the meantime. Wrong again, the picture I had in my mind was actually the twit pointing to the FB page. Anyway, the rest of my comment somehow still stands. Gibbzmann (talk) 01:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What happened is that they pulled the "Take Back the 20" site that was the home of the "target" campaign, but not the corresponding material on Facebook. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{WP:NOTNEWS]] has no bearing whatsoever about whether the Palin target map should be mentioned in the article about the shootings. All it could possibly be used for is to argue against an article on the shootings, which would certainly not be very effective as a basis for deletion. It is readily verifiable that she and others used gun related symbols and rhetoric in their ideological and political campaigns against some Representatives. A mention of the "target map" would not give undue weight given that sources such as the Voice of America, the New York Times, and news organizations worldwide have noted it in relation to the shootings. No WP:OR and no synthesis are required to include content from such mainstream news sources. It will not go away just because some regret it or think it might be embarrassing for some political figures. That is not the purpose of the WP:BLP policy. Mentioning it in the story, following the mainstream news sources, is appropriate and consistent with WP:BLP. Edison (talk) 01:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I mostly agree for this to be in the article about the shootings or, if such article still doesn't exist, the article on Gifford. I just would personally like to wait a few hours still to check if something changes (like, who knows, the killer declaring he didn't know anything of the Palin map). --Cyclopia^talk 01:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article on the shootings is 2011 Tucson shooting. Mainstream sources are paying significant attention to this, so it would be against the spirit of WP:NPOV to not mention it. With proper attribution, we should be ok mentioning this. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 01:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What would be wrong with waiting to see what develops as being verifiable? Shearonink (talk) 01:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But the fact that the allegations are being made is verifiable already. (e.g. [35][36]) Whether the allegations are verified themselves is a separate topic, but they are being made. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 02:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The press has also made allegations that Palin had a boob job, that she's getting divorced, that she resigned as Governor because she was under FBI investigation, etc etc. It all turned out bogus. We don't include that stuff here either. Kelly ^hi! 02:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the article on Palin. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The press has also made allegations that Palin ...". Are you arguing here that Giffords wasn't actually on Palin's "target" map? Gibbzmann (talk) 02:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Target map" is a POV term in and of itself, though it is standard American political rhetoric. See this example. The issue is whether Palin's map is at all relevant to this crime, and there's no evidence that it is. Kelly ^hi! 02:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"'The issue is whether Palin's map is at all relevant to this crime'". That's a better posed question. But a couple of message ago you just seemed to imply the media were inventing something that had not happened (Palin having singled-out Giffords as a beatable opponent, using a certain reported figurative speech). That's what I replied to. I'm fine you have changed perspective. Gibbzmann (talk) 03:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

News sources are talking about this at the moment because they have a big story they have to cover and few actual details. We are not a news organisation and there is no reason for us to copy them or to report anything and everything just because it is in an RS. There is no reason, yet, to suppose that this is a significant aspect to the overall story. If it turns out to be, then fine. But there's no way we can know that so soon after the event. --FormerIP (talk) 02:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The guy's not talking, so anything the news folks say at this point is guesswork and pointing out the unfortunate irony of using a literal target in their campaigning, which I suspect the GOP to distance itself from quickly. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plus. The fact that one half of the major media around the world are reporting that fact is worth mentioning. Again and again, I'll repeat until it exhaustion: A mention of a fact isn't speculation, nor necessarily implication. The media are not claiming the shooter was motivated by that campaign. It could be the read as a report of a dark coincidence, that's not our judgement to make. The media are also reporting about Gifford's position on abortion, on oil coompanies, on guns, and on and on. Are those ALL speculations and implications? Palin's opposition to her is just one other. Gibbzmann (talk) 02:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just not understanding the urgency for getting the speculation into these articles IMMEDIATELY. Making this allegation has the potential to cause harm to a living person (Palin) who is the subject of one of our biographies. If the speculation is substantiated and the guy acted because of Palin (highly unlikely from what I'm seeing so far), then fine, it would warrant inclusion. But if the incident is completely unrelated to anything Palin has said, then it doesn't belong. What's the problem with waiting a little while to see what verifiable information develops? Kelly ^hi! 02:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I too think the motivations of the shooter might very well lie elsewhere. As I also think the truth about such motivations will remain forever unkwown as a matter of certainity, whatever any investigation or trial will ever assess. By any means, this is not the truth we are assessing here and now. There is no harm to the living person that can be attributed to be caused by a WP article that notes an actual fact, furthermore an actual fact reported everywhere in the world. Giffords being on Palin's list of chief opponents to be (politically) beaten is a notable fact about Giffords, now that it's all over the news and given that Palin is famous world-wide, unlike Giffords until one day ago. I'd say the news belongs to the Giffords page, if you wish, rather than on the shooting article. This option should very well answer you fears. Gibbzmann (talk) 03:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if that information has been included in any of the articles of the 20 politicians on the list - though from what I recall, it was a remarkably successful political campaign, if I recall correctly I think 16 or 17 of those politicians were defeated at the polls. Although the campaign itself may be notable, any attempt to tie it to the shooting would be out of bounds, and it would have to be very carefully worded. Kelly ^hi! 03:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have to be careful. Obviously the map's reference to Giffords is now far more notable than its reference to other people, so it's not true that if we have to include it in one place, we have to include it everywhere. I think in the context of the expanded 2011 Tucson Shooting article, including it phrased as "some media sources have noted that...." is not inappropriate. It would be reliably sourced, carefully worded, and it wouldn't be given undue weight. It would be much more inappropriate in the articles for Palin or Giffords herself. Trebor (talk) 03:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it's determined that Palin's effort was notable, it should probably be included in United States House of Representatives elections, 2010 or subarticles thereof. Kelly ^hi! 03:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not in question whether the campaign was successful, or whether it had anything concrete to do with the alleged success (apparently no, according to yourself, given that you do not admit the campiagn itself as anything notable for WP). What's being said is that it has just become a major element in identifying Giffords' political and personal profile until she was shot in the head, because the media covered the story at length (while before that very little was said worlwide about such "Gabrielle Giffords"). Anybody in the world who gets his news as an independent person, especially if not American, is aware of the coincidence, anybody who does not use English-WP as the sole source. Gibbzmann (talk) 03:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage has expanded to the point where we can no longer ignore this. We've now got CBS News,[37] the New York Times,[38] the Los Angeles Times,[39] the UK Daily Telegraph,[40] and a host of other major media outlets covering or even doing entire stories on the Giffords-Palin connection. It's going back in. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have they verified the shooting was tied to Palin's poltical campaign? Kelly ^hi! 03:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I'm aware of. Nobody's asked the attacker what his motive was, yet. GoodDay (talk) 03:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is wp:nodeadline. Until reliable sources are reporting on facts, as opposed to breaking news speculation, we need to be very careful with biographies of living persons like Sarah Palin and Gabrielle Giffords (and whatever stays put at Jared Loughner). If we were simply serving as a newswire, former Governor Palin would be the mastermind, Congresswoman Giffords would no longer be with us, and Loughner would be a Tea Party activist. We have no clue about any of this at this point, because the media doesn't have a clue yet either. Speculation is not fit for a biography. jæs (talk) 03:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources are now reporting widely on the speculation, and this makes the speculation notable in and of itself. We still report it as speculation, not as truth. The main issue here would seem to be making sure it has appropriate weight wherever it's included. Trebor (talk) 03:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly removed this topic from 2011 Tucson shooting with the note to come discuss it here. I come here and find that consensus seems to be to put it in. What gives?--Banana (talk) 04:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus to include? How are you arriving at that? Kelly ^hi! 04:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just grab a line & hang on. GoodDay (talk) 04:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How can a New York Times article about an event not be ok for an article about that event? The above discussion is about including it in BLP's. This discussion isn't relevant to the article I was editing.--Banana (talk) 04:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The BLP policy applies to all pages, not just biographies. Kelly ^hi! 04:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I said. Please answer my question: How can a New York Times article about an event not be ok for an article about that event?--Banana (talk) 04:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC) comment deleted by another editor --Banana (talk) 04:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I asked below, has the NYT verified the map was tied to the shootings? Kelly ^hi! 04:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. The paragraph you removed from the article did not say the map was tied to the shootings. The new york times is reporting that people are criticizing the website as contributing to an intense political climate. Please answer my question.--Banana (talk) 04:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's make a deal

We can go ahead and say in the Palin article that she may have inspired the Arizona shooter, provided we also say that the choice of weapon was inspired by the politician who said: "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun," and say so in his article. Deal?Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We don't cut quid-pro-quo deals. We make principled decisions based in policy. Or at least we're supposed to. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An alternative deal: If we suppress this information from Palin's bio, because we aren't convinced that the criticism of her is well-founded, then we also remove from Wikipedia the unfounded criticisms of John Kerry that were publicized by the Smear Boat Veterans for Bush (now known as Swift Vets and POWs for Truth). Note that these unfounded allegations are mentioned in the main John Kerry bio and have a whole daughter article devoted to them. (Of course I agree with Short Brigade Harvester Boris that we don't do deals. My "proposal" is intended to highlight that we report publicly discussed matters that affect a politician's image even if the attacks on the politician are not meritorious.) JamesMLane t c 03:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone please stop political soapboxing. Kelly ^hi! 04:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Everyone means everyone, mmkay? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, this aint somekinda Democratic/Republican, liberal/conservative thing. GoodDay (talk) 04:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why not have an RFC and ban every US citizen from taking part - whatever their politics. Better still, why not ask Wikipedians from the Balkans to mediate this dispute - since they seem to find it easier to leave partisanship at the door than most people involved in this fracas.--Scott Mac 04:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's got that bad just yet. I find that many U.S. citizens are able to contribute to Wikipedia very positively, although perhaps not in all topic areas. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The public discussion of the possible connection belongs in the public image article

Regardless of the extent, if any, to which Palin's "target" map and gun crosshairs actually contributed to this event, the possibility of a connection is being reported and discussed. Furthermore, Palin sees enough of a connection to have pulled the graphic.[41][42] (The software prevented me from adding a link to associatedcontent dot com, which is on the blacklist but which is still an indication of public discussion.) This level of attention makes it worth a passing mention in Public image of Sarah Palin, along the lines of "After the shooting of RepresentativeGabrielle Giffords, Palin was criticized by some for having used a campaign graphic with gunsight crosshairs to make the districts of Giffords and other legislators whom Palin targeted for defeat in the 2010 election." The incident is relevant to Palin's public image, even if some Wikipedia editors think that the effect is unfair to Palin. JamesMLane t c 03:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, if the criticism turns out to be anything other than blathering to fill dead air time while news outlets are waiting for facts on the story. But I doubt it lasts more than a few hours while the shooter's motives are investigated. News outlets always mention Palin when they want hits/viewers/readers. Kelly ^hi! 03:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Short Brigade Harvester Boris:How many sources don't make this connection? We need to look at this issue from a totality of the sources. Also, Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, so we can afford to wait to decide how to handle this. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

This is a specious argument. We include lots of information that isn't explicitly mentioned in every source describing that topic. This issue has extensive coverage (sometimes whole stories) in numerous prestige media outlets. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the arguments against noting the worldwide press coverage of the target map and the shootings are specious. WP:NOTNEWS in no way implies that "We must wait." WP:NPOV prevents us from censoring Wikipedia to prevent embarrassment to any part of the US political spectrum, when manistream news sources worldwide are discussing the "target map" in relation to the shootings. Edison (talk) 04:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So have any of the RS's verified the map was tied to the shootings? Kelly ^hi! 04:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your purpose in asking this question yet again is what, exactly? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite simple, the mainstream media are reporting that links have been made. They have noted that Giffords had already criticised the Palin Website for the image with the crosshair on Giffords' seat (per NY Times article). They aren't saying the shooting is linked to Palin, but they are saying that the issue is being commented on. Not to report these comments is a breach of NPOV. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which article are you wanting to include the information in? Kelly ^hi! 04:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely the 2011 Tucson shooting one. And given the level of mainstream media attention, it will merit at least a mention in the Palin article too. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But if the map or Palin is not tied to the shooting, why would we include it there? I haven't seen anyone put forward a single reliable source that has said that. The most any of those sources has done is mention Palin tangentially without tying her to the shooting. Kelly ^hi! 04:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, everyone uses those maps - even the Democratic Party. Kelly ^hi! 04:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"We're on Sarah Palin's 'targeted' list, but the thing is that the way she has it depicted, we're in the crosshairs of a gun sight over our district. When people do that, they've got to realise that there are consequences to that action." -- Giffords, as quoted by the BBC, in a link off their front news page http://news.bbc.co.uk/ right now. So yes, it's gone mainstream. Not just in the USA. And not in a small way. Can we try to keep it out of Wikipedia? Maybe. But for how long? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By all indications the answer is "as long as possible." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adding the information back in to the 2011 Tucson shooting article and then going to bed. I can't participate in a discussion with Kelly if she won't answer my questions.--Banana (talk) 04:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've just done this. Kelly is not attempting to reach consensus. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This report concern an edit war which has began between User talk:90.146.117.12 and me about Bruno Buchberger's work. It concerns not only the article Bruno Buchberger but also Gröbner basis, Wolfgang Gröbner, Buchberger's algorithm and Wu's method of characteristic set.

Since December 15, 2010, this user began to edit these articles in order to negate the sentence "It should, however, be noted that the theory of Gröbner bases for polynomial rings was in fact developed by Bruno Buchberger in 1965, who named them after his advisor: Wolfgang Gröbner" which appears in the first paragraph of Wolfgang Gröbner page. User 90.146.117.12 negates this assertion and pretends that Gröbner bases appeared (without their name) in a paper of Gröbner which is cited in his/her edits; this is wrong and therefore none third party source may be provided to support this negation.

Supposing good faith, I have tried to explain to him (in mine and his/her user page) that he/she is wrong from a mathematical point of view, and that even if his/her thesis were true, his/her edits break several WP policies, especially wp:libel as these edits charge implicitly Bruno Buchberger of plagiarism.

I have reverted all these controversial edits, indicating the reason of reversion in the edit summary, but User talk:90.146.117.12 reverts my reverts, the last time today, January 8, 2011, on Gröbner basis page.

As I revert systematically these defamatory edits, I am afraid to be concerned by the rule wp:3R.

D.Lazard (talk) 22:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Repeated pattern of HIV related vandalism on this page over the last few days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.56.147.235 (talk) 23:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note - added to my watchlist. Off2riorob (talk) 00:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]