Undid revision 612629006 by Alarics (talk) |
McDoobAU93 (talk | contribs) →Marco Rubio: Comment |
||
Line 450: | Line 450: | ||
:''That's crazy. Headlines are subject to the newspaper's editorial control, just like the rest of the article, and are thus equally reliable. In any case, the L.A. Times article is hardly the only source pointing up Rubio's stance on climate change; as I noted above, PolitiFact summarizes numerous instances where he "denies" (in their words) the human role in climate change'' |
:''That's crazy. Headlines are subject to the newspaper's editorial control, just like the rest of the article, and are thus equally reliable. In any case, the L.A. Times article is hardly the only source pointing up Rubio's stance on climate change; as I noted above, PolitiFact summarizes numerous instances where he "denies" (in their words) the human role in climate change'' |
||
Which avers in the ''editor's voice'' that Rubio is a "denier" and that a headline is a valid part of an article, even though it is clearly no more a part of an article than a caption is - it is ''not'' written by a reporter but by a "headline writer" and this interpretation would, indeed, make most such newspapers "unreliable". Cheers. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 05:59, 12 June 2014 (UTC) |
Which avers in the ''editor's voice'' that Rubio is a "denier" and that a headline is a valid part of an article, even though it is clearly no more a part of an article than a caption is - it is ''not'' written by a reporter but by a "headline writer" and this interpretation would, indeed, make most such newspapers "unreliable". Cheers. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 05:59, 12 June 2014 (UTC) |
||
:Concur that the original wording is more neutral overall than the revision. Instead of applying labels based on what Rubio said, why not just include what Rubio said and let the reader draw their own conclusions? Those that disagree with his statements will call him a climate-change denier and those that agree with his statements will not. Why should Wikipedia make the call either way? --'''[[User:McDoobAU93|<span style="color:#000080">McDoob</span>]][[User talk:McDoobAU93|<span style="color:#cc5500">AU93</span>]]''' 14:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC) |
|||
== Michael U. Gisriel == |
== Michael U. Gisriel == |
Revision as of 14:21, 12 June 2014
Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here. | ||
---|---|---|
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.
Additional notes:
| ||
Maureen Dowd
A perennial favourite of this noticeboard, Maureen Dowd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), has just become the recipient of the latest cannabis-related incident. The problem is that the latest addition regarding this incident comprises one quarter of the size of the BLP, making it a case of WP:UNDUE, at least imo. Any advice would be much appreciated. Thank you. I am also concerned with edits such as these, not to mention refs using titles such as "Maureen Dowd Got Way Too High and Freaked Out". Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 03:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- Well, it's a bit unbalanced perhaps due to recentism issues, but it isn't particularly negative, and checking the sources, rather accurately represents Dowd's experience and the reaction to it. It's not perfect, but I also don't see it as an OMG FIX THIS NOW! type problem. Perhaps some minor editing to tighten it up a bit, but that's a normal expectation of all articles, and doesn't seem to be a particular BLP issue, especially given that the material is not negative nor apparently misrepresentative of the situation. --Jayron32 03:37, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- But I think one quarter of the BLP dedicated to this incident is a bit too much. YMMV of course. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 03:43, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- A bit too much, yes. But there is nothing wrong with the "freak out" titles.Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:41, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- But I think one quarter of the BLP dedicated to this incident is a bit too much. YMMV of course. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 03:43, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- One-fourth of a BLP on this one incident is ridiculous. WP:UNDUE, to be precise. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:26, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- Since my last comment, the section got bloated again and I removed some of the bloat. BTW, the addition of the candy incident section in the BLP has been covered by the cannabist website. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 19:19, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- I realize it has half-decent sources, but I think this is one of those things where the sources (the press) have a very different editorial mission than Wikipedia that cause it to focus on subjects that are entertaining or humorous, but of little encyclopedic value. As of its state right now, I think it could still be cut in half. CorporateM (Talk) 05:08, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Karl von Habsburg
Karl von Habsburg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The page claims that Karl von Habsburg is the "Imperial Prince and Archduke of Austria, Royal Prince of Hungary and Bohemia" and head of the "Austrian Imperial Family".
This fact is not true, as Royal and noble titles were abolished in Austria and Hungary by the Adelsaufhebungsgesetz of 3 April 1919(link to law), as written in the first note in the article.
It is memorable, that the german version of the article claims none of these things, as stating this in Austria would result in a fine.
The sources used to support the use of the title are futile, as the only aplicable source is Austrian law.
Several members of the Habsburg family have their "royal titles" in their wikipedia biographies, even though those are not factual correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.118.241.77 (talk) 14:18, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- I have moved the mention of the illegality of the use of royal titles to the lede, but these titles have to be kept as he uses them in other countries where it is not illegal, and thus notable for inclusion. Cwobeel (talk) 18:49, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, it is absolutely and without question or exception true that he is all those things. He can't officially use those titles in Austria, but he is 100% entitled to use them anywhere else on the planet in any way he wishes. Austrian law has no effect in the world outside Austria. --NellieBly (talk) 05:33, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
79th Street (Manhattan)
79th Street (Manhattan) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
While not a BLP per se, I removed a street address from the article as there have been legitimate safety and privacy concerns raised offline regarding its inclusion there. I understand that the address has appeared in reliable sources when Bloomberg was mayor, however there have been recent activities that have led to safety concerns and, per WP:BLPPRIVACY which states "articles should not include postal addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, or other contact information for living persons", I removed the street address. The street address has been restored to the article by Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs) with the edit summary "common knowledge". It may be common knowledge for some people within New York or Manhattan, however I hardly think its inclusion in this article is so fundamental and necessary that WP:BLPPRIVACY should be ignored.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:39, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- In BLPs if we err, we should err on the side of caution, so I have deleted that text from the article. Cwobeel (talk) 18:52, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- So, fine, take off the actual address and cross avenue, but what purpose is served by removing his listing all together? If we follow this logic to its end, we'd be forced to remove ALL geographic based listings of living notable people. More people live along Manhattan's 79th street than in the entire town I grew up in (heck, probably the entire county even!), I think he'll be safe enough if we just list his residence as being somewhere along it without mentioning the exact address.Ashanda (talk) 20:53, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
This is a little ridiculous. First google hit for "Mayor Bloomberg's house" is a New York Times article which lists the address in the caption of the lead photo. If it's safe for the US's newspaper of record to list the address, then so can we. Gamaliel (talk) 21:02, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- Ridiculous and a complete overreaction, as well as a misinterpretation of BLP policy. BMK (talk) 21:05, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- My reaction is the same as Ashanda's: it's OK to leave off the house number, but overkill to pretend the house isn't there. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- House number is removed, keeping the street and the crossing street names. Cwobeel (talk) 02:53, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- My rationale for removing cross avenues is twofold. First, they're not relevant -- we only need citation that the persons live on 79th street, not where. Second, giving the block/intersection is nearly as good as giving the address -- especially on the UES west of 3rd Ave because the avenue blocks are half the size. I know I wouldn't want strangers knowing my block -- the street, fine, but not the block. Ashanda (talk) 03:43, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- On the block in question, there are 19 buildings, 6 of which are apartment building, with a total of 51 floors of apartments. There are commercial buildings and institutional buildings, almost all of which are converted townhouses, plus a few that are still residential townhouses. There are therefore a lot of people who live and work on that block, and knowing that Bloomberg lives on it in townhouse is not like knowing that he lives between Green and Maple Street ins Podunk, South Dakota, where there are 8 houses on the block. This is Manhattan, and the scale is much larger than that.
Given that you don't actually have policy on your side, since Bloomberg is, and continues to be, a public figure, and has never made any secret where he lives, that you're pushing this issue is totally ridiculous and bizarre, an outrageous case of BLP overkill. Let it go, please. BMK (talk) 04:07, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- On the block in question, there are 19 buildings, 6 of which are apartment building, with a total of 51 floors of apartments. There are commercial buildings and institutional buildings, almost all of which are converted townhouses, plus a few that are still residential townhouses. There are therefore a lot of people who live and work on that block, and knowing that Bloomberg lives on it in townhouse is not like knowing that he lives between Green and Maple Street ins Podunk, South Dakota, where there are 8 houses on the block. This is Manhattan, and the scale is much larger than that.
- I'm not pushing anything. I haven't been the one you've been having a reversion contest with. I only made a single edit on that article today, matching the compromise I proposed in my post above (the first one defending you in the discussion, I might add). You reverted me without comment, as if I were a vandal. I am a follower of the one or zero revert rule, so rather than edit war, I expressed my puzzlement and offered an explanation first on your talk page, then here when I saw that this discussion had continued. Quite frankly, I find your reply to me to be most uncivil and I do not understand why you're letting yourself get torqued up over electronic bits in a remote mainframe -- there is no deadline, right? Now that the latest edit has removed the street number from the citation itself, I consider the article good enough. P.S. I'm well aware of what Manhattan's like, I live in the mid 80s myself. Ashanda (talk) 06:00, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- Thinking of the widow Yoko Ono, I think that it is unwise to include exact street addresses of notable people. If dangerous people find such information elsewhere online, at least the blood is not on Wikipedia's hands. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:37, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- Half the people in the world know that Yoko Ono lives in The Dakota.
BTW, the leader of the free world lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, D.C., should we not report that? BMK (talk) 11:36, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- Half the people in the world know that Yoko Ono lives in The Dakota.
- Thinking of the widow Yoko Ono, I think that it is unwise to include exact street addresses of notable people. If dangerous people find such information elsewhere online, at least the blood is not on Wikipedia's hands. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:37, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- My rationale for removing cross avenues is twofold. First, they're not relevant -- we only need citation that the persons live on 79th street, not where. Second, giving the block/intersection is nearly as good as giving the address -- especially on the UES west of 3rd Ave because the avenue blocks are half the size. I know I wouldn't want strangers knowing my block -- the street, fine, but not the block. Ashanda (talk) 03:43, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Note this edit by Mike Godwin, former chief counsel for WMF. He endorses Cwobeel's take - no street number. BMK (talk) 11:36, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- I was thinking of John Lennon, not that Yoko Ono still lives there. The White House is the seat of one of the three branches of the U.S. government, and has robust protection. But the names Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley and Kennedy illustrate the grave importance of care in such matters. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:40, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
- It's vitally important to react appropriately when dealing with matters involving living people, but it's also important not to overreact. Let's all keep that in mind, especially in a discussion that mentions Mike Godwin. Gamaliel (talk) 06:05, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
- I was thinking of John Lennon, not that Yoko Ono still lives there. The White House is the seat of one of the three branches of the U.S. government, and has robust protection. But the names Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley and Kennedy illustrate the grave importance of care in such matters. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:40, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with Beyond My Ken - leave the house address off, even ifit is common knowledge. Kosh Vorlon 14:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- Question, what is the encyclopedic value in publishing the exact residential address of a controversial politician who already requires his own private team of bodyguards? In particular, how is the reader's encyclopedic knowledge of 79th Street in New York City substantively enhanced by knowing exactly which house is Bloomberg's? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:18, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Management Solutions Inc
Management Solutions Inc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Although the article is about a company, I consider it a BLP, as the company is essentially under the control of two named individuals, and almost all of the the material concerns them specifically .
This was nominated for speedy deletion with the rationale "not true at all". I've brought it here, because it seems an article that needs some discussion. If it had been written by a new single purpose account, I might simply have deleted it as an "attack page", but it was written by an established editor, and has some reliable secondary documentation., as well as a mass of primary sources. However, the contents consists of wildly excessive negative detail, with the headings used not neutrally, but as points of an indictment. along with inappropriate use of bold, italics, and full caps.
I still think it merits deletion as an attack page unless drastically and immediately edited, but I bring it here because an experienced editor should know better than to write such an article. I informed the ed. of this discussion. DGG ( talk ) 01:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- My opinion - WP:BLOWITUP. Too much primary sourced stuff and legal trivia in there for it to hang around. --NeilN talk to me 02:21, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- As BLP applies everywhere I've stubbed the article to the existing intro. --NeilN talk to me 02:28, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- WP:BLOWITUP indeed. Cwobeel (talk) 02:56, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- This page is about the tenth largest fraud, in the history of this type of crime. I undid NeilN's edit as it was not in any way substantiated, as the sources upon the pages have been. The source for this has been the US Federal Government, Pacer, as well as trusted publications such as the Wall Street Journal. It is wrong to just remove everything as user NielN had while this is under review. For a review of similar pages see Bernard Madoff this was a HALF BILLION DOLLAR FRAUD, and should provide the same level of detail that the referenced case provides, as the two are not that far apart in context. Regarding the tone, it is a legal case about two people that HAVE ALREADY HAD A JUDGEMENT ENTERED IN THE US FEDERAL COURTS UPON THEM! This is NOT about a case that is still under judicial review but in fact it has ALREADY had a judgment entered upon them by a US Federal Judge. talk→ WPPilot 03:56, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- And I've removed everything using primary sources. --NeilN talk to me 04:26, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- By the way, the vast majority of the 160+ references in the Madoff article are secondary sources. --NeilN talk to me 04:30, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- This page is about the tenth largest fraud, in the history of this type of crime. I undid NeilN's edit as it was not in any way substantiated, as the sources upon the pages have been. The source for this has been the US Federal Government, Pacer, as well as trusted publications such as the Wall Street Journal. It is wrong to just remove everything as user NielN had while this is under review. For a review of similar pages see Bernard Madoff this was a HALF BILLION DOLLAR FRAUD, and should provide the same level of detail that the referenced case provides, as the two are not that far apart in context. Regarding the tone, it is a legal case about two people that HAVE ALREADY HAD A JUDGEMENT ENTERED IN THE US FEDERAL COURTS UPON THEM! This is NOT about a case that is still under judicial review but in fact it has ALREADY had a judgment entered upon them by a US Federal Judge. talk→ WPPilot 03:56, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
NeilN has now militated the story to a incomprehensive state. The media has a TON of more the creditable refs that could have been used to replace the court docs, and remove any perceived concerns. I suggest that a admin restore it, so it can be fixed, or IMHO, NeilN has ruined the whole thing with his arbitrary data removal. talk→ WPPilot 04:53, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=960&sid=18526079&fm=related_story&s_cid=article-related-2
- http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=960&sid=18725000&fm=related_story&s_cid=article-related-1
- http://www.costar.com/News/Article/Receiver-Sets-Liquidation-Plan-for-$220-Million-Multifamily-Portfolio/148375
- http://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/securities/b/securities/archive/2012/07/25/accused-utah-ponzi-schemer-held-in-contempt-for-hiding-assets-from-receiver.aspx
- http://www.forbes.com/sites/halahtouryalai/2011/12/16/father-son-mormon-duped-investors-out-of-220-million-in-ponzi-scheme-sec-says/
- http://www.law360.com/articles/524329/cortland-s-339m-re-deal-shorts-some-investors-court-told
- But we don't want stuff like
- Westfield Estates, L.P. interest $6,000, * Furnishings of Red Stag Condo, Deer Valley, Utah $5,500, * Management Masters Building, Logan, Utah $37,080, * 80th South Office Building, Rexburg, Idaho $21,984, * Furnishings of Fountain Green, Utah Office Building $59,292, * Sports memorabilia, African art, and pistols $3,477, * Settlement on Blue Jay Apartments, Carrington Place $143,000, * IBIS Distribution $5,340,582, * Settlement with NBH Bank (formerly Bank Midwest) $100,000, * Escena Park Apartments $6,137,124, * 2008 GMC Sierra Truck $15,300, * 2007 Cadillac Escalade $24,100, * Furniture from Starwood Management $3,500, * Interest in Green Oaks Plaza LP $20,000, * Distribution from Appalachian Self Storage, LLC $30,000, * Distribution from Goodsell Family LLC $8,400, * Garden Terrace Apartments, Gadsden, Alabama $189,675, * Parcel 54, Las Colinas, Texas $554,391, Cemetery Lots, Fountain Green, Utah $5,300, * Redemption of Life Insurance Policy on Wendell Jacobson $129,295, * Redemption of Life Insurance Policy on Evan Jacobson $152,605, * Discovery Grove Office Building, Utah County, Utah $612,344, * 70% interest in Escena Properties, Ltd. $5,500,000, * Wendell Jacobson residence, Fountain Green, Utah $372,176
- in the article. --NeilN talk to me 04:56, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Then why did you remove almost EVERYTHING, you removed the fact that a judgment was entered, you claim that a SEC press release is not allowed, (according to who?) but another press release as it is a court document???? The story is no longer in any way a accurate representation of the matter, a HALF BILLION DOLLAR FRAUD, rather it is a dis jointed and in no way shape of form up to date. Please restore it using the links that I have provided.talk→ WPPilot 05:04, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- I will be declining your invitation as I feel that even if properly sourced, the previous version contains too much detail. --NeilN talk to me 05:07, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- You would rather that the story is incorrect, do not reflect that fact that it was settled, and that the receiver have already liquidated the estate, and you are going to make me restore it to reflect factual correctness? Do you mind if I ask if you are somehow connected to this matter? talk→ WPPilot 05:12, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Bernard Madoff Largest Fraud Ever Management Solutions Inc 10th largest fraud ever
Do you see the problem here? talk→ WPPilot 05:17, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- I would rather relevant, summarized content be added rather than going back to the mess you seem to prefer. And, as DGG characterized that version as an "attack page", I think any questions of COI would be directed towards you. However I believe this is a case of over-enthusiasm for exposing the "bad guys" rather than COI. For the record, I've never heard of this matter. --NeilN talk to me 05:22, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- The fact of the matter is that there are no criminal charges or convictions, therefore using any category or infobox such as "criminal" is a gross violation of BLP. They were sued and settled under civil laws - thus what they did was illegal, but not criminal. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:14, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- I've also moved the page to Management Solutions as there is no need for "Inc" in the page title. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:23, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- Being successfully sued in a civil court doesn't mean that the relevant actions were "illegal", merely that they gave rise to a cause of action under civil law. "Illegal" means prohibited by law. Whether "illegal" actions are also "criminal" depends on whether a prosecution and conviction ensues.--ukexpat (talk) 15:42, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- In SEC civil cases, often the cases will work through the civil process before any criminal prosecution, with criminal charges being filed, once the civil case closes. ""Illegal" means prohibited by law." The charge, is/was/always has been: Fraud Fraud "the deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain". As a legal construct, fraud is both a civil wrong (i.e., a fraud victim may sue the fraud perpetrator to avoid the fraud and/or recover monetary compensation) and a criminal wrong. That is under both US Federal laws: 18 U.S. Code § 1348, as well as (in this case) Utah state law, you can not simply separate the two. The judgment was already entered. The FBI was one of the agencies that participated in the original raid. talk→ WPPilot 16:51, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- The fact remains that the persons in question have not been criminally charged, much less convicted - until and unless they are, we cannot so describe them. We can and will "separate the two" because a judgment of civil liability is not the same as a judgment of criminal guilt. Unless you have a reliable source which states that they have been convicted of a crime, they are not criminals and cannot be described as criminals, the end. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:44, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- In SEC civil cases, often the cases will work through the civil process before any criminal prosecution, with criminal charges being filed, once the civil case closes. ""Illegal" means prohibited by law." The charge, is/was/always has been: Fraud Fraud "the deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain". As a legal construct, fraud is both a civil wrong (i.e., a fraud victim may sue the fraud perpetrator to avoid the fraud and/or recover monetary compensation) and a criminal wrong. That is under both US Federal laws: 18 U.S. Code § 1348, as well as (in this case) Utah state law, you can not simply separate the two. The judgment was already entered. The FBI was one of the agencies that participated in the original raid. talk→ WPPilot 16:51, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- [off on a tangent] Clearly an illegal act can give rise to both civil and criminal actions. But my point was a more basic one - if I breach a contract, I may be liable in a civil court but my action is not per se illegal. Anyway, while an interesting jurisprudential discussion, it's not on topic for present purposes.--ukexpat (talk) 17:43, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
The conversation is in regard to cites, that are usable in a Wiki. Many of the citations that I had previously referenced were removed and a half billion dollar fraud, reduced to only 2 paragraphs. The story was as mentioned well sourced and considering the size and scope of this matter one would have to compare it to other "security fraud operations" that have been uncovered in the last few years. What is a reference? Is a SEC press release a "Court Document" as per BLP or is it something that can be quoted here?
See:
- Bernard Madoff
- Barry Minkow or perhaps
- Sholom Rubashkin
With the Madoff page establishing a top of the scale standard, it cites 163 sources The second two are far far far smaller, in dollar amounts but the details in the page at least tell the readers digest version of the big picture, while the largest fraud ever in the state of Utah, has been reduced to a few detached paragraphs. Refs: The receiver has a website that he also posts info about the case upon, as well as every court document. http://managementsolutionsreceivership.com/developments.html, why was that data removed? Does it not qualify for use as ref for some reason? talk→ WPPilot 18:02, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
talk→ WPPilot 18:15, 6 June 2014 (UTC)PS, the current version reads like the whole thing was just a big mistake. The editor that created this new mess omits key details such as the fact that the judgment was already entered. That the ruling on the Ponzi also stated that it is a "giant real estate offering fraud". It no longer mentions any of the actual facts in the case and really has been written to make it sound like this is just a little misunderstanding. That could not be further from the truth according to the Judge, the media and the SEC.
- You listed three articles above. The percentage of primary sources (including any SEC or DOJ documents) found in each is respectively roughly 8%, 2%, and 2%. Your version of the article in question had roughly 56%, sourcing whole swathes of text. The article can be expanded, using proper secondary sources and omitting text like:
- "March 1, 2013, the SEC released an ORDER INSTITUTING ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO SECTION 15(b) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, MAKING FINDINGS, AND IMPOSING REMEDIAL SANCTIONS in the matter of WENDELL A. JACOBSON.[25]
- The Commission finds that Jacobson was the whole owner, founder, and controlling person of Management Solutions, Inc., and had partnership interests in numerous other entities that own and manage over 8,000 units in apartment complexes located in eleven different states. Jacobson has never been registered with the Commission or held any securities licenses. Jacobson, 58 years old, is a resident of Fountain Green, Utah.
- On December 18, 2012, a final judgment was entered by consent against Jacobson, permanently enjoining him from future violations of Sections 5(a), 5(c) and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 15(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, in the civil action entitled Securities and Exchange Commission v. Management Solutions, Inc., et al., Civil Action Number 2:11-CV-1165, in the United States District Court for the District of Utah."
- Wikipedia is not a law journal. We rely on secondary sources to tell us what is important, in summarized form. --NeilN talk to me 19:07, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Bryan Cranston
A discussion is underway about whether Anime News Network's encyclopedia section—which has previously been declared unreliable because of its user-generated content (WP:A&M/RS#Situational)—can be used to cite voice acting credits. The discussion is currently taking place at Talk:Bryan Cranston#ANN's encyclopedia. —Farix (t | c) 13:24, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
I think there's some meat-puppetting going on to promote the subject and his business using press releases and other self-published sources, but I'm out of reverts. Can someone take a look? Discussion --NeilN talk to me 15:37, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- The bot got it. I restored the notability tag. User is getting the average counsel already so I didn't add anything. Okteriel (talk) 23:52, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you. The "out of reverts" phrase was an expression of my frustration at having to deal with meatpuppets. --NeilN talk to me 23:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- Another new account; I've reported one of them at AN3. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:28, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
BLPTALK at Banc De Binary archive
Banc De Binary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I deleted a statement where one user calls another user (who is the CEO of the article subject company) an outright criminal, based on only a pending investigation and with no sources. Another editor reverted me and suggested I get assistance. It's my understanding that BLP even applies to talk archives and that 3RR is waived. Can you assist please?
Please keep in mind that accusations have come frequently in this topic area and so I disclosed the fact that I have communicated before with the CEO in question. Also, as the other editor objected, I have been very bold in my understanding of BLPTALK and use of {{cn}} in talk similar to {{interrupted}}, and I would appreciate any advice you can give on that related question. Okteriel (talk) 23:28, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Oh, would you look at that, two in a row, it's the same editor who posted the immediately previous section. I didn't look at his other reversions but I would remind him that there is no such thing on Wikipedia as reverting until one is "out of reverts", as that seems to telegraph intent to continue. But I think I will look at those reverts anyway, certainly it helps to avoid the SPA charges. Okteriel (talk) 23:45, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
NeilN and I are editing pretty harmoniously right now, and we have both left off on a stable version of talk, but the question still stands. Should I strike through or delete probable BLP on talk, including BLPGROUP for small corps where too much negativity reflects on the principals? Okteriel (talk) 20:51, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
I just deleted BLP violation by User:Nagle. Apparently, this really is a live issue. There is also an ANI thread. Please make a suggestion. Okteriel (talk) 08:20, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
The "ANI thread" referenced by Okteriel WP:BOOMERANGed into his/her being blocked as part of a sock farm maintained by the company, and have struck his comments per WP:EVADE. The so-called "Nagle BLP violation" was reverted even before that, and his other comments have no merit whatsoever. Coretheapple (talk) 13:24, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
James Purtill, St. Norbert Football Coach
Please correct the following: 2002 season - SNC did not play in the ncaa national play-offs. Delete the comment on losing in the playoffs. Also, that would make Jim Purtill's playoff record 1-10, not 1-11. Thank you
This can be verified on the SNC football website under schedules, 2002 shows no games played after the season final. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:301:770e:99f0:d464:22ce:e101:39e0 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Joaquín Santiago
Joaquín Santiago (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Can someone determine thoroughly if Joaquín Santiago is a hoax or not? The article is heavily laden with [not in citation given]s, and I was unable to find any sources for him, only false positives that happened to have the words "joaquin" and "santiago" next to each other. There was also some dubious-looking content that I removed about Joaquin from Teatro Puerto Rico because I couldn't find anything corroborating it. On the other hand, the picture at Sara Montiel claims that the other person in the photo is Joaquin Santiago. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:32, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
- My father is no hoax and I am not a liar. I am not sure, but I believe that you or someone else emailed me under the name of Roberto Blondet, claiming to admire my work and asking questions about my father's article and that if the theater. I did not write his article and do appreciate the fact that someone did. It is difficult to find these old 1950s sources, but I do have the clippings from some old Hispanic papers and photos (A little yellowish) in my possession. If anyone here is interested and if they have a fax number I can fax them or mail copies and you can see for yourself that my dad was the real deal. Maybe you can give me a idea on how to use them as a source. Yes, my father was the MC when Sarita Montiel was presented. I uploaded the photo: File:J.Santiago and S. Montiel.jpg and yes, do not doubt me when I state that "the picture at Sara Montiel claims that the other person in the photo is Joaquin Santiago." One of the Teatro's documents which I did upload was File:Teatro Puerto Rico Flyersmall.JPG where you can see my dad's name. Tony the Marine (talk) 23:08, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
- Article was placed on AFD @ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joaquín Santiago Cwobeel (talk) 20:23, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
- TenPoundHammer: Online sources may be hard to find, but it does not seem to be a hoax. Cwobeel (talk) 20:24, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
- Offline sources are showing to be just as hard. The article cited a lot of books, but it turns out those books do not support at all the claims they were supposed to be referencing. What's left for us? --damiens.rf 19:21, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- @Damiens.rf: Nothing that a trip to a library with microfiche archives can't solve. Add {{cn}} or {{Verify source}} where needed (unless material is contentious), and let editors look for and find sources. Cwobeel (talk) 19:29, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- @Cwobeel:, I don't believe we keep WP:BLP filled with unsourced material and just wait for them to appear. --damiens.rf 19:32, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- If the material is contentious, delete at sight. If not contentious, you have a choice: delete it if it bugs you and copy it to talk for sourcing, or just tag it with the appropriate templates. It is an editorial decision. In my opinion, I would use the latter approach. Cwobeel (talk) 02:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- What would remain from this article if we move all unreferenced content to talk, @Cwobeel:? --damiens.rf 18:00, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- If the material is contentious, delete at sight. If not contentious, you have a choice: delete it if it bugs you and copy it to talk for sourcing, or just tag it with the appropriate templates. It is an editorial decision. In my opinion, I would use the latter approach. Cwobeel (talk) 02:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- @Cwobeel:, I don't believe we keep WP:BLP filled with unsourced material and just wait for them to appear. --damiens.rf 19:32, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- @Damiens.rf: Nothing that a trip to a library with microfiche archives can't solve. Add {{cn}} or {{Verify source}} where needed (unless material is contentious), and let editors look for and find sources. Cwobeel (talk) 19:29, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- Offline sources are showing to be just as hard. The article cited a lot of books, but it turns out those books do not support at all the claims they were supposed to be referencing. What's left for us? --damiens.rf 19:21, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Sigmund Freud
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Sigmund Freud (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Prof Peter Gay of Yale University, a living author, has written a well-received biography about Sigmund Freud which is referenced on the wikipage for Sigmund Freud, and which appears to be intentionally distorting the discussion which Prof Peter Gay makes of Freud never having become a regular Professor. The editor making the incorrect attribution in the Lede to Prof Peter Gay, a living author, has refused to present the full quotation from the book by Prof Peter Gay which he/she is referring to, since Prof Peter Gay never claims that Freud became a regular professor. Another editor, User:Casliber has generously suggested that the reference be changed to the Correct German version which refers to Freud as an a.o. in German, however this has been rejected by User:Almancer. The consensus of scholarly research on Freud since the early biography by Ernst Jones, to the biography on Freud by Anthony Storr of Oxford University, up to the biography by Prof Peter Gay have accepted that Freud never became a regular professor, but only an a.o.: Freud's own preferred self-reference was consistently as "Dr Sigmund Freud". Since Prof Peter Gay is a living author, the misrepresentation of his very clear position that Freud never became a regular professor represents a BLP violation, since the current Wikipage for Freud alleges Prof Peter Gay as representing a position which he does not endorse. The Freud Page is currently locked and the BLP issue should be remedied as quickly as possible. This report is not copying the misquotation here as instructed on this noticeboard instructions, and the wikilink to the Page and its associated Talk page is provided here: Sigmund Freud. FelixRosch (talk) 18:38, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
- Seems quite fair. He certainly qualified as a doctor of medicine in 1881. But note that Penelope Balough, in her 1971 book Freud, writes:
- "In September 1885 he was made Privatdozent - a term which had no counterpart in Anglo-Saxon medical establishments. For Freud it involved writing a thesis on the anatomy of the medulla, and of being examined orally by three professors. He also had to give a public lecture, and a formal clearance of his character with the police headquarters was required."
- I think the term might roughly translate as "outside lecturer" or possibly "unaffiliated lecturer". But whatever, this was of course when Freud was only 29, long before his 1902 honorary award of außerordentlicher Professor. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:03, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
- FelixRosch you really need to read and understand Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle - as its an ongoing problem on multiple pages. You need to talk about the bold changes that you have made that got reverted (as we stick with the stable version until a new consensus is formed). You dont just keep reverting over and over when people are talking about the problem even if the other editor is doing the same. I will take the time today and start a RfC in a bit.-- Moxy (talk) 23:01, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
- Why is this discussion at the biography of living persons noticeboard? Please have the discussion at Talk page and pursue dispute resolution. This is not the right forum. Cwobeel (talk) 20:14, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
- (ec) It seems to hinge on a misinterpretation of the views of "Prof Peter Gay of Yale University, a living author". But, yes, I was wondering the same thing. We're only 75 years too late. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:18, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
- Why is this discussion at the biography of living persons noticeboard? Please have the discussion at Talk page and pursue dispute resolution. This is not the right forum. Cwobeel (talk) 20:14, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
- FelixRosch you really need to read and understand Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle - as its an ongoing problem on multiple pages. You need to talk about the bold changes that you have made that got reverted (as we stick with the stable version until a new consensus is formed). You dont just keep reverting over and over when people are talking about the problem even if the other editor is doing the same. I will take the time today and start a RfC in a bit.-- Moxy (talk) 23:01, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Faheem Ansari (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Even though the subject of the article was acquitted by The Court, most of the article treats him as guilty citing a single source. Hence, either the article should be deleted or purged.
In short, the content, as present, is libellous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.221.243.26 (talk) 11:47, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
- He was acquitted of one charge but still charged for others. I have added the acquittal to the lede. Cwobeel (talk) 15:22, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Kevin Sabet
Kevin Sabet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kevin Sabet's bio used to read like a self-promoting blog. It reads like a blog with few verifiable references. He will likely revert edits/deletions made, but he should not be allowed to compromise Wiki's standards for his own gain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 9711CA (talk • contribs) 05:40, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- I have tagged the page accordingly. It definitively needs some cleanup. Cwobeel (talk) 15:51, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Footballer honours section
What about edits like these. Removing unreferenced honours, which in most cases are easy to source and are not negative to the person. Are these encouraged per BLP? There is a longer discussion at the football wikiproject. Low profile football obviously, but think of someone deleting Lionel_Messi#Honours. Thanks for opinions. -Koppapa (talk) 16:48, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- Better to use the "comment" code, so that the text is still present but doesn't appear to readers. If someone challenges something for being unsourced, it shouldn't appear until there's a source. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) It has been argued that the material should be tagged and that synthesis can be used to determine if the information is correct. Either the award is listed and the player is listed there, with a reference, or the season is listed indicating the team has won the stated award, and references exist to show that the player was on the team at the time of the award are also present. It's clearly disruptive editing using BLP as a cover. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:03, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- To quote from WP:BLP:
- "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."
- To also quote from Jimbo:
- "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."
- Removing any and all unreferenced content about BLPs - whether that is positive or negative - should be our prerogative, and that is what I am doing, nothing more and nothing less. GiantSnowman 17:37, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- What would you think re my suggestion to use the comment function instead of wholesale deletion? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:39, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, I missed that - yes, a possible compromise if a deadline can be agreed on deleting the content fully if left commented-out for, say, 3 months without sourcing? GiantSnowman 17:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- The material that is removed, unlike the edits, are not contentious. I would like to see a the definition of contentious in relation to BLP and how stating that a player on a team won a championship playing with a team meets that definition.
- As for comments and dating changes, I would rather see the use of a existing dated templates should be used, but removal is clearly unconstructive without adequate discussion.
- As for "unsourced", the definition is too narrow. We have traditionally allowed links to sourced material to suffice as a source. So if the player is known to have played on a team during a particular season, and the team won an award that season, and the award links to the article supporting that, I would argue that this is a sufficient reference. At the discussion in the football project, I linked to several prominent articles where this suffices and GiantSnowman has not removed the material. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:02, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- But the content is contentious - it is being challenged/called into doubt, is it not? The fact you continue to state that the removal of unsourced content about BLPs is "unconstructive" (and you went one step further at WT:FOOTY, calling my edits "disruptive") shows a deep and concerning lack of understanding about how BLP actually works. GiantSnowman 18:12, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- The only person to whom this material is contentious is you. And yet at least three editors have told you that your edits are bad form at the very least.
- Most importantly, and this is the point that you seem to be missing, the material is referenced, it's just not referenced with a ref tag.
- And oddly, you are selecting obscure player articles as targets and you don't go after those player articles that have obvious fan appeal because you know you'll be out-numbered.
- Finally, and this is the other thing you have completely failed to mention, every case where you have deleted this material, it has been restored and references have been provided.
- The solution, therefore, is not to remove it but to tag it as requiring references, and then remove it after a reasonable amount of time provided that no references have been provided.
- What's more: GiantSnowman's sanctimonious position on this is so far from laudable, I cannot express my dismay in strong enough terms. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:28, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- But the content is contentious - it is being challenged/called into doubt, is it not? The fact you continue to state that the removal of unsourced content about BLPs is "unconstructive" (and you went one step further at WT:FOOTY, calling my edits "disruptive") shows a deep and concerning lack of understanding about how BLP actually works. GiantSnowman 18:12, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, I missed that - yes, a possible compromise if a deadline can be agreed on deleting the content fully if left commented-out for, say, 3 months without sourcing? GiantSnowman 17:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- What would you think re my suggestion to use the comment function instead of wholesale deletion? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:39, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- To quote from WP:BLP:
- For what it's worth, I fully support this edit. Anyone should have the freedom to remove unsourced information from any article, much more so a BLP, whether it is positive or negative. I don't advocate running roughshod through a hundred thousand articles and removing every single bit of unsourced information, but either we have policies that cover this kind of stuff and actually follow them, or we don't. It's up to the editors who want the information to remain to source it (since it's apparently easy to do), or leave it off altogether. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 19:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I think "contentious" isn't something you can create out of thin air by saying "I contest this". You have to *genuinely* doubt it for it to be contentious in any meaningful sense. Just objecting to it because you can type the words saying you object doesn't make it contentious. Ken Arromdee (talk) 21:36, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Agree with the above comment re contentiousness. If this was the correct definition, the term "contentious" would be essentially redundant. Looking at the context in which the word contentious is used, it would seem to imply some level of controversy or dubiousness to the material which does not seem appropriate here. Further, deleting such information would seem to be in direct contradiction of WP:Preserve. In fact, WP:V states that whether/how quickly material should be removed depends on: "the material and the overall state of the article". Given that the relevant material is usually uncontroversial (and often easy to reference) it would seem that immediate deletion is too harsh a response, and, as WP:V puts it "Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step". Macosal (talk) 01:29, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- Please then, both of you, how would you define "contentious" - it's a mad world if an editor challenging unreferenced material about a BLP is no longer sufficient. GiantSnowman 09:36, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- In my opinion, "contentious" in the context it is being used suggests that information is likely to be controversial, or has good reason to be challenged (hence the importance of citations for such information). Things such as the international goals statistics you have been deleting would seem to be hardly contentious for example, in that there is no logical argument for why they are false or should be challenged other than that they are unreferenced. As the above user stated, there is the need for some genuine doubt or question-ability rather than merely unreferenced information.
- You still haven't really addressed why WP:Preserve doesn't apply here, regardless of what "contentious" means. Macosal (talk) 13:17, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- A subsection of PRESERVE, WP:CANTFIX, states that "Special care needs to be taken with biographies of living people, especially when it comes to handling unsourced or poorly sourced claims about the subject." BLP trumps PRESERVE. GiantSnowman 13:42, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- There is no conflict between the two sections. There is no logical reason why an editor can't "do a quick search for sources and add a citation yourself" and "Take special care with biographies of living people". Macosal (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:51, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- The WP:BURDEN is on those adding the information/wanting to keep it. GiantSnowman 13:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- True, but as that section says re removal: "Whether and how quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article... If you think the material is verifiable, try to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it." Macosal (talk) 14:01, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- ...and I prefer to be safe rather than sorry and remove rather than tag. If it's so easy for you to verify, then it shouldn't be a problem. GiantSnowman 14:37, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- The first question you should be asking according to WP:Burden is not "remove or tag" but before that "cite or remove/tag". WP:Burden states that when you think material is verifiable, you have an obligation to try to cite rather than remove. It is easy to verify, but willing editors will have trouble editing uncontroversial content which is no longer there. Macosal (talk) 15:20, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- ...and I prefer to be safe rather than sorry and remove rather than tag. If it's so easy for you to verify, then it shouldn't be a problem. GiantSnowman 14:37, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- True, but as that section says re removal: "Whether and how quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article... If you think the material is verifiable, try to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it." Macosal (talk) 14:01, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- The WP:BURDEN is on those adding the information/wanting to keep it. GiantSnowman 13:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- There is no conflict between the two sections. There is no logical reason why an editor can't "do a quick search for sources and add a citation yourself" and "Take special care with biographies of living people". Macosal (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:51, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- A subsection of PRESERVE, WP:CANTFIX, states that "Special care needs to be taken with biographies of living people, especially when it comes to handling unsourced or poorly sourced claims about the subject." BLP trumps PRESERVE. GiantSnowman 13:42, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Which is why the solution we've already identified above (use the comment function) is pretty attractive. Not sure why there's a need to carry on here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:30, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- It's obviously not good enough for them... GiantSnowman 15:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say that. Whilst I don't see it as ideal, it is at least closer to Wikipedia policy and preserves (to some limited degree) material. One issue I would have is that if the material was ever to be deleted, it should still be subject to WP:Burden: material that is easy to verify should not be deleted with no attempt at referencing. The reason I personally have continued discussion on this topic is that GiantSnowman has both defended his "right" to delete the material and has actually continued to delete material from many articles since Nomoskedasticity's suggestion was made. Macosal (talk) 15:55, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- I said I would be happy to implement it if we could agree on an appropriate timescale for deletion if it remains unreferenced for X months - but my query has been ignored. Will 1 week suffice, given that it is so "easy to verify" this material? Until there is such agreement/consensus I will continue to remove unreferenced honours from BLPs. GiantSnowman 16:05, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- The suggestion is certainly not without issues. How would editors know where to find these hidden, soon to be removed sections? Would such a policy effectively be a loophole in WP:Preserve? This would seem to constitute a new policy almost entirely where current policies already exist. Additionally, as per WP: Burden and WP:Preserve you may not delete material unless you attempt to reference it first, regardless of this discussion. Macosal (talk) 16:24, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- That is an incorrect conclusion for BLPs. Unreferenced material can and should be deleted. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:42, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- What is the basis for this (policies/guidelines)? Are you saying all unreferenced material is "contentious"? Why do WP:Preserve and WP:Burden not apply? Macosal (talk) 01:30, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- WP:BLP trumps them, and BLP states that "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." How many times will I have to quote that until you start to understand? GiantSnowman 08:14, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- WP:BLP is not in conflict with WP:Preserve or WP:Burden (and nowhere does it say both should not apply - why shouldn't they? Just because material is about living people it can be deleted with no attempt at referencing? That is not logical nor desirable). Further, you appear to be defining all material as "contentious", which in the context of the policy is clearly not the intention. Macosal (talk) 08:54, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- That quote from BLP was obviously too long for you to handle, let me provide you with a shorter version - "Contentious material [...] whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable." Do you see that? 'Contentious' does not exclusively 'negative'! Not all material is contentious but all material can be contentious. GiantSnowman 09:05, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- How, for example and by your definition, then, is Jordi Alba winning UEFA Euro 2012 and scoring in the UEFA Euro 2012 final "contentious" (both of which you removed)? I would suggest that information is in fact obvious, and a very quick search confirms both to be true. You also did not explain why WP:Preserve cannot also be applied in conjunction with WP:BLP. Macosal (talk) 09:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- Because I view all unreferenced material about BLPs as contentious and therefore eligible for removal on sight. Editors need to learn to reference their own material and not rely on others to do it for them. I don't have time to go tidying up after everyone. GiantSnowman 10:02, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- In context, that definition of "contentious" cannot be correct. If you look at WP:BLP it is clear that referencing or lack thereof does not define what is "contentious" or not. It is the material which needs to be contentious, not the mere fact that it has not been referenced. Under your reading, all material on wikipedia is "contentious", just some of it has been referenced - that would seem an excessive view. Macosal (talk) 10:12, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- As I have already stated, "not all material is contentious but all material can be contentious." GiantSnowman 10:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- And as you then went on to state "I view all unreferenced material about BLPs as contentious". If this were true, WP:BLP would essentially read "unsourced material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced... should be removed." Clearly that would be a tautology, and not what the word "contentious" is there to communicate. Macosal (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- Which is what it does say. You are getting too hung-up on the "contentious" element when you have already been told, by numerous editors who have far more experience in BLP, that my edits are fine. GiantSnowman 10:31, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- The word contentious is there for a reason (to avoid problems such as this where obvious material is senselessly deleted). "Numerous" would here seem to mean two - not that numbers are supposed to matter, but that's significantly less than the number who have argued against these edits both on this thread and the other. At its heart, there is no reason why you should remove the material - it would seem deconstructive, unproductive and unnecessary. Macosal (talk) 11:35, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- Which is what it does say. You are getting too hung-up on the "contentious" element when you have already been told, by numerous editors who have far more experience in BLP, that my edits are fine. GiantSnowman 10:31, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- And as you then went on to state "I view all unreferenced material about BLPs as contentious". If this were true, WP:BLP would essentially read "unsourced material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced... should be removed." Clearly that would be a tautology, and not what the word "contentious" is there to communicate. Macosal (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- Unreferenced material does not conform to one of the most basic policies, WP:V. Removal of such material is justified, particularly on BLPs. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:23, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- As I have already stated, "not all material is contentious but all material can be contentious." GiantSnowman 10:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- In context, that definition of "contentious" cannot be correct. If you look at WP:BLP it is clear that referencing or lack thereof does not define what is "contentious" or not. It is the material which needs to be contentious, not the mere fact that it has not been referenced. Under your reading, all material on wikipedia is "contentious", just some of it has been referenced - that would seem an excessive view. Macosal (talk) 10:12, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- Because I view all unreferenced material about BLPs as contentious and therefore eligible for removal on sight. Editors need to learn to reference their own material and not rely on others to do it for them. I don't have time to go tidying up after everyone. GiantSnowman 10:02, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- How, for example and by your definition, then, is Jordi Alba winning UEFA Euro 2012 and scoring in the UEFA Euro 2012 final "contentious" (both of which you removed)? I would suggest that information is in fact obvious, and a very quick search confirms both to be true. You also did not explain why WP:Preserve cannot also be applied in conjunction with WP:BLP. Macosal (talk) 09:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- That quote from BLP was obviously too long for you to handle, let me provide you with a shorter version - "Contentious material [...] whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable." Do you see that? 'Contentious' does not exclusively 'negative'! Not all material is contentious but all material can be contentious. GiantSnowman 09:05, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- WP:BLP is not in conflict with WP:Preserve or WP:Burden (and nowhere does it say both should not apply - why shouldn't they? Just because material is about living people it can be deleted with no attempt at referencing? That is not logical nor desirable). Further, you appear to be defining all material as "contentious", which in the context of the policy is clearly not the intention. Macosal (talk) 08:54, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- WP:BLP trumps them, and BLP states that "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." How many times will I have to quote that until you start to understand? GiantSnowman 08:14, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- What is the basis for this (policies/guidelines)? Are you saying all unreferenced material is "contentious"? Why do WP:Preserve and WP:Burden not apply? Macosal (talk) 01:30, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- That is an incorrect conclusion for BLPs. Unreferenced material can and should be deleted. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:42, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- The suggestion is certainly not without issues. How would editors know where to find these hidden, soon to be removed sections? Would such a policy effectively be a loophole in WP:Preserve? This would seem to constitute a new policy almost entirely where current policies already exist. Additionally, as per WP: Burden and WP:Preserve you may not delete material unless you attempt to reference it first, regardless of this discussion. Macosal (talk) 16:24, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- I said I would be happy to implement it if we could agree on an appropriate timescale for deletion if it remains unreferenced for X months - but my query has been ignored. Will 1 week suffice, given that it is so "easy to verify" this material? Until there is such agreement/consensus I will continue to remove unreferenced honours from BLPs. GiantSnowman 16:05, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say that. Whilst I don't see it as ideal, it is at least closer to Wikipedia policy and preserves (to some limited degree) material. One issue I would have is that if the material was ever to be deleted, it should still be subject to WP:Burden: material that is easy to verify should not be deleted with no attempt at referencing. The reason I personally have continued discussion on this topic is that GiantSnowman has both defended his "right" to delete the material and has actually continued to delete material from many articles since Nomoskedasticity's suggestion was made. Macosal (talk) 15:55, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
There are relevant procedures for dealing with such material. Not all material is justified in deletion. As per WP:BLP for immediate deletion, material must be contentious. Macosal (talk) 10:30, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- And I'm stating this material is contentious. It clearly is, given the debate we are having around it! GiantSnowman 11:41, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- This debate is about the meaning/interpretation of contentious, not whether the material is contentious or not (that sort of logic is circular and not based on fact). Look to what Ken Arromdee said earlier in the conversation: Are you arguing that it is "contentious", for example that Brendan Rodgers has won Premier League Manager of the Month? Macosal (talk) 11:53, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- Not any more. GiantSnowman 12:01, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- I know, but when you first deleted it, was there any reason to doubt it, or call it "contentious"? As SG73 said there in edit descriptions, "he clearly won". Macosal (talk) 12:07, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- Wikipedia relies on reliable sources to verify information - do you do know that don't you? We cannot just make assumptions, however obvious they may seem. GiantSnowman 12:09, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- Deletion is not the only option when faced with non-contentious, obvious but unreferenced information. Try to reference it yourself, or add a tag. I have already outlined the relevant guidelines to this (WP:Preserve or look in WP:V itself!). For material to be deleted immediately it needs to be contentious (not obvious), as per WP:BLP. Macosal (talk) 12:15, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- We're going round in cicles here and it's getting us nowhere. Three editors vastly more experienced in BLP matters than yourself (myself, FreeRangeFrog, and Nomoskedasticity) have said it is fine to remove this information. GiantSnowman 12:23, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- It is not a strong argument to rely on who is arguing something rather than how it is being argued (this would be an ad hominem argument) (as it happens, far more have argued against these deletions than for them). You have still not addressed in any way why WP:Preserve should not apply in conjunction with WP:BLP, why it is desirable for "contentious" to extend to all unreferenced material, or why these sections should be deleted (both prima facie and in apparent contravention of guidelines). I believe I have responded logically to every argument you have put forward. I would be happy to take this to some higher level of resolution if you'd like. Macosal (talk) 12:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- Sigh, you just don't get it do you? Removing unreferenced content about BLPs is not only allowed it is encouraged! If you want to escalate this, feel free to do so... GiantSnowman 12:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- Point me to where it is encouraged to delete unreferenced, non-contentious content on BLPs with no attempt to reference and I will happily drop the argument. Macosal (talk) 12:55, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- Comments from BLPN regualars here? GiantSnowman 12:58, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- Oh ok sorry I thought you meant there was some actual policy or guideline rather than the opinions of two editors. Macosal (talk) 13:07, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- Well there is - WP:BLP. Getting arsey isn't doing your position any favours y'know. GiantSnowman 13:10, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- I apologise if that's how it came across (not that you haven't been a bit edgy yourself). WP:BLP applies to "contentious" material. But yes as you said we have been over this. I genuinely believe that there is no licence for the immediate deletion of unsourced content which is not in any way controversial or hard to reference. Maybe taking this further is the best option? Macosal (talk) 13:15, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- Well there is - WP:BLP. Getting arsey isn't doing your position any favours y'know. GiantSnowman 13:10, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- Oh ok sorry I thought you meant there was some actual policy or guideline rather than the opinions of two editors. Macosal (talk) 13:07, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- Comments from BLPN regualars here? GiantSnowman 12:58, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- Point me to where it is encouraged to delete unreferenced, non-contentious content on BLPs with no attempt to reference and I will happily drop the argument. Macosal (talk) 12:55, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- Sigh, you just don't get it do you? Removing unreferenced content about BLPs is not only allowed it is encouraged! If you want to escalate this, feel free to do so... GiantSnowman 12:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- It is not a strong argument to rely on who is arguing something rather than how it is being argued (this would be an ad hominem argument) (as it happens, far more have argued against these deletions than for them). You have still not addressed in any way why WP:Preserve should not apply in conjunction with WP:BLP, why it is desirable for "contentious" to extend to all unreferenced material, or why these sections should be deleted (both prima facie and in apparent contravention of guidelines). I believe I have responded logically to every argument you have put forward. I would be happy to take this to some higher level of resolution if you'd like. Macosal (talk) 12:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- We're going round in cicles here and it's getting us nowhere. Three editors vastly more experienced in BLP matters than yourself (myself, FreeRangeFrog, and Nomoskedasticity) have said it is fine to remove this information. GiantSnowman 12:23, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- Deletion is not the only option when faced with non-contentious, obvious but unreferenced information. Try to reference it yourself, or add a tag. I have already outlined the relevant guidelines to this (WP:Preserve or look in WP:V itself!). For material to be deleted immediately it needs to be contentious (not obvious), as per WP:BLP. Macosal (talk) 12:15, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- Wikipedia relies on reliable sources to verify information - do you do know that don't you? We cannot just make assumptions, however obvious they may seem. GiantSnowman 12:09, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- I know, but when you first deleted it, was there any reason to doubt it, or call it "contentious"? As SG73 said there in edit descriptions, "he clearly won". Macosal (talk) 12:07, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- Not any more. GiantSnowman 12:01, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- This debate is about the meaning/interpretation of contentious, not whether the material is contentious or not (that sort of logic is circular and not based on fact). Look to what Ken Arromdee said earlier in the conversation: Are you arguing that it is "contentious", for example that Brendan Rodgers has won Premier League Manager of the Month? Macosal (talk) 11:53, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
A compromise you mean? We could create a log (User:Macosal/BLP) of articles that have unreferenced honours, which I'd tag with {{unreferenced section}}, I'd then be happy to allow time (a week? a month?) for references to be found and added. If the information is not referenced in that time, I will remove. If it is, then all the better. GiantSnowman 13:28, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- These is some potential to that but I do have concerns: I don't think it should be all down to me to make every one of these edits, especially given the potential volume of tags and the number of people who have expressed concern at losing these sections. Also the potential volume of such a system is massive (tens of thousands of footballers), and so should the rate of tagging be too high it would become impossible to reference these sections. Given that, I also feel like one month should be a minimum and may in fact be too low (certainly whoever was tagging would need to do so in good faith, otherwise the system would be untenable due to the volume of tags). The time allotment would need to give reasonable time for editors to reference relevant sections (without obviously being too time consuming) - but this would vary as a result of the rate of tagging - in view of this it is probably wiser to err on the side of caution if a time period was to be set. The system would also need to extend to other objectively true information such as international goals. Macosal (talk) 13:44, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- There is no "volume", I don't spend all day every day removing unreferenced honours sections, thrre are not going to be tens of thousands of articles added. I would also of course use that log to try and locate references myself. GiantSnowman 13:51, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- That's fine then (as long as it was done in good faith there would be no issue). Is there no place, say somewhere in Wikiproject football, where this could be established in a more broadly collaborative way? Macosal (talk) 13:58, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- There is no "volume", I don't spend all day every day removing unreferenced honours sections, thrre are not going to be tens of thousands of articles added. I would also of course use that log to try and locate references myself. GiantSnowman 13:51, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Stefan Molyneux wife naming
There's a dispute about whether it violates BLP to mention the name of Stefan Molyneux's wife, and discuss certain matters about the couple. Please see Stefan Molyneux#Family members. One author has also suggested on my talk page, that I can not even mention her name in quotes from reliable sources when placed on a talk page. --Rob (talk) 21:06, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- WP:BLPTALK: "When seeking advice about whether to publish something about a living person, be careful not to post so much information on the talk page that the inquiry becomes moot." It is a simple matter to redact names while discussing whether it is appropriate to name them on Wikipedia. -- Netoholic @ 21:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- BLP1E does not apply here, but WP:NPF might. It's not "forbidden" to mention people's names in talk pages, the injunction in the policy is against inappropriate edits (potentially defamatory, grossly insulting, etc). If the wife's name is a matter of public record given available sources then it's disingenuous to claim she cannot be mentioned in the context of a discussion about her husband when the content in question refers to something they were both involved in. Unless someone can claim there is some kind of real-world threat or problem, in which case WP:OVERSIGHT should be the first place to go. As to whether her name should be included in the article, that's up to you guys to work out. I wouldn't see a problem with simply wording it as "Molyneux's wife" rather than including the full name. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- I'm basing my cautiousness on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Where BLP does and does not apply ""BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages,..." I think its prudent while discussing that we give the presumption in favor of privacy. -- Netoholic @ 22:39, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- I understand. The BLP policy applies everywhere, but you're not interpreting it correctly if your objection is to the simple mention of the wife's name in the context of a discussion that involves her. BLPNAME and NPF were not designed to prevent discussion about subjects or people associated with them, they're intended to keep them off articles. Technically you are right, but you're over extending the spirit of the policy, I think. Nonetheless the editor has stated above that they are not concerned with having their comments redacted, so there's that. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 23:08, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- I'm basing my cautiousness on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Where BLP does and does not apply ""BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages,..." I think its prudent while discussing that we give the presumption in favor of privacy. -- Netoholic @ 22:39, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- BLP1E does not apply here, but WP:NPF might. It's not "forbidden" to mention people's names in talk pages, the injunction in the policy is against inappropriate edits (potentially defamatory, grossly insulting, etc). If the wife's name is a matter of public record given available sources then it's disingenuous to claim she cannot be mentioned in the context of a discussion about her husband when the content in question refers to something they were both involved in. Unless someone can claim there is some kind of real-world threat or problem, in which case WP:OVERSIGHT should be the first place to go. As to whether her name should be included in the article, that's up to you guys to work out. I wouldn't see a problem with simply wording it as "Molyneux's wife" rather than including the full name. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Why a thread should be opened here is confusing to me. This noticeboard is for editing disputes "about living people over an extended period." No such extended period has occurred. Moreover, no mention on the article talk page was given about this thread. (A notice has been posted just now.) I suggest that this thread be closed with advice to continue thrashing out the BLP issues on the article talk page. – S. Rich (talk) 05:33, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Reads very much like someone's resume. This person is neither famous nor exceptional by any measure. Self-publicity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.191.2.16 (talk) 02:59, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- I agree that the tone could be improved but he does prima facie appear to be notable per the guidelines at WP:BIO.--ukexpat (talk) 20:45, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Benjamin Wey
The article looks to be a fluff piece, it leaves off important details, such as his home and office having been raided by the FBI — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthhurtsguy (talk • contribs) 03:58, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- I have no comment on the second half of what you say. But I agree: The article looks to be a fluff piece. -- Hoary (talk) 04:15, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- I've revised "Benjamin Wey" (though it's still largely unsourced, and two of the five sources that are provided are junk). -- Hoary (talk) 10:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- This article (about a person I'd never heard of till I noticed this thread yesterday) needs attention from other experienced editors. It currently has four sources, one of which is indisputably junk; another of which is arguably junk. (Much of its content is simply unsourced.) Yesterday I added a small amount of material sourced to something at nytimes.com; this has since been removed by Lyndasim (who, I now notice, created the original article, incidentally citing the very same nytimes.com piece). Please comment on the article's talk page. -- Hoary (talk) 00:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
narendra modi
The article mentioned that "He is a controversial figure both within India as well as internationally[4][5][6][7] as his administration has been criticised for the incidents surrounding the 2002 Gujarat riots."
The fact is He is the prime minister of India with a huge fan base and people are watching his every movement as heroic.
My suggestion is please change the words to "He has been targeted as a controversial figure by left wing political parties like Indian National Congress and its counterparts and the associated media's in India as well as wrong reports spread out by Foriegn media internationally[4][5][6][7] as his administration has been failed for controlling the incidents surrounding the 2002 Gujarat riots." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Renjithmn0 (talk • contribs) 08:20, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- Please provide a reliable source that says that he "has been targeted". §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:01, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Ricardo Duchesne
Ricardo Duchesne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Single-purpose IP busy with figuring out which way best to smear the person.
Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- In one of those links, the IP cites a source. It's an article of moderate length, from a mainstream news source. Arguably it's unencyclopedic to merely be "facing complaints". (The question is, do the complaints have any result?) But I think it's unfair to describe the IP as "busy with figuring out which way best to smear the person". An editor could reasonably believe that a short mention of this is encyclopedia-worthy (as it's well sourced), especially when accompanied by a citation of that source. -- Hoary (talk) 10:30, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- But would you say that this phrasing constitutes an objective attempt at catching the essence of the debate? RD is, in reality, neither "under investigation" by anybody (passive voice!), nor is it in any way proven or agreed upon that his remarks were "racist" and that he made "hate" blog posts. This is all rather fancied up by the IP who adopts the allegations of Jang as his own. I would call this one-sidedness so extreme to be defamatory, particularly since the first two edits by the IP demonstrate how he deliberately aims to get the angle which smears the most.
- Besides, I think it is still to early to call the dispute relevant at all (and if it may become at one point so, Kerry Jang would need some expansion, too) Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:52, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- But would you say that this phrasing constitutes an objective attempt at catching the essence of the debate? It could be. If it is, it's not very good. Very many edits to Wikipedia aren't very good. I don't rush to discount good faith. ¶ "He is currently under investigation" is not the passive voice. (The passive is expertly described here.) And even if it were the passive, so what? (The extraordinary and mostly irrational dislike among "language mavens" of the real and imagined passive is also described here.) ¶ Considering the paucity of the data, it's extraordinary how certain you claim to be of the motivation of the writer. -- Hoary (talk) 14:33, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- This is because the biography has a long history of being subjected to defamatory accusations, so WP:AGF is kind of obsolete. "Being under investigation" may not be technically passive voice, but without detailing "by whom" it factually is. This is unencyclopedic; usually the subject (grammar) needs to be defined. But in this case the point is there is none. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- If the argument is "The bio has a long history of being subjected to defamatory accusations; therefore any edit that is compatible with a defamatory accusation (irrespective of its compatibility with any alternative, such as a desire to add significant information) is a defamatory accusation", then I disagree. ¶ I don't understand the concept of a "factual" passive voice, as opposed to the actual passive voice (as understood by linguists). "Being under investigation" doesn't appear in the edit; what does appear is "He is currently under investigation". This is a very simple sentence; in common with the huge majority of sentences of English it has a subject: "he". While it's the subject, "he" is not the agent (aka actor); and I'll guess that it's agency that you want. (The assertion implies that some person or body is investigating him; who or what is this?) ¶ The cited source, "Prof faces complaint after ‘white guilt’ remark", doesn't include the string "investigat", and doesn't bring news of anything that could obviously be termed a formal investigation. The closest thing that I notice is Jang said the University of New Brunswick should reconsider whether it wants to have Duchesne on campus. “I would not feel safe [attending there] knowing that someone like that was on faculty,” he said. One might guess from this that "Vancouver Coun. Kerry Jang" believes that UNB should investigate the conduct of its employee. However, the article doesn't say this, there's no hint in the article that UNB (or anyone else) is conducting a formal investigation of Duchesne's conduct. ¶ Therefore the edit is sloppily written at best, and can reasonably be described as factually wrong. No reason to posit a writer "figuring out which way best to smear the person", and no reason to bring in grammatical commentary. -- Hoary (talk) 23:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Franklin child prostitution ring allegations (again)
- Franklin child prostitution ring allegations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I've included a link to what I believe to be the most recent BLPN disussions (there has been more than one). There is also considerable discussion on the article talk page, although, unfortunately, not in chronological order. The same editor, NickBryant, who is the author of an article about the topic, has come back and is trying to reinsert material into the Wikipedia article sourced to his own article. I reverted twice before ceasing the battle, although my reverts were probably exempt under WP:3RRNO. The author, who is pugnacious and, I believe, often edits without logging in (not in this instance), insisted until a final reversion by another editor and a one-week lock on the article by another administrator.
The material Bryant wants to add involves civil lawsuits filed by one of King's alleged victims. One lawsuit was against King (there were supposedly 15 other suits). There was a default judgment against King (so goes the material) because King was in prison, not on the sexual abuse charges, for which he was never indicted let alone convicted, but for embezzlement.
There is a single source in support of all the material, Bryant's article. Bryant, who is a crusader in this, has his own website, and he cites to an online version of the article located on his website.
The issues are complex. They primarily involve WP:BLP and whether, first, the material is worthy of inclusion even if reliably sourced and, second, whether a single source like Bryant's article meets the high quality necessary for negative material about a BLP. Another issue is the obvious WP:COI in Bryant citing his own material located on his own website. A third issue is WP:LINKVIO, whether the article on Bryant's website is a copyright violation (the copyright probably belongs to the publisher, not to Bryant), although that issue, of the three, could be eliminated by citing to the article offline.
To get a flavor of what Bryant wants to accomplish, read his comments here. Tom harrison was one of the editors involved in previous discussions.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, it's unfair to call me crusader, because I'm merely attempting to incorporate facts into the Wikipedia page. I wrote a book, The Franklin Scandal, that Wikipedia editors other than myself have attempted to incorporate into the Wikipedia page, but some Wikipedia editors have found the publisher wasn't reputable, so therefore my book wasn't reputable, even though books from that publisher are used as sources in other Wikipedia articles.
- I contributed a chapter--not an article--to a book that was published by a reputable publisher, and two eminent psychiatrists edited the book. The book also includes chapters from additional psychiatrists and therapists. The chapter I wrote was peer reviewed and referenced. I don't think that the book chapter being on my website detracts from its credibility, because I didn't peer review it and it was published by a reputable publisher. I simply posted it on my website.
- Moreover, although Larry King was not charged with child abuse by law enforcement, a $1 million judgement was leveled against him by a federal judge for the repeated molestations of an alleged victim. I was attempting to incorporate this fact into the Wikipedia article. Some of the material in the book chapter was also published by USA Today Magazine. So I've published a book, a peer-reviewed book chapter, and a magazine article on this material. Bbb23 seems to be adamant that the Franklin allegations are categorically spurious, so I suggest that he took the time to read my chapter. He would find that it meets the highest academic standards. Nick 19:11, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- Nick...that judgement against King was not a criminal conviction...and the article is not about King per se.--MONGO 16:23, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- Hi MONGO ... yes ... I realize that the judgement against King was in a civil court, but it was a $1 million judgement nonetheless. I've seen in the talk section where this issue was debated regarding the default judgement leveled against King. The judgement was leveled by a U.S. district court judge, and it was reported in the Omaha World-Herald, so I'm perplexed why this fact cannot be simply reported in Wikipedia? I realize that your skeptical of the Franklin child prostitution allegations, so I suggest that you read this peer-reviewed book chapter that was published in a book edited by two eminent psychiatrists. Here's a link to the chapter: http://franklinscandal.com/Bryant_DID_Chapter.pdf
- Concerning the biographies of living persons, the Wikipedia article, after numerous edits and reedits, states the following about King: "The allegations centered on the actions of Lawrence E. King Jr., who ran the now defunct Franklin Community Federal Credit Union (FCFCU) in Omaha.[2]" So "allegations" of sexual abuse are currently being used in conjunction with Larry King on this Wikipedia page. Any edits that I make to the article would follow suit, and be qualified with "alleged." Additionally, this long-standing Wikipedia page discusses the allegations centered around someone who allegedly molested his daughter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_Memory_Syndrome_Foundation On this page, the alleged abuser was never convicted of abuse in a court of law, but the Wikipedia page nonetheless includes the allegations. Why should that Wikipedia page include allegations of sexual abuse that were not proven in a court of law, but the Franklin child prostitution page not be allowed to discuss similar allegations? Nick 14:45, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- The mention of King in the article is only there as a concession or shall I say a brokered agreement that this was as much detail as we were going to have on the matter, and done purely for context. My preferred version was originally to not even mention King by name at all. The essential premise of our Biographies of Living Persons policy is to do no harm. Any serious allegations or attempts to draw connections or to make allusions in article space about a living person that involves criminal activity demands we have impeccable references to back up such claims....in this case we do not.--MONGO 15:30, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- Why is a court finding and subsequent reporting on the result not considered reliable sources? The default judgment against King was not because King was in prison as Bbb23 erroneously claims but because King declined to answer the subpoena which "made those allegations true as to him" (see Paul A. Bonacci, Plaintiff 4:CV91-3037 vs. Lawrence E. King). In fact the judge specifically stated that King being in jail was irrelevant as it did not hinder his ability to answer the allegations. The other spurious claims by Bbb23 are likewise irrelevant. Re single source, there are other reliable sources, first the court records were rejected, then the newspaper reports were rejected (because they were behind a paywall). Opponents keep setting the bar for what is a RS but each time their WP:OR standards are reached they raise the bar again. Editors say something happened without mentioning names and it still gets deleted as a BLP violation. RE WP:BLP, the civil suit is directly related to the criminal case and there is no WP:COI any more than with any other academic editing within his area of expertise. Re "pugnacious" and the claim that Bryant "often edits without logging in". A perusal of the edit history shows that only one IP has edited frequently in the last three years and that was only 4 edits over eight hours six months ago, none of which were disruptive. This IP locates to Maine whereas Bryant lives in New York leaving no basis that I can see for such a serious accusation. I suggest that Bbb23 read WP:NPA. Wayne (talk) 16:58, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- MONGO discusses "impeccable references to back up such claims." I would suggest that MONGO read "The Franklin Scandal: The Cover-Up of Child Abuse and its Analogues to Dissociative Identity Disorder" in Global Perspectives on Dissociative Disorders: http://franklinscandal.com/Bryant_DID_Chapter.pdf As I've previously mentioned, the chapter was in a book edited by two eminent psychiatrists, it was peer reviewed, and sourced using the APA style. It meets the highest academic standards, which certainly falls under the category of impeccable references. The disreputable publisher card can no longer be played. And, again, I inquire about this long-standing Wikipedia page discussing the allegations centered around someone who allegedly molested his daughter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_Memory_Syndrome_Foundation On this page, the alleged abuser was never convicted of abuse in a court of law, but the Wikipedia page nonetheless includes the allegations. Why should that Wikipedia page include allegations of abuse that were not proven in a court of law, but the Franklin child prostitution page not be allowed to discuss similar allegations? Nick 18:19, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- I find it unsettling that the article name includes "allegations". The term "allegation", by definition, means assertions were made but without proof. Well, per WP:ASSERT Wikipedia should confine itself to facts, not assertions. By keeping this article as titled – "child prostitution ring allegations" – we are not recognizing or giving credence to the fact that the whole thing was found to be a hoax. I recommend renaming the article to Franklin child prostitution ring hoax, which would (hopefully) diminish some of these BLP problems. – S. Rich (talk) 18:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- The article was titled "Franklin child prostitution ring hoax" in 2007 after a RFC that lasted only 48 hours. This RFC was objected to with the claim that using the word hoax in the title was POV and new RFC, after being open for a week, returned 100% support for the current title. No evidence was ever produced to show that the allegations were a hoax. It was only a Grand Jury finding based on opinion, a finding that had no judicial oversight and carries no more weight than your own opinion. The article at that time included not only the civil case but the names of the accused and it remained stable for seven years before an editor objected to mentions of the Republican party being included. This editor canvassed for support which eventually resulted in sources being ruled unreliable in order to remove content, including the rejection of otherwise RS mainstream newspaper articles being rejected if they are behind a paywall which I find particularly disingenuous considering WP doesn't require sources to be online at all for any other article. Rejection of the inclusion of names on BLP grounds was fairly recent (2011) and was based on a lack of reliable sources. This standard now appears to have been expanded to reject any material at all as a violation of BLP without any requirement for the editor to say how. Wayne (talk) 08:37, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- Wayne....the article was deleted then recreated as a stub. The reason that happened is because of the BLP issues. Nothing has changed as to the need for impeccable references and other issues.--MONGO 13:45, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- The article was titled "Franklin child prostitution ring hoax" in 2007 after a RFC that lasted only 48 hours. This RFC was objected to with the claim that using the word hoax in the title was POV and new RFC, after being open for a week, returned 100% support for the current title. No evidence was ever produced to show that the allegations were a hoax. It was only a Grand Jury finding based on opinion, a finding that had no judicial oversight and carries no more weight than your own opinion. The article at that time included not only the civil case but the names of the accused and it remained stable for seven years before an editor objected to mentions of the Republican party being included. This editor canvassed for support which eventually resulted in sources being ruled unreliable in order to remove content, including the rejection of otherwise RS mainstream newspaper articles being rejected if they are behind a paywall which I find particularly disingenuous considering WP doesn't require sources to be online at all for any other article. Rejection of the inclusion of names on BLP grounds was fairly recent (2011) and was based on a lack of reliable sources. This standard now appears to have been expanded to reject any material at all as a violation of BLP without any requirement for the editor to say how. Wayne (talk) 08:37, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- Again, I would suggest that S. Rich read "The Franklin Scandal: The Cover-Up of Child Abuse and its Analogues to Dissociative Identity Disorder" in Global Perspectives on Dissociative Disorders: http://franklinscandal.com/Bryant_DID_Chapter.pdf Surely a peer reviewed chapter in a book that's referenced with APA style citations and edited by two eminent psychiatrists falls under the category of "impeccable references."Nick 19:09, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- I find it unsettling that the article name includes "allegations". The term "allegation", by definition, means assertions were made but without proof. Well, per WP:ASSERT Wikipedia should confine itself to facts, not assertions. By keeping this article as titled – "child prostitution ring allegations" – we are not recognizing or giving credence to the fact that the whole thing was found to be a hoax. I recommend renaming the article to Franklin child prostitution ring hoax, which would (hopefully) diminish some of these BLP problems. – S. Rich (talk) 18:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- MONGO discusses "impeccable references to back up such claims." I would suggest that MONGO read "The Franklin Scandal: The Cover-Up of Child Abuse and its Analogues to Dissociative Identity Disorder" in Global Perspectives on Dissociative Disorders: http://franklinscandal.com/Bryant_DID_Chapter.pdf As I've previously mentioned, the chapter was in a book edited by two eminent psychiatrists, it was peer reviewed, and sourced using the APA style. It meets the highest academic standards, which certainly falls under the category of impeccable references. The disreputable publisher card can no longer be played. And, again, I inquire about this long-standing Wikipedia page discussing the allegations centered around someone who allegedly molested his daughter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_Memory_Syndrome_Foundation On this page, the alleged abuser was never convicted of abuse in a court of law, but the Wikipedia page nonetheless includes the allegations. Why should that Wikipedia page include allegations of abuse that were not proven in a court of law, but the Franklin child prostitution page not be allowed to discuss similar allegations? Nick 18:19, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- Why is a court finding and subsequent reporting on the result not considered reliable sources? The default judgment against King was not because King was in prison as Bbb23 erroneously claims but because King declined to answer the subpoena which "made those allegations true as to him" (see Paul A. Bonacci, Plaintiff 4:CV91-3037 vs. Lawrence E. King). In fact the judge specifically stated that King being in jail was irrelevant as it did not hinder his ability to answer the allegations. The other spurious claims by Bbb23 are likewise irrelevant. Re single source, there are other reliable sources, first the court records were rejected, then the newspaper reports were rejected (because they were behind a paywall). Opponents keep setting the bar for what is a RS but each time their WP:OR standards are reached they raise the bar again. Editors say something happened without mentioning names and it still gets deleted as a BLP violation. RE WP:BLP, the civil suit is directly related to the criminal case and there is no WP:COI any more than with any other academic editing within his area of expertise. Re "pugnacious" and the claim that Bryant "often edits without logging in". A perusal of the edit history shows that only one IP has edited frequently in the last three years and that was only 4 edits over eight hours six months ago, none of which were disruptive. This IP locates to Maine whereas Bryant lives in New York leaving no basis that I can see for such a serious accusation. I suggest that Bbb23 read WP:NPA. Wayne (talk) 16:58, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- The mention of King in the article is only there as a concession or shall I say a brokered agreement that this was as much detail as we were going to have on the matter, and done purely for context. My preferred version was originally to not even mention King by name at all. The essential premise of our Biographies of Living Persons policy is to do no harm. Any serious allegations or attempts to draw connections or to make allusions in article space about a living person that involves criminal activity demands we have impeccable references to back up such claims....in this case we do not.--MONGO 15:30, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- Concerning the biographies of living persons, the Wikipedia article, after numerous edits and reedits, states the following about King: "The allegations centered on the actions of Lawrence E. King Jr., who ran the now defunct Franklin Community Federal Credit Union (FCFCU) in Omaha.[2]" So "allegations" of sexual abuse are currently being used in conjunction with Larry King on this Wikipedia page. Any edits that I make to the article would follow suit, and be qualified with "alleged." Additionally, this long-standing Wikipedia page discusses the allegations centered around someone who allegedly molested his daughter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_Memory_Syndrome_Foundation On this page, the alleged abuser was never convicted of abuse in a court of law, but the Wikipedia page nonetheless includes the allegations. Why should that Wikipedia page include allegations of sexual abuse that were not proven in a court of law, but the Franklin child prostitution page not be allowed to discuss similar allegations? Nick 14:45, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Nick, in the article False Memory Syndrome Foundation that you keep mentioning they discuss an accusation made by a child against their own parent that was found to be without merit...mentioning the impetus of who was involved that led to this foundation being formed is necessary for context...I bet if I looked at that article more closely it would get trimmed significantly.--MONGO 19:34, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- Bbb234 I've been very courteous, so there's no need to be vituperative. Perhaps you should give it a rest if you default to vituperation? MONGO ... the FMSF page is analogous in the sense that both involve allegations of sexual abuse that were never proven in a court of law. But, MONGO, to appease you, I will make modifications to the Wikipedia page, based on that peer reviewed book chapter, without naming alleged perpetrators. All of my changes will be sourced by either the book chapter or media. I can also provide police reports, FBI reports, and social services documentation.Nick 00:46, 12 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NickBryant (talk • contribs)
RFC on Chris McDaniel
I invite you to take place in an RFC on Chris McDaniel. THe RFC directly relates to WP:BLP. You can take place here. Thanks for your time.Casprings (talk) 16:43, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Jay Tavare's Birthdate is incorrect
Jay Tavare (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I noticed that Jay Tavare listed his birthday falsely again. His actual birthday is August 23, 1958. I've seen proof of his real birthdate on his drivers license. He is actually 56 yrs old and not 41!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:2185:6800:1293:E9FF:FE5E:F38C (talk) 21:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- I've removed the birthdate from the article since it is not cited to any source. Gamaliel (talk) 21:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
David Brat
David Brat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Just FYI: the David Brat article is one to keep an eye on. He's a Tea Party challenger that just upset Eric Cantor (the 2nd-ranking House Republican) in the primary. Already there has been whiffs of political POV pushing that crept in. I stubbed it back to a couple sentences, until someone can expand the article in a neutral manner. I also moved it from "Dave Brat" to its current location, given that reliable sources seem to be calling him "David." Lithistman (talk) 00:27, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Ignazio Ciufolini
Ignazio Ciufolini (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Now, another source covering his pseudonyms appeared: COPE Digest: Publication Ethics in Practice. June 2014 (Vol. 2, Issue 6) http://publicationethics.org/cope-newsletter/2014/jun/cope-digest-publication-ethics-practice-june-2014-vol-2-issue-6#story-206 Not even COPE is a "reliable" source..? 56OKLO34 (talk) 06:17, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- Stated clearly: are you, dishonest censors there protected by anonymity, more interested in the facts, or your only real interest is why I use an angry tone, who am I, why I insist, and all such kind of paranoiac BS? So, does the reliability of a piece of information depend uniquely on how one presents it, what could be her/his secret movents behind the scenes, etc.? Let me know, please. I'm curious..56OKLO34 (talk) 07:51, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- Neither. The point is that negative information about a living person is subject to very high standards of reliable sourcing per WP:BLP, which I advise you to read. I understand your concerns, and well, the case of Ciufolini is a known rumour in the scientific community. Yet this has little to do with Wikipedia: multiple highly reliable sources are required for what you want to add. There are good reasons for this kind of policy: we cannot just allow every poorly sourced rumour to taint biographies and possibly damage living people. We are not here to right wrongs.--cyclopiaspeak! 14:54, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- Citation 13 from 56OKLO34's version in the Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, titled "Withdrawal: ‘A new type of misconduct in the field of the physical sciences: The case of the pseudonyms used by I. Ciufolini to anonymously criticize other people's works on arXiv’ by L. Iorio" looks like a good academic source and the BLP's misconduct that this editor would like to add appears to be the subject of analysis for the entire study. Unfortunately I don't have access to the full-text of the source though. CorporateM (Talk) 04:47, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- Note that, after having been accepted with priority (Special accept (without external review)) by the Editor-in-Chief Blaise Cronin (see the Neuroskeptic article in Discovery for details and screenshots), it was formally withdrawn just for legal reasons, not because of some new factual evidence contradicting Iorio's allegations. Clearly, Cronin and Wiley got scared by legal threatenings by Ciufolini, who never denied having written those preprints....However, it is a quite strange "withdrawal", since the paper is actually still available. It has been entirely reported by Retraction Watch. And it is available at ReadCube here http://www.readcube.com/articles/10.1002/asi.23238 56OKLO34 (talk) 05:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- This source you're referring to is a blog hosted by Discover, but I notice that the author has been published in a peer-review journal on a very similar subject and thus may qualify as an expert source, though I would only use it to supplement the academic journal that he is referring to. CorporateM (Talk) 06:30, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- Note that, after having been accepted with priority (Special accept (without external review)) by the Editor-in-Chief Blaise Cronin (see the Neuroskeptic article in Discovery for details and screenshots), it was formally withdrawn just for legal reasons, not because of some new factual evidence contradicting Iorio's allegations. Clearly, Cronin and Wiley got scared by legal threatenings by Ciufolini, who never denied having written those preprints....However, it is a quite strange "withdrawal", since the paper is actually still available. It has been entirely reported by Retraction Watch. And it is available at ReadCube here http://www.readcube.com/articles/10.1002/asi.23238 56OKLO34 (talk) 05:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Currently has:
- Rubio has stated that he does not believe that human activity is causing climate change, and argues that proposals to address climate change will instead "destroy" the economy.[72] The independent fact-checking website PolitiFact found that Rubio had consistently questioned the scientific understanding of climate change: "Rubio consistently either avoids the link between human activity and climate change, or outright denies it."[73]
- Rubio has been called a climate change denier[74][75][76][77] which he rejects claiming the "hypocrisy" of liberal critics when they decline accept the "settled science" that "human life begins at conception."[75]
It had previously contained:
- Rubio has stated that he does not "believe that human activity is causing these dramatic changes to our climate the way these scientists are portraying it", and that the actions proposed to tackle climate change will not resolve the problem but "destroy" the economy.[72]
- His position has been characterized by journalist Chris Hayes (journalist) as a "train wreck of incoherence."[73]
The addition of "climate change denier" appears to place this BLP squarely in the middle of using a pejorative term in a political context, and should require strong evidence to be placed here IMO. In addition the actual quote of Rubio about AGW in the LA Times article are: “I do not believe that human activity is causing these dramatic changes to our climate the way these scientists are portraying it,” Rubio said on ABC's "This Week." and Our climate is always changing,” Rubio said. “And what they have chosen to do is take a handful of decades of research and say that this is now evidence of a longer-term trend that's directly and almost solely attributable to manmade activities.”
Which quotes appear to me not to say that human activity has zero effect, but that it is not the primary agent of climate change. Thus the nuanced wording in the prior edit appears to me to be more neutral in content and tenor. Right now, the wording shouts "he is a total anti-science denier freak fringe person" which a careful reading of the quotes in the LA Times article does not support. This article clearly falls under the Climate Change arbitration case as far as I can tell if it maintains this stance. Collect (talk) 20:28, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- Um. That's very nuanced. I can't see how "I do not believe that human activity is causing these dramatic changes to our climate the way these scientists are portraying it" is anything other than climate change denial. On the other hand, this is the guy upon being asked how old the Earth was, replied "I don't think I'm qualified to answer a question like that." in case he upset his Bible-is-literal-truth wingnut supporters. He's a politician. He'll say whatever he thinks will appeal to most of his supporters at any one time. So if his current stance is that climate change is crap, then he's a climate change denialist - at the moment. He might change his mind next week. Black
Kitekite (talk) 20:56, 11 June 2014 (UTC) - Nuanced indeed and splitting hairs to boot. Cwobeel (talk) 21:01, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
[1] is the ArbCom decision and note that it specifically states that BLPs in this area
- Biographical articles should not be used as coatracks to describe events or circumstances in which the subject is peripherally or slightly involved, nor to give undue weight to events or circumstances to matters relevant to the subject. Failure to adhere to the policy on biographical information of living people may result in deletion of material, editing restrictions, blocks or even bans..
In the case of one person the committee found:
- focused a substantial portion of his editing in the Climate change topic area on biographical articles about living persons who hold views opposed to his own with respect to the reality and significance of anthropogenic global warming, in a fashion suggesting that he does not always approach such articles with an appropriately neutral and disinterested point of view..
- Editors and administrators are reminded of the stringent requirements of the biography of living persons policy, particularly the importance of proper sourcing, disinterested and neutral tone, and ensuring that information added is specific to the subject of the article and given the correct weighting within the article. Edit-warring, poor-quality sourcing, unsourced negative or controversial information, inclusion within the article of material more appropriate for a different article, and unbalanced coverage within the article, are unacceptable. Similarly, material about living people placed into other articles should be held to the same high standards of sourcing, tone, relevance and balance.
Which rather leads me to the suggestion that we err on the side of conservative wording here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:19, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- In light of that ArbCom decision, perhaps you should stop edit-warring (you're already at 4RR), particularly since there seems to be little support for your view thus far? MastCell Talk 22:48, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- Calling someone a "denier" with its redolent connection to holocaust denier is certainly a controversial issue in BLP articles (and not just this one.) I would suggest special care be taken. This seems like a BLP violation on its face to me. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- When you say "on its face", does that mean you haven't actually looked at the edits or sources in question? The article does not call Rubio a "denier". It notes that some reliable sources have described him as such - which is true. For instance, PolitiFact, a reputable independent source, writes that Rubio "consistently either avoids the link between human activity and climate change, or outright denies it." The wording in our article isn't ideal, but it reflects the content of reliable sources, as biographical articles are supposed to do. MastCell Talk 04:15, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- Calling someone a "denier" with its redolent connection to holocaust denier is certainly a controversial issue in BLP articles (and not just this one.) I would suggest special care be taken. This seems like a BLP violation on its face to me. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
FWIW, one editor on the talk page averred
- Separately, other sources clarify that Rubio consistently questions or "denies" (their word) the scientific understanding of climate change.
- That's crazy. Headlines are subject to the newspaper's editorial control, just like the rest of the article, and are thus equally reliable. In any case, the L.A. Times article is hardly the only source pointing up Rubio's stance on climate change; as I noted above, PolitiFact summarizes numerous instances where he "denies" (in their words) the human role in climate change
Which avers in the editor's voice that Rubio is a "denier" and that a headline is a valid part of an article, even though it is clearly no more a part of an article than a caption is - it is not written by a reporter but by a "headline writer" and this interpretation would, indeed, make most such newspapers "unreliable". Cheers. Collect (talk) 05:59, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- Concur that the original wording is more neutral overall than the revision. Instead of applying labels based on what Rubio said, why not just include what Rubio said and let the reader draw their own conclusions? Those that disagree with his statements will call him a climate-change denier and those that agree with his statements will not. Why should Wikipedia make the call either way? --McDoobAU93 14:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Michael U. Gisriel
Michael U. Gisriel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The subject is a disbarred attorney and a current candidate for public office. The fact of his disbarment is well-documented, and was consistently referenced in the article from the time the article was first published on Wikipedia in 2009 until 2013, when editors Mdpoly5 and MDLobby51 began editing it to delete all references to his disbarment. Coincidentally or not, the subject is a Maryland lobbyist born in 1951. Neither of these editors, if they are indeed two people, had ever edited another Wikipedia article.
An edit war unfortunately began recently in which Mdpoly5 deleted all references to the subject's disbarment, and I reverted his edits. Earlier today, I was warned for edit warring, for which I apologize, Mdpoly was temporarily suspended from editing, and the article was reverted back to an earlier version by Smalljim. That was completely satisfactory to me, and I had no intention of making any further edits.
Now, another brand new editor calling himself Bunnybug33, who made very minor edits in two other articles only a few minutes before editing the subject article, has again edited the article to eliminate all references to the subject's disbarment. I do not want to get into another edit war, and would request that Bunnybug's edits be undone, and that the article be temporarily protected at least until the end of June. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leevank (talk • contribs) 00:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- This looks like a problem and likely COI issue as well. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:57, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- The link in the citation actually just sent me to the front page of the Baltimore Sun, which of course did not provide an actual article that directly supported the article-text, however it was easy to find the article, provide a more thorough citation and confirm the information. The Baltimore Sun is reliable enough to comply with BLP and the article-text provides both views. My suggestion would be to warn the editor, explain that they need to point out any errors, etc. on the Talk page and seek article-protection or a block if they continue to wear you out despite warnings. CorporateM (Talk) 04:34, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- Nevertheless, setting the profession in the infobox to "disbarred attorney" was not a good idea. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 05:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- Former attorney would be fine. Cwobeel (talk) 05:07, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree that "Former attorney" was fine. An editor other than me originally inserted "Disbarred Attorney." As far as the documentation for the disbarment, my original edit included the detailed circumstances of his disbarment, and a link to the opinion of the Maryland Court of Appeals opinion describing the basis for the disbarment. But I am perfectly satisfied if the article simply makes it clear in the occupation section that he is no longer an attorney, and if the body makes it clear that he was disbarred in 2009, and something about the circumstances of the disbarment, as it does now.
Given the fact that there have now been three ostensibly different editors of this article who appear on Wikipedia only, or largely, to delete all references to the subject's disbarment, and that one of them appeared only after another one had been temporarily barred from editing, I suspect that there may be a sock puppet problem, as well as a COI problem. I appreciate other editors watching this article, since I would very much like to bow out of this dispute. I am neither a candidate opposing the subject of the article, nor a staffer of another candidate, although I am a resident of the district and support other candidates. I would be willing to provide my full identifying information to an admin or to a completely neutral editor. I suspect that the editors who show up simply to delete all reference to the subject's disbarment would not be willing to do so. Leevank (talk) 06:24, 12 June 2014 (UTC)