MiszaBot II (talk | contribs) m Archiving 9 thread(s) (older than 5d) to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive107. |
68.162.211.229 (talk) →David Berlinski: Wikipedia does itself a disservice by permitting the allied editors of IDCab to continue making meritless claims about the beliefs of controversial figures like David Berlinski. |
||
Line 83: | Line 83: | ||
:Further, as Guettarda has pointed out, there's very little distance between Berlinski's 'I don't want to discuss whether there's a designer' and Dembski et al's 'I don't want to discuss who the designer is.' <font face="Antiqua, serif">''[[User:Hrafn|Hrafn]]<sup>[[User talk:Hrafn|Talk]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Hrafn|Stalk]]</sub><sup>''('''[[M:Precisionism|P]]''')</sup></font> 18:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC) |
:Further, as Guettarda has pointed out, there's very little distance between Berlinski's 'I don't want to discuss whether there's a designer' and Dembski et al's 'I don't want to discuss who the designer is.' <font face="Antiqua, serif">''[[User:Hrafn|Hrafn]]<sup>[[User talk:Hrafn|Talk]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Hrafn|Stalk]]</sub><sup>''('''[[M:Precisionism|P]]''')</sup></font> 18:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC) |
||
::This sentence, from the lede, is problematic, "Berlinski is a Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, a think-tank that is hub of the intelligent design movement." I don't know why the "...a think-tank that is hub of the intelligent design movement" is included there. The Discovery Institute, as I understand it, is more than just a promoter of the ID theory. The sentence should probably just say, "Berlinski is a Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture." [[User:Cla68|Cla68]] ([[User talk:Cla68|talk]]) 04:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC) |
::This sentence, from the lede, is problematic, "Berlinski is a Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, a think-tank that is hub of the intelligent design movement." I don't know why the "...a think-tank that is hub of the intelligent design movement" is included there. The Discovery Institute, as I understand it, is more than just a promoter of the ID theory. The sentence should probably just say, "Berlinski is a Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture." [[User:Cla68|Cla68]] ([[User talk:Cla68|talk]]) 04:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC) |
||
Line 104: | Line 103: | ||
::[[User:John lilburne|John lilburne]] ([[User talk:John lilburne|talk]]) 19:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC) |
::[[User:John lilburne|John lilburne]] ([[User talk:John lilburne|talk]]) 19:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC) |
||
#I was shouting because somebody kept insisting that the evaluative and interpretative opinions of secondary sources were my own idiosyncratic personal opinions. |
#I was shouting because somebody kept insisting that the evaluative and interpretative opinions of secondary sources were my own idiosyncratic personal opinions. |
||
Line 118: | Line 116: | ||
::As for you RS people say and write things in polemics that are not fully factual. It is your job as an editor when writing a BLP to sort out the taunts and jibes. What you have in your reliable sources is that "X taunted that Berlinski was a leader of the IDM" you cannot as you appear to have done convert that simply into the statement "Berlinski a leader of the IDM ..." to do so is fatuous. But having spent 2 years casting this guy as "Supreme Master of the God Squad", I don't expect any of the above to have any affect on you. After all you have your <s>cracked crystal ball</s> RSs, in the heat of polemic, to support your POV. [[User:John lilburne|John lilburne]] ([[User talk:John lilburne|talk]]) 10:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC) |
::As for you RS people say and write things in polemics that are not fully factual. It is your job as an editor when writing a BLP to sort out the taunts and jibes. What you have in your reliable sources is that "X taunted that Berlinski was a leader of the IDM" you cannot as you appear to have done convert that simply into the statement "Berlinski a leader of the IDM ..." to do so is fatuous. But having spent 2 years casting this guy as "Supreme Master of the God Squad", I don't expect any of the above to have any affect on you. After all you have your <s>cracked crystal ball</s> RSs, in the heat of polemic, to support your POV. [[User:John lilburne|John lilburne]] ([[User talk:John lilburne|talk]]) 10:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC) |
||
#"It appears that Berlinksi never was on the side of ID." John lilburne would have us believe that Berlinski just happened to stumble onto the set of the most prominent ID propaganda film, and a whole host of other ID events, by accident. |
#"It appears that Berlinksi never was on the side of ID." John lilburne would have us believe that Berlinski just happened to stumble onto the set of the most prominent ID propaganda film, and a whole host of other ID events, by accident. |
||
Line 141: | Line 138: | ||
Comment: I don't really understand how this issue has gone round in circles quite so much. It seems fairly obvious from skimming the article and discussion that Berlinski has worked with ID people and made many of the same arguments against evolution, but because of his personal beliefs doesn't (publicly... we can't get inside his head) support the ID conclusion that if current evolutionary theory is flawed, there must be an intelligent designer. And on one seemingly isolated occasion, Berlinski also made some criticisms of ID. End of? [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 02:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC) |
Comment: I don't really understand how this issue has gone round in circles quite so much. It seems fairly obvious from skimming the article and discussion that Berlinski has worked with ID people and made many of the same arguments against evolution, but because of his personal beliefs doesn't (publicly... we can't get inside his head) support the ID conclusion that if current evolutionary theory is flawed, there must be an intelligent designer. And on one seemingly isolated occasion, Berlinski also made some criticisms of ID. End of? [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 02:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC) |
||
*The issue goes round because the editors of IDCab have systematically concocted haphazard theories of mind regarding more than a dozen academics who have commented on the issues raised by the political debate between the science educators and the school boards. Berlinski's criticism of Darwin's model is merely a technical one. He's a mathematician, and he's appalled that there isn't more mathematics in the theory. The problem is that the mathematics is arcane, involving stochastic processes and metrics that cannot reasonably be taught without a graduate level introduction to mathematical modeling. Berlinski is like a math teacher who complains when a student constructs a sloppy proof of a theorem. The question isn't whether the theorem is true; the question is whether the proof is correct. Berlinski complains that the textbooks for evolution rely on evidence that isn't probative of the thesis to be proven. He insists that science be taught with more rigor. Otherwise you have people claiming to prove all sorts of nonsense with sloppy methodology. You see that same sloppy methodology in the way IDCab goes about concocting their haphazard flights of fancy about what this or that academic believes. Publishing haphazard theories of mind about BLP subjects whom one has never met is simply not a viable practice for an authoritative encyclopedia. Wikipedia does itself a disservice by permitting the allied editors of IDCab to continue to concoct meritless claims about the beliefs of controversial figures like David Berlinski. —[[v:User:Caprice|Caprice]] 06:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== List of Jews in sports == |
== List of Jews in sports == |
Revision as of 06:38, 11 February 2011
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:
| ||
David Berlinski
David Berlinski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The article says he is a critic of evolution but not a believer in intelligent design, in fact an agnostic. However the opening sentence says that he is "within the intelligent design movement." This does not seem to make sense. When I removed the phrase it was put right back. There might be a possibility that being known as an intelligent designer could affect his career.Jaque Hammer (talk) 08:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- I've removed the material a second time. Jaque Hammer (talk) 09:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Jaque Hammer would have us believe that David Berlinski, a Fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, author of Deniable Darwin & Other Essays, co-star of Expelled, is not a leading member of the intelligent design movement (of which the CSC is the hub). It is bleeding obvious that he is, but to satisfy Jaque, I've provided an explicit citation for the fact. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- ID is an argument of form 'not(evolution) therefore intelligent designer(i.e. God)' (a false dichotomy), with most of the emphasis on the 'not(evolution)' bit. Berlinski explicitly agrees with the 'not(evolution)' bit, but has never stated a preferred alternative. Therefore he can quite happily join in with the IDM's evolution-bashing. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- In fact the "therefore intelligent designer(i.e. God)" bit is so vestigial that Berlinski's 1996 Commentary (magazine) piece The Deniable Darwin, was described by Ronald L. Numbers as "a version of ID theory". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Also, being a "member of a movement" does not necessarily mean believing everything we assume one ought to believe in order to be a member of said movement. Of course with BLP this might get tricker. Does the subject have to identify themselves with the movement? This is an innocent question as I do not actually know. I'm not sure how often people do self-identify with social movements. A social movement, after all, is an informal collection of people.Griswaldo (talk) 13:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- AFAIK, Berlinski has never disavowed the movement (which he has prominently participated in on many occasions), just ID's alternate conclusion. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- From a sociological perspective I'd say he's a member of the movement, even if he's not as strongly connected to it as others may be. I'm just not sure of the BLP requirements here.Griswaldo (talk) 14:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- As I said, I've got a citation for that -- Giberson, Karl (2002). Species of Origins. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield. p. 202. ISBN 0742507653. explicitly names him as one of the leaders of the movement. And as a CSC Fellow he is definitely "strongly connected" -- so the claim is hardly controversial. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- I've reverted your addition again. I don't see how you can, for instance, be a leader of the communist movement without believing in communism. Even if some book says you are. I also don't see why the phrase "within the intelligent design movement" is needed in the first sentence which already says he is a critic of evolution. His relationship with the Discovery Institute is also explained in the article. Jaque Hammer (talk) 15:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Jaque, we follow what sources say and not the incredulity of editors. One's involvement in a social movement comes from one's actions vis-a-vis the aims of said movement, and in relation to other institutions and individuals who are also part of the movement. It isn't a matter of explicitly saying "I'm a communist", or "I'm a believer in ID". The ID movement is not synonymous to the sum total of all ID believers either. Perhaps that's part of your confusion. I would say that a vast majority of ID believers are not part of the movement. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 15:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- I suggested on the article's talk page that it "just give the facts." It already says he is a critic of evolution and is cited as such by the Intelligent Design people. He is also a member of the Discovery Institute, which supports ID but also does other things. All this is explained in the article. I don't see the need for the opening sentence to also say his work is "within the ID movement." Jaque Hammer (talk) 15:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- The FACT is that a WP:RS states that he is a leader of the IDM. The FACT is that this claim is supported by his being a Fellow of the CSC. The FACT is that this claim is uncontested in reliable sources. The FACT is that I have explained the apparent anomaly. Therefore the FACT is that you haven't got a leg to stand on. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- I suggested on the article's talk page that it "just give the facts." It already says he is a critic of evolution and is cited as such by the Intelligent Design people. He is also a member of the Discovery Institute, which supports ID but also does other things. All this is explained in the article. I don't see the need for the opening sentence to also say his work is "within the ID movement." Jaque Hammer (talk) 15:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Jaque, we follow what sources say and not the incredulity of editors. One's involvement in a social movement comes from one's actions vis-a-vis the aims of said movement, and in relation to other institutions and individuals who are also part of the movement. It isn't a matter of explicitly saying "I'm a communist", or "I'm a believer in ID". The ID movement is not synonymous to the sum total of all ID believers either. Perhaps that's part of your confusion. I would say that a vast majority of ID believers are not part of the movement. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 15:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- I've reverted your addition again. I don't see how you can, for instance, be a leader of the communist movement without believing in communism. Even if some book says you are. I also don't see why the phrase "within the intelligent design movement" is needed in the first sentence which already says he is a critic of evolution. His relationship with the Discovery Institute is also explained in the article. Jaque Hammer (talk) 15:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- As I said, I've got a citation for that -- Giberson, Karl (2002). Species of Origins. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield. p. 202. ISBN 0742507653. explicitly names him as one of the leaders of the movement. And as a CSC Fellow he is definitely "strongly connected" -- so the claim is hardly controversial. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- From a sociological perspective I'd say he's a member of the movement, even if he's not as strongly connected to it as others may be. I'm just not sure of the BLP requirements here.Griswaldo (talk) 14:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- AFAIK, Berlinski has never disavowed the movement (which he has prominently participated in on many occasions), just ID's alternate conclusion. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Also, being a "member of a movement" does not necessarily mean believing everything we assume one ought to believe in order to be a member of said movement. Of course with BLP this might get tricker. Does the subject have to identify themselves with the movement? This is an innocent question as I do not actually know. I'm not sure how often people do self-identify with social movements. A social movement, after all, is an informal collection of people.Griswaldo (talk) 13:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
The words "within the ID movement" are rather confusing. However, Jaque's version of the lede does not give enough information. May I suggest the following instead, as the last sentence of the lede: "Berlinski is a Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, a think-tank that is hub of the intelligent design movement. Though he criticizes the theory of evolution, Berlinski, an agnostic, has said he reserves judgment on intelligent design."Jonathanwallace (talk) 16:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- That sounds more factually accurate given the available information.Griswaldo (talk) 16:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- I agree and like that sentence. As I said on the talk page, WP readers are generally smart enough to understand complex concepts. Jaque Hammer (talk) 16:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- This is all rather confusing -- Jaque Hammer just took the fact that Berlinski is a CSC Fellow out of the infobox on that article. The "within the ID movement" wording was a compromise due to Berlinski's ambivalence over "ID's alternate conclusion" (i.e. the intelligent designer that is God). Given concerns over its being confusing, I've replaced it with the less-equivocal (but fully supported by sources) "leader of the intelligent design movement". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- I agree and like that sentence. As I said on the talk page, WP readers are generally smart enough to understand complex concepts. Jaque Hammer (talk) 16:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Got a source for "reserves judgment on intelligent design"? Guettarda (talk) 16:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- I have no independent knowledge of this guy, but am trying to help find common ground here. My "reserves judgment" phrasing is based on the first paragraph of the "Views" section of the bio, particularly this: ""Unlike his colleagues at the Discovery Institute, [he] refuses to theorize about the origin of life."Jonathanwallace (talk) 16:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- That is not so much a 'reservation of judgement' as a 'not letting not having an alternative get in the way of a bit of evolution-bashing'. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- The "reserves judgment on intelligent design" claim would appear to be WP:SYNTH of the "Unlike his colleagues at the Discovery Institute, [he] refuses to theorize about the origin of life" quote. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- OK, how about substituting the wording from the "Views" section? In place of "reserves judgment", " refuses to theorize about the origin of life". Or suggest your own which says that he has not come out in favor of intelligent design in his own statements and writings.Jonathanwallace (talk) 16:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- It's not notable in the context of ID. It's like saying that Dembski "reserves judgment" on ID because he refuses to speculate on the nature of the designer. Guettarda (talk) 16:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)"Although he criticizes the theory of evolution, Berlinski, an agnostic, refuses to theorize about the origin of life." would be acceptable. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Qualifier on the above -- it is acceptable as being accurate, but whether it is WP:DUE weight is questionable -- see question below. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- OK, how about substituting the wording from the "Views" section? In place of "reserves judgment", " refuses to theorize about the origin of life". Or suggest your own which says that he has not come out in favor of intelligent design in his own statements and writings.Jonathanwallace (talk) 16:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- (ec)I don't think that's an accurate characterisation of what he has said. "Warm but distant" isn't "reserves judgment". As for that quote - I think it misses the point. The ID movement doesn't speculate about the origin of life. Intentionally. Behe in particular has said that ID could just as well point to an alien genetic engineer as it could to the supernatural. I don't think anyone takes him seriously on that point, but it's an important part of the ID movement not to speculate about the identity of the designer, even though most individuals will admit (usually with some prodding, though it depends on the venue) that their personal belief is that the designer is the Christian God. You need to take the Slate article with a grain of salt, and avoid drawing too great a conclusion from it. Guettarda (talk) 16:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- I have no independent knowledge of this guy, but am trying to help find common ground here. My "reserves judgment" phrasing is based on the first paragraph of the "Views" section of the bio, particularly this: ""Unlike his colleagues at the Discovery Institute, [he] refuses to theorize about the origin of life."Jonathanwallace (talk) 16:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Incidentally, do we have any evidence that Berslinski's occupation is "Academic philosopher"? This seems to be based upon his CSC bio -- which is rather vague, and gives as his last-listed academic post the Universite de Paris -- which split up in the early 1970s. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- I agree that "writer" would be a better description if he doesn't have an academic post currently. Jonathanwallace (talk) 16:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- A question: why is Berlinski's "refus[al] to theorize about the origins of life" any more "factual" than his being one "of the leaders in the intelligent design movement"? Both are inferences that third parties have made about him based upon his statements and actions. Neither is a concrete fact -- but then WP:SECONDARY means that articles should contain "interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims", not just 'concrete' facts (which we can get from primary sources). I would further note that the latter claim probably has more prominence, and thus probably is WP:DUE more prominence in the article. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Is that directed towards my usage of "factual"? What I meant was that the following is more "factual" than your proposed text:
- "Berlinski is a Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, a think-tank that is hub of the intelligent design movement."
- "refus[al] to theorize about the origins of life" ... wasn't in Jonathanwallace's proposal and in any event isn't a replacement for the "leader of the intelligent design movement" text. Maybe it was not directed at me.Griswaldo (talk) 17:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- It is directed at Jaque's "just give the facts" complaint against "leader of the intelligent design movement". If that isn't 'factual' then how is "refuses to theorize about the origins of life" factual? I am not claiming that one is the replacement of the other, but that the argument against "leader" applies equally to "refuses to theorize" -- and thus the former cannot be excluded without also excluding the latter. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry about that. This thread has become rather confusing. The text you said was accurate, but perhaps not DUE, sounds good to me, and could be included if it is DUE.Griswaldo (talk) 17:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- My point is that we have numerous sources, including some quite prominent ones, discussing Berlinski's leadership/prominent role within the IDM (which goes well beyond his being a Fellow in the CSC), but only a couple of fairly minor sources discussing his equivocations over ID. Yet these equivocations are mentioned in the lead, but readers are left to infer his leadership role in the IDM from his being a Fellow of the CSC. That seems to me to be both WP:UNDUE weight and violation of WP:Principle of least astonishment. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry about that. This thread has become rather confusing. The text you said was accurate, but perhaps not DUE, sounds good to me, and could be included if it is DUE.Griswaldo (talk) 17:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- It is directed at Jaque's "just give the facts" complaint against "leader of the intelligent design movement". If that isn't 'factual' then how is "refuses to theorize about the origins of life" factual? I am not claiming that one is the replacement of the other, but that the argument against "leader" applies equally to "refuses to theorize" -- and thus the former cannot be excluded without also excluding the latter. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Is that directed towards my usage of "factual"? What I meant was that the following is more "factual" than your proposed text:
We are probably veering into WP:RSN territory. Calling him a leader of the ID movement without being able to reference a statement "I believe in ID" doesn't work. You could source statements under "Views" to your references, along the lines of "X has said Y provides covering fire for movement Z". But I don't see how it belongs in the lede. Again, I have no dog in this hunt. I believe in evolution, never heard of this guy, and was trying to help you out (and the opposing editor) with a compromise. Jonathanwallace (talk) 18:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- The IDM spends 99+% of its times evolution-bashing -- Berlinski is happy as a clam evolution-bashing. Where's the conflict? Further, we have a source stating unequivocally that Berlinski is a leader of the IDM. I do not have to rely on weasel-wording "along the lines of 'X has said Y provides covering fire for movement Z'" -- I have a source saying the exact words. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Lets get down to the sex - do you have a source for him believing in a supernatural origin? John lilburne (talk) 19:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- No, but then the fact that Hermann Göring claimed not to be antisemitic does not mean that he wasn't a leading member of the Nazi movement. Agreement with a perfect 100% of a movement's agenda is not necessary for being a leader of it -- particularly in this case where the point of contention is a point de-emphasised and equivocated over by the movement as a whole. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Surly if you want to declare that some one is directly responsible for the extermination of millions of people you need a little bit more evidence of their involvement in the slaughter?
- One might well be sceptical about Darwinian evolution without involving the gods. Currently the way the article is slanted the implication is that he believes that the origin of life was supernatural. John lilburne (talk) 09:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Taking your analogy, we have plenty of evidence that Berlinski is "directly" and prominently involved in the IDM. "One might" -- but when one does so without any particular expertise in the subject, and in the constant company of members of the movement -- then third party commentators are hardly to blame [or incorrect] for considering one to be acting as part of that movement, nor is Wikipedia violating WP:BLP by presenting their "uncontested assertion" as a fact (per WP:NPOV). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Is that the old "Those that borrow clothes of others, shouldn't object to mistaken identity" or the WP:DUCK argument? I note that Dawkins believes that he might be evil, or at least trolling the biological scientists, but that still doesn't mean Berlinski is a believer in ID. John lilburne (talk) 11:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- (outdent)ID is wider than some weird fundamentalist Christian teaching? Does it incorporate a Hindu creation story, an Aztec, and a Inuit version too, or is it mainly variations on a conservative young earth Christian myth? The Jews don't appear to have a problem with Evolution (probably far too sensible), so I'm not convinced that Berlinski would be arguing for a Christian Creation myth. Seems more likely that he has a problem with some of the evidential claims of evolution and is using the ID movement as a soap box. John lilburne (talk) 13:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yes. It involves at least one Muslim (Mustafa Akyol), at least one Orthodox Jew (David Klinghoffer), and at least one Unificationist (Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate)). As stated above, "The IDM spends 99+% of its times evolution-bashing -- Berlinski is happy as a clam evolution-bashing." -- "Seems more likely that..." Berlinski knows sweet FA about "the evidential claims of evolution" (argument from ignorance, anybody?). "...and is using the ID movement as a soap box" -- and this stops him being a leader of said movement, how? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- A mutant individual is not a representative of a species, you should know this. You make much play on these people being Fellows or Senior Fellows of the Center for Science and Culture what does that mean? Do they get together monthly to devise strategy for the IDM or something? Seems from looking a the website it refers to people that the Centre regards as 'good' scientists, some of which they have funded, but not all. It doesn't seem to imply that those so listed are in total agreement with the goals of the Center for Science and Culture or indeed that they have ever applied for some sort of membership. I'll repeat tell us does being a Senior Fellow of the Center for Science and Culture mean. John lilburne (talk) 12:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Which "mutant individual"? Berlinski, Akyol, Klinghoffer or Wells? When you start looking at a sufficient number of 'mutations' they start to represent normal variation in the species in question. "...what does that mean?" It means that they are the leaders of the organisation that runs the IDM -- the movement that is the SOLE reason for this center's existence Most of them aren't even scientists at all, let alone your WP:OR "'good' scientists". "I'll repeat tell us does being a Senior Fellow of the Center for Science and Culture mean." It means that they are the leaders of the organisation that runs the IDM -- the movement that is the SOLE reason for this center's existence
Shorter John lilburne: la-la-la, I can't here you. Shorter Hrafn: What WP:Complete bollocks! HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Having found two Jews, a Muslim, and a Moonie, does not mean that Jews, Muslims, and Moonies (well probably them) are major supporters of ID. You keep mentioning leader what exactly do you mean by that. It implies that they have some authoritative or directing role in these organisations: I can see none. John lilburne (talk) 17:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- I mean "exactly" that I have reliable source saying that Berlisnsk is a leader of the IDM. And now I want to ask you why E_X_A_C_T_L_Y you are asking these pointless, time-wasting knit-picking questions. And why E_X_A_C_T_L_Y you don't just look up wikt:leader? Why am I refusing to answer this question? Because I can see no point whatsoever in getting bogged down on exact meanings, flavours, nuances, etc of "leader". What exactly do you mean by "exactly"? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Having found two Jews, a Muslim, and a Moonie, does not mean that Jews, Muslims, and Moonies (well probably them) are major supporters of ID. You keep mentioning leader what exactly do you mean by that. It implies that they have some authoritative or directing role in these organisations: I can see none. John lilburne (talk) 17:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Or to put it another way, Berlinski works primarily to bash evolution, the CSC (which he is a leading member of) exists primarily to bash evolution, the IDM (which the CSC is leads) exists primarily to bash evolution. Where's the disconnect?
Beyond that, we have the opinion of the foremost expert on Creationism that Berlinksi's widely-publicised The Deniable Darwin (which he later used as the title-piece of an anthology) is "a version of ID theory", numerous sources placing him in a prominent/leadership role in the IDM and a RS explicitly stating that he's one "of the leaders in the intelligent design movement". What more do we need? A confession signed in his own blood? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Well I can wax lyrical of the nonsense of Trotskyism but that doesn't make me a Stalinist. I do not see Berlinksi being mentioned as having any role in the IDM or CSC, except as a Senior Fellow (whatever that means). They do seem to have a collection of his articles, papers, and reviews. In some of the independent reviews on his works the the argument seems to be that he casts ID and Evolution as being on par in the nonsense category, and that he is not sufficiently tough in his execrating of ID. It is a bit odd for a supporter of a position, to be saying that the position they are supporting is nonsense. RS's are not always reliable in every instance one should actually check for one's self. From what I've read it seems that he doesn't hold with ID and he doesn't hold with Evolution. John lilburne (talk) 17:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- John lilburne: your analogy is WP:Complete bollocks -- in that it completely fails to capture any relevant details. For example, whether your your lyrical
wankerwaxer would be considered a Stalinist or not, would probably be affected quite considerably on the basis of whether or not he was a member of Stalin's politburo and appeared in Stalinist propaganda films. Given a choice between caring what RSs (including a very authoritative one) thinks and what you think, I'm afraid I don't really give a stuff what you think -- you are neither a RS (nor have cited any), nor provide any convincing arguments for your frankly delusional view that the CSC and IDM are in some way completely unrelated. So please feel free to huff and puff at my disregard of your pontification. And pleasre assume that I won't be answering any more of your pointless questions. Good day. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)- What has this got to do with the relationship between CSC and IDM, their STUPID website says they are the same. What it doesn't say is that Berlinski is some leader of either. To accept that proposal on the basis that he's a Fellow one would have to believe that each and every one of the 1350 Fellows of the Royal Society is a leader of the group ignoring the Governance structure. John lilburne (talk) 19:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- John lilburne: as I already pointed out, I'm sick of answering your pointless questions, so I will ask some of my own. (i) How would any reasonable person expect the difference between a handful of fellows and a think-tank on one side, and over a thousand fellows and a learned society on the other, affect the degree to which an individual fellow acts as a leader? Why would any reasonable person expect the latter to act as a useful comparator for the former? (ii) How would any reasonable person expect leadership to be exerted over a grouping as diffuse and informal as the IDM? Would any reasonable person expect a Royal-Society-style formal governance structure? (iii) When a movement is Neo-creationist, and thus attempting to disguise and downplay its religious origins, would not recruiting a handful of articulate and like-minded Muslims, Jews and/or Agnostics to its senior/leadership positions seem to any reasonable person to be a reasonably logical strategic move? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- What has this got to do with the relationship between CSC and IDM, their STUPID website says they are the same. What it doesn't say is that Berlinski is some leader of either. To accept that proposal on the basis that he's a Fellow one would have to believe that each and every one of the 1350 Fellows of the Royal Society is a leader of the group ignoring the Governance structure. John lilburne (talk) 19:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- John lilburne: your analogy is WP:Complete bollocks -- in that it completely fails to capture any relevant details. For example, whether your your lyrical
- Well I can wax lyrical of the nonsense of Trotskyism but that doesn't make me a Stalinist. I do not see Berlinksi being mentioned as having any role in the IDM or CSC, except as a Senior Fellow (whatever that means). They do seem to have a collection of his articles, papers, and reviews. In some of the independent reviews on his works the the argument seems to be that he casts ID and Evolution as being on par in the nonsense category, and that he is not sufficiently tough in his execrating of ID. It is a bit odd for a supporter of a position, to be saying that the position they are supporting is nonsense. RS's are not always reliable in every instance one should actually check for one's self. From what I've read it seems that he doesn't hold with ID and he doesn't hold with Evolution. John lilburne (talk) 17:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Which "mutant individual"? Berlinski, Akyol, Klinghoffer or Wells? When you start looking at a sufficient number of 'mutations' they start to represent normal variation in the species in question. "...what does that mean?" It means that they are the leaders of the organisation that runs the IDM -- the movement that is the SOLE reason for this center's existence Most of them aren't even scientists at all, let alone your WP:OR "'good' scientists". "I'll repeat tell us does being a Senior Fellow of the Center for Science and Culture mean." It means that they are the leaders of the organisation that runs the IDM -- the movement that is the SOLE reason for this center's existence
- (outdent) You have equated Berlinski's criticism of Evolution with ID and thus concluded that his criticism is motivated in the same way as the IDM is. It isn't that black and white, and I'd rather trust Dawkins on the matter: who doesn't appear to think that Berlinski has any serious belief in ID as a viable theory of origins. Next you have taken the fact that he has been paid by IDers for work critical of aspects of Evolutionary claims, to concluded that he must be a leader of the movement. Yet you have no evidence that a person being paid by the CSC confers any sort of leadership role within the CSC on that person, nor that a person paid by them necessarily hold their same views. In fact as you say in (iii) it would indeed pay them to use someone that is not entirely of their persuasion. John lilburne (talk) 12:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- A mutant individual is not a representative of a species, you should know this. You make much play on these people being Fellows or Senior Fellows of the Center for Science and Culture what does that mean? Do they get together monthly to devise strategy for the IDM or something? Seems from looking a the website it refers to people that the Centre regards as 'good' scientists, some of which they have funded, but not all. It doesn't seem to imply that those so listed are in total agreement with the goals of the Center for Science and Culture or indeed that they have ever applied for some sort of membership. I'll repeat tell us does being a Senior Fellow of the Center for Science and Culture mean. John lilburne (talk) 12:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yes. It involves at least one Muslim (Mustafa Akyol), at least one Orthodox Jew (David Klinghoffer), and at least one Unificationist (Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate)). As stated above, "The IDM spends 99+% of its times evolution-bashing -- Berlinski is happy as a clam evolution-bashing." -- "Seems more likely that..." Berlinski knows sweet FA about "the evidential claims of evolution" (argument from ignorance, anybody?). "...and is using the ID movement as a soap box" -- and this stops him being a leader of said movement, how? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Taking your analogy, we have plenty of evidence that Berlinski is "directly" and prominently involved in the IDM. "One might" -- but when one does so without any particular expertise in the subject, and in the constant company of members of the movement -- then third party commentators are hardly to blame [or incorrect] for considering one to be acting as part of that movement, nor is Wikipedia violating WP:BLP by presenting their "uncontested assertion" as a fact (per WP:NPOV). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- No, but then the fact that Hermann Göring claimed not to be antisemitic does not mean that he wasn't a leading member of the Nazi movement. Agreement with a perfect 100% of a movement's agenda is not necessary for being a leader of it -- particularly in this case where the point of contention is a point de-emphasised and equivocated over by the movement as a whole. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Lets get down to the sex - do you have a source for him believing in a supernatural origin? John lilburne (talk) 19:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Further, as Guettarda has pointed out, there's very little distance between Berlinski's 'I don't want to discuss whether there's a designer' and Dembski et al's 'I don't want to discuss who the designer is.' HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- This sentence, from the lede, is problematic, "Berlinski is a Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, a think-tank that is hub of the intelligent design movement." I don't know why the "...a think-tank that is hub of the intelligent design movement" is included there. The Discovery Institute, as I understand it, is more than just a promoter of the ID theory. The sentence should probably just say, "Berlinski is a Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture." Cla68 (talk) 04:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- No, John lilburne -- Ronald L. Numbers "equated Berlinski's criticism of Evolution with ID".
- "...and thus concluded that his criticism is motivated in the same way as the IDM is." And AGAIN, John lilburne leaves out all the other evidence supporting Berlinski's involvement with the ID.
- "Next you have taken the fact that he has been paid by IDers for work critical of aspects of Evolutionary claims, to concluded that he must be a leader of the movement." No, John lilburne, it was Karl Giberson who said that.
- "Yet you have no evidence that a person being paid by the CSC confers any sort of leadership role within the CSC on that person, nor that a person paid by them necessarily hold their same views." As I am not conducting WP:Original research, I am not meant to be amassing "evidence" of who is, or is not, a leader of the IDM. But even if I were, I doubt if I could find any that would meet your absurd pseudoskepticism. By the John lilburne standards it would appear that the IDM has no leaders, and must decide on its actions by collective telepathy.
- Where does Dawkins state that Berlinski isn't a leader of the IDM?
WP:SECONDARY states that we must use secondary sources for evaluation or interpretation of primary sources. We have such secondary sources stating that Berlinksi's writings contain "a version of ID theory", and that he is a leader of the IDM. These sources appear to be reliable (and nobody has cast doubt upon them), and are uncontradicted. Why should we not use them? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- What are you shouting for?
- He seems in this new essay to have reversed himself on the merits of the current effort to rehabilitate the ancient argument from design, now holiday-wrapped as "intelligent design theory." This change of mind is all the more praiseworthy because Berlinski is closely associated with the conservative Christian think tank that serves as primary promoter of "intelligent design." He is moreover the author of a flattering blurb for the book of another leading member of that organization. This is William Dembski's The Design Inference, whose argument and conclusions Berlinski here finds to be unsound. Paul R. Gross
- What are you shouting for?
- Berlinski supplied rave blurbs to the books by the prominent advocates of ID, William Dembski and Michael Behe. In this new paper, however, unexpectedly Berlinski casts doubts on the plausibility of the ID concepts so vigorously promoted by Dembski and Behe. Mark Perakh
- It's nice to see David Berlinksi aim his rhetorical guns at a target more deserving than modern biology and cosmology ("Has Darwin Met his Match," Commentary, December 2002). The arguments he makes against intelligent-design theory (ID) suffer only from a lack of originality; critics of ID have been making the same points for years. In emphasizing the logical deficiencies and practical limitations of ID, Berlinski has given a good picture of why most scientists find it unpromising. Jason Rosenhouse
- John lilburne (talk) 19:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- I was shouting because somebody kept insisting that the evaluative and interpretative opinions of secondary sources were my own idiosyncratic personal opinions.
- All three quotes appear to be talking about a single essay written in 2002, and describe its contents as being at odds to Berlinski's earlier views. They thus provide a consensus view that, excepting this essay, Berlinski has been firmly on the pro-ID side of the debate.
- As it appears that Berlinksi never reinforced this reversal, but has in fact appears to have reverted to his pro-ID allegiance since then (e.g. appearing in Expelled and publishing Deniable Darwin & Other Essays), it is therefore more reasonable to view this essay as an anomaly, not as evidence that he is not part of the IDM.
- None of these quotes provide any evidence that any of those quoted think that Berlinski isn't part of the IDM. In fact one of the quoted parties, Mark Perakh, lists Berlinski as an "example" of "the main proponents of Intelligent Design", only a year later.[1]
HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- It appears that Berlinksi never was on the side of ID. This is from Berlinksi (p20+) in a linked to in the comment you deleted.
Some readers seem to be persuaded," I wrote in the September 1996 issue, "that in criticizing the Darwinian theory of evolution, I intended to uphold a doctrine of creationism. This is a mistake, supported by nothing that I have written." A few years later (September 2001), responding to critics of "What Brings a World into Being?" (COMMENTARY, April 2001), I was even more forthright: "If I thought that intelligent design, or any artful contrivance like it, explained anything in any depth, I would leap to the cannon's mouth and say so. I do not and I did not." For the record: I do not believe that theories of intelligent design explain those features of living systems that Darwin's theory of evolution fails to explain. And vice-versa. I wrote "The Deniable Darwin" and "Has Darwin Met His Match?" to say why. For the record: I do not believe that theories of intelligent design explain those features of living systems that Darwin's theory of evolution fails to explain
- In that link that you just deleted an explanation is provided as his motivation. But in any case this is not new to you, you already found the comment back in 2008. Turns out that you actually do know that he isn't a leader of the IDM movement.
- As for you RS people say and write things in polemics that are not fully factual. It is your job as an editor when writing a BLP to sort out the taunts and jibes. What you have in your reliable sources is that "X taunted that Berlinski was a leader of the IDM" you cannot as you appear to have done convert that simply into the statement "Berlinski a leader of the IDM ..." to do so is fatuous. But having spent 2 years casting this guy as "Supreme Master of the God Squad", I don't expect any of the above to have any affect on you. After all you have your
cracked crystal ballRSs, in the heat of polemic, to support your POV. John lilburne (talk) 10:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- As for you RS people say and write things in polemics that are not fully factual. It is your job as an editor when writing a BLP to sort out the taunts and jibes. What you have in your reliable sources is that "X taunted that Berlinski was a leader of the IDM" you cannot as you appear to have done convert that simply into the statement "Berlinski a leader of the IDM ..." to do so is fatuous. But having spent 2 years casting this guy as "Supreme Master of the God Squad", I don't expect any of the above to have any affect on you. After all you have your
- "It appears that Berlinksi never was on the side of ID." John lilburne would have us believe that Berlinski just happened to stumble onto the set of the most prominent ID propaganda film, and a whole host of other ID events, by accident.
- Sayeth Berlinkski the self-published and "unduly self-serving" -- "I have never expressed support for theories of intelligent design". Sayeth your own quote: "He is moreover the author of a flattering blurb for ... William Dembski's The Design Inference" -- the book that introduces one of ID's main theoretical underpinings -- specified complexity. He seems to have a funny way of 'never expressing support'.
- "What you have in your reliable sources is that 'X taunted that Berlinski was a leader of the IDM'" WP:Complete bollocks! What we have in fact is the foremost historian of creationism (Ronald L. Numbers, in his magnum opus The Creationists no less, p379 2006 Ed) and a prominent scholar on the "creation-evolution debate" and the relationship between science and religion (Karl W. Giberson). I see no reason to slander these prominent scholars with baseless accusations of 'taunts', 'jibes' and 'polemics', just because our self-published, self-described crank decides to indulge in a little self-serving revisionism.
- I direct you to my summarisation of the "found the comment" -- "I think this is a fairly explicit disavowal of ID-the-God-shaped-hole (as opposed to the list of anti-evolution that are ID's 'guts')." -- note the parenthetical pointing out that this is not a disavowal of ID's substance. "Turns out that you actually do know that..." John lilburne is misrepresenting me again.
- David Berlinski has spent the past several years swanning around ID events, but it is me who is "casting this guy as 'Supreme Master of the God Squad'"? ROFLMAO!
HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- Just because some one has written some thing down does not make it so, or are we all be believing that Odysseus killed Cyclops?.
- Why are you crying about misrepresention? The fact is that in 2008 you had proof that he wasn't an advocate of ID. Instead of taking that information and re-evaluating his leadership of the IDM, you chose to re-interpret the Intelligent Design Movement into something that some one could be a leader of who didn't believe in its central tenets (ID-the-God-shaped-hole). Remind me what is the name for a person who when confronted with evidence to the contrary still clings on to faith? John lilburne (talk) 16:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
The Berlinsky article sure has a lot of material on intelligent design, when it is not known that he has any opinion about it. I say that the intelligent design comments should be removed. Roger (talk) 05:59, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- WP:DUE -- the sources "sure ha[ve] a lot of material on intelligent design" when they talk about Berlinski -- in fact they talk about very little else. So what should Wikipedia say about Berlinski? What his favourite flowers are? Lacking the attention due to ID, it is rather unlikely that Berlinski would pass WP:BIO. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:32, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- Due weight? Is that your best explanation that for an article that portrays Berlinski as having views opposite to what his real views are? I see that someone has posted documentation on the Berlinski Talk page that the article is inaccurate, and you removed it from the Talk page? See [2]. There is no excuse for such a removal. That was a positive contribution to the discussion. Apparently there are some evolutionists who suspect him of having creationist sympathies, but his published opinions and interviews show clearly that he is not a creationist. Roger (talk) 04:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)::
- Roger, you've been here enough to know that instead of "no excuse" the rules actually state that all posts by a banned user should generally be removed - and can be removed by anyone. See here, where is stated "their edits may be reverted without any further reason. This does not mean that obviously helpful edits...must be reverted... but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert." KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 20:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- It seems to me, looking at the article, that Berlinski is known for arguing with Atheists and Evolutionist and that he manages to get both groups riled up. So it is not surprising that there is a lot written against him by evolutionists and atheists. I doubt he cares much especially as he makes a living from the controversy circuit. None of that doesn't make him a leader of the ID movement and any one reading the sources can see that he is not; quoting people saying that he is just makes the people quoted look silly. It should be possible to make it clear that argues against aspects of evolutionary theory and ID, and that evolutionists have answered his criticisms, without dragging the supernatural into it. Perhaps he argue more with evolutionists than IDers because they make for a more stimulating debate and therefore ca better show. John lilburne (talk) 01:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- Due weight? Is that your best explanation that for an article that portrays Berlinski as having views opposite to what his real views are? I see that someone has posted documentation on the Berlinski Talk page that the article is inaccurate, and you removed it from the Talk page? See [2]. There is no excuse for such a removal. That was a positive contribution to the discussion. Apparently there are some evolutionists who suspect him of having creationist sympathies, but his published opinions and interviews show clearly that he is not a creationist. Roger (talk) 04:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)::
Comment: I don't really understand how this issue has gone round in circles quite so much. It seems fairly obvious from skimming the article and discussion that Berlinski has worked with ID people and made many of the same arguments against evolution, but because of his personal beliefs doesn't (publicly... we can't get inside his head) support the ID conclusion that if current evolutionary theory is flawed, there must be an intelligent designer. And on one seemingly isolated occasion, Berlinski also made some criticisms of ID. End of? Rd232 talk 02:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- The issue goes round because the editors of IDCab have systematically concocted haphazard theories of mind regarding more than a dozen academics who have commented on the issues raised by the political debate between the science educators and the school boards. Berlinski's criticism of Darwin's model is merely a technical one. He's a mathematician, and he's appalled that there isn't more mathematics in the theory. The problem is that the mathematics is arcane, involving stochastic processes and metrics that cannot reasonably be taught without a graduate level introduction to mathematical modeling. Berlinski is like a math teacher who complains when a student constructs a sloppy proof of a theorem. The question isn't whether the theorem is true; the question is whether the proof is correct. Berlinski complains that the textbooks for evolution rely on evidence that isn't probative of the thesis to be proven. He insists that science be taught with more rigor. Otherwise you have people claiming to prove all sorts of nonsense with sloppy methodology. You see that same sloppy methodology in the way IDCab goes about concocting their haphazard flights of fancy about what this or that academic believes. Publishing haphazard theories of mind about BLP subjects whom one has never met is simply not a viable practice for an authoritative encyclopedia. Wikipedia does itself a disservice by permitting the allied editors of IDCab to continue to concoct meritless claims about the beliefs of controversial figures like David Berlinski. —Caprice 06:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
List of Jews in sports
- - User:Epeefleche's continued BLP violations on sportspeople articles and List of Jews in sports
In cases where there are not sufficient sources for a Jewish category, Epeefleche uses the "External links" or "See Also" section to directly link to List of Jewish sportspeople -- an interesting way to "circumvent" the system. He's been doing this to literally hundreds of articles. (Here's just one of many examples: [3])
It's worth mentioning that Epee is the sole contributor to List of Jewish sportspeople and often uses non-reliable sources (e.g., [4], [5]) or self-published sources (e.g., [6]) to include as many people as possible. Furthermore, a lot of the individuals added as of recently are of questionable notability in their field (see David Merkow). The whole list is beginning to look like one big "Jews are good at sports too" propaganda page and a mass BLP and categorization by ethnicity concern.
I'm bringing this to noticeboard because a simple revert is not going to work on this user, who often doesn't hear it. Bulldog123 22:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- - I notified User:Epeefleche of this thread. Off2riorob (talk) 22:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- - As a point of reference its not enough that one is Jewish, or Spanish, or whatever, but part of one's notability ought to be that one is Jewish, or Spanish, or whatever. John lilburne (talk) 22:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- If Bull has an editing issue to raise, he should address it on the appropriate talk page (not here). I seem to recall that Bull's edits have exhibited a strong distaste for Lists of Jews and for articles on Jews, and am sorry if their existence troubles him. But that is not to my knowledge a reason for deletion. I also note that, despite a number of warnings, Bull continues to state untruths, in support of his position, as he has done yet again above. As he knows, he misleads other editors when he says that I am "the sole contributor" to the indicated list. It does the project little good for him to ask editors to make judgments based on his misstatements (and this is the second time today I have brought this issue to his attention). The list that Bull complains about is a list that has withstood AfDs -- there is no legitimate reason for him to attack it, and if he wishes to discuss wikipedia's list policy this would not appear to be the appropriate page. Finally, Bull's reliance on the AfD discussion at David Merkow strikes me as curious -- as it is rather obvious that the majority there support the notion that the article is on a notable individual (though Bull if of a different, minority view). I hope that I have not unduly irritated Bull by being of the majority view there, but for him to bring this baseless complaint here seems to me a somewhat aggressive and inappropriate way for him to address his distaste for the existence of Jewish lists and articles on Jewish individuals. Thanks to Off2 for bringing this to my attention, as I may otherwise have been aware of the discussion.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Not that there's any way to legitimately discuss these things with you anymore, but for what it's worth, you have yet to prove that David Merkow passes any of the required notability standards. Bulldog123 06:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Saying that there are other editors on the page isn't the whole story though you have made 1092 edits to the page the next highest editor has made 82 edits. But based on the above what part of Lawrence Seeff's notability is due to his Jewishness? Mandy Yachad, Yakov Rylsky ... ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by John lilburne (talk • contribs) 23:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I have no idea how being Jewish contributes to one's being an athlete. Or for that matter how being Baptist, Muslim or Lutheran affects one's being a baseball player or cricketer. But I do know that a perfunctory look through the reliable and verifiable sources available shows that there is a strong focus placed on the nexus between being Jewish and being an athlete. A search in Google Books for "Jews in sports" turns up such titles as Jews in Sports, Emancipation through muscles: Jews and sports in Europe, Great Jews in Sports, Jews, sports, and the rites of citizenship, The 100 greatest Jews in sports: ranked according to achievement, Encyclopedia of Jews in sports, Jews and the Olympic Games: the clash between sport and politics, Jewish Sports Star: Athletic Heroes Past and Present, Jews and Baseball: Entering the American mainstream, Jewish sports legends: the International Jewish Hall of Fame, Judaism's encounter with American sports, Great Jews in sports and Sports and the American Jew, and that's just on the first two pages. I couldn't find a single book with the corresponding searches "Baptists in sports", "Muslims and sports" or "Lutherans and sports" that showed any connection between those ethnic / religious communities and being an athlete. I could probably find a dozen other books on the subject of Jewish athletes with a modicum of additional effort. The standard we have on Wikipedia is coverage in reliable and verifiable sources, and Jews in sports is the subject of an overwhelming number of texts specifically about this defining connection between being Jewish and being an athlete. Alansohn (talk) 01:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- This has been going on quite a few years, here is Alansohn making a correction to the List of Jewish American sportspeople over five years ago. Are you suggesting Alan that there are a proportionally high number of books about Jews in sport or that Jews in sport is more notable than Muslims in sport? Or that there is a specific increased correlation between notable sports people and Jews? Off2riorob (talk) 01:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Apparently, I've edited this article seven times before today, though I'm not sure what the fact that I've edited the article in the past is supposed to imply. I can make no explanation for why there is so much coverage, as to do so would be WP:OR. If there were sources supporting "Irish-American tapdancers" as being a defining connection, I would be more than happy to support an article on the topic. What I am pointing out is that this intersection of being Jewish and being an athlete is one that is deemed to be relevant by multiple reliable and verifiable source. There need be no explanation of how a person's religious / ethnic background influenced their athletic performances. Alansohn (talk) 01:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- What I am pointing out is that this intersection of being Jewish and being an athlete is one that is deemed to be relevant by multiple reliable and verifiable source. There need be no explanation of how a person's religious / ethnic background influenced their athletic performances. Unfortunately, Alan, that syllogism makes no sense. Just because a person's Jewishness may affect some sportspeople, doesn't mean it affects all. You're taking a giant, unsupported leap there. There may be books on "Christianity and writing" but that doesn't mean every writer who is Christian deserves the title "Christian writer." Would the existence of scholarly academia linking Christianity with sports automatically legitimize adding hundreds of See List of Christian sportspeople to a bunch of people's bios? It's pretty absurd. Also, I have to admit your neutrality on this subject is beginning to be questionable after that ridiculous AN/I notice. Bulldog123 23:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry if my comment was vague Alan, I was just looking at the long term support for and existence of this list and similar lists, the comment came out wrong and I meant no slight on you - it was past my bedtime and I was even confusing myself, so please excuse me. Off2riorob (talk) 16:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Apparently, I've edited this article seven times before today, though I'm not sure what the fact that I've edited the article in the past is supposed to imply. I can make no explanation for why there is so much coverage, as to do so would be WP:OR. If there were sources supporting "Irish-American tapdancers" as being a defining connection, I would be more than happy to support an article on the topic. What I am pointing out is that this intersection of being Jewish and being an athlete is one that is deemed to be relevant by multiple reliable and verifiable source. There need be no explanation of how a person's religious / ethnic background influenced their athletic performances. Alansohn (talk) 01:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Alansohn, that's not the issue. Everyone knows there's a cultural interest in the intersection of "Jews" and "sports." Rather the issue is whether a specific individual's Judaism effects his occupation as a sportsperson. You need to show the notability of this intersection for each individual, else it's an irrelevant intersection -- like "Irish-American tapdancers." For Matt Bloom, there is no evidence him being Jewish makes him a Jewish sportsperson. Furthermore, there is little evidence that he is even Jewish at all (Note: This is the ref Epeefleche uses to source Bloom's Judaism: a blog entry). Five years on wikipedia, and I'm supposed to believe that Epeefleche still doesn't know you can't source wikipedia with somebody's blog. And yet, Epeefleche still pigeonholes Matt Bloom as a "Jewish sportsperson" by adding the "See Also" link to his page, circumventing the "category add" that would inevitably be removed. There's a clear agenda here. He's done this for literally hundreds of articles. Bulldog123 05:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Are we still arguing this one? Can I suggest a general solution to the problem: for the purposes of Wikipedia, everybody is Jewish unless proven otherwise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Can I point out, for the benefit of those who don't understand irony (see [7]) that my last comment was intended as a joke. I'd assumed this was obvious, but evidently not... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- - On the subject - http://www.jinfo.org/ ..... we have a fair few externals to this website - is this site a WP:RS - used on 177 externals , none on any BLP articles but used on a lot of lists, actually its worse than that, as the duplicates don't show up, for example there are 30 links to the site from list of Jewish scientists but through duplication only eleven are included in the 177, so we likely have many more than 177 lists as a result of its multiple use on the lists, and then in a quick check - the website is then used on the lists to cite living people such as Lynn Ahrens on List of Jewish American playwrights - on Lynns BLP there is no mention of Jewishness but she is included in the "Category:Jewish American musicians" - Same website is also used to add Leslie Valiant to List of British Jewish scientists still alive - no mention of Jew or Jewishness in the body of his BLP article but he is in two Jewish cats - British Jews and Jewish Scientists. Klaus Roth, David Deutsch David Levy (chess player) all still alive - no mention of jewishness at all in the BLP but included in Jewish cats and added to the same list using the same website. All these lists are the same. half of them are much worse, completely uncited. List of Serbs was one I tidied up a bit recently, I think people that came along were just adding their name, it was totally uncited and full of relinks, its still uncited but at least the redlinks have gone. But these lists must be useful , look at the List of Jews in sports - viewing figure for Jan 2011 - over 45 thousand views - Off2riorob (talk) 16:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Jinfo.org isn't a reliable source because it appears to be self-published (one guy runs it) and it conducts it's own research into people -- often making assumptions like, "This person's background is completely indicative of a young Jewish boy's." (I think that's one of the refs for citing a Hungarian Nobel Prize winner as Jewish). Also, it neglects to supply sources for controversial cases, often leaving the citation section blank if they think it's "obvious" enough. I think it's been deemed unreliable long ago but users who refuse to listen continue to ref with it because it's the easiest way to ref-bomb someone without doing some real research. Bulldog123 21:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Note - Epeefleche is now reverting the tag I put on the list as disruptive editing. He still has over 24 blog entries and unreliable sources "confirming" living people as Jews. Bulldog123 21:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Guys, this isn't a very big issue - disputed reliability of sources - there are over two hundred sources on that list - if a few of them need improving or aren't reliable and need removing then considering the article improvemet and the relative repairable issues , lets either discuss specific issues here or move to the talkpage and try to improve there. I have to say, compared to its improvement within policy, this particular list has imo only minor easily fixed issues - a little more working together and discussion for the benefit of the content, we are all here to improve the project. Off2riorob (talk) 22:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, it is a big issue because it has to do with living people. And it's an even bigger issue because Epee is blatantly circumventing BLP requirements by adding the See Also links to about 100 articles in place of WP:N categories. Bulldog123 23:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- I should also mention that I realized long ago there is no co-operative editing with Epeefleche. That's been reinforced recently, and only continues to be reinforced when Epee starts talk-page "dicussions" with the header Disruptive Editing by Bulldog (which, by the way, if you read carefully... is just one big anti-semitism accusation, not a discussion about reliable sources. What a surprise!) and then calls up his friend to come support him in that egregious claim. Apparently adding a legitimate RS tag to his owned article is "disruptive editing." Can we please stop pretending like this user is going to cooperate when it's clear he won't? Bulldog123 23:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
If the premise of the list is that being a Jewish sportsman is discussed extensively as a way for Jews to overcome issues with participating in society then, really, members of the list should be related to that topic. i.e. sources discussing how hard it was for them to enter the field, or how it has affected how they are treated in society. Either that or, to validate the current inclusion criteria, a source should be found demonstrating the notability of a Jew winning a top flight sports event (i.e. basically the same thing as the original premise, but more explicit) --Errant (chat!) 16:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- This list and some similar articles appear to be created by people acting from ethnic pride, rather than prejudice. Still, the whole enterprise seems unencyclopedic and dubious, as one person's statement of fact is someone else's prejudiced exclamation (watch the movie Ordinary People for Mary Tyler Moore's expression and nuance when she asks, "Jewish doctor?") Why wouldn't a "Jewish athlete" list support the idea of a Jewish banker article? I would like to see the Powers that Be here hand down a rule that applies the approach suggested by ErrantX and others above, that someone's ethnicity is only to be mentioned if it somehow is material to their notability (first black baseball player in major leagues). I doubt that we'll ever reach consensus on ethnicity without some kind of administrative action--maybe one of the few areas where action from the top is needed, rather than waiting for the grass roots to reach consensus.Jonathanwallace (talk) 17:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with both of the statements above and have to say that there will never be wikipedia-wide consensus concerning anything about ethnicity unless it's handed down from the top, and that we just have to use the tools allotted us until then. Right now I've removed most of the "See Also" links from BLP pages (though I'm probably missing some). Bulldog123 21:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- What Epee is doing is not ok, just like it would not be ok for me to add notices on 50,000 athlete BLP's about how they are Christian, and 25,000 other BLP's that they are Muslim, etc. etc. Epee has a proven track record for being obsessed with calling attention to the religion of any jewish person with a WP article, by any means necessary. All of his responses to editors who take issue with this actions are textbook WP:IDHT responses, and either he doesn't understand what's wrong with what he's doing, or he's purposely being evasive. He also has a proven track record for on- and off-wiki canvassing to bring attention to AfD's on jewish topics. I think it won't be long before it will be appropriate to enforce a topic ban preventing him from editing on jewish articles, or just to bring the situation to ArbCom, because he is certainly not trying to cooperate with anyone. SnottyWong spill the beans 22:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with both of the statements above and have to say that there will never be wikipedia-wide consensus concerning anything about ethnicity unless it's handed down from the top, and that we just have to use the tools allotted us until then. Right now I've removed most of the "See Also" links from BLP pages (though I'm probably missing some). Bulldog123 21:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- There are lot's of RS for the subject "Jews in sport" (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL), and there is no reason why this subject should not be represented on Wikipedia. Nobody ever suffered from extra knowledge. Of course Jews in sport are no more important than sportsmen of any other religion. Everybody, who is interested in the subject could work on adding new lists and new articles, but I believe that absence of one list is not a good argument to attack the other. Epee is doing an absolutely amazing work on Jews in sport.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- And of course "the regulars" magically appear. I honestly think something needs to be drafted and sent to Arbcom regarding how to deal with people's ethnicity in lists, categories, and articles. It's getting obscenely out of control. With these factions lurking around, there will never be a sensible "consensus" reached otherwise. Bulldog123 00:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- I think it's an excellent idea to develop a system-wide approach for these categories, but I doubt Arbcom is going to make that decision. More likely there will be a weeks to months-long, painful, unpleasant ruckus of accusations, followed by Arbcom considering topic bans for people on both sides. There has clearly been some aggressive behavior from multiple editors. An RfC, or a focused discussion on a project page, would probably work better. Ironically enough, Wikimania is in Israel this year, right? Maybe everyone can go there and settle it all over a pint of beer. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- Frankly I'd like an Arbcom ruling. This debate has been rehashed in multiple areas in multiple ways. We need a clear and concise guideline from a higher authority. Israel doesn't strike me as good place to go if you want to amicably settle debates... NickCT (talk) 01:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- I'd very much like to crack a joke about Israel here, but it would no doubt be in bad taste and I wouldn't want the punch line retold in the evidence section! Well, if it does go to Arbcom can we at least try to keep things respectful and cooperative? I hope they can focus their attention on some process issues at least, and not how people are getting frustrated with each other. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- An RfC would be a big waste of time because we know exactly who would support having restrictions and who would not. It would just be (sorry for the choice of words here) gangbanged into the "no consensus" zone as it always is. As jonathanwallace suggested, ARBCOM is really the only way left to go. I would want this proposal to apply to all ethnic categorizations and lists, so it would have to be wider in scope. Bulldog123 04:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- I'd very much like to crack a joke about Israel here, but it would no doubt be in bad taste and I wouldn't want the punch line retold in the evidence section! Well, if it does go to Arbcom can we at least try to keep things respectful and cooperative? I hope they can focus their attention on some process issues at least, and not how people are getting frustrated with each other. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- This is the wrong forum for this kind of thing, and using this page for making collateral attacks on other editors over the content questions of deciding how to source that someone is Jewish, and the appropriateness of Jewish categories, is beginning to look tendentious. The frequent combatants on both sides of that issue have all made the same points before, here and on other pages, so duking it out again here as if it's a fresh BLP problem or behavior issue is completely unhelpful. Casting each other as long term behavioral violators is especially tendentious. If anyone has a problem with the question of who is Jewish and whether that's a relevant intersection with being in the field of sports, there are other places to re-fight that battle. A better approach would be to calmly decide what the consensus is on maintaining any particular Jewish-X intersection category or list, and what the criteria should be for inclusion. If consensus has been reached and anyone has a problem with an editor's work to implement the consensus, there are better places for that too. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- I personally believe that Alansohn remarks make sense.Just look at Jewish athletes references he provided. Like he says, they talk a lot about Jewish athletes, but don't feel a need to talk about how being Jewish effected their athletic performances. We have lots of coverage like this so we should follow the references. And once we have a list of course it is fine to point to it in other articles. I see absolutely no good reason to delete it. If there is a bad source that should be dealt with, but that can be talked about later and not here, but on the article page.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- Comment.
1. The use of "see also" to point to a list is appropriate. See WP:SEEALSO. It states:
"Links included in the "See also" section may be useful for readers seeking to read as much about a topic as possible, including subjects only peripherally related to the one in question”.
Long-term editors will recognize this as a time-honored, widespread use of "see also". Also, lists containing wikilinks serve as natural indexes for wp, and readers who don't have a specific research goal in mind may find the articles listed in lists' "see also" sections useful.
2. The List of Jews in sports is notable. Determined at its June 2010 AfD to be a Keep.
As these 33 books which are devoted to the intersection of Jews and Sports reflect, and as these 10 Halls of Fame devoted to Jews and Sports reflect, the intersection per se is highly notable by wp standards. The international Maccabiah Games (covered in thousands of RSs),[8][9][10] open to Jewish athletes, further demonstrates the significance of the intersection. And Off2's apt observation that this list received over 45 thousand views last month reflects strong reader interest.
WP is replete with lists of persons from city A, state B, nation C, high school D, college E, ethnicity F, and religion G that reflect a Fooian X. Where there is no indication that the "Fooian aspect" of the listed person influenced the "X aspect" of their lives. The above sources indicate that the intersection per se is notable.
In any event, BLPN is not an appropriate forum in which to challenge a list's notability.
3. Judaism is not just an ethnicity and a religion (as with, say, List of Muslim scientists). It is also a nationality. The Jewish ethnicity, nation, and religion of Judaism are strongly interrelated, as Judaism is the traditional faith of the Jewish nation.[1][2][3]
The Jews are an unusual case; a nation that was largely dispersed 2,000 years ago from its homeland and geographic borders. The Jewish nation lives largely, though now not wholly, in the Jewish diaspora. Under Israel's Law of Return, all members of the Jewish nation are automatically entitled, by virtue of being members of the Jewish nation, to return to the geographic borders of Israel, and become Israeli citizens. Other religions in contrast are, in the "normal case," distinct from the nation. In other words, there was not a Protestant, Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, or Atheist nation per se, and those who are members of these distinguishable religions are not members of a corresponding nation.
4. Each entry in the List has a ref reflecting that the person is/was Jewish (save two Israeli entries, which have been tagged for possible deletion). This list is in a distinct minority in this respect. Wp lists generally lack refs for most of their entries.
See, e.g., List of English people, List of Canadians, List of Germans, List of people from Chicago, List of people from Melbourne, and African Americans in the United States Congress. I am not suggesting that nom delete these lists (as he has deleted entries on the List of Jews in Sports). I am simply reflecting the sensitivity in the construct of this list, in contrast to the norm at wp (wp:otherstuffexists indicates that such a comparison is permissible as an additional cogent point).
Off2 made a sound point when he wrote that the sourcing "isn't a very big issue ... if a few of them need improving or aren't reliable and need removing then ... lets either discuss specific issues ... or move to the talkpage and try to improve there ... this particular list has imo only minor easily fixed issues".
5. Nom was asked by 3 editors at the list and its talkpage to, if he questions any particular source, discuss it at the list's talk page.[11][12][13][14] Rather than engage in wholesale deletions and tag-bomb the list, which are disruptive. He ignored consensus. Instead, he engaged repeatedly in deletions and tag-bombing.[15] In doing so he also reverted a fourth editor, and a fifth who is a sysop.
6. Nom has twice here raised the article of David Merkow, a Jewish golfer, which was noticed for AfD on my talkpage. Shortly thereafter, nom argued at the AfD against its notability. At that AfD, a slight majority !voted to keep the article, as notable. The article was kept as no consensus. Nom however bases his argument here—in part—on his asserted fact that the Merkow article is "not notable"; oddly, nom made his latest assertion even after the article was kept.
In any event, BLPN is not an appropriate forum in which to challenge the Merkow article's notability.
- _________
- ^ "The Jewish Problem: How To Solve It," U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis, "Jews are a distinctive nationality of which every Jew, whatever his country, his station or shade of belief, is necessarily a member" (April 25, 1915), University of Louisville Louis D. Brandeis School of Law, Retrieved on Retrieved on February 4, 2011
- ^ Palmer, Henry, A History of the Jewish Nation (1875), D. Lothrop & Co., Retrieved on February 4, 2011
- ^ The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Vol. 7: Berlin Years, Albert Einstein, "The Jewish Nation is a living fact" (June 21, 1921), Princeton University Press, Retrieved on February 4, 2011
comment
- - why we should include this information when possible
- "Jewish" is in some respects different from other such designations. Almost uniquely, it is an attribute that has the multiple meaning of describing both a religion and an ethnicity, which do not necessarily coincide. Even where they coincide, some people regard one as the primary determinant, and some the other. Less uniquely, in neither aspect is the criteria undisputed: certainly not religiously--the different branches of the religion use sharply different designations. Ethnically, too, it is for many people a matter which is not the least clear, even in their own minds. Also not uniquely, the dimension we call "ethnicity" is really both cultural and biological--the problems of differentiating the two are common to almost all ethnic descriptions. Like some but not all such designations: for example, the matter of being in one or another sense "Jewish'" and the question of Jewish identity is a question which is very much involved with current world politics. And, like most identities, people may have multiple such identities in different degrees. There is also a special factor In common with a few other identifications: it is an attribute that in some parts of the world and to some individuals is sometimes seen in a derogatory sense--and, this is not the only identity where the classification can have been in recent years a matter of life or death.;
- Some of the opposition to the use of ethnic classification here is to avoid this morass: I think that ill-conceived, and a violation of NOT CENSORED. The principle behind this encyclopedia is that anything at all can be discussed objectively, and the existence of disputes is not reason for us to abandon it. Some of the opposition to using ethnicity is the habit of some sources of classifying everyone possible as being of that group-- Jewishness is a fairly conspicuous example, where the motive may have usually been trying to overcome prejudice but is nonetheless not encyclopedic; this is why there are so many sources, and why some of them are unreliable. Some of the opposition here has been among those who disagree with the use or definition of one or another of the factors, including those who feel the Orthodox religious classification either essential or undesirable, and feel this so deeply they would rather not discuss the matter at all than have to defend or oppose it,.
- When dealing with public individuals, the public is usually interested to some degree in all their attributes, even those not essential to their actual notability. That's why biographies normally discuss all aspects of a person's life. One can indeed write a book on a sportsperson or scientist describing only their athletic accomplishments and not their personal life, but this is highly unusual. ,and such works are normally of specialized interest only. We are interested in other people not just because of what they did professionally, but because they are people, and the mutual interest we have in each other is so much the mainstay of human life, that we typically want to know as much as we can. about all their aspects. This is why, for example, we look at their portraits--normally what their face looks like is not much related to their importance, but an biographical article without a portrait seems weird and empty. If we were writing about robots, we would not care, nor if we were robots, would we care . Wikipedia is written by and for humans. I suppose that's the zeroth pillar, the one underlying therm all.
- The conclusion is that we should discuss ethnic , religious, national, educational, political, and all other aspects of background for all public individuals for which reliable information can be had; the extent to which we discuss them depends on the importance of the individual and the consequent length of the biography, and also on the importance and interest in the factors for the person--which can be judged by the extent of available sourcing. (Though for living individuals, we do have to take account of DO NO HARM, and even, to some degree, their own sensibilities). and if we include it, we should use it in categories and lists when it is clear enough--even if, in some cases, we may need to use separate sub-categories, or at least explanatory labels or footnotes , for people known to be in a group, and for people only said to be.
- DGG—it comes down to sources. If sources say a person is Jewish we probably say the person is Jewish. If sources do not say that a person is Jewish we probably do not say that the person is Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 04:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- unfortunately, many sources are less than reliable on the matter--usually in including people where there is very little evidence. The difficult problems are when sources disagree,. The most difficult are when the sources say one thing, and the person says something else (or where the person has himself said contradictory things in his lifetime). The key exception to following reliable, selective sources I would allow is for a living person who consistently says something other than the sources. DGG ( talk ) 17:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- DGG—it comes down to sources. If sources say a person is Jewish we probably say the person is Jewish. If sources do not say that a person is Jewish we probably do not say that the person is Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 04:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- DGG—you say, "unfortunately, many sources are less than reliable on the matter--usually in including people where there is very little evidence." Their "evidence" is not known to us. If they are a reliable source we are justified in relying on their information. Where there seems to be contradiction—either between sources, or between sources and the subject, or between what the subject says at one time and at another—then we have to reach decisions on a case-by-case basis relevant to the specifics unique to that case. This is not unlike the decision-making required elsewhere on the project. I fail to appreciate that there should be any special difficulty in relation to a List of Jews in sports article. Bus stop (talk) 18:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- Here is a prime example of the stupidity of these lists and categories, and here is another one too. If Muhammad Ali is a valid entry on those pages, how long do you think that those pages should actually be, and would they make any sense? John lilburne (talk) 09:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- I hope you two understand that's not at all what's being discussed here. Bulldog123 04:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- Some people are discussing that content issue, and I suspect it is that content issue that is behind people's frustration with each other's methods. Anyway, thanks for a thoughtful summary DGG. The only thing I would add is that Jewishness is not unique in its uiniqueness. Many other categories used to identify people are subject to overlapping, shifting definitions. In America, the questions of who is Native American, and who is Latino, are also quite thorny, but in a different way. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- DGG, yes, very true. However content and cats/lists is a different discussion. I see no real need to categorise an individual, particularly into ethnic or religious cats & lists, where it is not really relevant to their biography. Otherwise we could categorise every minute aspect of their lives, which is silly :D --Errant (chat!) 10:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- The general public interest in people's ethnicity shows it is regarded as a major component. If this and the related discussions have shown nothing else, it's that people care very much about ethnicity. And we write to supply information to the public, and the lists and categories are to help them find what they care about. But I note we add and categorize by nationality as a matter of course in all biographies--ethnicity is a very similar factor. DGG ( talk ) 17:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- What I think all of you are saying is that List of Jews in sports is a contrivance. In doing so, you are holding List of Jews in sports to a higher standard than is found in a variety of other articles. Consider for example the Criticism of Judaism article. It too is a contrivance. In both cases, editors have deemed the existence of a collection of reliable sources on a topic to be reason enough to justify the existence of the article, even though the overarching topic of the article might not be found or defined in reliable sources. If we are going to permit the indiscriminate collecting of examples so-called "criticism" of Judaism then why wouldn't we allow the compilation of "Jews in sports"? Bus stop (talk) 15:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- If you have a complaint about another article please report that at a relevant noticeboard - the fact that there are other problems on the wiki is of no value to this discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 15:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- DGG, yes, very true. However content and cats/lists is a different discussion. I see no real need to categorise an individual, particularly into ethnic or religious cats & lists, where it is not really relevant to their biography. Otherwise we could categorise every minute aspect of their lives, which is silly :D --Errant (chat!) 10:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- Some people are discussing that content issue, and I suspect it is that content issue that is behind people's frustration with each other's methods. Anyway, thanks for a thoughtful summary DGG. The only thing I would add is that Jewishness is not unique in its uiniqueness. Many other categories used to identify people are subject to overlapping, shifting definitions. In America, the questions of who is Native American, and who is Latino, are also quite thorny, but in a different way. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- I hope you two understand that's not at all what's being discussed here. Bulldog123 04:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- Off2riorob—the point is that you are holding this article to a standard higher than another article. Sure you can find problems with an article if you set standards for an article sufficiently high. Let us hold the List of Jews in sports article to the approximate same standards that other articles are held to. Bus stop (talk) 16:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- Bus Stop; actually not at all. Criticism of Judaism is a legitimate topic within the scope of Judaism - it is just we can't fit it all on the main page in any sane way :) Judaism and Sports is also looking like a legitimate topic. We discuss why above. However my argument is that putting people onto that list should rely not just on their significance as a sportsman/woman (which the current list inclusion rationale asks for) but their significance as a Jewish sportsman/woman. --Errant (chat!) 15:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- ErrantX—the article, List of Jews in sports, is simply saying that these people are Jewish and excelled in sports. The reader can do with that information as they wish. The criteria for inclusion in this list should not include that reliable sources provide information on how their Jewishness has bearing on their sports accomplishments. In all cases that information is going to be amorphous. The factors determining whether such information is available can be meaningless—the talkative or emotive athlete may express a religious reason for their successes and the less talkative athlete may not cite Judaism as a factor in their sports accomplishments. I think such a standard for inclusion is meaningless. Bus stop (talk) 16:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
For a moment of comic relief, check out Judaism and Bus Stops a pretty amusing exercise in pointitude. Wonder if it inspired User:Bus stop's moniker?? Jonathanwallace (talk) 16:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- retracted totally - Off2riorob (talk) 22:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I have found user bus stop to be pretty much a single issue account and one that appears to be a yellow badger - the account appears to like to add - and johnny who is a jew... see here the most recent at freud Off2riorob (talk) 16:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- Off2riorob—I think such colorful language is out of place. I don't think you should refer to anyone as a "yellow badger". It is out of place. Not just in relation to me, but in relation to any Wikipedia editor. I think you should compose alternative language even if doing so requires more words. The shorthand nature of "yellow badger" is problematic. That is nonstandard language in the context of this project, or at least in my opinion. In my opinion no Wikipedia editor should be labeled a "yellow badger". I feel that it is improper. Bus stop (talk) 17:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- OK, yes, sorry, I am retracting that comment, it was undue and sorry to you for that, I only came to even hear that expresion recently at wikipedia and I should not have used it here, it doesn't apply at all, sorry. Off2riorob (talk) 22:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- Off2riorob—I think such colorful language is out of place. I don't think you should refer to anyone as a "yellow badger". It is out of place. Not just in relation to me, but in relation to any Wikipedia editor. I think you should compose alternative language even if doing so requires more words. The shorthand nature of "yellow badger" is problematic. That is nonstandard language in the context of this project, or at least in my opinion. In my opinion no Wikipedia editor should be labeled a "yellow badger". I feel that it is improper. Bus stop (talk) 17:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- Can we stay on topic? I think that List of Jews in sports should have as its criteria for inclusion simply that the person be reliably sourced as being Jewish, and of course reliably sourced as being notable as an athlete. I don't think it is realistic to expect of sources to show that the Jewishness of the athlete is in any way connected to the accomplishments of the athlete. It is unrealistic to expect that to be known. The usefulness of the list to the reader is not to show the relationship between Jewishness and sports accomplishments. It is simply to enumerate the intersections between Jews and professional-level sports. Bus stop (talk) 16:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- List of Muslims in sports -
- List of Muslims in sports doesn't exist because no one wrote, or at least initiated, the article. It is not an inherently bad idea for an article. Bus stop (talk) 16:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- Just because something is notable for one group of people doesn't mean it has to be notable for another group. Nor is it required of every member in an adjective-noun list article that the subject described by the adjective is essential to their notability. Those are not the tests. It's notable if there is a sufficient weight of relevant sources on the subject, in other words, if the people of the world who write about things find it worthy of note. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- I disagree that a topic is notable just because people out there have made some linkage. "Judaism and Bus Stops" got deleted even though it cited reliably sourced articles about Orthodox objecting to bus stops, etc. More saliently, I just lost a deletion battle at WP:AFD for "Somalian genocide" on the grounds that the topic was not notable, even though former UN Secretary General Boutros Boutros Ghali, Genocide Intervention Network and numerous African media had referred to a "Somalian genocide". Wikipedia can be a confusing place. Yes, yes, I know, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and all that.Jonathanwallace (talk) 18:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- More importantly, I'd like to know why List of Jews in sports is exempt from the same rules that every other ethnicity list on the planet is forced to adhere to: Don't use blogs, don't use sources of questionable reliability, don't use single-source refs for BLPs, don't create non-notable articles (David Merkow), source exactly what you claim you're sourcing (a good number of entries are sourced with Jewish mothers, fathers, or "heritage"). I get that some users' sole purpose on wikipedia is to make these lists and promote their culture, but do we seriously have to entertain them because "it's a touchy issue?" Bulldog123 22:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- I disagree that a topic is notable just because people out there have made some linkage. "Judaism and Bus Stops" got deleted even though it cited reliably sourced articles about Orthodox objecting to bus stops, etc. More saliently, I just lost a deletion battle at WP:AFD for "Somalian genocide" on the grounds that the topic was not notable, even though former UN Secretary General Boutros Boutros Ghali, Genocide Intervention Network and numerous African media had referred to a "Somalian genocide". Wikipedia can be a confusing place. Yes, yes, I know, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and all that.Jonathanwallace (talk) 18:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- Just because something is notable for one group of people doesn't mean it has to be notable for another group. Nor is it required of every member in an adjective-noun list article that the subject described by the adjective is essential to their notability. Those are not the tests. It's notable if there is a sufficient weight of relevant sources on the subject, in other words, if the people of the world who write about things find it worthy of note. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- List of Muslims in sports doesn't exist because no one wrote, or at least initiated, the article. It is not an inherently bad idea for an article. Bus stop (talk) 16:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- List of Muslims in sports -
- Can we stay on topic? I think that List of Jews in sports should have as its criteria for inclusion simply that the person be reliably sourced as being Jewish, and of course reliably sourced as being notable as an athlete. I don't think it is realistic to expect of sources to show that the Jewishness of the athlete is in any way connected to the accomplishments of the athlete. It is unrealistic to expect that to be known. The usefulness of the list to the reader is not to show the relationship between Jewishness and sports accomplishments. It is simply to enumerate the intersections between Jews and professional-level sports. Bus stop (talk) 16:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Quoting you, Bulldog: I'd like to know why List of Jews in sports is exempt from the same rules that every other ethnicity list on the planet. I can answer that. We’re here to build an encyclopedia that serves our readership. That much is a Well… DUH! thing. You, Bulldog, are clearly objecting to seeming double standards with Jews vs. (choose a people of your choice). The “List of Jews in sports”-article receives 2,000 hits per day and the interest in the article is clearly increasing over time. It doesn’t matter whether you think that’s somehow terribly unjust; readers from all around the world find the article useful and are reading it. Moreover, they’re visiting the article at some twenty times the volume as the 100 hits per day that the 12th episode of the sixth season of The Simpsons cartoon (“Homer Badman”) receives (yeah, we’ve got an article on every single episode). And Epeefleche hasn’t been using tricks with his See also entries so the article is misleadingly aliased, like Click here for FREE MONEY; readers are going to the article because they are interested in the subject matter. Now…
I’m not going to belabor the horrible injustice that fate has seemingly imposed upon us; doing so just perpetuates ever more wikidrama. That readers are interested in “Jews in [yadda yadda]” is a fact. It’s a good thing, IMO, that Wikipedia is serving that interest. That they actually read up on the subject (*sound of audience gasp*) is something you clearly find distasteful. Welcome to 1) earth and 2) reality. In short, it is what it is. I wouldn’t be a big fan of List of Jewish linebackers who take steroids and get ‘roid-rage & beat the crap out of their girl friends. But if it got twenty times more hits that Itchy & Scratchy castrate with a Goldfinger-like industrial laser, then it’s fine by me—even though I ain’t personally interested in the subject matter of either.
This is not the venue for you to make your case about man’s inhumanity to man and set everyone else’s views on theology straight. Nor is the rest of the wikipedian community required to go along with you on this and begin debating—here—whether *Jewish Lists* should exist or not. They exist. And readers find it a service. The only thing that is germane to this venue is whether entries are cited so it’s reasonably clear to a reasonable person that the the Jewishness of a particular entry is properly established. If you have a factual issue over whether “Menachem Goldstein” is really a Jew (or whomever the heck athlete is your concern du jour), then why not address that issue directly and without malice instead of trying to tear down articles by deleting whole sections from them? That sort of behavior runs counter to… you know… building an encyclopedia.
Finally, we all know what this is about. You and Epeefleche don’t like each other one iota and that’s why these stupid issues over proper citations turn into flamewars. If this sort of continuing crap happened in a tavern, the rest of the patrons would roll their eyeballs and say “Just take it out into the parking lot and beat the living sh*t outa each other.” Stop making a mountain out of a mole hill. In short, try becoming part of the solution instead of part of the problem. That’s not too much to ask. Greg L (talk) 03:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- May I interject one notion at this juncture? WP:Overcategorization is a Wikipedia standard which explicitly uses sports lists by ethnicity--twice--as an example of what to avoid: "people should only be categorized by ethnicity or religion if this has significant bearing on their career. For instance, in sports, a Roman Catholic athlete is not treated differently from a Lutheran or Methodist." Greg L's "it gets a lot of hits" argument is NOT a reason to include something in an encyclopedia.Jonathanwallace (talk) 04:52, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- Quoting you: Greg L's "it gets a lot of hits" argument is NOT a reason to include something in an encyclopedia. Really? Really?? Did we take the principal of “Gee… that makes only too much common sense as regards making a valuable product that the world uses and appreciates” and replace it with “I don’t like it, and nine years ago, (in Village Pump Discussion, Archive #14,305), eight of us discussed this issue and pulled this principle out of our butts.” (???) Please provide the ol’ link to that principal of galactic cluelessness and run it up the flag pole for the rest of us to salute. I’m wondering if you really can point to a core principal that says something like “Just because an article is really really popular and is well used and has twenty times the readership of an article on a particular episode of “The Simpsons”, doesn’t mean it’s cool beans and the article on the cartoon is waaaay neater and belongs here.” (uhhm… yeaaaaaah). Any supposed *rule* that said “a subject that is really popular and is of interest to many people actually sucks” would would be best met with the fifth of our Five Pillars®™©, which says “If something is brain damaged beyond all comprehension, ignore it.”
As for why the heck people are interested in “Jewish athletes” and not “Roman Catholic weekend-warrior athletes who suck on water bottles”, I have no idea. Maybe it’s the cognitive dissonance: “Jew?” “Athlete??” “Where’s the rescue inhalers for all the asthma attacks???” {Sorry, Epeefleche ;-) } 06:00, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- Here are a couple of editor essays dealing with the issue. arguments to avoid in deletion discussions gives the specific example: "Keep, this is clearly an important list, as almost 14,000 people read it every day, making it Wikipedia's 115th most popular article." Also: "a large number of hits on a search engine is no guarantee that the subject is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia". WP:POPULAR in stating that popularity does not automatically confer notability includes the following: "One of the biggest misconceptions about Wikipedia is that Wikipedia is about everything. When it comes down to Wikipedia's real mission, that is simply not true. Wikipedia is strictly about topics that meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines." Anyway, WP:Overcategorization which I quoted above is official Wikipedia policy, and clearly states that a list of athletes who happen to be Jewish is not notable. Also, for what its worth, your tone is really inappropriate for this or any other Wikipedia talk page.Jonathanwallace (talk) 06:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- As for my tone and whether it is “appropriate” for existing anywhere on the same planet upon which you dwell, well, I had a Personalysis test when I was an R&D engineer at some big corporation. Guess what? It said I was pretty much impervious to social pressure. Go figure. Unless I’m being uncivil, I suggest you not be so presumptive as to assume you may dictate to me, what I may think or how I may express my thoughts. Hmmm? Too much to ask? Nothing I’ve said here is stuff any grownup doesn’t hear day in-day out in the actual grownup world. There’s far too much “I’m bucking to be an Admin one day and can out-P.C. you.” Sure; and turn Wikipedia into a big kindergarden. There’s one thing you can count on about me: I tell you exactly what’s on my mind. I see this is circuitous now and the only arguments are links to stuff that look like they apply here, but clearly don’t. So, goodbye. Greg L (talk) 06:55, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- Cute read and all but whatever point you were trying to make about page-visitation equalling encyclopedic worthiness is silly. The tool you're using shows only page views, not unique visitors. I myself have visited the Jewish sportsperson list at least 300 times over the few weeks, and, let me assure you, I have zero interest in it (or sports at all for that matter). Epeefleche, alone, probably accounts for more than half of those views. The only real point you're making is: wikipedia users, in general, are very OCD. Bulldog123 07:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- So the only reason the 12th episode of the sixth season of The Simpsons cartoon (“Homer Badman”) gets only 100 hits per day is because you and Epeefleche aren’t active over there, at each other’s throats like Captain Kirk and that lizard creature, battling to the death on their very own planet? You two better get quickly interested in those articles to boost their ratings; I’m thinking of nominating all the articles on episodes of “The Simpsons” for an AfD because all they do is turn Wikipedia into a giant ‘toon. Why don’t we have an article on every episode of Gumby? I see we stop at just providing a list of the episodes. (*sigh*). I’ll answer my own rhetorical question: They wouldn’t get the 2000 hits per day of Jewish men with good upper body development (sorry again, Epeefleche), nor would they even get the 100 hits per day that Homer Badman gets; no one gives a dump about Gumby episodes so no one writes about it. Full stop. But that wouldn’t stop people from opining in joints like this that the only reason Wikipedia has no articles on individual Gumby episodes is they are magically non-notable whereas each and every episode of The Simpsons is fine, exceedingly notable intellectual cuisine. Greg L (talk) 15:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- There are a finite number of Simpson episodes that build into a collective work. The Simpson episodes are also listed sequentially by year and date broadcast. As such there is a homogeneous quality about them which makes them suitable for listing together. If Jewish Sports people have the same connection one to another as Simpson Episodes do then you are right it would make sense to list them altogether. OTOH an alphabetic list of every cartoon ever broadcast anywhere in the world would indeed be just as useless as these lists of sports people X ethnicity. John lilburne (talk) 16:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- That's a fair argument for why we should keep lists and articles about TV shows, although that argument did not prevail among people who wanted to fully populate the encyclopedia with articles about models of consumer devices like cameras and cell phones. Nobody is suggesting we keep lists of athletes divided among every conceivable ethnic category (though there are a few holes in the encyclopedia here that could be filled), nor is the lack of notability of or interest in one of these intersections a very good argument against the notability and interest in another. People's identifications are not homogeneous in the way that TV shows are - people don't come in equal thirty minute segments with consistent look-and-feel requirements. That means that sometimes, one group of people has a special relationship with a subject that others may not have. I don't have any knowledge that Jews are particularly adept or prolific as athletes, probably the opposite. But the subject of Jewish athletes is dear to many and part of the culture for some, so they have written a lot about it. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- Cute read and all but whatever point you were trying to make about page-visitation equalling encyclopedic worthiness is silly. The tool you're using shows only page views, not unique visitors. I myself have visited the Jewish sportsperson list at least 300 times over the few weeks, and, let me assure you, I have zero interest in it (or sports at all for that matter). Epeefleche, alone, probably accounts for more than half of those views. The only real point you're making is: wikipedia users, in general, are very OCD. Bulldog123 07:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- As for my tone and whether it is “appropriate” for existing anywhere on the same planet upon which you dwell, well, I had a Personalysis test when I was an R&D engineer at some big corporation. Guess what? It said I was pretty much impervious to social pressure. Go figure. Unless I’m being uncivil, I suggest you not be so presumptive as to assume you may dictate to me, what I may think or how I may express my thoughts. Hmmm? Too much to ask? Nothing I’ve said here is stuff any grownup doesn’t hear day in-day out in the actual grownup world. There’s far too much “I’m bucking to be an Admin one day and can out-P.C. you.” Sure; and turn Wikipedia into a big kindergarden. There’s one thing you can count on about me: I tell you exactly what’s on my mind. I see this is circuitous now and the only arguments are links to stuff that look like they apply here, but clearly don’t. So, goodbye. Greg L (talk) 06:55, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- Here are a couple of editor essays dealing with the issue. arguments to avoid in deletion discussions gives the specific example: "Keep, this is clearly an important list, as almost 14,000 people read it every day, making it Wikipedia's 115th most popular article." Also: "a large number of hits on a search engine is no guarantee that the subject is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia". WP:POPULAR in stating that popularity does not automatically confer notability includes the following: "One of the biggest misconceptions about Wikipedia is that Wikipedia is about everything. When it comes down to Wikipedia's real mission, that is simply not true. Wikipedia is strictly about topics that meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines." Anyway, WP:Overcategorization which I quoted above is official Wikipedia policy, and clearly states that a list of athletes who happen to be Jewish is not notable. Also, for what its worth, your tone is really inappropriate for this or any other Wikipedia talk page.Jonathanwallace (talk) 06:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- Quoting you: Greg L's "it gets a lot of hits" argument is NOT a reason to include something in an encyclopedia. Really? Really?? Did we take the principal of “Gee… that makes only too much common sense as regards making a valuable product that the world uses and appreciates” and replace it with “I don’t like it, and nine years ago, (in Village Pump Discussion, Archive #14,305), eight of us discussed this issue and pulled this principle out of our butts.” (???) Please provide the ol’ link to that principal of galactic cluelessness and run it up the flag pole for the rest of us to salute. I’m wondering if you really can point to a core principal that says something like “Just because an article is really really popular and is well used and has twenty times the readership of an article on a particular episode of “The Simpsons”, doesn’t mean it’s cool beans and the article on the cartoon is waaaay neater and belongs here.” (uhhm… yeaaaaaah). Any supposed *rule* that said “a subject that is really popular and is of interest to many people actually sucks” would would be best met with the fifth of our Five Pillars®™©, which says “If something is brain damaged beyond all comprehension, ignore it.”
- Does anyone know how well tempered is the page-visitation tool at filtering out bots, and spiders? If I get a photo thumbed up on stumbleupon it can generate a 1000 hits in an hour simply by people pressing the random button. A link on a well visited blog can generate 100s of hits a day. Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, and Yandex spider visit my pages a dozen times a day each. Page views are interesting we all look at them, but they do need careful filtering. John lilburne (talk) 14:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- That's all very silly. If WP:OVERCAT and WP:POPULAR are at odds with WP:NOTE and WP:CONSENSUS, it's overcat and popular that have to change, not the notion that we cover notable subjects by consensus. The world as a whole, and in particular the reliable sources, see fit to cover the matter of the intersection between Jewishness and various things in the world that interact with Jewish culture. It's hard to see why why anyone looking seriously at the topic can't figure out why. But whether or not you understand the connection, the sources do. - Wikidemon (talk) 11:44, 5 February 2011 Th(UTC)
- Some of us think that this entire compulsion of listing and categorizing people based on ethnicity, religion, AIDS/HIV, or some other irrelevant criteria, is UTTER RUBBISH. It has nothing to do with the Jewishness and everything to do with the Pokemon advertising slogan "GOT TO COLLECT THEM ALL". If one looks at some of these entries, take my favourite example, Muhammad Ali there are, the already mentioned, stupid categories like "American boxers of Irish descent" and "American boxers of English descent", but also "People from Paradise Valley, Arizona" but he doesn't live there. "Former Nation of Islam members" what the hell use is that? "People with Parkinson's disease" which is just loopy-loo from there we find George Hislop who apparently died of Diabetes, AND Esophageal cancer AND Parkinson's disease. Best of all for total uselessness "Living people" how does that help me discover whether Will Smith is alive or not?
- BATSHIT CRAZY, is the nicest way to describe these cats and lists. John lilburne (talk)
- GregL: arguments about relevance/notability/cruftiness of other articles don't really cut it here. Also, it would be great if you assumed good faith a little more often. Everybody: we are now approaching the virulence, randomness and irrelevance of a really bad Usenet thread ca. 1984. Except that nobody has yet called anyone a Nazi per Thingumabob's Law. Jonathanwallace (talk) 15:48, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- The issue of the category's notability/WP:COP compliance seems like a separate matter from reliable sourcing and the odd inclusion of "See also" to seemingly unrelated BLPs. It doesn't seem unreasonable to insist on regular RS for the category. Per WP:SEEALSO, it might be best to include an explanation of why the link is there if there's no obvious mention of it in the article. Sol (talk) 16:03, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- GregL: arguments about relevance/notability/cruftiness of other articles don't really cut it here. Also, it would be great if you assumed good faith a little more often. Everybody: we are now approaching the virulence, randomness and irrelevance of a really bad Usenet thread ca. 1984. Except that nobody has yet called anyone a Nazi per Thingumabob's Law. Jonathanwallace (talk) 15:48, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
cGregL: Riddle me this. If you really believe your statement about "If its popular it belongs on Wikipedia", how come you haven't moved your very amusing sewer cover article to mainspace?Jonathanwallace (talk) 19:24, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- We're beyond assumptions of good or bad faith if people are saying flat out that ethnicity does not matter and should not be used to classify subjects on the encyclopedia. There's no assumption in there, there's a direct statement by people of the motive behind their content position. You don't have to call it good faith or bad faith to say it's an unencyclopedic way to go about things. If you don't understand or approve of what Jewishness has to do with sports, you're free to remain blissfully unaware, you're free to denigrate the validity of ethnic identification, and I suppose you're free to call the entire topic rubbish (though some Jews would find an aggressive public expression of that attitude offensive for personal and historical reasons). If you want to learn more about Jewish culture and ethnicity, there are plenty of sources to read, including Wikipedia. If you don't, you don't have to read it. Whatever your personal views, IDONTLIKEIT may be a reason not to take an interest in a subject but it is no reason to try to have it censored from an enyclopedia. If people don't like the harsh turn these discussions take they should get off their horse and stop trying to scrub Wikipedia of its coverage of Jewish ethnicity. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- Echoing some of Wikidemon's thoughts above, we must not lose sight of what we are doing here. This is an encyclopedia. When a source says that a person is Jewish, that tends to give us justification for using that information. The notion that an area of information should not be used is out of line with the nature of this project, in my opinion. The inclusion of the information that a person is Jewish, if that fact is sufficiently well-sourced, should be fairly standard on this project. If such information is to be kept out of an article for instance, there should be an accompanying valid argument as to why it should be omitted.
- There are a variety of considerations complicating this, such as BLP concerns and contradictory information. But original research should not be permitted to skew the information we provide the reader: we should not be interpreting sources but rather we should be adhering pretty much to what they literally say. For instance, if a source says that an individual is Jewish but does not believe in God, it is not for us to make the leap in reasoning that since that person doen't believe in God that they must not be Jewish. We should defer to sources. Bus stop (talk) 15:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Ha. I find it offensive precisely because I am Jewish American. And proud to be--but if I was notable enough to have a bio here and someone inserted my ethnicity as the fourth word ("Jonathan Wallace, a Jewish American") or put me on a list of "Jewish former software executives" or "Jewish Wikipedia editors" or "former Jewish hippies", I would be mad as hell. Because its a reductive categorization which implies that my ethnicity is the most important thing about me (and also because when the frothy-mouthed right takes over, they will refer to Wikipedia lists to know where to send the black helicopters). For more information on my views on ethnicity see my user page. Jonathanwallace (talk) 20:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- Other Jews would be mad as hell that the category was removed from their bio on grounds that Jewishness supposedly didn't count. You may have a point about undue importance of the PERSON is an HERITAGE-NATION OCCUPATION format for the first line in the lede, although any alternative has its drawbacks. I have no doubt that much of the debate takes place within the Jewish community. "I'm not a Jew, I'm an American" is a fairly common expression, one that begs the question of why it is better to divide people along occupations and national borders than ancestral ones. One of the historical issues I've alluded to is the assimilation and denial of identity among Jews fearful of being deemed disloyal or worse. Wanting to fit in with everyone else is common to most immigrant cultures, as is the opposite, group pride. How would it be if half of the French-Americans in the encyclopedia were introduced as such because they were proud of it, and the other half were not because they thought they were being pigeonholed? Categories and lists are navigational aids, ways to slice the information in the encyclopedia along lines other than the main subject. They're not intended as assertions about the relative importance of the subject. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- Wanting to fit in with everyone else is common to most immigrant cultures, as is the opposite, group pride. Eh? Most immigrant societies live in enclaves and perhaps move out into the wider community after a number of generations. In the UK I can take you to a number of cities which have a Asian, African, or East European section, and then they'll be further sub-divisions within those areas. 40 years ago you'd have found Irish areas and Scottish areas. Jews congregated in specific areas of London, my childhood Jewish friends all supported Tottenham Hotspur FC.
- Categories and lists are navigational aids Navigate to [[Will Smith] from here and see how good these things are as Navigational Aids. HINT they're not. John lilburne (talk) 00:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- thought they were being pigeonholed Unless their notability involves their ethnicity then they are, and for no good purpose either because once you've got a list above a few 10s of people they break do not work. John lilburne (talk) 00:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Inserted out of order due to edit conflict (addressing Tottenham_Hotspur_F.C.) In the US beginning in the 20th century and probably before, assimilation and loss of culture / language has been a second generation thing, and rediscovering identity third generation. See Melting pot, Americanization of Native Americans, Cultural assimilation, etc. (to John lilburne). Requiring that ethnicity be part of someone's notability for us to cover their ethnicity in a list or category is a minority position that as far as I can see has little basis or support. The "good purposes" why the sources describe ethnicity is that some people value and care about it, others wish to study and preserve it, and some think it's a useful way of understanding themselves and each other. It's not all a matter of trivia-mongering, group pride (something that itself is not obviously a bad thing), or prejudice. As an encyclopedia the reason why the sources care about it is a secondary concern. The primary issue is that the sources care. Obviously there are plenty of sources, and examples of self-identification, that rejects ethnicity. The "we're all one race", "I'm not defined by my birth circumstances", and all that are positions that many people take, and a very politically charged issue in their own right. Promoting group identity is a major school of thought in the world, and denying it is also a major school, so we cover both. If you think list articles and categories aren't useful across the board, that's way beyond the scope of this discussion (actually, so is the issue of ethnic lists in general and this one in particular - recognizing them or not is not a BLP issue, sourcing them is). - Wikidemon (talk) 00:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Re: Wikidemon. Other Jews would be mad as hell that the category was removed from their bio on grounds that Jewishness supposedly didn't count. Yeah... no.... I'm not buying the argument that the "lack" of mentioning something in an article that's near and dear to the person has the capability of "making them super-duper mad." Not mentioning someone is Jewish in seven different ways (as Epeefleche has done in some articles, mind you) does not mean they cease to be Jewish, just like not mentioning that Amy Poehler is Irish Catholic (which she frequently mentions in interviews) doesn't mean she's not. I feel the need to repeat this: the default ethnic status of an article is not "Jewish," it's nothing. But that doesn't mean they're not Jewish, it just means its currently trivial to mention concerning their notability. Now if they outright say "I am Jewish" then fine, let's add the one Jewish category (and maybe an article mention) and we're done. There's no legitimacy to start pigeonholing people into "Category:Jewish cricketers" if they also happen to be a cricketers, because there is no proof this intersection is notable for them in particular. If your argument is going to be "Well, there's no proof it's not," then I flat-out give up. Also, people's "interest" in the matter doesn't mean two sh*ts. People are interested in a lot of niche-like things. People seem to be incredibly interested in Timothy Geithner's Jewishness. That doesn't mean we add the sentence "Timothy Geithner is not Jewish, FYI" to his article. People's interest in whether Jared Loughner is Jewish (seems to be a popular topic recently) also doesn't mean we put "Oh, by the way, despite rumors, Loughner is not Jewish" in his article. Bulldog123 00:43, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Whatever you're responding to, it's not what I said. Nobody here is complaining that articles happen to have omitted mentions of Jewish ethnicity, they're objecting to efforts to scrub mentions of Jewish ethnicity project-wide, as well as some rather bombastic and insensitive statements denouncing the relevance of ethnicity. We haven't polled article subjects over their articles so it's all conjecture, but one editor said he would object to being called Jewish, and I said that some people would likely object to someone motivated by a disdain for ethnicity taking that out of their biography. You have a content objection and have edit warred recently with Epeefleche over that. Every article and every source stands on its own merits, and whether and how to mention someone's ethnicity and whether to include them in a particular ethnic list or category, are all decisions that rest on sourcing and good editing practices. It's not a matter of proving whether ethnicity is or is not relevant to their notability, that's a non-issue. You and a few others think it is, and the community has decided otherwise. If the category reflects a notable subject, and they are reliably sourced to fit the category, then they are in the category. If it's added without proper sourcing, then it's a BLP issue. People's interest in subjects is the entire reason for writing an encyclopedia, I'm afraid. Again, if you're uninterested or even hostile to a subject, that's a personal opinion. If the reliable sources are interested in a subject, it's sourced. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- It's not a matter of proving whether ethnicity is or is not relevant to their notability, that's a non-issue... - ...You and a few others think it is, and the community has decided otherwise. What I'm responding to are absurd comments like this, that are flat-out not true. Please link me to the wikipedia-wide RfC where this supposed "community consensus" has "decided otherwise." If you're trying to say "community consensus" has deemed WP:BLP and WP:OCAT irrelevant to ethnicity-sportspeople issues, then you're going to have to prove it and prove it hard. If I understand correctly, your position is.... "Because the intersection between sports and ethnicity has been documented as notable for some people (with book1 and book2, etc...), we don't need sources proving this notability per individual. All we need is a RS mentioning their ethnicity. If that reliable source exists, it proves it is notable automatically because... why else would the RS mention it?" Sorry, that's a spotlight logical fallacy if I've ever seen one. This type of stuff is why some of our policies/guidelines exist in the first place. Also, regarding: ... they're objecting to efforts to scrub mentions of Jewish ethnicity project-wide. I'd like at least one diff where somebody out-right suggests scrubbing mentions of Jewish ethnicity project-wide. Just one. This looks like nothing more than a massive hyperbole and totally off-topic to anything being discussed here. And finally, regarding If the reliable sources are interested in a subject, it's sourced. . This is plainly obvious, but it's worth mentioning that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, "It's sourced" does not equal "It's notable.", and Wikipedia is not about everything. Bulldog123 02:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- I'll ignore the rhetoric - you disagree with me, I get it. But you've misstated my position. My position and my reading of the community's consensus is exactly what I say it is - that if an ethnicity/occupation intersection is a notable subject and there is a list article or category about it, the person's ethnicity need not be a significant part of the person's notability. It's not that notability is presumed or that sourcing is not required. The status quo is that Wikipedia has many articles and categories, some of which have survived multiple deletion attempts, listing Jews in different fields of endeavor. You and a small number of editors have long tried to change this, beating the drum that these categories are rubbish, and that when they are kept that policy demands that a category member's Jewishness must be sourced as important to their notability - to the point of threats, incivility, edit warring, accusing other editors of bad faith for and repeated notice board complaints for trying to preserve the status quo. You've done the same thing numerous places across the project, and a few people say here that this is is a project-wide thing to change. That has never carried the day, and judging by the comments here and every time this comes up, it is unlikely to do so. Yes, it is objectionable to some that editors engage in campaigns to delete these categories, and hostile sniping, based on their opinion that noting a person's Jewish ethnicity is not a valid way of looking at a person. It's a worthwhile topic for some people, perhaps not for others, and it's sourced as a notable topic.- Wikidemon (talk) 03:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- It's not a matter of proving whether ethnicity is or is not relevant to their notability, that's a non-issue... - ...You and a few others think it is, and the community has decided otherwise. What I'm responding to are absurd comments like this, that are flat-out not true. Please link me to the wikipedia-wide RfC where this supposed "community consensus" has "decided otherwise." If you're trying to say "community consensus" has deemed WP:BLP and WP:OCAT irrelevant to ethnicity-sportspeople issues, then you're going to have to prove it and prove it hard. If I understand correctly, your position is.... "Because the intersection between sports and ethnicity has been documented as notable for some people (with book1 and book2, etc...), we don't need sources proving this notability per individual. All we need is a RS mentioning their ethnicity. If that reliable source exists, it proves it is notable automatically because... why else would the RS mention it?" Sorry, that's a spotlight logical fallacy if I've ever seen one. This type of stuff is why some of our policies/guidelines exist in the first place. Also, regarding: ... they're objecting to efforts to scrub mentions of Jewish ethnicity project-wide. I'd like at least one diff where somebody out-right suggests scrubbing mentions of Jewish ethnicity project-wide. Just one. This looks like nothing more than a massive hyperbole and totally off-topic to anything being discussed here. And finally, regarding If the reliable sources are interested in a subject, it's sourced. . This is plainly obvious, but it's worth mentioning that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, "It's sourced" does not equal "It's notable.", and Wikipedia is not about everything. Bulldog123 02:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Whatever you're responding to, it's not what I said. Nobody here is complaining that articles happen to have omitted mentions of Jewish ethnicity, they're objecting to efforts to scrub mentions of Jewish ethnicity project-wide, as well as some rather bombastic and insensitive statements denouncing the relevance of ethnicity. We haven't polled article subjects over their articles so it's all conjecture, but one editor said he would object to being called Jewish, and I said that some people would likely object to someone motivated by a disdain for ethnicity taking that out of their biography. You have a content objection and have edit warred recently with Epeefleche over that. Every article and every source stands on its own merits, and whether and how to mention someone's ethnicity and whether to include them in a particular ethnic list or category, are all decisions that rest on sourcing and good editing practices. It's not a matter of proving whether ethnicity is or is not relevant to their notability, that's a non-issue. You and a few others think it is, and the community has decided otherwise. If the category reflects a notable subject, and they are reliably sourced to fit the category, then they are in the category. If it's added without proper sourcing, then it's a BLP issue. People's interest in subjects is the entire reason for writing an encyclopedia, I'm afraid. Again, if you're uninterested or even hostile to a subject, that's a personal opinion. If the reliable sources are interested in a subject, it's sourced. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Anyway, I have better things to do than to get suckered into the exact same debate that's played out so many times already. Please don't bait me again by calling my comments illogical, absurd, hyperbole, etc. That's unwelcome and I probably won't respond again, other than to note that I disagree and won't respond. You've made your point, I've made mine. Per the original complaint and purpose of this board, it is not an actionable BLP issue that Epeefleche has edited this particular article contrary to the way you believe it should look. The participation of both of you in an edit war and seeming 3RR violation is a problem, but one for another notice board. Repeatedly bringing notice board actions on this topic is also a problem, and there are a few issues with civility. There will not be any actions on this. A content-related RfC is one way to proceed if you want to continue, but you are predicting it will not go in your favor. Consensus discussion on the appropriate talk pages is a good approach. You have mentioned filing an ArbCom case, which I do not think would generate a content-oriented result, but ArbCom can decide for itself whether to take such a case. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Though I agree that ArbCom should probably eventually get involved with Wikiproject:Tag-an-Ethnicity and that we shouldn't duke it out here (I didn't even bring it up, even though you're acting like I did), I just want to make clear that Epeefleche's egregious "yellowbadging" of articles (which is what this whole BLP notice was about) actually is an actionable BLP issue, because Jewishness needs to be treated as both an ethnicity and a religion if the external sources don't make a distinction between them (which, in a lot of cases, they don't). Per WP:BLPCAT, Categories regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question; and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources. It's pretty clear that Epee thinks adding "See Also" links is a way to avoid this (as he has done so before on Andre Geim). You won't disagree something like that is improper... would you? Bulldog123 10:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Well said, Wikidemon. Your point about Bulldog disagreeing with the community consensus is spot-on. I can also tell, from reading through this thread, that further arguing with Bulldog is unlikely to cause him to agree to edit per consensus. His behavior makes me wonder if there wasn’t a purpose to choosing his screen name: Bulldog. When I first saw that, I thought “I wonder…” I feel sorry for Epeefleche; he seems to have Bulldog as his own personal nemesis tearing down much of his work attempting to build Wikipedia. Greg L (talk) 03:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- agree to edit per consensus. Once again, provide link to said consensus. Thanks. Bulldog123 03:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Ahhhh… Is that what’s going on here? There was no “consensus” established to your satisfaction that the article is OK to exist on Wikipedia so you can edit war with Epeefleche and edit in a manner that tears the article down and diminishes it? WTF!?! That is not the way things work. If we had contributors tearing down articles on an upside-down burden of proof as to their right to even exist, chaos would reign supreme in a collaborative writing environment. As it is, the chaos is limited to just your antics. Until such time as there is a full-tilt, widely advertised, community-wide RfC that establishes that the “Jewish athlete” articles are not permissible on Wikipedia, then you must operate on the assumption it is permissible to exist and must not edit in a manner that has the effect of trying to diminish it. Do you understand that? Or are you going to disagree with that point? If you have a problem with a simple point of fact in the “Jewish athlete” article, then raise it on the relevant talk page on that narrow point. No more. Got that? Your personal sense of whether such lists are good and holy on Wikipedia matters not one twit when debating narrow issues of fact and content of the article. The broader issue of whether such articles ought to exist will not be settled by a debate here (only at a wide RfC), so your personal attacks and baiting are just so much pissing in the wind; we don’t need to put up with it and can ignore you now. Save your opinion for (some future) RfC on the broader point, where you can add your 2¢ as a bulletpointed !vote. Greg L (talk) 04:12, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Is it possible for you to stop typing cute so I can actually sift through that and get to the relevant parts? If you even read what this notice was about, you'd know it's not a discussion about whether the article should exist or not, but about bad refs and BLP issues. So yes, I will "tear down" (your words, not mine) the article if it appears to be cited by bad refs (the four blogs he has there now and the other unreliable sources like Jewishsf) or material that contends with WP:BLP (the hundreds of "See Also" links he spammed). Your can keep repeating yourself with the "editing against consensus" baloney, but there is "no consensus" that says List of Jewish sportspeople is exempt from these rules. Your page views argument, if that even was an argument, doesn't change that either. Bulldog123 04:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Oh… well; just pardon me all over the place for observing that you seem to be saying one thing and doing another. That you rail at the very existence of the article is quite telling as to your bias. No wonder Epeefleche is so frustrated with your *contributions*. Your 03:50, 6 February above post made it exceedingly clear what your intentions are: there is no consensus that the article may exist so you’ll do what you please to tear it down. You should have thought better before you let loose that freudian slip. My recommendation is that Admins separate you from these articles to avoid more conflict. Greg L (talk) 04:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Epeefleche is frustrated with my contributions... right. It must be opposite day. That's fine. It's clear you have little idea of what's going on here. This 03:50, 6 February above post was in response to your "Bulldog is editing against consensus" jab. There is no consensus one way or the other concerning Epeefleche's spamming, so saying I'm editing "against it" is baloney and just trying to "make me out to be a bad guy." I have no idea what your connection to Epeefleche is but it's clear from this diff that you utterly lack neutrality on the issue. Bulldog123 05:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- The individuals under discussion here are Jewish athletes, people who have been covered in the dozens of books on the subject and inducted into the International Jewish Sports Hall of Fame, the National Jewish Sports Hall of Fame and Museum and received other coverage as being an athlete AND being Jewish. These are not just casual asides; These individuals have been included in these multiple reliable and verifiable sources because this intersection of being a Jewish athlete is deemed to be a notably defining one by dozens of different authors. I fail to see how concerns about Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, "It's sourced" does not equal "It's notable." or Wikipedia is not about everything have any relevance here as a justification to delete sourced content, remove categories or delete See also links to lists of other Jewish athletes. Alansohn (talk) 03:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- I'm perfectly within my right to delete sourced content, remove See Also links, and delete categories that appear to be cited by unreliable or questionable references (like the one you returned) or violate WP:BLP requirements. If you have a problem with that, bring in a third-opinion so they can clear it up for you. Also, those links had nothing to do with the discussions earlier. This notice has since taken a completely different turn. They were only in my response to Wikidemon. Bulldog123 03:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Vaughn Walker
Vaughn Walker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There appears to be a serious misunderstanding regarding the WP:WELLKNOWN policy. I would like to receive comment from other editors who have worked with these issues in the past. The understanding of some editors seems to be that the only way something can be included in a BLP article, is if it is explicitly acknowledged by that person. Thus, in the article about Vaughn Walker any attempt to include any reference to the column ran by the San Francisco Chronicle have been deleted. Coincidentally, I am having difficulty with getting people to engage on the talk page. It seems to be that the individuals invoke a policy that "we don't repeat rumors" and then delete the material without responding to substantive points. If this is indeed the policy, then the WP:WELLKNOWN policy page needs to be corrected, as the example in the policy is incorrect. As I read the policy, reprinting of allegations, provided that they are sourced by reliable third party mainstream sources is not only allowed, but encouraged. I would like to get clarification of the policy here in an attempt to solve this issue. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 16:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- I tried to use the example of Charlie Crist as a guide, the situation in which is exactly analogous in my mind. I find it a bit puzzling that the allegations are explicitly permitted in the Charlie Crist article, despite the fact that he has denied them, but they are unceremoniously deleted from the Vaughn Walker article, when he has not denied them. In fact, the sources that I published show that he doesn't attempt to hide his orientation at all. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 16:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- I'd also point to the Anderson Cooper article as another example. Also David Dreier, Larry Craig, Ed Schrock, Jim McCrery, Ed Koch, (anyone seeing a pattern here), do I need to find more examples? I am sure I can find others if I look. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 20:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see the mention of homosexuality as a problem as long as it is sourced well and impartial in tone. The mention of his homosexuality is a crucial part of the critical response to actions Walker has taken as judge, in fulfilling his duties. Talking about Walker's handling of California Prop 8 without discussing the pro and con reviews—both sides saying the judge is gay—is a failure to talk about one of the foundational political issues. Binksternet (talk) 20:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- The thing is that it is NOT well sourced. It is one newspaper article that has framed the claim as "an open secret" - and not one that anyone is willing to stand behind, and then that "open secret" is the source for the other coverage. Wikipedia is not an echo chamber to repeat unsourced rumors. PARTICULARLY because there are numerous attempts to assassinate Walkers character as an impartial judge by the implication that his "open secret" has affected his impartiality. We need FAR better sourcing for the claims than have been provided.Active Banana (bananaphone 22:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- There we have it folks, as I suspected all along. The reason that some are so opposed to including this very real part of the story, is a fear that it might somehow "undermine the impartiality" of Walker. Hence there is seen a need to "protect" Walker here on Wikipedia in a manner not given to Charlie Crist, David Dreier, Larry Craig, Ed Schrock, Jim McCrery, or Ed Koch. Indeed, the Sources that we have for Walker's orientation are far better than ANY of the sources in the other examples I have given. The fact is, including this information does nothing to undermine Walker's impartiality, indeed the very source that I used said that he had a record of impartiality, and the proposed edit that I offered included a quote from a Law Professor that said his orientation doesn't matter. However, his orientation is a very real part of the story, in that it was part of the reason that some groups cited in their efforts to impeach him, rightly or wrongly. As I said before, Information is power, and we don't whitewash things on Wikipedia. Moreover, Walker is NOT denying or trying to hide his sexuality. The SF Weekly article and other newspaper sources quoted a federal judge who said that Walker doesn't try to hide his orientation at all, and that it doesn't affect his handling of cases. What I suspect we have here, is people trying to apply a different standard to Walker, because of the nature of the Prop 8 case. That is just unacceptable, especially when we have so many other examples on Wikipedia of the policy being applied in the way that it reads. We can't create one standard for Walker out of political expediency and have another standard for all the other examples that I listed. I have yet to have anyone actually give me a reason why unnamed sources from the film Outrage are so much better than a mainstream newspaper with stringent standards for editorial review. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 23:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Other articles are worse is not a suitable excuse for violating WP:BLP on yet another article. Active Banana (bananaphone 03:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Except the other articles are not worse. Each of those decisions were reached in accordance with the WP:WELLKNOWN policy which is just glossed over. The fact remains that your rendition of the BLP policy isn't the actual BLP policy. Above, you alluded to your real concern, that being "the impartiality" of Judge Walker. Might I ask, doesn't your position actually confirm that this is a real issue? You acknowledge that some are using the allegations to "undermine Walker's impartiality", which you characterize as "character assassination", given that the allegations and uproar surrounding that were a very real part of the coverage after the Prop 8 decision, what is served by trying to hide them from the public? Should your concerns about "impartiality" play any part in the process at all? Can you point out how your rendition of the BLP Policy fits with the WP:WELLKNOWN policy? The fact remains, that if your policy is the real policy, then many articles on Wikipedia need to be fixed, immediately, and the policy as written needs to be corrected. If my reading of the policy is correct, then some acknowledgment, in a neutral form, needs to go in the article. (I would also point out that you are invoking policies that are completely inapplicable to your case. For instance, the policy you quote here, is in relation to the DELETION policy, and it has NOTHING to do with comparison of other editorial decisions as a guide for the application of the BLP policy.) Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 03:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- The awful addition to Christ by user Binksternet was after user Birkenset had gone on and an and on for months after adding the gay claim - every time I see it it makes me squirm and its all I can do do stop myself removing it every time. I will remove it completely as soon as I can get away with it. Wiki is not a gay activist of gay outing website for rumors that accuse people they don't like of being gay, with reports and films written by gay activists. BLP well known is not a excuse to promote rumors of someones sexuality in benefit of an activist position. Off2riorob (talk) 04:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- The "awful addition" is your version, not mine. I wanted more detail to separate Crist's 2006 local newspaper outing from the 2009 film which says he is gay. Your wish to "get away with it" has already been expressed here where you crept into the article and took out the section against consensus, without making any talk page announcement of you controversial action. This kind of page ownership, non-neutrality and lack of collegiality you demonstrated at Crist and elsewhere is why your attempt to join ArbCom was so poorly received. Expressing your wish to change the Crist article as soon as you "can get away with it" is an expression of tendentious editing, of an edit warring mindset. Binksternet (talk) 17:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- It was you that wanted to add that gay activist rubbish , that addition has nothing to do with me at all - I object to it then and now - you went at it for months - relentlessly - to add a worthless speculation that a subject of our article was gay - because john and harry said he was, the gay activists like to do that - they say about anyone that stops them propagating their POV - oh they are gay, yada yada yada - and all the gays talk about it and its well known in the gay village POV. Off2riorob (talk) 22:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- What bitter vituperation, connected in no way to reality! Kirby Dick is as straight as they come, a manly man who makes strong political films. Dick accused Crist of hypocrisy in his politics, and demonstrated a connection between politicians hiding their homosexuality, and voting more consistently against laws seen as liberating to gays. Dick reminds me of me but more accomplished; I'm a lifelong hetero male, grandfather to four, happily enjoying my second hetero marriage, now entering its tenth year. I heard about Dick's film on NPR while driving, then I sought out and watched Dick's film, then I looked up the information on my own, online. I, too, do not like hypocrisy in politicians, but of course that description applies to pols of every stripe. You seem to think only fey men who gossip are interested in the topic; if so, you are demonstrably wrong. The topic is hypocrisy—remember that. Unafraid straight men are just as interested in addressing the issue, hence the relentlessness you observed in me. I think I went about it in the most neutral fashion, pushing back against those who would chop the balls off of WP:WELLKNOWN as if it did not exist as a vital guideline, making a space in the article for neutral adherence to our fine NPOV rules. Binksternet (talk) 05:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- It was you that wanted to add that gay activist rubbish , that addition has nothing to do with me at all - I object to it then and now - you went at it for months - relentlessly - to add a worthless speculation that a subject of our article was gay - because john and harry said he was, the gay activists like to do that - they say about anyone that stops them propagating their POV - oh they are gay, yada yada yada - and all the gays talk about it and its well known in the gay village POV. Off2riorob (talk) 22:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- The "awful addition" is your version, not mine. I wanted more detail to separate Crist's 2006 local newspaper outing from the 2009 film which says he is gay. Your wish to "get away with it" has already been expressed here where you crept into the article and took out the section against consensus, without making any talk page announcement of you controversial action. This kind of page ownership, non-neutrality and lack of collegiality you demonstrated at Crist and elsewhere is why your attempt to join ArbCom was so poorly received. Expressing your wish to change the Crist article as soon as you "can get away with it" is an expression of tendentious editing, of an edit warring mindset. Binksternet (talk) 17:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- The awful addition to Christ by user Binksternet was after user Birkenset had gone on and an and on for months after adding the gay claim - every time I see it it makes me squirm and its all I can do do stop myself removing it every time. I will remove it completely as soon as I can get away with it. Wiki is not a gay activist of gay outing website for rumors that accuse people they don't like of being gay, with reports and films written by gay activists. BLP well known is not a excuse to promote rumors of someones sexuality in benefit of an activist position. Off2riorob (talk) 04:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Except the other articles are not worse. Each of those decisions were reached in accordance with the WP:WELLKNOWN policy which is just glossed over. The fact remains that your rendition of the BLP policy isn't the actual BLP policy. Above, you alluded to your real concern, that being "the impartiality" of Judge Walker. Might I ask, doesn't your position actually confirm that this is a real issue? You acknowledge that some are using the allegations to "undermine Walker's impartiality", which you characterize as "character assassination", given that the allegations and uproar surrounding that were a very real part of the coverage after the Prop 8 decision, what is served by trying to hide them from the public? Should your concerns about "impartiality" play any part in the process at all? Can you point out how your rendition of the BLP Policy fits with the WP:WELLKNOWN policy? The fact remains, that if your policy is the real policy, then many articles on Wikipedia need to be fixed, immediately, and the policy as written needs to be corrected. If my reading of the policy is correct, then some acknowledgment, in a neutral form, needs to go in the article. (I would also point out that you are invoking policies that are completely inapplicable to your case. For instance, the policy you quote here, is in relation to the DELETION policy, and it has NOTHING to do with comparison of other editorial decisions as a guide for the application of the BLP policy.) Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 03:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Other articles are worse is not a suitable excuse for violating WP:BLP on yet another article. Active Banana (bananaphone 03:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- There we have it folks, as I suspected all along. The reason that some are so opposed to including this very real part of the story, is a fear that it might somehow "undermine the impartiality" of Walker. Hence there is seen a need to "protect" Walker here on Wikipedia in a manner not given to Charlie Crist, David Dreier, Larry Craig, Ed Schrock, Jim McCrery, or Ed Koch. Indeed, the Sources that we have for Walker's orientation are far better than ANY of the sources in the other examples I have given. The fact is, including this information does nothing to undermine Walker's impartiality, indeed the very source that I used said that he had a record of impartiality, and the proposed edit that I offered included a quote from a Law Professor that said his orientation doesn't matter. However, his orientation is a very real part of the story, in that it was part of the reason that some groups cited in their efforts to impeach him, rightly or wrongly. As I said before, Information is power, and we don't whitewash things on Wikipedia. Moreover, Walker is NOT denying or trying to hide his sexuality. The SF Weekly article and other newspaper sources quoted a federal judge who said that Walker doesn't try to hide his orientation at all, and that it doesn't affect his handling of cases. What I suspect we have here, is people trying to apply a different standard to Walker, because of the nature of the Prop 8 case. That is just unacceptable, especially when we have so many other examples on Wikipedia of the policy being applied in the way that it reads. We can't create one standard for Walker out of political expediency and have another standard for all the other examples that I listed. I have yet to have anyone actually give me a reason why unnamed sources from the film Outrage are so much better than a mainstream newspaper with stringent standards for editorial review. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 23:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- The thing is that it is NOT well sourced. It is one newspaper article that has framed the claim as "an open secret" - and not one that anyone is willing to stand behind, and then that "open secret" is the source for the other coverage. Wikipedia is not an echo chamber to repeat unsourced rumors. PARTICULARLY because there are numerous attempts to assassinate Walkers character as an impartial judge by the implication that his "open secret" has affected his impartiality. We need FAR better sourcing for the claims than have been provided.Active Banana (bananaphone 22:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see the mention of homosexuality as a problem as long as it is sourced well and impartial in tone. The mention of his homosexuality is a crucial part of the critical response to actions Walker has taken as judge, in fulfilling his duties. Talking about Walker's handling of California Prop 8 without discussing the pro and con reviews—both sides saying the judge is gay—is a failure to talk about one of the foundational political issues. Binksternet (talk) 20:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with Ghostmonkey as to the use of this article from the San Francisco Chronicle in the Vaughn R. Walker article. While we should treat this issue carefully and avoid implying that Walker is biased (whether or not individual editors think he is biased), it is not an "unsourced rumor" that Walker is gay. The San Francisco Chronicle, the most prominent newspaper in the city where Walker works, and one of the top 25 newspapers by circulation in the United States, is the source. If we don't accept the San Francisco Chronicle as a reliable source, then I don't know what we can accept as a reliable source. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Agree as well. The allegation seems also to have had repercussions in the notable debate, and as such it is more than random gossip. WP:WELLKNOWN covers explicitly well-sourced allegations. --Cyclopiatalk 17:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- WP:WELLKNOWN covers the matter neatly. News reports about Walker should be introduced in an impartial manner, describing how some California Prop 8 advocates declared Walker's treatment of it to be biased because of his homosexuality, and also how other news reports declared Walker to be unbiased despite his homosexuality. The homosexuality is assumed by both sides in the conflict, and Walker has neither confirmed or denied his orientation. In bringing this material to the article, make certain that WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV is followed to the letter. Binksternet (talk) 17:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- WP:WELLKNOWN is key here. I agree with the above editors that the matter should be referenced in a very careful and deferential way, focusing on the news story rather than any attempt to paint him as biased. The fact is, this is a major part of the story that Wikipedia has removed, to the detriment of informational exchange. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 21:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Agree with Ghostmonkey et al. that the material is well known, reliably sourced and deserves inclusion. Arguments against are only that we are somehow harming the very public figure who has refused to comment...but "The WP:NICENESS standard does not exist."Jonathanwallace (talk) 22:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- oh its well known that he is gay is a clear BLP violation. here is the sfgate and newyorkdaily titillating BLP violation. Its not well cited and it isn't either well known. Have a look at the desired addition and the low standard of the reporting. Off2riorob (talk) 22:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)* -
WP:BLP - WP:WELLKNOWN is being cited as a support for this desired addition - so the question is - is that is the speculation and this persons claim - NPOV well known requests that the - incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented - is this not notable bloggers opinion that the sexual preferences of the living subject of our article is "an open secret" complies with that?
WP:NPOV - WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV - was also quoted as a reason to support inclusions of this comment, imo is the person who has the opinion isn't himself wikipedia notable and the opinion is contentious then we shouldn't be adding it at all, especially when it is linked to and supported by such low quality reports. Off2riorob (talk) 23:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
comments
Using primary source blogs as your evidence that there is real world impact? o fergawdsake. Active Banana (bananaphone 01:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- It's not a "Blog" it's a reprint of a story that appeared in the San Francisco Weekly, again a mainstream, reliable, third-party source. The evidence of the real world impact were the calls for the impeachment and the THOUSANDS of news stories that were generated by mainstream papers around the nation. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 02:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
As a bit of background, for anybody who is following this debate from elsewhere, in much of the US today an assertion that someone is gay is more like an allegation of being a Republican than an allegation of say, drug addiction. I think this factors in because under WP:BLP we rightly get more excited about protecting people against really disturbing assertions than against everyday ones (there have been cases on this board since I've been here regarding incest and even baby rape). While it is still highly relevant to discuss whether sources are reliable, it is no big deal (as many of the sources say) whether the Judge is gay or not. It is however notable and worth adding to the article because its been widely commented on in connection to the case.Jonathanwallace (talk) 23:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Let me extend that to the following analogy. A judge who ruled on a campaign finance issue and whose party affiliation is unknown, is "revealed" to be Republican. The information in itself is no big deal, but Democrats start clamoring that he was biased in making the ruling. It seems to me that this very public dispute is notable and belongs in the article, and is not outweighed by any need to protect the judge against the assertion of party affiliation.Jonathanwallace (talk) 00:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- You bring up a good point. As written now, the article takes pains to emphasize that Walker is a Republican, appointed by a Republican, and labels him as an "independent minded conservative." Yet when one wants to add another part to the story, this is opposed quite vigorously. I see a problem with this. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 02:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- It is true that there is almost nobody likely to be working at Wikipedia who would regard such a statement as defamatory. It is by now also true that the majority of the general public in English-speaking countries think so as well. Nonetheless a an unfortunately sizable minority does think so, and this probably in some culture areas includes the majority of people. The English Wikipedia is the major world source of information, and our articles are commonly used as the basis for articles in other Wikipedias, especially for subjects connected with the English-speaking world. It is therefore essential not only that we be accurate on matters such as this, but that we do not assign this information to a person unless the person publicly self-identifies as reported by reliable sources, or unless it is commonly reported in extremely reliable sources--enough so to make it clear that this designation is a matter of general public knowledge and of general public interest. The principle is DO NO HARM, and this would apply to many other designations also which are in our general view perfectly honourable. DGG ( talk ) 02:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- Again, this is NOT the WP:WELLKNOWN policy. Either the policy is mistaken, and needs to be changed, and thus many articles on Wikipedia need to be changed, or this information needs to go in the article. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 13:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- This content is not supported by WP:WELLKNOWN. You have to weigh all policies and guidelines together and as BLP suggests to ERR on the side of caution with such contentious content - this addition has no place in a wikipedia BLP , not as presented and supported by the provided support. Off2riorob (talk) 14:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- That's just not correct, as demonstrated by the application of the policy throughout Wikipedia, and by a clear and plain reading of the WP:WELLKNOWN policy itself. If the policy is mistaken, change it, and change the other articles I mentioned. Otherwise, this needs to go in the article. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 15:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- No - we don't do that - here at the BLPN we deal with the single issue report -we don't care about your claims that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - take those issues to the policy talkpage or the actual articles you feel the issues are causing problems. Or report them separately here in a fresh thread.Off2riorob (talk) 20:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- Like another poster above, you are invoking a policy that is inapplicable. Just as it was inappropriate when he did it, it is inappropriate here. The fact is, this issue impacts the BLP policy across the board at wikipedia. The fact remains that the policy as written allows the inclusion of the material. It's also a fact that consensus is against your position here. The WP:WELLKNOWN policy is explicit. It has been applied in a very specific manner across the board. That application is evidence of how the policy works. If the policy is not changed, then the information must be applied consistently. We don't have one standard of the policy for some people and other standards for others, commiserate with the political expediency involved in each article. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 03:52, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- I realize you are really wanting to include this as you have been trying for a year, but don't accept that wp:wellknown supports the inclusion of this content at all especially through the poor quality of the reports and even if wp:wellknown did apply as I said you can not take a single piece of policy and insist that content must be inserted because of it - you have to take policy and guidelines as a whole and as a user says, wp:donoharm resists this content as does BLP, articles about living people "must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." I also don't see the consensus you claim is there is here to include your desired addition. Off2riorob (talk) 12:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- this particular case is unusual, because whether or not he is gay is possibly relevant to his notability, the relationship of it to his career is a matter of public controversy, and the controversy has been reported in multiple reliable sources. Given the reporting, DO NO HARM seems irrelevant. In this case I'd support the inclusion. (My statement above was intended to be general; in general I would oppose the inclusion for people with notability at his level unless there is some strong reason otherwise—in this instance, there is.) No one case at Wikipedia impacts the across the general policy--we always need to use judgment about the relationship of various guidelines, and the need for individual exemptions. We do try to be consistent, but we do not follow precedent in except very roughly. I wouldn't be concerned about including it here becoming a general rule. DGG ( talk ) 19:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- I am clearly totally opposite to you DGG, I find that position completely unsupportable - you suggest the weakly cited rumor that he is gay is part of his notability cited to these reports low quality reports, imo its nothing to do with his notability at all, he is totally notable without any opinionated rumors about his sexual preferences. Off2riorob (talk) 19:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- You keep calling it "weakly cited", when we have a very well down article by one of the largest and most reliable mainstream newspapers in the country, after the story had been put through editorial review. AFTER the story was cited, further sources came forward, who stated that Walker doesn't even try to hide his sexuality. It isn't just a rumor. Further, Walker has never denied it. This is as well sourced as many other pieces of information here on the page. It's not like Walker is desperately trying to keep this under wraps. It seems that some here think that unless Walker proclaims it with a bullhorn, that it shouldn't be included. However, that simply isn't the standard. Moreover, in this particular case, the controversy surrounding his orientation set off a firestorm, and become one of the most notable thing about the entire affair. That alone supports mention in the story. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 02:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- I am clearly totally opposite to you DGG, I find that position completely unsupportable - you suggest the weakly cited rumor that he is gay is part of his notability cited to these reports low quality reports, imo its nothing to do with his notability at all, he is totally notable without any opinionated rumors about his sexual preferences. Off2riorob (talk) 19:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- this particular case is unusual, because whether or not he is gay is possibly relevant to his notability, the relationship of it to his career is a matter of public controversy, and the controversy has been reported in multiple reliable sources. Given the reporting, DO NO HARM seems irrelevant. In this case I'd support the inclusion. (My statement above was intended to be general; in general I would oppose the inclusion for people with notability at his level unless there is some strong reason otherwise—in this instance, there is.) No one case at Wikipedia impacts the across the general policy--we always need to use judgment about the relationship of various guidelines, and the need for individual exemptions. We do try to be consistent, but we do not follow precedent in except very roughly. I wouldn't be concerned about including it here becoming a general rule. DGG ( talk ) 19:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- I realize you are really wanting to include this as you have been trying for a year, but don't accept that wp:wellknown supports the inclusion of this content at all especially through the poor quality of the reports and even if wp:wellknown did apply as I said you can not take a single piece of policy and insist that content must be inserted because of it - you have to take policy and guidelines as a whole and as a user says, wp:donoharm resists this content as does BLP, articles about living people "must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." I also don't see the consensus you claim is there is here to include your desired addition. Off2riorob (talk) 12:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- Like another poster above, you are invoking a policy that is inapplicable. Just as it was inappropriate when he did it, it is inappropriate here. The fact is, this issue impacts the BLP policy across the board at wikipedia. The fact remains that the policy as written allows the inclusion of the material. It's also a fact that consensus is against your position here. The WP:WELLKNOWN policy is explicit. It has been applied in a very specific manner across the board. That application is evidence of how the policy works. If the policy is not changed, then the information must be applied consistently. We don't have one standard of the policy for some people and other standards for others, commiserate with the political expediency involved in each article. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 03:52, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- No - we don't do that - here at the BLPN we deal with the single issue report -we don't care about your claims that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - take those issues to the policy talkpage or the actual articles you feel the issues are causing problems. Or report them separately here in a fresh thread.Off2riorob (talk) 20:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- That's just not correct, as demonstrated by the application of the policy throughout Wikipedia, and by a clear and plain reading of the WP:WELLKNOWN policy itself. If the policy is mistaken, change it, and change the other articles I mentioned. Otherwise, this needs to go in the article. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 15:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- This content is not supported by WP:WELLKNOWN. You have to weigh all policies and guidelines together and as BLP suggests to ERR on the side of caution with such contentious content - this addition has no place in a wikipedia BLP , not as presented and supported by the provided support. Off2riorob (talk) 14:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- Again, this is NOT the WP:WELLKNOWN policy. Either the policy is mistaken, and needs to be changed, and thus many articles on Wikipedia need to be changed, or this information needs to go in the article. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 13:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- It is true that there is almost nobody likely to be working at Wikipedia who would regard such a statement as defamatory. It is by now also true that the majority of the general public in English-speaking countries think so as well. Nonetheless a an unfortunately sizable minority does think so, and this probably in some culture areas includes the majority of people. The English Wikipedia is the major world source of information, and our articles are commonly used as the basis for articles in other Wikipedias, especially for subjects connected with the English-speaking world. It is therefore essential not only that we be accurate on matters such as this, but that we do not assign this information to a person unless the person publicly self-identifies as reported by reliable sources, or unless it is commonly reported in extremely reliable sources--enough so to make it clear that this designation is a matter of general public knowledge and of general public interest. The principle is DO NO HARM, and this would apply to many other designations also which are in our general view perfectly honourable. DGG ( talk ) 02:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- You bring up a good point. As written now, the article takes pains to emphasize that Walker is a Republican, appointed by a Republican, and labels him as an "independent minded conservative." Yet when one wants to add another part to the story, this is opposed quite vigorously. I see a problem with this. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 02:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree--good analysis. All too often we seem to be trying to protect living people against reliably sourced information which has been reported everywhere. "The WP:NICENESS standard does not exist."Jonathanwallace (talk) 19:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thats right, your redlink niceness link doesn't have any content so please either write it or stop adding it because its basically meaningless - no one is trying to be nice here - that is not what BLP requires. Off2riorob (talk) 19:43, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- - so lets see the consensus to add this content support by these citations as presented above - personally for weakly claimed rumors of someone sexuality I would like to see a clear consensus support for inclusion, but others might disagree -
- By my count it is 6-2 in favor of inclusion. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 02:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Presently, I think another 48hours to allow additional input wouldn't be undue. Off2riorob (talk) 02:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- By my count it is 6-2 in favor of inclusion. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 02:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- After seeing the addition again to Walker's article, I'm uncomfortable with it. I'm not sure where my discomfort comes from: the fact that consensus is deciding this when it should not, that sexual history and behavior in BLPs is so ill-defined that it takes this kind of discussion to try to sort it out in one article when there are dozens or more that should be clarified, or just the simplicity of gossip and rumormongering posing as fact. I'm willing to start an RfC on the numerous issues of sexual history and behavior on the BLP talk page, as I have stated on Walker's talk page, but for this...ill-defined and questionable process, if we're counting votes...which is not optimal...count mine as oppose. --Moni3 (talk) 16:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
the desired addition
- - In February 2010, Walker was the subject of a column in the San Francisco Chronicle, which claimed that it was an "open secret" that Walker is "gay".
- - Conservative groups seized on the allegations as evidence of bias and called for Walker's impeachment.
consensus
- - support
- - User:Ghostmonkey57 - as the user attempting to add it clearly supports it.
- - User:Jonathanwallace - supports it' - claiming - It is notable and worth adding to the article because its been widely commented on in connection to the case.
- - User:DGG - "this particular case is unusual, because whether or not he is gay is possibly relevant to his notability, the relationship of it to his career is a matter of public controversy, and the controversy has been reported in multiple reliable sources. Given the reporting, DO NO HARM seems irrelevant. In this case I'd support the inclusion"
- - User:Cyclopia - supports its inclusion as presented - saying , "its more than gossip."
- - User:Binksternet - supports a neutral-toned inclusion of Walker's reported homosexuality, keeping to WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV.
- - User:Metropolitan90 - also appears to support the addition of the presented content.
- - User:Dezidor - Support the addition of information, the wording can be different and more explaining in details than "the desired addition" and should include names of that conservative groups and their reasoning.
- - oppose
- - User:Active Banana - opposes the addition and was the last person to remove it.
- - User:Off2riorob - opposes the addition - imo as I have said, it is weakly cited sexual speculation.
- - User:Bbb23 - opposes the addition for same reason as Rob. His sexual orientation is irrelevant to his notability, any more than a black judge's race would be relevant just because he ruled on a discrimination case. For that matter, a straight judge's sexual orientation is irrelevant if he rules on a sexual orientation case. The media reports are gossipy and don't warrant inclusion.
- - User:Moni3 - opposes any mention of homosexuality
Further comments
Just to be clear, I do believe that the fact that the Chronicle reported that Walker is gay can be mentioned, although I am not necessarily endorsing any particular wording of how this issue should be raised such as the "desired addition" that appears above. In particular, it should be noted that the Chronicle reported this in a regular article, not a column, and that only certain conservative groups called for Walker's impeachment, not conservative groups in general. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- These are good points. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 07:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- @Bbb23: any more than a black judge's race would be relevant just because he ruled on a discrimination case. It looks that race matters in many Wikipedia articles. See all-white jury. Some people believe that all-white juries favoring whites and some people believe that gay judges do not favoring Proposition 8 because of their homosexuality. It is not our mission to judge whether they are right or wrong but inform about relevant facts and points of view. --Dezidor (talk) 18:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- So who are these groups? I am not getting much in reliable source searching, apart from this guy Tim Wildmon, the American Family Association's president - who has put in a statement -- "Judge Walker is a practicing homosexual himself." - here - in fact this whole story seems to go back to this single group and its campaign. As for the claim of a possible impeachment there appears to be no chance at all of that. Also in reply to Ghostofnemo, when I say, "weakly cited" - I meant that if you google this, the only reliable reports are the ones here, it seems to me that many reliable sources in the US have chosen not to report this open secret, and that the national and international reporting of this gay claim or impeachment claim is zero. I would also suggest if an addition is made the claim that it is an open secret - the claims needs clear attribution to whoever claims that. Off2riorob (talk) 12:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- The AFA, FRC, FOF, and several other conservative organizations called for the impeachment of Walker. Edward Whelan wrote several columns on Walker and his handling of the Prop 8 affair, further hundreds of mainstream newspapers including the San Jose Mercury News, Washington Times, Washington Post, New York Times, and others reported on the story. I don't know how you are conducting your google searches, but you seem to be missing a whole lot about this story. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 12:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, perhaps you are more local - could you please provide those links to support that, and the other links that claim the subject is a well known openly homosexual man. Is the FRC THE Family Research Council, they appear to have been labeled a hate group against homosexuality by that Southern Poverty group? thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 19:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- note - As its almost the anniversary of Ghostmonkey57's first addition of this claim of the living persons sexual preference - I should give him or her a barnstar, how focused is that to stay as single purpose account for a whole year to get your desired addition into a BLP. - here is the users first addition of the edit from one year ago, - On February 17, 2010, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that he is gay.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/02/07/BACF1BT7ON.DTL|title=Judge being gay a nonissue during Prop. 8 trial|last=Matier & Ross, San Francisco Chronicle |date=Sunday, February 7, 2010|accessdate=2010-02-08}}</ref>
- - honestly - this detail is stale - its a year old - there are no updates in a year - no additional titillations - no impeachment - nothing at all. Off2riorob (talk) 04:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- - That's it. You've tried everything in the book to keep this off the page, but the consensus is clearly against your position. You've now resorting to calling me a SP account, when I've actually been editing since 2005, over a variety of articles. It is true that lurk more than I edit now, simply because of the tiresome process that one must go through, to include even a single line of information, if another poster thinks that it will somehow harm their political cause. As for your contentions about "staleness" they are utterly without merit. The SF Chronicle first reported the story in February of 2010 (although sources in the gay community were reporting things about Walker long before that.) Since then, several hundred stories were posted by a variety of mainstream newspapers in the United States about Walker and Prop 8, especially around the First week of August 2010, when Walker made his decision in the Prop 8 case. Most of the articles referenced the controversy over Walker's orientation, even if in passing. The last batch of big news about walker occurred in September, when he announced his retirement, and even there, his orientation was mentioned: http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2010/09/vaughn_walker_prop_8_judge_ann.php. As for your contentions about impeachment, NO ONE said that impeachment was likely. Impeachment is extremely difficult to accomplish, hence the reason that only a handful of officials have ever been removed via this method. However, the fact that groups were pushing for impeachment is notable. You seem to think that you can invent a new policy on wikipedia, that requires continuing coverage from mainstream newspapers on the orientation of a federal judge who is retiring, and then only if that judge had proclaimed his orientation with a bullhorn, in order for a small part of this story to be put into the article. That simply isn't the policy here. It boils down to this... as written, the [WP:WELLKNOWN]] policy supports this inclusion. The policy has been applied in that manner across many pages here on wikipedia. The consensus here is that the policy supports inclusion. That's it. It's over. It is time to move on. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 15:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Notability is often an in the moment thing and gets included at the time and later has to be removed as it has no long term value - such as this content - actually it seems like soapboxing to me with no long term value at all - remember the claims are from involved people attempting to slur this living person - opinionated groups the are anti gay attempting to spread rumors about his sexuality in a soapboxing attempt to get him impeached - there was no impeachment and nothing actually happened, it was all a year ago and there is no continuation of the story and imo - its stale and if it ever was worthy of inclusion in a wiki BLP that moment is long gone - this rumor of a mans sexual preference just has no long term notability. Off2riorob (talk) 15:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- You are just wrong here. The Chronicle reported the story in Feb. 2010. The news was again repeated in Aug. 2010. Then again in Sep. 2010. Federal judges simply don't get a lot of press time, unless they are involved in a very notable event, like the Prop 8 trial. Walker will forever be defined by the Prop 8 affair, more than anything else he has ever done in his career. That's just a historic fact. His sexuality was a part of that same affair. That's just history. The policy isn't to require continuing front page stories in order for something to be included. This isn't just a rumor. The judge hasn't denied, and sources, yes MAINSTREAM sources from reliable newspapers, confirm that the judge doesn't even try to hide his orientation. We have consensus here. Since you've now retreated to labeling others as SP accounts, and such, I don't think we can get much further than to just go with the consensus. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 15:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- You haven't presented those other reports, are there actually any? And you havent clarified who the groups are and provided citation for that either. Off2riorob (talk) 15:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- You are just wrong here. The Chronicle reported the story in Feb. 2010. The news was again repeated in Aug. 2010. Then again in Sep. 2010. Federal judges simply don't get a lot of press time, unless they are involved in a very notable event, like the Prop 8 trial. Walker will forever be defined by the Prop 8 affair, more than anything else he has ever done in his career. That's just a historic fact. His sexuality was a part of that same affair. That's just history. The policy isn't to require continuing front page stories in order for something to be included. This isn't just a rumor. The judge hasn't denied, and sources, yes MAINSTREAM sources from reliable newspapers, confirm that the judge doesn't even try to hide his orientation. We have consensus here. Since you've now retreated to labeling others as SP accounts, and such, I don't think we can get much further than to just go with the consensus. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 15:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Notability is often an in the moment thing and gets included at the time and later has to be removed as it has no long term value - such as this content - actually it seems like soapboxing to me with no long term value at all - remember the claims are from involved people attempting to slur this living person - opinionated groups the are anti gay attempting to spread rumors about his sexuality in a soapboxing attempt to get him impeached - there was no impeachment and nothing actually happened, it was all a year ago and there is no continuation of the story and imo - its stale and if it ever was worthy of inclusion in a wiki BLP that moment is long gone - this rumor of a mans sexual preference just has no long term notability. Off2riorob (talk) 15:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I imagine that my reasoning for inclusion is not the same as Ghostmonkey57's reasoning, but the result is the same. I cannot imagine why we are squabbling about whether or not to present Walker's alleged homosexuality to the reader after the debate has been covered by AOL News, CBS News (using an Associated Press release), USA Today, Harper's magazine, the Sacramento Bee, the San Francisco Chronicle, The Salt Lake Tribune, Deseret News, The Bay Citizen, and lastly (leastly) Stanford's student newspaper, The Daily Cardinal. (See Talk:Vaughn R. Walker for URLs.) We are wa-a-ay beyond do no harm, squarely in WP:WELLKNOWN territory. Binksternet (talk) 17:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Binksternet's version
On January 11, 2010, Walker began hearing arguments for Perry v. Schwarzenegger. The case was a federal-constitutional challenge to California Proposition 8, a voter initiative constitutional amendment that eliminated the right of same sex couples to marry, a right which had previously been granted after the California Supreme Court found that Proposition 22 was unconstitutional.[13] In February, two columnists at the San Francisco Chronicle wrote that Walker, who they said has "never taken pains to disguise—or advertise—his [sexual] orientation", would not be influenced by his own homosexuality in his decision regarding same-sex marriages.[14] Proponents of Proposition 8, including the American Family Association and the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), said that Walker was biased on the issue. NOM chair Maggie Gallagher said that Walker was "substituting his views for those of the American people".[15] Larry Levine, a professor at the McGeorge School of Law in Sacramento, said of the matter, "I think it's profoundly offensive to suggest that a judge who is not of the sexual orientation of the majority or the race of the majority or the religion of the majority is unfit to hear the case."[16] On August 4, 2010, Walker ruled that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional "under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses," and enjoined (prohibited) its enforcement.[17][18]
13: Michael B. Farrell (January 11, 2010). "Gay marriage trial begins with tough questions for both sides". Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved 2010-02-07.
14: Phillip Matier and Andrew Ross (2010-2-07). "Judge being gay a nonissue during Prop. 8 trial". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 2011-02-08.{{cite news}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help)
15: "Gay Marriage Judge's Personal Life Debated". CBS News. The Associated Press. August 6, 2010. Retrieved February 9, 2011.
16: Hecht, Peter (August 6, 2010). "Irate Prop. 8 backers say gay judge not impartial". Sacramento Bee. Retrieved February 9, 2011.
17: Vaughn R. Walker (August 4, 2010). "Opinion and Order" (PDF). PACER. Retrieved 2010-08-04.
18: Dwyer, Devin (August 4, 2010). "Unconstitutional: Federal Court Overturns Proposition 8, Gay Marriage Ban in California". ABCNews.com.{{cite web}}
:|access-date=
requires|url=
(help); Missing or empty|url=
(help)
I think this version brings the Walker dispute into the mainstream, with neutral quotes from significant players, beginning with the Matier & Ross piece in the SF Chronicle. This version is not an attack on Walker—it is a statement of the dispute including criticism and defense of Walker. Binksternet (talk) 18:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- I won't reiterate my objections to the material. However, I would point out that despite the chronological recounting of the issue, there is a lingering inference that Walker ruled Prop 8 unconstitutional because of his alleged sexual orientation. The beginning of the case and the ending of the case become bookends with the sexual stuff in between. I would favor discussing the case from beginning to end and then separately addressing the orientation issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Despite what it may appear here or on Walker's talk page, I keep trying to think of the best way to write this passage and present it. In this, I keep coming up wrong. Introducing this issue, by the standards of clear and best writing practices must present the facts this way: "In February, two columnists at the San Francisco Chronicle wrote that Walker's sexual orientation is an "open secret", intoning that he is gay. Walker has declined to address the rumors in the press." And then on to the NOM comments...
- Your version skips over that in order to get to the heart of the WP:WELLKNOWN issue. It can't. It's confusing. But by adding it, it just spreads the same unfounded claims. That's what keeps me so uncomfortable. --Moni3 (talk) 18:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Your change is the better version. Binksternet (talk) 18:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Without sounding like an arrogant git, ha, yes, I think the addition of introducing the "open secret" part of the issue reads better, but I can't reconcile that with BLP. I know WELLKNOWN enters into the comments made by the NOM, but they cannot be addressed unless Wikipedia repeats the "open secret" gossip. I'm again back to the issue of Richard Gere. He's famous for acting and rumors about shenanigans with a small mammal, printed everywhere, making that also WELLKNOWN. --Moni3 (talk) 19:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Agree with BBB--case first, orientation stuff after. Jonathanwallace (talk) 20:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Without sounding like an arrogant git, ha, yes, I think the addition of introducing the "open secret" part of the issue reads better, but I can't reconcile that with BLP. I know WELLKNOWN enters into the comments made by the NOM, but they cannot be addressed unless Wikipedia repeats the "open secret" gossip. I'm again back to the issue of Richard Gere. He's famous for acting and rumors about shenanigans with a small mammal, printed everywhere, making that also WELLKNOWN. --Moni3 (talk) 19:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Your change is the better version. Binksternet (talk) 18:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Is there another source, which is not citing the first instance of the two reporters at the SF Chronicle? IOW, are there many sources, or one source cited many times? KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 20:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- I know of no reliable source--a newspaper, not a blog or some obviously politically affiliated publication--that treats Walker's sexual orientation, identity, or behavior as fact. They only speculate, repeat rumors, or use the "open secret" phrasing. --Moni3 (talk) 22:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- Every one that people presented last fall cited back to the SF Chronicle. Those brought up in the recent re-hash appear to be the same ones.Active Banana (bananaphone 22:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with Bbb23 and Jonathanwallace that Walker's involvement with the Prop 8 case, from start to finish, needs to be discussed first, with issues relating to his sexual orientation being discussed separately. I would also note that the San Francisco Chronicle article in question was not a column, but a reported news article. (As an aside, I would further note that there are various possible factual situations which could be true regarding Walker between on the one hand "he's unbiased" and "he's biased because he's gay". For all we know, Walker might have been biased because he has gay relatives, friends, or neighbors, or because he thought he would have a better chance of getting a job in private practice or academia by deciding in favor of same-sex marriage, without being gay himself.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:39, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
jean arcelin
Jean Arcelin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I don't agree with the tags inserted about jean arcelin. This articles cites different reliable sources and external pages, and has been improved recently —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.49.170.130 (talk) 13:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- I've cleaned up the article a little, and removed some of the tags that are now no longer relevant. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't agree with the tag about the notability of this article. Jean arcelin is referenced in two prominent dictionary of arts, the Benezit dictionary of artists, as well as in the Delarge dictionary of arts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.128.98.111 (talk) 12:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Richard Boyd Barrett
Richard Boyd Barrett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The article section entitled 'Views on Israel and Jihad' is misleading defamatory.
The section is structured in a way to induce guilt by association, with repeated hints that Mr Boyd Barrett has strong connections with Jihadists.
Shared attendance at conferences, and support for an individual's right to free speech and freedom of travel prove no such connection.
Also refusal to condemn can in no way be construed as support.
Richard Boyd Barrett has made no public statements at any time related to or mentioning Jihad. Therefore a section heading including the word Jihadists is deliberately and provocatively misleading.
The section is structured very similarly to a recent blogs and press releases by a Councillor Richard Humphreys, of the Irish labour Party, a political rival to Mr Boyd Barrett.
Therefore I contend that this article is a politicized intervention by members or supporters of a rival political party ie a ' a dirty trick' intended to defame Mr Boyd Barrett during the course of a general election campaign.
I am asking you to remove this section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.141.33.215 (talk) 11:56, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- I'm looking into this now. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- I've removed the obvious POV from that section, and User:Dreadstar has semi protected the article. Others may wish to comment on whether what's now left in that section constitutes undue weight, especially in the context of an ongoing election campaign. I can't currently verify if the contents of the Irish Times articles cited back up the statements they reference. You may also wish to suggest reliable independent sources for other points of view to balance that section. A good place to do that is on the talk page for the article. If you have a possible conflict of interest then you should read WP:COI. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- My $.02: looks good, great improvement over what was there before. I don't think it violates WP:UNDUE in any way--Mr. Boyd Barrett's own public statements on the Middle East are being referenced in a section which is properly proportioned and not out of whack with his opinions/actions on other topics. In general as I have just commented on my user page, I find that WP:UNDUE, which is mainly a guide to the best way to keep information in an article, is too frequently used as an excuse for excluding it.Jonathanwallace (talk) 14:38, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- I've removed the obvious POV from that section, and User:Dreadstar has semi protected the article. Others may wish to comment on whether what's now left in that section constitutes undue weight, especially in the context of an ongoing election campaign. I can't currently verify if the contents of the Irish Times articles cited back up the statements they reference. You may also wish to suggest reliable independent sources for other points of view to balance that section. A good place to do that is on the talk page for the article. If you have a possible conflict of interest then you should read WP:COI. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
The article appears to have been changed again.Back to 'views on Israel and Jihad'. To repeat, Mr Boyd Barrett has never expressed any views on Jihad. The continual attempt to infer that he has is a blatantly politicised attempt to infer guilt by association. Again please either remove this defamatory section, or edit it to remove the bias. thank you. Dave Lordan (talk) 16:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Corrected to 'views on Israel and the war on terrorism'. --Viticulturist99 (talk) 18:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- Gosh, and I went to all that trouble adding those two reliable sources you provided. Well, I've pointed our wine-growing friend to the talk page for the article, and I dropped him a polite note over at his talk page. Not entirely surprisingly, there was already one such polite note that someone had left for him previously. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:59, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks very much. I dropped a polite note on yours. --Viticulturist99 (talk) 18:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Now, while we're here,
- Am I correct in assuming his last name is Boyd Barrett, rather than just Barrett? Some of the sources seem to use it that way.
- The article currently describes the Socialist Workers Party as "Trotskyist", without providing any references to support that. Clicking on the wikilink over to the Socialist Workers Party (Ireland) article, that article also uses that term to describe the party, and again seems wildly inadequate in references. Can you point us to some references or hint if it's correct or likely to be disputed?
There's probably other things wrong, but I haven't looked in that much detail yet. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:09, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
he is boyd barrett, and the swp would self-describe as post-trotskyist, though neother trotskyist or post trotskyist are particularly precise definitions. dave lordan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.141.33.215 (talk) 22:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I see that the reference and links to councillor richard Humpries of the irssh labour party have been removed. As I pointed out above the serious of defamatory comments being made in the article by vitculturist are remarkably similar to public statements made by that councillor, a political rival of Mr Boyd Barret. Can we find who removed those links and references, and why? Can viticulturist confirm or deny their involvement with Irish politics? Is viticuturist connected to Councillor Ricard Humphries? I wish to strongly dispute the neutarlity of viticulturist and again request that his incessant changes be removed and that he be prevented, in the interests of fairness from editing the page. Dave lordan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave Lordan (talk • contribs) 22:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- Responding to your accusations, I am not Richard Humphries, neither am I connected to him in any way. Never met the man. Furthermore, I am not a member of the Labour Party that you and your friend Richard Boyd Barrett see as a political rival. I believe that the Labour is in a different weight class from People Before Profit Alliance, so talking about rivalry here sounds really amusing. The link to Humphreys's speech was removed by myself because I wanted the article about Richard Boyd Barrett to be balanced. I didn't object to you and Demiurge1000 inserting the paragraphs you wrote into Richard Boyd Barrett. I wish Demiurge1000 took the same approach and stopped removing well sourced and important material from Richard Boyd Barrett because his actions may amount to single purpose account and will be dealt with. --Viticulturist99 (talk) 03:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- OK, taking that one point at a time:
- Yes the references to that council meeting were removed (by me because it was totally biased partisan political material and sourced only to the website of one of Boyd Barrett's opponents), however what was there previously is still in the article history (click "View history" at the top when you're on the article).
- Be careful using terms like "defamatory" because Wikipedia does not tolerate anything that sounds like a legal threat. To summarise that, anyone that is taking legal action or threatening it, can't edit Wikipedia at the same time. I'm not saying you're making any such threat, just it's sometimes easy to slip into doing so.
- We don't go round digging as to who exactly is who. You are not required to say whether you are the same Dave Lordan who is also a poet and political activist, although it might make things easier and simpler to do so if it is the case.
- Equally viticulturist is not required to say who he is or what outside interests he has; but if his editing is strongly indicative of a conflict of interest or indeed a single purpose account then that will get dealt with.
- You're free to look at Viticulturist's editing history (he certainly learned how to use Wikipedia very quickly at the start of his editing career) just as he is free to look at my editing history or yours. I think mine is probably less interesting. However, we don't make accusations of who has what agenda because we try to assume good faith.
- Yes I think the Richard Boyd Barrett article is seriously lacking neutrality right now, that's something we need to work on. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- Another point to add. Regarding your request that viticulturist be prevented from editing the article in the interests of fairness. First, if viticulturist edits in a manner that is excessively disruptive or seriously in breach of the biographies of living persons policy then administrators will deal with that. Second, if you continue to engage in discussion here and on the talk page of the article, then it's extremely likely that you will also be able to edit the article itself within probably a few hours. (Thus making it "fair".) Although, when that happens, you would be advised to be extremely cautious in editing the article directly if you have a conflict of interest. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Demiurge, I think it is pretty obvious from Viticulturists edit history that he has a biased politcial agenda. How long do we have to wait for administators to deal with it? Can I contact administrators directly to move the process along? Dave lordan.— Preceding unsigned comment added by User:188.141.33.215 (talk • contribs)
- Well, to be fair, I think you have some political views yourself :) Anyway, the position right now, is that there is a direct quote attributed to Boyd Barrett in the current article that I believe he did not actually say, and I've explained why here on the article talk page. I fixed this misleading quote here with a sensible edit summary, User:Viticulturist99 put it back in again here, I provided a not terribly well chosen, but reasonably understandable caution on Viticulturist99's talk page here, and reverted
mythe changes asking him to discuss on the talk page, he responded to the caution and the request by reverting the misleading quote back into the article here.
- So, we are misquoting a living person in a way that might be seen to prejudice people against them during an election campaign, and we have someone edit warring to re-insert the misleading quote despite being given a warning about it. (Not their first warning on similar matters in recent days.) I'd like some extra eyes on this issue please. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- "misleading quote" This is a blatant lie, to put it mildly. Have decency to admit that you DON'T WANT TO READ the quoted articles, because you don't want the quotes to appear in Wikipedia. Please read the article in the Irish Times, just go to the quoted page. Also, please read the article on the Irish Anti-War Movement site, and in the Irish Independant - before smearing me by saying that "First item is poorly sourced controversial, second item is misattributing a quote to a living person". --Viticulturist99 (talk) 02:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Per WP:BLP, I have just removed (again) the two items that I've raised concerns about on the article's talk page. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Per WP:BLP, I changed the quote according to the article published in The Irish Independent and restored it to the text; so any future claims that the article has been misquoted will be nothing but lies. Anyone can follow the link and check it. I reserve the right to defend my point of view against the biased editor who tries to whitewash Richard Boyd Barrett before the elections. The article is well balanced at the moment, it is neutral, and it shall remain this way. --Viticulturist99 (talk) 02:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Your edit has not been made in a good faith, and I would like an administrator(s) to take a look at what you are doing. --Viticulturist99 (talk) 02:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Per WP:BLP, I changed the quote according to the article published in The Irish Independent and restored it to the text; so any future claims that the article has been misquoted will be nothing but lies. Anyone can follow the link and check it. I reserve the right to defend my point of view against the biased editor who tries to whitewash Richard Boyd Barrett before the elections. The article is well balanced at the moment, it is neutral, and it shall remain this way. --Viticulturist99 (talk) 02:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- You're to be commended for trying to inject some neutrality into such a controversial article. I looked at the article and the section you were wrestling with in the hope that I could lend a hand. However, although I could see clear sense in your edits and reversions, I was distracted by underlying problems, in particular unreliable sources, and did zip. Sorry. Hope someone is braver or a quicker study than I.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Not to claim braveness or quickness but I just overhauled the entire section so that, while preserving the information, it meets neutrality and weight standards better--retitled it and removed some coatracky material. Viticulturist--we assume good faith here, and don't make or take accusations lightly. I think we would all welcome admin attention at this point.Jonathanwallace (talk) 03:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Viticulturist has already rolled back some of my changes and I am done for tonight rather than risk WP:3RR. Eyes would be appreciated, as I made four edits but by my count only two were reversions. Viticulturist and I were editing the article at the same time without my knowing, so the edit history may look confusing. Jonathanwallace (talk) 04:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- An admin has wisely fully protected the page. I posted a suggestion at the talk page to advocate for one more edit, eyes and voices appreciated.Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Adel Flaifel
Adel Flaifel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
An IP editor added some highly negative unsourced material in August 2009.[16] which I've removed. It would be helpful if someone who knows Bahrain could take a look. GabrielF (talk) 19:35, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- I don't have the pleasure of knowing Bahrain but I was once a happy shopper in the tax free shop. I trimmed some of the attacking content and the cite farm in the external link section. - as far as I can see, the subject has never been found guilty of or even charged with anything. Off2riorob (talk) 22:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- Since when is Bahrain on the way to Rio?!? :-) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Well, its long ago and perhaps it was Abu Dabi and that was pre Rio so .. the memories are variegated and opaque.Off2riorob (talk) 03:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- don't all roads eventually lead to Rio? KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 20:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- Well, its long ago and perhaps it was Abu Dabi and that was pre Rio so .. the memories are variegated and opaque.Off2riorob (talk) 03:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Since when is Bahrain on the way to Rio?!? :-) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Ian Henderson (police officer) is related although it seems to be better sourced and written. Incidentally the info on the 2010 elections in Adel Flaifel is obviously outdated, unfortunately I'm having trouble finding any English sources discussing the results and the source used in the article for the candicy isn't currently working. From Bahraini parliamentary election, 2010 it looks like he didn't win and [17] or [18] probably cover it but I don't read Arabic. Nil Einne (talk) 22:16, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Sarona Reiher
I'm unsure of some of the sources used in the Sarona Reiher. Specifically, are
reliable enough sources for a BLP? Jayjg (talk) 01:16, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- diva-dirt is a blog (it says so) and therefore unlikely to be a reliable source. I wouldn't trust onlineworldofwrestling because it has no About, and it's hard to tell what it is. pwinsider threw my browser into such a tizzy, it would be sadistic to cite it, although I don't necessarily think that sadism, in and of itself, is a viable reason for rejecting a website as a source. Seriously, I have no idea if it's reliable because I escaped from it before I could figure it out.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Anyone else have any additional thoughts on this? Jayjg (talk) 00:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- Online world of wrestling is widely used on thousands of articles,, diva dirt is only on 30 or 40 and as you say a blog, and the other one I didn't look at after the comments but pwinsider.com is only linked from 105 places on this wiki. I have edited a little on these articles and I take the position that in certain fields reporting is perhaps of a lower quality than others and wrestling is imo a bit tabloid in nature - and so I give some of the externals in the topic field a bit of leeway but only if they support uncontroversial content. - Off2riorob (talk) 01:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. Aside from being used by many wrestling-related articles, is there any other reason to think the site meets the WP:RS requirements for WP:BLP articles? Jayjg (talk) 02:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- No, not to my knowledge, imo if you look at the site with to the letter of policy and guidelines it is likely not reliable, as I said imo for non controversial content it does not require removal - if a user disputes that then it is off to the WP:RSN and perhaps to the bot request to remove the other eight thousand of them and the content they support. Off2riorob (talk) 02:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. Aside from being used by many wrestling-related articles, is there any other reason to think the site meets the WP:RS requirements for WP:BLP articles? Jayjg (talk) 02:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Out right advert for a pontentially scam org. Google search "Sophie Gold Scammer" produces interesting results. Using wiki to provide legitimacy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.129.193.93 (talk) 04:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- "Gold IQ specialises in the education of Foreign Exchange, Stocks, Commodities and Bonds". Evidently not in the 'education' of grammar. Laugh, and AfD. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- AfD it is; perhaps someone else could delsort, I'm still waking up... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Jesper Olsen (runner)
Jesper Olsen (runner) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
CanadianLinuxUser appears to have a close connection to "Jesper Olsen (runner)" page and there is a conflict of interest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.233.254 (talk) 15:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you base that on. The editor has been a heavy editor of the article, but why do you say he has a conflict? That aside, the article is very poorly written and poorly sourced. Even though it's classified as a stub, it's been in existence for quite some time. The English is fragmentary and often consists of straight copies from the sources. And the main source seems to be one website of a project that the article subject founded.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- All CLuser appears to have done is improve the article, we should thank him or her for that. If there are cut and copy content fron the citation there may be copyright issues requiring some small rewriting. I don't see any problem with COI there and no reason to have the template of the accusation against CLuser on the talkpage either. Off2riorob (talk) 17:58, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with the spurious conflict issue. Fixing the content to avoid fragments and copyright issues wouldn't be too hard - it's mostly facts that just have to be spun into sentences. My bigger concern is the source issues. Someone needs to find more secondary sources rather than what is an arguably self-published source.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Found more secondary sources.... of the 18 references there are now 12 from secondary sources. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 23:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with the spurious conflict issue. Fixing the content to avoid fragments and copyright issues wouldn't be too hard - it's mostly facts that just have to be spun into sentences. My bigger concern is the source issues. Someone needs to find more secondary sources rather than what is an arguably self-published source.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- All CLuser appears to have done is improve the article, we should thank him or her for that. If there are cut and copy content fron the citation there may be copyright issues requiring some small rewriting. I don't see any problem with COI there and no reason to have the template of the accusation against CLuser on the talkpage either. Off2riorob (talk) 17:58, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- FYI I agree that it needs improvement. Just for the record the IP is of a banned user. User:Dromeaz and will be reverted immediately, irrelevant of the content or of the improvement as per policy. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 21:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- No one ever explains how they know that a particular IP belongs to a banned user. Can you?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Absolutely... Check history.... this is the 20th time that the SAME accusations have been made always from an IP in London, England and from BTCENTRALPLUS.COM domain. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 21:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- see the unblock request at the bottom of this page - clearly this report is from a sockpuppet of a blocked user. Off2riorob (talk) 21:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- PS, thanks for the improvements from valid editors. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 21:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- No one ever explains how they know that a particular IP belongs to a banned user. Can you?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Mick Thomas
Mick Thomas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article says (and cites a reference) that Mick Thomas read Fred Goodman's "Mansion on the Hill" when he was about 15 years old, which would have been 1975 or so. Goodman's book is copyright 1997. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.200.151.245 (talk) 17:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- I can't seem to find the original publication date, but the full title seems to be The Mansion on the Hill: Dylan, Young, Geffen, Springsteen, and the Head-On Collision of Rock and Commerce. [19]. Given the mention of Springsteen, it seems unlikely to have have been written in 1975, but it would be nice to find the date for sure - maybe Thomas read it, but later than he remembered? Thanks for pointing this out. I'll see what I can do about the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- I've added a url for the original article, and the passage is ambiguous. As a general comment, I feel the page needs some work, would anyone object if I added a discography of Mick's solo work? Punkrocker1991 (talk) 14:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- I meant to get back to the article, and see what could be done: thanks for finding the URL, I'll take a look. As for the discography, I'm not sure what Wikipedia's policy is on this, but it seems like a good idea if he meets notability requirements. Probably best to continue any discussions on the article talk page though. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- I've added a url for the original article, and the passage is ambiguous. As a general comment, I feel the page needs some work, would anyone object if I added a discography of Mick's solo work? Punkrocker1991 (talk) 14:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Sharon Keller, Presiding Judge of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Sharon Keller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This piece is biased throughout and was obviously written by someone who is a critic of Judge Keller. Too many examples to cite, but suffice it to say the entire thing is slanted that way. At the very least Wikipedia should put a notice at the top stating that the objectivity of the article is disputed. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tightspotkilo (talk • contribs) 22:09, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- I started to do some work on the article, but it's long. I'm not sure why so much information about each of her cases is needed. I'll try to do more when I have time.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Commented out the stuff which did not even have the pretense of a cite in the article under WP:BLP rules requiring that it be removed. Much more needs to be pruned - the article is seemingly entirely about a couple of legal cases which would fail notability as separate WP articles in a heartbeat. Collect (talk) 02:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- Whoever wrote the article clearly wrote it as a criticism piece. It only covers her "controversial" cases. The article should cover the case that triggered the judicial warning, and it should probably cover the case that ended up with a pardon. However, the third case (Fierro) can probably be completely removed. And, even with the two covered cases, the descriptions should be significantly reduced. The idea is to tie the cases to her, not to use her article as a platform for a case article.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- I just read the whole of the specific page cited to support the statement "More than 300 lawyers signed on to official judicial complaints about Keller's actions to both the State Bar of Texas and the Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct." As far as I can see, nothing resembling that claim is in the cited source (on the link provided). The whole article might be suspect. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- Her closing the court at 5 sharp so that a motion in a death penalty case could not be filed a few minutes late, was highly notable and received significant nationwide coverage, as did the consequent disciplinary investigation. Jonathanwallace (talk) 05:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Haley Bridges
Haley Bridges (born March 14, 1994) is a Canadian rock drummer for the band Bridges to Cox and Emmy Award winning actress who guest starred in the tv drama 24. Haley and lead guitarist/vocalist, Andrew Cox, founded Bridges to Cox on 2/6/2011. After their first single, 'I Can't Stop Stalking You, Baby', Haley has won 7 Grammy Awards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.247.130.18 (talk) 23:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- There is no Wikipedia article on Bridges or the band or anything else that I can find. This forum is for raising issues with existing articles. If you want to start a new article, this is not the place to ask for help. But I can't find anything in support of what you're saying anyway.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Cyhi The Prynce
CyHi The Prynce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Can someone please change the name of Cyhi's wiki from "Cyhi The Prynce" to "Cyhi Da Prynce"? Also have it so forward to Cyhi DA prynce if someone searches his name with "the"? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhymestyle (talk • contribs)
- Moved as requested and as per his verified twitter acount Cyhi Da Prynce - the old title is a redirect - CyHi The Prynce - I found about four different spellings but the one requested seems to be more common and on his records. Off2riorob (talk) 01:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Maury Buford
Maury Buford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Link to "unwronged.com" seems to be just a link to an advertising page... but I don't know how to delete it. It doesn't show up when I click to edit the page. Can anyone help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antiquebooks (talk • contribs) 02:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- You may be clicking to edit the Reference or Notes section and finding it blank. The reference is in the section where the footnote number actually appears.Jonathanwallace (talk) 04:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Coen Brothers
Coen Brothers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The coen brothers have been signed on to write a new film. I added it to their filmography and yet it was erased. Why exactly was it erashed, when on IMDB it shows their new movie "Gambit" in both of Ethan's and Joel's IMDB Pages?
Here is a link to the IMDB page showing the new film. That you guys have seemed to erase, thinking no new film was there.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0404978/
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve Roderick (talk • contribs) 04:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- IMDB is not favored as a source here because much of the information is user-generated. Also, we tend not to mention future projects unless they are fairly certain (have a release date for example) and have received significant publicity, see WP:CRYSTAL.Jonathanwallace (talk) 04:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Melissa Scott
The article on Melissa Scott (pastor) was deleted some time ago, without prejudice. Here is the original deletion review. Recently, I put together a new version of her page at User:Gordonhigh/Melissa Scott. I'd appreciate a review and any input. Thanks! Gordonhigh (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 08:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC).
- Weakly cited, so it asserts little notability with weakly cited sexual claims - http://www.marieclaire.com/world-reports/news/latest/melissa-scott-porn-pastor - I notice we get a mention in this undated article " Scott's Wikipedia page was so vandalized, it had to be removed;" - we are getting all inclusive at wiki, I don't support this write at all, others might though. from the marie claire article - ! says Christian Shaw, son of Playboy bunny Christine Shaw, a longtime girlfriend of Doc Scott. He says Melissa's life in porn was an open secret". - I added noindex to remove it from search engine results. Also this cite isn't WP:RS - http://www.morethings.com/ - Off2riorob (talk) 12:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- I took note of something away from the porn claims: "Melissa Scott is a self-proclaimed natural linguist, and claims to speak over twenty languages fluently." But this is not what the source says. The source says "A natural linguist with command of over twenty languages, she digs deeply into her vast collection of ancient manuscripts to find and communicate the purest understanding of what the original inspired writers of the Bible had to say. "
- My point is that extreme precision is important. It seems more likely that she claims to have studied various languages to a degree that will allow her to read and understand them. That's still a fairly remarkable claim, of course, but it is not a claim to be able to "speak... fluently."--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps it can be improved, a google search reveals little in the way of wiki RS, presently there are only three in the article, one primary and one unreliable and one celebrity magazine . She is showing some book writing though http://www.bookfinder.com/author/melissa-scott/ - and local editors may be able to find more. The article in Marie Claire written by Gretchen Voss gets some negative assesment from http://truthaboutpastormelissascott.com/Gretchen-Voss.html - Off2riorob (talk) 13:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- Barring some better sourcing, something with content this inflammatory absolutely should not be published. Also, the article is incomplete just from a biography standpoint - what church(es) does/did she pastor? You say she is a televangelist - what is the name of her tv show/organization/something? In any event, I don't see anything that would qualify as a reliable secondary source. --B (talk) 14:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I think barring some better sourcing is clearly an issue at present. Off2riorob (talk) 14:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for all the input. I've attempted to tweak the article by removing the controversial material. Regarding the comment by B about what churches she pastors, etc.: detailed information about her holdings is available in greater detail on her late husband's page. After he died, these holdings entirely passed to her. I've added more information about this to her page, and I can add more if it's needed. Please give User:Gordonhigh/Melissa Scott a look again and any comments would be appreciated. Gordonhigh (talk • contribs)
- I learned a new word — pedagogical. Five suggestions: (1) There are now zero external reliable sources of information external to the subject. It is unlikely that this article would survive an AFD. (2) This needs to be sourced: Scott is admittedly reclusive and media-shy, granting few interviews. She has never spoken publicly about her personal life or her family. (3) The first paragraph under #Career about her relationship with Eugene Scott, when they met, when they started dating, etc is problematic on several levels. It is unrelated to her career and it is unsourced. Also, I am rather loathe to point out the relative ages in a marriage like this (two people of vastly different ages) unless it is something that the media has noted. Sure, we can do the math and on that basis, it is "sourced", but I'm always a tad bit leery that pointing out the age difference is implying something (that it's not normal). (4) If she really has no notability outside of being the pastor at her church, then it may make more sense to just add the relevant details to that article rather than to create a new article about her. (5) I am still unclear how she is a "televangelist". Does she self-identify as that title? My pastor's sermons are broadcast locally on TV, but he would never call himself a "televangelist". So I'm unclear on how she is a televangelist from reading the article. It may be that anyone who has ever heard of her would say "of course she is a televangelist", but I had never heard of her prior to seeing this noticeboard on my watchlist. --B (talk) 18:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- Hehe, yes I added it, and didn't know what it meant till then either, thats the wiki for you, you learn something new visit. I referenced it from the Marie Claire article,Off2riorob (talk) 19:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- Haha, I wish I could say I knew what pedagogical meant, but sadly I did not add it and that is not the case. I just wanted to respond to some your points individually: as far as (3) is concerned, I figured that the relationship was related to her career considering that is how she started in her career as a pastor. I suppose that I could move it to the personal life section if that would make a better fit. I'll remove the differences in ages. (4) I see your point, but to me her notability extends beyond being simply the pastor of her churches by having her sermons broadcast on television in large cities such as San Francisco and Sacramento instead of in the local area of her churches (Los Angeles), as well as the 24/7 radio broadcasting in places like the Caribbean. She's also the wife and successor of Eugene Scott, who was internationally famous (whether that counts for anything, I do not know). In relation to (5)... I had simply assumed that a televangelist was someone who broadcast their sermons on television outside the local area, so that may be a mistake on my part. Also, her husband is included on the List of television evangelists, and given that she took control of his ministry after his passing, I simply assumed that would make her one as well. Again, I'm no expert on the subject. And as far as the secondary sources, there are some which I will add in shortly. I just wanted to make sure the basics were suitable first. Gordonhigh (talk) 19:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- Regarding the term "televangelist", different people may mean different things by it and as far as Wikipedia is concerned, we just shouldn't call her that unless either she uses the title herself or it is commonly used in the neutral media. As our own article says, it is sometimes used derisively, so we should just be careful. Some people think of the "name it claim it" charlatans when they hear the term ... others think of it as you are describing it - anyone who has a syndicated preaching program. So we just need to make sure that we aren't naming somebody something that nobody else does. -B (talk) 20:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- I learned a new word — pedagogical. Five suggestions: (1) There are now zero external reliable sources of information external to the subject. It is unlikely that this article would survive an AFD. (2) This needs to be sourced: Scott is admittedly reclusive and media-shy, granting few interviews. She has never spoken publicly about her personal life or her family. (3) The first paragraph under #Career about her relationship with Eugene Scott, when they met, when they started dating, etc is problematic on several levels. It is unrelated to her career and it is unsourced. Also, I am rather loathe to point out the relative ages in a marriage like this (two people of vastly different ages) unless it is something that the media has noted. Sure, we can do the math and on that basis, it is "sourced", but I'm always a tad bit leery that pointing out the age difference is implying something (that it's not normal). (4) If she really has no notability outside of being the pastor at her church, then it may make more sense to just add the relevant details to that article rather than to create a new article about her. (5) I am still unclear how she is a "televangelist". Does she self-identify as that title? My pastor's sermons are broadcast locally on TV, but he would never call himself a "televangelist". So I'm unclear on how she is a televangelist from reading the article. It may be that anyone who has ever heard of her would say "of course she is a televangelist", but I had never heard of her prior to seeing this noticeboard on my watchlist. --B (talk) 18:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Vital Kamerhe
Vital Kamerhe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A number of edits have been made all on the same day (February 3rd) by an anonymous contributor (76.65.174.187 (talk)) aiming at adding a last name to Vital Kamerhe. That is part of a pseudo-political campaign going on in Congo and on the Internet aiming at depicting Kamerhe as non-Congolese. Vital Kamerhe is a candidate in the 2011 presidential elections in Congo and this is a very sensitive and contentious issue. Unless properly sourced and with all the explanations about the context I believe that such modifications should not be allowed. I will do some further research and possibly add a specific section to address the issue if necessary. I found an answer to this question given by Vital Kamerhe in person and available on the CSIS website (http://csis.org/event/road-presidential-elections-democratic-republic-congo) in the form of and audio and video interview. That might be a way to provide a properly sourced, if not impartial answer to the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alakumbe (talk • contribs) 14:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- This is an interesting one--novel question of whether adding a last name to an article can violate WP:BLP. I found African media covering the whole question of whether he is really Congolese or from Rwanda, such as this and this. I am not able to judge whether these newspapers meet our independently edited, fact checked reliable sourcing requirements. Assuming they (or other sources) do, the right way to handle this is to add a couple of sentences or small section to the article on the nationality issue, neutrally giving both sides.Jonathanwallace (talk) 01:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Revision to Nathaniel Tarn biographical page
Nathaniel Tarn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I am working with Nathaniel Tarn on a significant revision to this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathaniel_Tarn. The draft of our work is here: User:Trogon/NathanielTarnDraft. I would appreciate any guidance as to how to proceed with this update and any comments on it. --Trogon (talk) 19:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- Off hand, several thoughts: (1) This looks to be largely copied from [20]. Wikipedia does not accept copyrighted material without an appropriate release. Please see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for more information. (2) section headings should not be ALL CAPS - they should capitalize only the first letter of the section name (except for proper nouns). (3) Wikipedia uses footnotes inline, as opposed to all at the bottom. Please see WP:CITE for information on how to do this. You can take a look at any well-written article (like Barack Obama or John McCain) to see how footnotes are added inline. (4) Please see WP:COI, which discusses Wikipedia's guideline for editing articles where you have a potential conflict precluding objectivity. (5) Wikipedia strives for a neutral point of view. You have opinionated language in here, like "His poetry possesses a remarkable range of voice and reference". --B (talk) 19:22, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Gordon Novel
Gordon Novel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Can someone look at this article Gordon_Novel? it's full of massive unsourced claims/badly sourced (I removed it but it's being reverted). IRWolfie- (talk) 21:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- That was fast. Edit dispute-->stubbing--> speedy deletion in a flash. FWIW, I would have supported the other editor's recommended approach--leave the better sourced info in and PROD the article.Jonathanwallace (talk) 00:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I thought I posted a request for investigation here but I must of missed the save button, I have asked the admin to userfy the article for me and if you are interested to investigate imo there is a degree of notability and cites to support an improved article. At the least there is no reason to speedy, the article deserved at least a chance to be improved or a AFD discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 01:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- note - the admin has userfied on my request, the history is there to see the long term version previous to todays removals, I will replace the cites for investigation, so if anyone would like to have a look and attempt to improve it to replace it to the mainspace it is available here User:Off2riorob/Gordon Novel - Off2riorob (talk) 01:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Sure, I'll take a look. Jonathanwallace (talk) 01:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Cool,no hurry no worry, if there's a degree of notability then we can attempt to bring it up to standard over the next couple of weeks and replace him to mainspace. Off2riorob (talk) 02:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Shane Dawson
Shane Dawson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
On Shane Dawson's page it says there are rape allegations against him. The information apparently has no source and after an hour and a half long search I could come up with no reliable source that would verify the allegations. The only place that I found that mentioned anything about this was 4chan and that is one of the most unreliable sites out there. I also feel that this addition to his page is an attack against him. Even though written in a neutral manner rape is something that even when written neutrally when it has no fact behind it, it is a negative attack at the person.Ryenatay (talk) 22:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- Remove it without a source, as WP:BLP is very serious. If a source could be found, then an addition may be notable.--Jojhutton (talk) 22:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Sylverster Stallone: Uncited claims about a probable hoax
Sylvester Stallone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
An editor keeps adding uncited information calling a film that Stallone starred in,The Party at Kitty and Stud's, hardcore. But in the article of the actual film this claim is called a hoax. At RFPP I was told this is not a BLP violation but I think it is. Further details are covered at Talk:Sylvester_Stallone#Recent_edit-warring. Any advice would be welcome. Thank you. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 22:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- It looks BLP-ish to me. I looked at the page protection result and don't really understand what the admin means when he says not every detail in a BLP is biographical. Maybe the question of whether the film was soft or hard core is not that important because Stallone as the article says did not participate in the sex scenes? Anyway, I think the result you are seeking--calling the film "soft core"--is correct.Jonathanwallace (talk) 00:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Donny Deutsch
Donny Deutsch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The section "Personal life" seems to violate WP:NOTGOSSIP and some BLP issues. I'm inclined to remove it entirely, but I'd like a second opinion. --CliffC (talk) 04:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yuk. I'd delete the personal life section, certainly. And then the rest of the article, unless proper sources can be found (I note the ethno-taggers have been at work again...). AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
John McIntosh (educator) -
John McIntosh (educator) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I believe he attended St Josephs Primary School Chelsea and was in fact a Technical Drawing Teacher before becoming Deputy Headmaster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joannidesd (talk • contribs) 10:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. We need to work from sources we can check ourselves though: I'll look into this, and amend the article if I can see the problem. AndyTheGrump 13:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- There is nothing in the article as it stands that seems to directly conflict with what you say, so I don't see the need for revisions. The article could do with more references though: I'll add a template to indicate this. AndyTheGrump 13:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Joan Rivers Political Affiliation
Joan Rivers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
On the Lawrence O'Donnell show, aired on MSNBC on Feb. 7, 2011, Joan Rivers stated that she is a long time Democrat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.179.25.178 (talk) 19:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- So? --Orange Mike | Talk 20:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Is there something that makes that a noteworthy part of her life? Off2riorob (talk) 20:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- It appears we already have in our article - In 2002, Rivers told the Montreal Mirror that she is a Republican.http://www.montrealmirror.com/ARCHIVES/2002/070402/comedy1.html - and I quote from there, for this discussion only - " How can you not be? How can anyone not be? How can you live in a country when you can not say the Pledge of Allegiance anymore? Insane people have taken over the Democratic Party. They’re mad. They’ve taken over the asylum. To be worried about what the terrorists were eating at Camp X-ray, I think you’re beyond insane. They’ve just blown up New York. " - Off2riorob (talk) 20:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Patrick Kluivert
Patrick Kluivert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Unsourced assertion that living person is "untrustworthy".[21]Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- I've just reverted this assertion again. I'll watchlist it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- The entire article is woefully undersourced. Collect (talk) 21:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Jacque Fresco
I came across this article (Jacque Fresco) doing requests for edits to semi-protected pages. I removed what I thought was a violation of WP:BLP (diff), but it's been restored. Could someone from BLPN please take a look at the article? Thanks. -Atmoz (talk) 00:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- He's a fringe figure, advocating for a computer-governed world, but seems notable due to NYT and Forbes coverage. The source of the material in the diff you gave, is a 25 minute video supposedly from a New Zealand TV show, Close Up. I didn't watch the video, but in a transcript posted on the site, the individual says he was a Klan member and tells a long, rambling story about how he joined in order to combat prejudice. The story is excerpted in the article in such a way as to give a different impression, that he thought the Klan should go further in the direction of prejudice or violence. As it exists, its a WP:BLP violation. If the information is reliably sourced to the subject's own words, it can stay in the article in some form, such as "He says he once joined the Ku Klux Klan and White Leadership Council in order to bring change to those organizations". In order to validate this for our purposes, someone needs to watch the video and verify that it is Jacque Fresco, and he really said those words.Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Lee Edwards and Mass killings under Communist regimes
Lee Edwards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mass killings under Communist regimes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Do comments about Mr. Edwards asserting that he is "involved in a number of extremist anti-Communist organizations" placed in an RfC reach BLP concerns? Does a later edit associating one organization with "a point of contact for extremists, racists, and anti-Semites" in association with that claim reach BLP concerns? Might anyone look in on this as I would normally redact such charges, but they are central to the arguments being expressed by one editor. Note this is not a complaint about anyone - but a request to see at what point article talk pages in an RfC are an immune zone. Thanks. Collect (talk) 01:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Please point us to the RFC, thanks.Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- RfC link is Talk:Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes#RfC:_External_link_to_the_Global_Museum_on_Communism. Collect (talk) 11:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- The RFC actually contains the assertion he is involved with "extreme" anti-Communist organizations. I think this stays on the permissible side of the line as a statement of someone's opinion about the subject, rather than as a statement of fact. By its nature, an RFC or Talk page discussion isn't held to the very exact standards of an article, and redacting other people's words in such discussions is disfavored--should IMO be done only by an admin and only in the context of "we all know Joe Botz is a slavering baby eater". Also, the second phrase you cite, about anti-Semitism appears to be a direct quote from the Anti-Defamation League criticizing an organization with which (far as I can tell) Lee Edwards is not involved, so no WP:BLP issue there.Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- RfC link is Talk:Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes#RfC:_External_link_to_the_Global_Museum_on_Communism. Collect (talk) 11:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- - There is no immune zone - BLP applies all over the project - talkpage discussion is part of our process and discussion is required - however if comments being expressed are in your opinion, on the edge of a violation of BLP I suggest you ask the person posting the comments to either - provide a reliable citation to support the claim or remove it asap. As Jonathon says, removing another users comments from a noindexed talkpage discussion should only be done in a case of a clear violation and if the comment is reinserted by the user then administrative assistance is the next step. Off2riorob (talk) 12:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Collect--I see now the other editor was implying Edwards was connected to the organization. In any event the information is reliably sourced. You properly brought in the fact that ADL backed off the assertion--which they did by the way because the org apparently cleaned up its ways, not because ADL was incorrect in the first place. I am not seeing a WP:BLP problem. Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Mark Riley (journalist)
Mark Riley (journalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This person was recently in the Australian news [22]. The page was semi-protected due to vandalism, but it remains very poorly referenced. Chzz ► 08:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- This guy may actually not pass notability requirements so a proposal for deletion may be in order. Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed, he is a journalist that gets mentioned in the course of his work but asserts no wikipedia notability unless his work has won notable awards or there is some other notability - which in this case I don't see. Off2riorob (talk) 12:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- note - prodded - WP:PROD - Off2riorob (talk) 13:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- update - prod was removed although there was no improvement - bumped up to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Riley (journalist) - interested parties are requested to improve the BLP and or comment . Off2riorob (talk) 22:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Francis Jeffers
Francis Jeffers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Unauthorised and opinionated comments have been added at the end of the article: "Francis Jeffers deserves more than this dismall (sic) attempt" etc etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steveindy (talk • contribs) 12:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Already reverted by another user. Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Kaveh Farrokh
These discussions have been archived; kindly do not make changes here; a related RfC to these discussions is open here |
---|
Wifione ....... Leave a message 19:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC) |
Kaveh Farrokh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Why this article has been redirected to a publishing company ?!!! Regards, *** in fact *** ( contact ) 13:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
WP:AFD says bluntly: "If there has been no obvious consensus to change the status of the article, the person closing the AfD will state No consensus, and the article will be kept." Care to tell us the Wikipedia policy that says if there is no consensus, anyone can choose to delete or merge the article by replacing it with a redirect? Jonathanwallace (talk) 23:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Pause for a moment. Some of this makes sense and some doesn't. Things that don't make sense:
Things that do make sense:
I have no pony in this race. I don't know Kaveh Farrokh, but if he's a recognised non-self-published author of any repute (academic in this case), he may well meet the notability criteria. In any case, it doesn't make sense to blank his page and redirect it to a publisher (which in fact suggests he meets the notability requirements). If 'reality' contestants make the cut in Wikipedia, it seems a professor who's actually accomplished something deserves serious scrutiny. Is there some other problem I'm not seeing? --UnicornTapestry (talk) 13:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Comment While I understand that the page here is a BLP, what is the actual WP:BLP issue at stake in this discussion, because I don't see one. Does it harm the subject to redirect the page like this? I don't think so. This is a basic content/notability dispute with no BLP ramifications. There is now an RFC about that issue. Let's take further discussion to that forum. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC) |
Ro Hancock-Child
Ro Hancock-Child (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I'd like some advice as to what to do this article, which is full of (auto)biographical detail for which there are no published sources available, not even on the website of the subject which has this notice:
- "Wikipedia will tell you all about me: many thanks to the generous people who have made this possible for me. Apparently only one-tenth of one percent of musicians get onto Wikipedia, and most of those are pop - but, astonishingly, there I am, too. Wow!" Note: The preceding notice has subsequently been removed from the contents page of her official website. Voceditenore (talk) 11:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
In my view everything that cannot be verified (minimally by her own website) should be removed. But the subject has so far resisted even minor attempts at this, e.g. this met by this and her comments here and here. Note that I have tried myself to find references and failed. What references are there, I added.
The article has been edited by multiple single-purpose accounts ([23] [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32]) and by User:Rohancockchild. – Voceditenore (talk) 14:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Oh my. I got five pages deep into a Google search without finding a single reference which wasn't Wikipedia, or a mirror, or her website, or Facebook, or LinkedIn, etc. Then started to encounter irrelevant links to unrelated people and topics. Likely non-notable artist extremely proficient at self promotion, see WP:AUTOBIO, WP:PEACOCK etc etc. Candidate for a PROD.Jonathanwallace (talk) 20:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- No point in a prod, there are so many SPAs - I don't have time tonight but I think it is SPI time. Dougweller (talk) 21:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Would it be completely out of the question to configure Level 2 pending changes on the article until the issues are sorted? --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 21:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- - User:Orangemike (Protected Ro Hancock-Child: Persistent sock puppetry ([edit=autoconfirmed])
- Do we have any reason to believe this article would survive the AfD process? I have found little or no 3d party coverage of the subject or her work, and I can't really see how she would meet WP:Notability (people). JohnInDC (talk) 11:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- I agree per what i said above. AFD is the way to go. Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think it would pass an AfD (or at least it shouldn't). It also fails to meet any of the crtiteria for WP:MUSICBIO (adapted to classical musicians). AfD probably is the way to go. I've rescued several classical musician bios from AfDs but this one is a mission impossible. Voceditenore (talk) 12:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- I agree per what i said above. AFD is the way to go. Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Vito Roberto Palazzolo
Vito Roberto Palazzolo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- - Mafia problem
fircks (talk · contribs) and some IPs are making serious complaints about this article and alleged bias and inaccuracies. There are understandable moves to treat this as simple vandalism [33]. However, my spot checking on the article indicates that we have a serious of series allegations on a controversial person, which are open to various interpretations. The sources I checked lead either to dead links, anti-mafia sources of uncertain neutrality, and Italian language stuff. I've no time at the moment, but this article could do with checking. From experience we've a small group of Wikipedians who tend to create Mafia articles sometimes with poor sourcing, and questionable notability. This article may prove to be just fine, but it needs some careful checking and probably some not to tender pruning.--Scott Mac 16:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Huljich brothers
Huljich brothers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I think this article has been here before, but my reason for bringing it now is that about half of the article content is actually about a criminal trial, not about the Huljich brothers, but about one of the sons of a H Brother.
I think the article is running afoul of WP:CRIMINAL and WP:COATRACK but am looking to some editors more experienced with these types of issues to suggest some options for how to deal with the article. Active Banana (bananaphone 22:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- I removed it some of the content - cut and copy copy content violation -- contentious content cited to a single source - with limited usage throughout the en wiki project - without additional support from more mainstream reliable reports. Off2riorob (talk) 22:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- The article is about the Huljich Bros and their money. They are only notable because of their wealth. The brothers constitute some of the richest people in the country. They entrusted their money (and other investors could participate) to the fund managed by one of their sons. When things went wrong the brothers reasserted their control. The prosecution has to be mentioned to explain what the prosecution charges are. All this is not from a single source. It is well covered in all media outlets in NZ. The article contains no more than is in the news coverage. It does not contravene New Zealand Criminal law in any way. One possibility is to split the article into two articles one on the brothers and one on the investment company. Meanwhile I have undone edit.Rick570 (talk) 00:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- No matter how rich they are you cannot cut and paste copyright material into the article. And you have not addressed the fact that the article is purportedly about the Brothers, not the son/nephew. As a criminal, the son and the crime fail to meet WP:CRIME our standards. Active Banana (bananaphone 00:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- The article is about the Huljich Bros and their money. They are only notable because of their wealth. The brothers constitute some of the richest people in the country. They entrusted their money (and other investors could participate) to the fund managed by one of their sons. When things went wrong the brothers reasserted their control. The prosecution has to be mentioned to explain what the prosecution charges are. All this is not from a single source. It is well covered in all media outlets in NZ. The article contains no more than is in the news coverage. It does not contravene New Zealand Criminal law in any way. One possibility is to split the article into two articles one on the brothers and one on the investment company. Meanwhile I have undone edit.Rick570 (talk) 00:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Chris Lee (politician) could use some extra eyes
Chris Lee (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Subject of a scandal that broke earlier. Almost a true sex scandal, but he resigned, although I have a feeling once more media reports pour out, there'll be some nasty stuff added to this article. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Watchlisted. Some regulars from the board are already over there it seems. Jonathanwallace (talk) 01:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Tina Mai
Tina Mai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
An attack page with zero sources, and I can find zero Google hits for a person with the name associated with the movie names. My db-attack tag was removed. This article should be deleted immediately. Corvus cornixtalk 00:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- Probably not notable and already AFD'd. Jonathanwallace (talk) 01:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- AfD does not resolve the fact that this is an attack page, nor does it resolve the fact that if this AfD runs the normal 7 days, this page will become the first hit on Google for this name. Corvus cornixtalk 01:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- The article has been pruned of the offensive content. However, you can still try to persuade an admin to speedy delete it as G10 (attack page) or more likely at this point, A7 (no indication of notability}. I suggest making your argument at the articles for deletion page. Jonathanwallace (talk) 02:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- AfD does not resolve the fact that this is an attack page, nor does it resolve the fact that if this AfD runs the normal 7 days, this page will become the first hit on Google for this name. Corvus cornixtalk 01:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
The Raymond Allen Davis Diplomatic Incident
The Raymond Allen Davis Diplomatic Incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- There is a lot of hearsay and speculation in this article, not even valid claims, just synthesis as to whether this person is who other articles say he might be. Seems to violate WP:BLP1E, as well. Corvus cornixtalk 05:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- Much of the information in the article has been reported in The New York Times. There is some coatracky material which should go (like the assertion about the PO box also being used for a chain letter) and an evaluation is probably in order of some of the lesser known and Pakistani newspaper sources to see if they comply with reliable sourcing standards for living people.Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- I concur that there should probably be some more eyes on this article. Just brushing through with a few edits, I saw that there is, what appears to be, a fair amount of OR going on. Don't have time to go through it myself just now. Maybe someone can take a look? (Plus, it has the advantage of being a fascinating story...real cloak & dagger type stuff :) David Able 18:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Klaus Mosbach
Klaus Mosbach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hello, this page about klaus mosbach, is not good, Prof klaus dont like this webpage kindly delete this name —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.103.192.253 (talk) 12:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- Please let us know the specifics of your or the professor's objections. This seems to be a well-sourced stub regarding a possibly non-notable professor. I did not see any material possibly violating the rules on biographies of living people. It was proposed for deletion but a user who thinks Professor Mosbach is notable removed the tag. The next step would be to nominate the article for deletion, so the notability issue can be discussed.Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Overlake Christian church
Overlake Christian Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This is a church, actually it has little Independent noteability but I think it is notable as it say it is a big church in a county. There was some issue regarding sexual allegations in 1998 - there were no charges at all and the content is cited to an archived single local source, although a user on the talkpage suggests there are more, and I see a highbeam has been added in an attempt to suggest the content is well sourced and should stay, - if there are I am pretty sure they will also be local and historic, nothing to assert the continuation of reporting this incident. As per BLP wikipedia should not become the primary host of such controversial content about living people. As there were no charges at all, and basically the church article should actually be about the church and not a record for eternity of such minor incidents about a living person that was never charged, as in WP:Do no harm etc. - content is below - Is this the kind of content about non notable, non public, living people that wikipedia is supposed to become the primary host of? Off2riorob (talk) 13:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Sex Scandal
Bob Moorehead resigned from Overlake Church denying that he sexually molested male parishioners. He was never charged but the allegation brought by several men. He'd concluded the allegations represented a ``stumbling block" to Overlake's ministry.
At the beginning of the allegations the Elders supported Bob but later they changed their opinion.
- note - content brought from the article for discussion by - Off2riorob (talk) 13:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
comments on OCC article
One of my issues with it is also undue weight - in its own section and with the usual dramatic titillating header. So I have trimmed it and moved it to the end of the comments about moorhead, adding an unobtrusive simple comment...
- - He resigned in 1998 after unproven allegations of sexual impropriaty.[1]
Off2riorob (talk) 14:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- Seems like a good compromise. Jonathanwallace (talk) 14:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
I also don't want it to have its own section. But what's been presented above is very far from the complete picture, either. I won't repeat my side of the talk–page discussion here, but editors will need to review that (currently) brief thread in order to understand the question that has been presented here. As I just commented on the talk page, btw, I'll have to be offline for something like the next 12 – 18 hours. But I'll check back here to see whether the OP has accepted my request to continue the discussion on the talk page, rather than here. Thanks, – OhioStandard (talk) 15:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
I like the sentence that Jonathan has suggested but I think a phrase could be added about the elders of the church accepting testimony that gave strength to the allegations. That said I shares other editors concerns about avoiding undue weight given the context of the long history of the church. Also we should make sure that any content is referenced to the church in the sources, as this article is about the church and not about the preacher who resigned under scrutiny.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- (Just back for a moment, here.) Those are good points, Keithbob, thanks. However, I feel obliged to point out that the presentation Off2riorob has made of this is somewhat less than wholly candid. People here are getting a false impression about the extent of the coverage of this, and its impact on the church. As I've repeatedly told Rob on the talk page, there are more than 75 discrete, wp:rs articles available about this. It made the front page of the largest Seattle newspapers multiple times, presumably because it was, at the time, the largest church in Washington State. Since I have no wish at all to drag this church's name through the mud (more about my motivation in this matter on the talk page) I have refrained from disclosing all but two of those. Unfortunately, I can't substantively answer comments here without doing so, and I've requested that Rob mark this resolved and keep it on the talk page for that reason. I'll close by commenting that I haven't been editing this article myself. Rob has just reached 3RR with two different IPs who wanted this info in after he and another editor expunged it from the article entirely. That kind of thing has been going on over this article for years, and my talk-page participation has only been about trying to resolve that. Oh, btw, the suggested sentence above wasn't Johathan's; it was Off2riorobs. He just forgot to sign, and I've since corrected that. In haste, – OhioStandard (talk) 18:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- Even if you have 75 discreet citations (which you haven't presented ) imo it won't make any difference they will all be historic and they won't have any charges in them. The issue deserves a simple comment and that enough. Off2riorob (talk) 18:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- Quick addition: Any admin is welcome to contact me via e-mail for more sources on this. I have about a dozen of the 75 or so available ones ready to hand, and can easily copy-and-paste them into an e-mail reply. I say "admin" (sorry for that) because I'd prefer not to have those sources splashed across the article by any of the many editors who have added negative content in the past. – OhioStandard (talk) 18:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- No one is discreetly contacting you, make your case here in the open. Off2riorob (talk) 18:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, non-admins with long-established accounts who have never edited the article in question would likewise be welcome to this info. I'd just prefer not to provide ammunition for anyone who might want to damage the church's reputation by creating a huge section on the scandal. Let 'em do their own research. – OhioStandard (talk) 18:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- Look, you clearly are overly involved in this church issue - I mean what uninvolved person has 75 citations about something? Look its also a twelve year old minor scandal, please get over it - there were no legal charges or civil suits at all. Please don't top post like that, it messes up the timeline discussion . Off2riorob (talk) 18:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- What uninvolved person has 75 citations? How about one who does his homework before stepping in to try to resolve a years-long, very contentious conflict that he has taken no part in? ( Oh, wait. I did edit the article once, last October. Gosh, maybe I should take a break! ;-) And I don't have 75 citations. I verified that there are 75+ discrete news articles about this present in the ProQuest database, which gives full text in many cases, and lengthy abstracts in the rest. I took the trouble because I expected, correctly it seems, that you would oppose any reinstatement of this information at all, and I wanted to be certain about how much coverage it had received before I even raised the matter on the talk page. I only pulled cites for a dozen or so of the 75+, also because I knew people would demand proof of the extent to which this story created a furor in the Seattle area where the church is located. You really would do better to close this thread, Off2riorob. You haven't done your homework, and your presentation here has left out a great deal of information that editors need to properly render an opinon on the matter. Btw, the very minor top-post, which you've since reverted, was in accordance with wp:indent, as I indicated in my edit summary. If you're that concerned, you should know that your replacing the "unsigned" templates I added with four tildes screws up the continuty, by providing an incorrect timestamp. But this isn't the place to continue the dialog we were having on the talk page. I'll not be responding to you further here, although I'll be happy to address any questions or comments that uninvolved editors have, since you refuse to withdraw this. – OhioStandard (talk) 19:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
The Raymond Allen Davis Diplomatic Incident
The Raymond Allen Davis Diplomatic Incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article makes reference to Andrew Clapham who is not a family member as suggested - please ensure deletion of references to Andrew Clapham in relation to this article, which we have seen in preview. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahonc (talk • contribs) 15:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- NB I just moved the article to Raymond Allen Davis diplomatic incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) per naming conventions. – ukexpat (talk) 15:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- There don't seem to be any references to an 'Andrew Clapham' in the article. 15:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Rose Hill School (Alderley)
Rose Hill School (Alderley) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There is a BLP-relateed discussion, regarding this article; please see Talk:Rose Hill School (Alderley)#Names of new owners of the building.
I'd be grateful if some other editors could add their opinions. Thanks, Chzz ► 15:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Joseph M. Petrick
Joseph M. Petrick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Delete - No evidence of notability from reliable sources. Reads like a promotional piece. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.21.243.9 (talk) 18:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- Suggest you nominate it as described here. Unless you cite a specific part of the article that violates the BLP, you are on the wrong page. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 20:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Alexander Voytovych
Alexander Voytovych (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hi. Could you advise me when would be possible to take the noticeboards off, please? ({notability|date=January 2011} {refimproveBLP|date=January 2011} {coi|date=January 2011})--Artvoyt (talk) 21:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- When the issues have been dealt with. At the moment the article is little more than a timeline of (mainly non-notable) events. – ukexpat (talk) 21:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- The BLP was very recently Kept at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Voytovych - but it could use a wikification and copy edit for clarity. Off2riorob (talk) 00:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
William Atherton
I posted a completely new and longer prose portion of the bio on William Atherton on Sunday 2/8. The one that has long been up is inaccurate, incomplete, has an undertone of opinion that is not respectful and is basically filled with wrong dates and other factual errors. I am baffled that when I went online to check it today, the old version was restored by "Astronaut" in the UK. I am not sure why he feels that the restored bio is so verifiable because I represent Atherton in this instance and we can tell you that the facts presented in it are inaccurate. The new bio is accurate, richer in detail and presents the actor in a more complete way. In part, Mr. Atherton provided me with the correct dates, production details and any stories described in it and I put it into prose form. He respects Wikipedia and the service it provides readers and would like any information on him to be thorough and accurate as well as respectful in tone. I don't feel that that is what the restored bio does.
I admit I have had difficulty preparing links and copied most of them from the restored bio. Several new ones I was able to create on my own. I encountered formatting issues simply because I have not done this before. Some new material has not been known previously or is 30-40 years old and there is nothing online to provide a link to verify it. Additionally, I had much difficulty getting links I did copy, to stick. When I went back and checked, I found my text but many links were removed. I restored them several times. Additionally, I have thoroughly read your biographies of living persons policy as well as concerns regarding authorship when you know the person being written about. I can assure you this bio meets those policies, is neutral, and is without the kind of opinion that is present in the restored bio.
I would like to address whatever concerns editors may have, but I need to know what they are. I assume the version I posted is in the 'history' and can be compared if necessary to the one that was restored. If not, I will need some help in preparing the diff.
Please have someone contact me at <redacted> to advise me so we may ultimately correct whatever needs to be done and re-post the newer bio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cassidyboy (talk • contribs) 01:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- Please read: WP:COI, WP:BLP, WP:RS and WP:V to start with. Reliable sources must be cited. Personal knowledge or instructions from the subject are not a reliable source. – ukexpat (talk) 01:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- I've removed the Ghostbusters anecdote, as despite it being part of the movie that even I remember, it's undue weight for the bio and, more importantly, it's currently unsourced.
- Cassidyboy, as for the rest, you should add your ideas on the talk page for the article. As ukexpat points out, we can't use personal recollections, we need sources. However, one common misunderstanding is that the sources don't necessarily have to be available online - just so long as they exist and are independent and reliable. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)