208.54.86.207 (talk) |
|||
Line 1,082: | Line 1,082: | ||
I believe this article needs to be deleted as the subject does not meet Wikipedia's notoriety standards. At the very least, it needs a lot of work since most of the article reads like a self-promotional vanity piece written by the suject herself. Every edit gets reversed within hours (sometimes minutes) even when I know the information I am editing is correct and an improvement on what is currently written. There are also almost no outside sources or citations to any of the information contained in the article. Almost none of the information in the biography is verifiable or even knowable unless it had been written either by the subject herself or a close family member. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Aa1232011|Aa1232011]] ([[User talk:Aa1232011|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Aa1232011|contribs]]) 22:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
I believe this article needs to be deleted as the subject does not meet Wikipedia's notoriety standards. At the very least, it needs a lot of work since most of the article reads like a self-promotional vanity piece written by the suject herself. Every edit gets reversed within hours (sometimes minutes) even when I know the information I am editing is correct and an improvement on what is currently written. There are also almost no outside sources or citations to any of the information contained in the article. Almost none of the information in the biography is verifiable or even knowable unless it had been written either by the subject herself or a close family member. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Aa1232011|Aa1232011]] ([[User talk:Aa1232011|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Aa1232011|contribs]]) 22:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
I agree that it's very self-promotional and has no citations to any of the information. It's also heavy on the name dropping and as previously mentioned, no outside sources to verify anything written in it. I'm especially curious about the list of people who have allegedly worn her designs. It sounds like an impressive list but no photos, articles, or mention anywhere online of where her designs are sold? Very strange. |
Revision as of 01:23, 20 May 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:
| ||
Tom Corbett
Tom Corbett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A user is repeatedly removing edits/additions related to his energy policy. Sources are reliable and taken from his own energy policy and local newspapers. For some reason they are considering it activism and vandalism, however they haven't appeared to check the sources, are unaware of the problems and think they are natural disasters, which are actually man-made and related directly to the decisions Tom Corbett has made as a living person. The discussion of his energy policy and Marcellus Shale gas drilling is an extremely important and relevant topic related to the man as he was not only funded directly by the gas drilling industry, but is repealing policies and making laws directly related to drilling. He mentions Marcellus more than 20 times in his own energy policy and has repeatedly stated he wants their headquarters in Pennsyvlania, so I do not see how it is not relevant. No point of view was made and only unbiased facts stated from sources. The persons editing appear to be supporters of the man or do not understand the situation.
Any help is welcome. Discussion is at Talk:Tom Corbett#Energy_Policy— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.47.50 (talk • contribs)
- Looking at the edits, it appears to be WP:SYNTHESIS. That is, you are using multiple sources (some of them primary) to draw a conclusion not actually reached by those sources (that he is contradicting himself). There would need to be reliable third-party sources that discuss this specifically, but even then it's not clear that this is notable enough for his biography. --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:15, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Kelly Wearstler
Kelly Wearstler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Are breast and ass measurements relevant for female interior designers?
Kelly Wearstler is a prominent American interior designer. Her prominence can probably be indicated by links such as this, this orthis.
Wearstler's work as an interior designer is the only reason she is known, except, I guess, to a small group of collectors of decade-old issues of Playboy, who remember that she was a Playboy playmate back in 1994.
As these Playboy aficionados are more numerous on Wikipedia than people interested in interior design, they have managed for years to keep the article in a state where her brief appearance in Playboy completely dominates the article. This has been done through a playmate "infobox", with breast, waist and hip measurements, and a navigation box listing all playmates of a certain year, effectively emphasizing that particular context above any other. Kelly Wearstler and/or people working for her have actually tried to change the article to actually reflect her real fame, but they haven't done this with much skill and have promptly been reverted by more experienced Wikipedia users.
Wearstler's success as an interior designer is the only reason she deserves a Wikipedia page, not her appearing nude in a single issue of Playboy 17 years ago.
I recently removed the playmate infobox and navigation box from the article. that removal remained unchallenged until today when they were put back, first by an IP, later by User:Dismas.
This article needs some more attention. Her appearance in Playboy should certainly be mentioned in passing, as it is in her NYTimes profile, but I see no reason why it should dominate the page. --Hegvald (talk) 19:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
- Looks like a case of undue weight.--Scott Mac 19:48, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
- While you are correct that it probably shouldn't dominate the article, you are being dismissive and condescending with remarks like "a small group of collectors of decade-old issues of Playboy". The fact is, appearing as a Playmate of the month was essentially a free pass to notability until recently. It is a significant event in her life. I agree that the Playmate infobox probably isn't appropriate for this article, but I don't think looking down your nose at people adding it helps either. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:40, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
- I think you are going about this in the wrong direction. There's no reason to remove any of the material pertaining to her Playmate status. The problem is that the article says little to nothing about her status as an interior designer, and, judging from the fact that I get over 500000 Google hits on "Kelly Wearstler", there should be plenty of material to add. Whether she likes it or not, though, she will always be the interior designer that used to be a Playmate.—Kww(talk) 21:02, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Maybe it's just me, but I don't have any great regard for "interior designers" (even less than I have for Playmates); they strike me as an over-self-publicized, overpaid, socially useless breed of entrepreneurs. Their overall usefulness to society is something less than the folks who design hats for British royal weddings, and the entertainment value of their work is several quantum leaps lower. If I were running for office, and I could cover up a past as a Playmate or a past as an interior designer, I'd cover up being an interior designer. Being a Playmate says "I have no qualms about exploiting my appearance to make money off sexually frustrated adolescent males of all ages." Being an interior designer says "I have no socially valuable skills whatsoever." "Interior designer" is the profession undereducated rich women on soap operas who've been out of the work force for years (in the unlikely event they were ever in it) go into when they're peeved at, or dumped by, their spouses. Because it's the only job that's even remotely credible for them to hold. If most of Kristen Wiig's annoying characters were real people, they'd be interior designers. That weasel who sold your down-on-his-luck brother-in-law a second mortgage that quickly went underwater by getting him a phony appraisal and puffed-up income statement. He's married to an interior designer. Is your state legislator a real tool, a political hack in the pockets of special interests (and it doesn't matter whether they're business or labor interests, liberal or conservative PACs)? He or she will have been endorsed by the state's trade association of interior designers. And received a pile of campaign contributions from them.
Just push the damn infobox to the bottom of the article; that's where too many of them belong anyway. Most infoboxes are useless clutter anyway. They're the unholy spawn of USA Today's breed of superficial journalism. I've spent a couple weeks suffering my way through the complete set of Playmate articles and removing the trivial and the obsessive detail. A batch of the models have gone on to do real jobs and play constructive roles in society, and nobody's advocating subordinating their Playmate past. No reason for special treatment for the interior designers. Even the lawyer-Playmates aren't shameless enough to ask for it. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
- I'll try to be quick about this.
- Instead of removing things from the article, why doesn't Hegvald add some evidence of this notability as an interior designer? Or add {{tl|Infobox interior designer}} above the other infobox?
- Several peer reviewed scientific studies have been done using Playboy's data as their data set. So this data would be helpful in an encyclopedia entry for one of the Playmates.
- I'd appreciate it if editors could keep their personal morals and opinions of Playboy readers out of their editing and discussions. The maintainer of the WeKinglyPigs.com web site, which is a reliable source for the article, is female and not a "sexually frustrated adolescent male" of any age. Dismas|(talk) 21:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
I'd say "depends on what the measurements are", arf! arf! arf! Seriously though, Hullaballoo, is Wikipedia really the place to vent your spleen about how you consider interior designers to be the spawn of Satan and on a level with Bible-peddling life-insurance salespeople or anybody working in the advertising industry? Just asking. CaptainScreebo Parley! 22:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
- Generally, not really. But I was responding to the almost-explicit argument that "interior designers" are so much more reputable than Playmates because their work is so very very worthwhile. That and the fact that I remember the pompous, self-important self-promotion that Wearstler or one of her PR people tried to substitute for the article [1]. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, the argument you refer to is high quality HS but seriously there are so many targets for your wroth, i.e. interior designers and other such modern necessities as lifestyle coaches, that you will exhaust yourself by railing against them all. My cat is of more companionship, intelligence and pertinence to me than 95% of the human race, I do take a fairly Bhuddist POV in general and, I think, it helps to remain detached on WP where people will quite happily argue for hours, days, weeks, months, years about hooey. CaptainScreebo Parley! 22:56, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
I note that both Dismas and Kww claim that I removed things. The only things I removed were the boxes.
Infoboxes, by their nature as graphic embellishment, draw attention and tell the reader (in this particular case): "this is the deal with Kelly Wearstler", "this is the most important information". In this case that included the (apparently) false name she used as a Playboy model, the bust/waist/hip measurements, her weight and the preceding and succeeding playmates, all things to do with a single minor episode of her life 17 years ago. Whatever anyone decides to do with the rest of the article, as long as that infobox remains on top, it will still continue to draw attention to itself and dominate the article. I don't think anyone who looks at her biography and thinks about this article objectively can seriously argue that this anatomical information and her status as a Playboy playmate back in 1994 are the most important pieces of information about her.
The main issue here is conforming with the BLP policy. No matter how short the article is, it still needs to do so. In this case, that means not giving undue weight to minor aspects of her life. I don't find Wearstler having been a Playboy model any more shameful than her being an interior designer, and it shouldn't be suppressed. But in the context of her entire biography, it isn't all that important and shouldn't be given undue weight. It should be mentioned in passing, nothing more and nothing less. --Hegvald (talk) 07:34, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- Her status as a Playmate is notable. Look above in the discussion, and you will find precisely no one that agrees with you that it needs to be minimized. The problem is that the article is a three sentence stub. Add four or five paragraphs of well-sourced information about her career as an interior designer, and the infobox can be moved to a later paragraph about her career as a Playmate. Right now, the infobox is as late in the article as possible.—Kww(talk) 12:36, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- Assuming that I would be interested in writing about Kelly Wearstler, I would still have to ask myself why I would I want to invest time and effort in doing this when there is a greater-than-average possibility that the article will still end up looking as if it had been co-authored with Beavis and Butthead. --Hegvald (talk) 18:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
I have removed the infobox. It is quite unacceptable. That she was in playboy is notable, and is rightly recorded in the article. However, glorifying it with a big box and breast measurements is clearly a breach of WP:UNDUE and the spirit of "do no harm" encapsulated in the BLP policy. She's an interior designer. She doesn't highlight here past appearance and neither should we. Especially not on the nonsense that of infobox conformity. Anyway, how is her breast size in 1994 relevant to anything? Can you verify that's here size now - 17 years later? Is this an important part of understanding her? There's no justification for this. We don't define someone who has a notable career by their appearance in some magazine 17 years ago - and their breast size then. Horrible, sexist and unfair to the subject.--Scott Mac 12:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- In most cases, I would agree with you: I routinely remove mentions and links of things like "Maxim's 100 Hottest Women": those lists are not particularly notable, and not particularly relevant to the careers of the women involved. Being a Playmate is a quite different thing: a conscious choice of the woman involved, done with her cooperation, in an effort to seek money and fame. Most articles about her as an interior designer still discuss the Playmate stint. As I say above: if you don't want the weight to be undue, weight the scale on the other side: find some material in this notable career as an interior designer that will fill the article. I looked for a bit, and couldn't find anything I thought was worth adding. That says a lot to me about its actual notability. The fact that her cup size in 1994 can be reliably sourced also says a lot of 'that fact's notability.—Kww(talk) 12:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not suggesting it isn't notable, or reference to it should be removed. But it will not do to breach WP:WEIGHT and then say "well someone else should re-ballance it". The problem is risking an unbalanced article for the sake of a silly box. Her breast size 17 years ago would not be considered notable enough to include in prose, so it is hardly justified in highlighting it in a box.--Scott Mac 13:00, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
In all likelihood Kww is right - she'll be known more for her Playmate status than her interior design work. Look at Yvette Vickers - a Google News search on her death shows about the most common headlines for the stories usually referred to her Playmate status, with the next most common element being her B-movie status then specifically her role in Attack of the 50 Foot Woman. In that light I say have the inforbox in Kelly's article reflect that. If for some reason the crowd doesn't feel comfortable with that, then do what's done for the articles for Jenny McCarthy and Pamela Anderson and have {{tl|Infobox people}} at the top with a focused Playmate infobox down below. Tabercil (talk) 20:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
WP:UNDUE should be the guide here. Her New York Times profile is nine paragraphs, with only one paragraph about her Playboy appearance. That sounds about right to me for our biographical article. If editors want to increase our coverage of her Playboy appearance, they can expand the entire article and then make their case to include the various Playboy widgets and boxes. If a compromise is necessary, I would suggest that the prominent top infobox be left out but the bottom collapsible Playmate box could stay. Is there a way to make those boxes default to collapsed? Gamaliel (talk) 01:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I think I know how to do that and I will try now, I do it sometimes when they are so big as to be obtrusive in the article or when there is only a tangentially connection or as in this case where less obtrusive makes them less undue. Off2riorob (talk) 11:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- done but not yet added as its unclear if there is consensus support for it - to anyone wanting to make a template default to collapse on a single article in future you add this to the template and "state=collapsed" to the template on the article. {{Playmates of 1994|state=collapsed}} - Off2riorob (talk) 11:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
The more I think about this issue, the more bothered I am that WP:UNDUE somehow requires that material be suppressed or scaled back because more "consequential" claims are treated skimpily. There hasn't been any claim here that Wearstler/Gallagher has been treated differently than any other Playmate has been. The disputed information has been given the same weight that it has in articles on other Playmates. The argument here is that because her second claim to notability is treated rather skimpily, the treatment of her first (chronologically) claim must be scaled back. This doesn't make any sense to me. If her career as an interior designer (not the world's most respected "profession," see here [2]) can be expanded, it should be. If the article can't be significantly expanded in this regard due to lack of significant coverage, then under the Wikipedia definition of notability it's just not so notable, and its low relative weight in comparison to her Playmate coverage is appropriate, whatever value judgments Wikipedia editors may otherwise hold about the merits of her various careers.
Lately I've been adding book review excerpts to book and author articles, something which Wikipedia has rather embarrassingly neglected in favor of overdetailed plot summaries. I've been doing this using review archives, sometimes online, sometimes by trudging down into Wolfowitz's Big Basement Full Of Old Books And Magazines and rummaging through packing crates. Every so often, I come across a scathing review that is certainly noteworthy enough to include in the article, but does not represent critical consensus. (See Stranger in a Strange Land for an example, the NYT review.) You could reasonably make an "undue weight" criticism in such cases. But the way to deal with it is not to remove noteworthy content, but for editors to continue to add further relevant content.Wikipedia is a work-in-progress. There's a big difference between, say, detailed exposition of a celebrity's DUI or publicly-revealed-drug-use, out of proportion to the way such matters are treated generally, and an article that is imbalanced because certain matters are treated at the length that has been treated as appropriate, in the general case, by consensus, while others are treated more sketchily than they could be. This discussion has lost sight of that important difference. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:09, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- Hullaballoo, you have already shown your bias against interior design and its practitioners in your previous rant. It is no more interesting or relevant now than it was then. If other former "playmates" with later successful careers in other fields are treated in a similar way, with the Wikipedia bio giving the size of their breasts more prominence than their professional accomplishments, it is something that should be looked into, not held up as a standard. --Hegvald (talk) 12:16, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Pretenders to the throne of a republic who don't actually pretend
There may be a developing situation at the following articles:
This may also spread to other articles, as I think I have detected BLP violations that may also be present elsewhere.
Otto von Habsburg / Otto Habsburg-Lothringen had to formally renounce the Austrian throne in 1961 so that he was allowed to enter the country. Yet until today our article claimed without any source that he was still a "pretender" for that throne. In the eyes of the Republic of Austria this would be grounds for expelling him. Presumably they would regard him as a traitor. A similar problem exists with his son Karl Habsburg-Lothringen, who lives in Austria and held an Austrian seat in the European Parliament. The claim that he is also a traitor, which would be implied by his "pretending" to the throne, is surprising and unsourced. Hans Adler 21:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
- Ouch! Yes, seems like a clear BLP violation, at minimum. If it isn't sourced, chop it out, I'd say. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:28, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
- Oh what drama! Archduke Karl of Austria is presented as Head of the House of Habsburg that's it. - dwc lr (talk) 21:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
- I admit that the problems in the case of Karl are a bit more complicated than those for Otto. The main problem at the moment is the huge box at the bottom of the article which claims him to be a "titular", but under the heading "titles in pretence". As I understand it, "titular" isn't quite as bad as "pretender", but is still problematic as it assumes that his renunciation of the throne is invalid. Hans Adler 21:54, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
- Oh what drama! Archduke Karl of Austria is presented as Head of the House of Habsburg that's it. - dwc lr (talk) 21:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
I think a part of the problem is that "Pretender" is a technical term for those who study the history of royalty. As we say in our article Pretender, "A pretender is a claimant to an abolished throne or to a throne already occupied by somebody else. The term in itself is not pejorative. The original meaning of the English word pretend, from the French word prétendre, means "to put forward, to profess or claim"; this predates today's more common English meaning of "pretend", which is to claim falsely."
I have long thought that we should tend not to use the word in the "original meaning" because I think it can confuse readers quite badly. This is bad enough if we are talking about people long since dead, who never once in their life pretended (in the modern sense) to still be a monarch, but it can be a positively absurd BLP violation to say it about someone still living.
Even in those cases of currently living people like Constantine II of Greece, who - perhaps - still calls himself King and never officially abdicated - the term 'pretender' sounds unnecessarily pejorative.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- Obviously I agree. It appears that when someone is called a pretender it often just means that in the alternate universe of the Gothas and Debrett'ses they do hold those titles. Of course this alternate universe interacts with the real universe in various complicated ways. Perhaps the most important of these is that for monarchies, to some extent it is the real universe, while for republics it is not. The situation is parallel to that of exile governments, anti-popes etc., except that in many cases these 'pretenders' only serve as poster boys for political endeavours which they do not (openly) support. We really need a nuanced and fair way of dealing with this. Hans Adler 11:31, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
There are two separate issues here. They are related but can easily be confused.
1. The possibly pejorative interpretation of the term "pretender". While the word originally meant exactly the same as "claimant", it now implies to most people "false claimant".
2. The extent to which an individual can be said to claim a throne (i.e. other than by saying "I claim the throne"). With the exception of King Leka of Albania (whom Wikipedia insists on calling Leka, Crown Prince of Albania in spite of contrary usage), there are few claimants who are so clear (Otto was clear for several decades before World War II). Others limit themselves to granting and recognising titles, giving orders of knighthood, styling themselves by some alternate title giving them family precedence, and exercising some authority (especially in marriages) over their family members - all of which is a claim to something. There are none other than Leka willing to use armed force; they generally see themselves as "representatives" of their reigning predecessors, ready to serve their countries when called upon (but the term "representative", while useful, is not commonly used). Their most ardent adherents, on the other hand, see these individuals as fully monarchs as their predecessors in spite of the fact that their territories are de facto ruled by republican governments.
And here, I think, is the most important point. Wikipedia should not present the view of current state governments as if they alone were "the real world". The Greek Royal Family is not recognised by the government of the "Hellenic Republic", but it is as much today as ever the royal family associated with the geographical entity of Greece. Just as there are some editors on Wikipedia who push a legitimist agenda, there are also editors who wish to rid the world of monarchy and think that Wikipedia is a means of doing so: by deleting articles on princes (e.g. the third most important person in a national monarchist movement), by using the word "pretender" (with all of its false implications), by adding the word "former" indicating that contemporaries do not believe this. If we're really going to be NPOV, then we have to allow for the monarchist/legitimist viewpoint - while at the same time not overstating it.
We do this reasonably well with religious articles. Not everybody (including not all Christians) believe that the pope is "Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church". There are multiple people who claim to be bishop of a particular city (some of very small groups). The practice seems to be to present what the group says about itself (ignoring the fact that most people, if asked, might disagree). Noel S McFerran (talk) 18:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- On a BLP article, the question is not just what "the group" says, referring to some group that ascribes a special role to the person. It also matters what the person themselves says.
- For the sake of the argument, let's suppose that the European Revolutionary Committee grants the title British Chief Guillotine Operator to Tony Benn. The title also appears in the Almanach de Paris, édition Thermidor 212 [= July/August 2004] (and later editions). The French government and the governments of a few other European republics that have had some trouble with royalists recently use these titles on official occasions. Nobody really knows how Tony Benn feels about this. After all, the Treason Felony Act 1848 is still in effect so he can't speak completely openly. Is his non-violent image just cover for his violent ambitions as an executioner? Is he just waiting for the chance to behead poor old Liz and her entire mishpokhe?
- Nobody nows, but Wikipedia has clear naming guidelines for articles. Tony Benn appears under his highest title: British Chief Guillotine Operator Tony Benn. Hans Adler 19:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
OK. I'm not going to comment on what we should do about people who don't actually claim the former throne that they might be entitled to. But let's be clear on one thing, pretender means claimant it does not mean "false claimant". This is not the "original meaning", this is THE meaning. Read any serious work of history and that is very clear. James Francis Edward Stuart and his son Bonnie Prince Charlie were pretenders to the British throne - and that is a statement of fact that says nothing about the legitimacy or otherwise of the claim. People who say otherwise and think "pretender" is POV are WRONG. We educate people who are factually wrong, we do it politely and patiently, but we don't pander to ignorance. If Wikipedia is a serious work of reference, it needs to use the language that serious works of reference use, and not dumb-down by avoiding all terms that someone might get wrong. We aim to educate. The problem with royal articles is that they are worked on by a mixture of serious historians and a bunch of fantasists who imagine that Jacobitism is still a political ideology - or that the Persian throne might be restored. I mean, seriously, our article on Jacobitism states "Jacobitism was the political movement in Britain dedicated to the restoration of the Stuart kings" and the same user who wanted "pretender" references removed from it as POV also edit warred to to have it read "Jacobitism is the political movement..." - on the basis that there's some websites by cruftists who call themselves Jacobites. I mean as if comparing historical figures who planned revolutions and were attained for treason, with some internet romanticists were a credible use of an encyclopaedia. There's a decision to be made here: are we a serious reference work, informed by the best academic standards, or are we the lowest common denominator of the internet's cruftists, obsessives and great uneducated masses. Let me know if it is the later, because I'm off.--Scott Mac 19:44, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- Scott Mac is just plain wrong when he says that it does not mean "false claimant". This is not the "original meaning" Please read the entry in the Oxford English Dictionary: "1. A person who makes a profession or assertion, esp. falsely or hypocritically; a person who lays claim to an ability, quality, skill, etc., esp. without adequate grounds or with intent to deceive; a charlatan; a dissembler. ... 3. a. A person who claims or aspires to a title or position, esp. a claimant to a throne (often when considered to have no just title)".
- The pejorative interpretation of the word is there from the very beginning; it is NOT "factually wrong". It was used against the Jacobites specifically to indicate that James Francis Edward Stuart was a false pretender. But Scott Mac goes further; he says that I and other Jacobites do not exist; we are mere "internet romanticists". This is EXACTLY what I was referring to above: editors who wish to maintain that monarchy/legitimism is something of the past and does not exist today. We may be a minority, but that is no reason for Wikipedia to claim that we don't exist. Equally, it is essential that Wikipedia not overstate those minority views so that readers might think that they are widely held. Noel S McFerran (talk) 20:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, read the Oxford dictionary you've just quoted again. It perfectly supports MY point. Pretender can mean false profession (definition 1). However, WHEN USED IN THE CONTEXT OF TITLES "title or position, esp. a claimant to a throne" (definition 3) it does not. I read a lot of history, and pretender is exclusively used in this objective fashion. When "Jacobite-myth fantacists" engage in any real political activity, then perhaps we can see them as a modern political movement. Until then they are up there with Vampire-wannabees, and have nothing to do with an encyclopedia recording real history.--Scott Mac 20:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- I have deep respect for Scott Mac, and he and I almost always see eye-to-eye on BLP issues. But in this case, I do not agree with him. "Pretender" is used much too broadly in Wikipedia, indeed, wrongly in many cases, going beyond what I still think is a live issue of the term itself being misleading to general readers. (And I don't think "dumbing down" is the right way to view using terminology that is readily understood by readers, rather than confusing jargon from specialist works.)
- But, as I say, even leaving aside that, Wikipedia goes much further than that. We describe all sorts of people as 'pretenders' who are not and who would not be considered as such by any serious historians. In particular, take a look at List of current pretenders. We have Elizabeth II listed as pretender to the crown of India. That's just wrong, patent nonsense. The Indian Independence Act 1947 was passed with the assent of King George VI, who subsequently through an order in council on 22 June 1948 removed the title Emporer of India from himself. Under no definition of the term 'pretender' used by anyone serious, is Elizabeth II a pretender to the throne of India. It's pure fiction and pure fantasy.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- This genealogy nonsense is so rife throughout the project no one one can take any of it seriously. Take the 12 yo princeling, in its deletion debate you gave a 'weak delete' based on the Greek royalty having been abolished, but the genealogy wonks can always find another path through to some extant royalty. Look at the Line of succession to the British throne, 2500 of them, at what point on that list does the notability of Royalty wither away? Family of Barack Obama: Elvis, QE2, Wild Bill Hickoc?
- Actually, read the Oxford dictionary you've just quoted again. It perfectly supports MY point. Pretender can mean false profession (definition 1). However, WHEN USED IN THE CONTEXT OF TITLES "title or position, esp. a claimant to a throne" (definition 3) it does not. I read a lot of history, and pretender is exclusively used in this objective fashion. When "Jacobite-myth fantacists" engage in any real political activity, then perhaps we can see them as a modern political movement. Until then they are up there with Vampire-wannabees, and have nothing to do with an encyclopedia recording real history.--Scott Mac 20:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- Genealogy also rears it head to label Muhammad Ali as English. Then there is its application to create the List of Jews in Sports, or List of former Roman Catholics, all of it complete nonsense as far as a reference that wants to be taken seriously is concerned. John lilburne (talk) 10:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- John lilburne—I hardly think geneology is "nonsense", or those who pay attention to it "wonks". I don't think we would be permitted to make use of "raw" genealogical data as I think that would constitute original research. I think that whenever genealogy is a factor it would have to be supported by accompanying reliable sources. Bus stop (talk) 21:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- The above comes as no surprise. But if you were to show the Obama page to some random person in the street you'd be faced with incredulity and the comment "that's got to be joke". Show them Line of succession to the British throne and you'll get utter astonishment, List of former Roman Catholics the same, and your List of Jews in Sports is as incomprehensible as the British throne nonsense. I receive emails from all over the world from people inquiring about a photo of some place that is associated with an ancestor back in the 17th, 18th, and even the 14th century, so I understand that there is a personal interest in one's 'family'. My wife has details of her Jewish great, great, grandparents and wants to visit the village where they lived in Alsace-Lorraine in the 19th century. But that is very different from the nonsense of the lists here. Its said that Royalty is always notable but the 2523rd in line to the throne is hardly notable at all. Viscount Linley (who is hardly notable at all) was once 5th in line he's now 14th and less notable for being Royal than he was when he was born. Does royal notability get sucked out them? If a bunch get killed in plane crash does notability get blown back into the others? John lilburne (talk) 22:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- John lilburne—I hardly think geneology is "nonsense", or those who pay attention to it "wonks". I don't think we would be permitted to make use of "raw" genealogical data as I think that would constitute original research. I think that whenever genealogy is a factor it would have to be supported by accompanying reliable sources. Bus stop (talk) 21:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- John lilburne—you mention List of former Roman Catholics. How is that genealogical? It is a list of individuals who changed religion.
- You refer to "your List of Jews in Sports". Could you please "comment on content, not on the contributor". I don't believe I have ever edited that article. Bus stop (talk) 01:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- Figure of speeech, I recall you arguing for the list when it was here a couple of months back. As for the Catholics, a number on the list are there because they went to a Catholic school, or because there parents are/were Catholic, there is no evidence that they were adherents to the faith once they old enough to form their own opinions. They were Catholic by reason of birth alone which is the same rationale used for the labelling in these lists currently discussed here. John lilburne (talk) 06:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- You refer to "your List of Jews in Sports". Could you please "comment on content, not on the contributor". I don't believe I have ever edited that article. Bus stop (talk) 01:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- I didn't participate in any of the WP:AFDs for Talk:List of Jews in sports, although I probably participated in similar AFDs.
- In reference to the Roman Catholics found on List of former Roman Catholics you suggest some may not have been "adherents to the faith". If reliably sourced, could it not be mentioned that certain individuals were not "adherents to the faith"? Alternatively, they could be removed from the List. I think this would be best addressed on a case-by-case basis. Bus stop (talk) 13:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- How do you get a RS to prove a negative? An old guy I once knew was brought up a Catholic, was baptised a Catholic, was buried as a Catholic. He said he never believed a word of it, was Atheist all his adult life, only ever entered a church for christenings, weddings, and burials. Yet having been a Catholic in the late 1940s in Glasgow, he knew all about intolerance he used to talk about the factory and shipyards in Glasgow had signs that read "Vacancies - Catholics need not apply", and it didn't matter whether you were a actually a Catholic or not because it was all about where you lived and what your name was. It affected much of his activity throughout the rest of his life. The UK's 1976 Race Relation Act is partly due to his backroom organizing, but it wasn't the Catholic thing that was important it was experiencing the injustice of prejudice first hand. The labellers here would have him as Catholic, in private he despised all of it. Next example is my childhood friend who was Jewish, I sat next to him in the synagogue when he had his Bah Mitzvah, but he was never, to my knowledge either a religious or cultural Jew, we had sleepovers and he came on holiday with us a number of times, but religion was never a factor with him, and he did enjoy a bacon sarnie. OTOH he did support Spurs, we cheered as 11yo after the six day war and played Israelis vs Egyptians rather than Cowboys vs Indians for a few days afterwards, but Spurs having won the FA Cup was far more important. He lived in a complex of apartments where High Court Judges, people from radio and TV, Politicians, and company directors also lived, the apartments were divided into 'houses' each entrance had a foyer, and two concierges, the lifts were oak panelled and worked, everywhere smelt of new polish. The complex had its own private swimming pool, saunas, squash and tennis courts. It was pretty much like a 5 star hotel. He also went to private prep school, but he was also a latchkey kid, a single child, in a one parent household, and in 5 years I never met his father, or any other relation. If he had a WP article the genealogists here would have him as Jewish, but as a child it just wasn't any part of his life, being the next Jimmy Greaves or Ringo Starr was what he mostly thought about, that and his little Jack Russell terrier. The point being that simply labelling tells us nothing about a person, unless we have context. John lilburne (talk) 16:01, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- In reference to the Roman Catholics found on List of former Roman Catholics you suggest some may not have been "adherents to the faith". If reliably sourced, could it not be mentioned that certain individuals were not "adherents to the faith"? Alternatively, they could be removed from the List. I think this would be best addressed on a case-by-case basis. Bus stop (talk) 13:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- John lilburne—a degree of significance is indicated by a reliable source's mention of an attribute of identity in relation to an individual. Other sources can cast doubt on this, but in the absence of such contradictory sources I think such material warrants inclusion. Bus stop (talk) 22:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- People publish stuff for a variety of reasons, and just because it is published does not mean that one should automatically include it here. In the two cases above whilst they had a background that was in part Catholic/Jewish it would be miss leading to describe either person as Catholic or Jewish. On some criteria one could describe my grandchildren as Jewish but in reality as far as their lives are concerned they are not. Such a categorisation would be entirely some one's POV, it would be as if I were to describe the Israeli or British Prime Minister as African. Which is exactly what these 'pretender' lists are doing, they have people on them that have no thoughts of one day waking up and being a Monarch, their inclusion on the lists are purely a result of the imaginings of others. The lists make no distinctions between those with aspirations to be head of state of some territory, and the fantasies of others. John lilburne (talk) 07:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- As far as I am concerned the meaning as false claimaint was never an issue here. Only Jimbo Wales and McFerran adressed it, and it obviously doesn't apply to any of the people under discussion. The problem that I wanted to address in this thread is only people who never explicitly claimed such a throne. Royalty fans tend to use the word in an inappropriate sense in which Robespierre, Karl Marx and Che Guevara might all have appeared in the Gotha as pretenders, and would not have had a chance to defend themselves against it. They could have said that they don't want the throne and if it was offered to them they would reject it. But as the example of Otto von Habsburg showed, the royalty fans would have simply ignored that and would have continued to call them pretenders. Or maybe not. Maybe the royalty fans know something about the sincerity or otherwise of Otto von Habsburg's declaration:
Template:Blockquotetop I, the undersigned, hereby declare in accordance with § 2 of the law of 3 April 1919, law gazette for the state of German Austria Nr 209, that I explicitly relinquish my membership in the House of Habsburg-Lothringen and all claims to power inferred from it and avow myself to be a faithful citizen of the republic. To witness this I have signed this declaration personally. Pöcking, 31 May 1961. Otto Habsburg-Lothringen. Template:Blockquotebottom
- But we, as Wikipedia, don't have sufficient information to portrait Otto von Habsburg as a traitor who was only waiting for a chance to grab the crown. Nor can we do that for his son. Hans Adler 20:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- I know of no article on Wikipedia which says that Otto is a traitor. Hans Adler is himself coming to that conclusion based on other things which are or have been said on Wikipedia. The 1961 declaration is not the end of things. There are numerous later statements by Otto which seem to contradict it: e.g. Otto's November 30, 1990, declaration granting the title "Graf von Habsburg" (Count of Habsburg) to the children of a number of Austrian archdukes who had married morganatically. Then there are the numerous declarations recognising or not recognising certain marriages are dynastic. If Otto had indeed relinquished his membership in the House of Habsburg-Lothringen, then what can one make of these later statements where he exercises his authority as Head of that same house? The situation is complex, and difficult to summarize. I often find the "simple" versions presented in infoboxes to be inaccurate; a narrative explanation is often better. Noel S McFerran (talk) 20:32, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- "If Otto had indeed relinquished his membership in the House of Habsburg-Lothringen". This is absurd. I have given you the precise text of the formal declaration with which he relinquished his membership, so that he was allowed to enter Austria. This is a Der Spiegel article from 1960 which describes the negotiations which led to the declarations. At the time Otto von Habsburg held an Austrian passport with the following notice: "gültig für alle Staaten der Erde mit Ausnahme Österreichs" – "valid for all states of the Earth with the exception of Austria". What matters for the Austrian state is whether he relinquished his membership in the house of Habsburg to the extent that it would give him a claim to an Austrian throne. Unless someone finds sources, we do not know whether (1) he 'crossed his fingers' while making the declaration, (2) he has somehow taken it back in the meantime, (3) he makes a distinction between membership in the House of Habsburg-Lothringen as a legal entity with relevance to Austrian politics, and membership in the House of Habsburg-Lothringen as a private construct that may or may not have some legal significance in other states, or (4) he isn't really sure what he is doing. (Personally I think something like 3 is most likely, perhaps mixed with 1 and 4.) Some of these speculations are compatible with his being a pretender, others are not. We can't say he is a pretender based only on such speculation. Hans Adler 09:04, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- I know of no article on Wikipedia which says that Otto is a traitor. Hans Adler is himself coming to that conclusion based on other things which are or have been said on Wikipedia. The 1961 declaration is not the end of things. There are numerous later statements by Otto which seem to contradict it: e.g. Otto's November 30, 1990, declaration granting the title "Graf von Habsburg" (Count of Habsburg) to the children of a number of Austrian archdukes who had married morganatically. Then there are the numerous declarations recognising or not recognising certain marriages are dynastic. If Otto had indeed relinquished his membership in the House of Habsburg-Lothringen, then what can one make of these later statements where he exercises his authority as Head of that same house? The situation is complex, and difficult to summarize. I often find the "simple" versions presented in infoboxes to be inaccurate; a narrative explanation is often better. Noel S McFerran (talk) 20:32, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- See list of current pretenders for similar issues. To take the most obvious case, if Elizabeth II still claimed to be Queen and Empress of all of these states, I think we would know about it. Pfainuk talk 20:12, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- At least that list says clearly that it's not actually about pretenders but a closely related topic. What's also correct in that example is that QE2's theoretical claim appears in the list but not in her biography. It has nothing to do with her and is only relevant to royalty dreamers – for whom she cannot be held responsible. Hans Adler 20:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- The list clearly presents its inclusion criteria in the lead. It includes claims regardless of whether they are made personally or by others on that person's behalf. But the sourcing issue is a relevant one, and since her claims (except for the Fijian one) were unsourced, I've moved them to a separate section. Nightw 08:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- The inclusion criteria for that list look messed up: "A pretender is an heir or claimant to a throne that either has been abolished or is presently occupied by another." Is there any dictionary definition of "pretender" that includes people who are not claimants (i.e. people who are merely heirs and nothing more)? My understanding of the word "pretender" is that it implies a claim to the throne. Here's what the American Heritage Dictonary says: "One who sets forth a claim, especially a claimant to a throne." Why does list of current pretenders make up a definition of the word "pretender" that's not in any dictionary? The criteria for that list also discuss "Claims made on a person's behalf", but who has to make such a claim on behalf of an heir? Can I make a claim like that? I've attempted to fix these problems, and the list is now titled, List of people claimed to have a right to a throne.Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- Would you mind carrying out a proper move request? That doesn't seem like a precise title and it's certainly not the one people will be looking for. Any changes to that title will also need to be made to List of current Indian pretenders. The lead in this list was revised recently; I've copied it over to the main list. Please take up any further issues on the article's talk page. Nightw 13:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- I have no problem with the current title of the article (list of current pretenders), as long as the following sentence remains in the lead: "A pretender professes a claim under his own name, and the term is also applied to those persons on whose behalf a claim is advanced, regardless of whether that person himself makes the claim, as long as that person aspires to the throne." The last nine words are critical, and reliable sourcing needs to indicate aspiration to the throne. A person who is indifferent or rejects the throne cannot be a pretender; it would be a BLP violation to list such a person as a pretender.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- The last two segments of that sentence totally contradict each other. Otto has (officially) renounced his aspirations, and so have a number of others. If you feel these entries do not fit under the definition of "pretender", then please do a move proposal. Don't change the inclusion criteria. However, the source we use provides for the definition of a pretender as including those whose claim is made by others. Nightw 05:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- The lead sentence at list of current pretenders says: "A pretender is an aspirant or claimant to a throne that either has been abolished or is presently occupied by another." You seem to be arguing that a pretender can also be someone who neither claims nor aspires. That is not consistent with any English dictionary I've ever read. I suppose that a pretender could be someone who does not make a claim, but nevertheless aspires to the throne, while someone makes the claim on that person's behalf. I didn't write the lead sentence, but it seems accurate; a pretender must either claim or aspire. If I make a claim on someone else's behalf, then that person is not a pretender if that person has no royal ambitions.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- The very sentence you're editing says "claims made on a person's behalf are included regardless of whether that person himself actually stakes an active claim" and you're adding to the end of that, "as long as that person aspires to the throne". That's a direct contradiction that is inherently confusing to readers. I understand what you're saying, but that's not a solution. Neither would replacing the first part of the sentence, since that would eliminate over half of the entries in the list. Perhaps a better idea would be to look at other lists composed by online almanachs and see as to what criteria they use. Please, let's take this discussion to the article's talk page. Nightw 07:05, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- The lead sentence at list of current pretenders says: "A pretender is an aspirant or claimant to a throne that either has been abolished or is presently occupied by another." You seem to be arguing that a pretender can also be someone who neither claims nor aspires. That is not consistent with any English dictionary I've ever read. I suppose that a pretender could be someone who does not make a claim, but nevertheless aspires to the throne, while someone makes the claim on that person's behalf. I didn't write the lead sentence, but it seems accurate; a pretender must either claim or aspire. If I make a claim on someone else's behalf, then that person is not a pretender if that person has no royal ambitions.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- The last two segments of that sentence totally contradict each other. Otto has (officially) renounced his aspirations, and so have a number of others. If you feel these entries do not fit under the definition of "pretender", then please do a move proposal. Don't change the inclusion criteria. However, the source we use provides for the definition of a pretender as including those whose claim is made by others. Nightw 05:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- I have no problem with the current title of the article (list of current pretenders), as long as the following sentence remains in the lead: "A pretender professes a claim under his own name, and the term is also applied to those persons on whose behalf a claim is advanced, regardless of whether that person himself makes the claim, as long as that person aspires to the throne." The last nine words are critical, and reliable sourcing needs to indicate aspiration to the throne. A person who is indifferent or rejects the throne cannot be a pretender; it would be a BLP violation to list such a person as a pretender.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- Would you mind carrying out a proper move request? That doesn't seem like a precise title and it's certainly not the one people will be looking for. Any changes to that title will also need to be made to List of current Indian pretenders. The lead in this list was revised recently; I've copied it over to the main list. Please take up any further issues on the article's talk page. Nightw 13:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- The inclusion criteria for that list look messed up: "A pretender is an heir or claimant to a throne that either has been abolished or is presently occupied by another." Is there any dictionary definition of "pretender" that includes people who are not claimants (i.e. people who are merely heirs and nothing more)? My understanding of the word "pretender" is that it implies a claim to the throne. Here's what the American Heritage Dictonary says: "One who sets forth a claim, especially a claimant to a throne." Why does list of current pretenders make up a definition of the word "pretender" that's not in any dictionary? The criteria for that list also discuss "Claims made on a person's behalf", but who has to make such a claim on behalf of an heir? Can I make a claim like that? I've attempted to fix these problems, and the list is now titled, List of people claimed to have a right to a throne.Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- The list clearly presents its inclusion criteria in the lead. It includes claims regardless of whether they are made personally or by others on that person's behalf. But the sourcing issue is a relevant one, and since her claims (except for the Fijian one) were unsourced, I've moved them to a separate section. Nightw 08:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- At least that list says clearly that it's not actually about pretenders but a closely related topic. What's also correct in that example is that QE2's theoretical claim appears in the list but not in her biography. It has nothing to do with her and is only relevant to royalty dreamers – for whom she cannot be held responsible. Hans Adler 20:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- See list of current pretenders for similar issues. To take the most obvious case, if Elizabeth II still claimed to be Queen and Empress of all of these states, I think we would know about it. Pfainuk talk 20:12, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
(Undent)If someone is a descendant of a monarch, Wikipedia should never say that the person is a "claimant" to the throne, and should never say that the person is a "pretender" to the throne, unless a reliable source says that the person is actually seeking to get rid of the current monarch or seeking to restore the monarchy. Many descendants of monarchs are perfectly happy living average lives, with no aspirations for royalty (despite the recent mega-wedding in England).Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Lara Logan
Lara Logan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I don't think the phrase
Matt Taibbi wrote a Rolling Stone blog entry titled "Lara Logan You Suck"...
should stay in a BLP. The title of Taibbi's opinion piece is irrelevant. Furthermore, as long as there is no independent secondary source referring to Taibbi's article, we cannot establish whether Taibbi's opinion is notable. Opinion pieces are not news reports. Cs32en Talk to me 23:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- The opinion piece seems relevant to the paragraph, which is about criticism from fellow journalists. Taibbi has a Wikipedia article and seems notable. I'm inclined to think mentioning the title is gratuitous. Mindbunny (talk) 04:52, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Events reported in news articles are notable, because an independent source (i.e. independent from the event itself) mentions them. However, opinion pieces that are not reported on in news articles or similar sources are not notable, because no independent source (i.e. independent from the writer of the opinion piece) mentions them. Cs32en Talk to me 09:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Clearly that is not noteworthy at all and is quite a personally attacking opinion piece as you can tell immediately by the title of the article. IMO the addition here was also designed to demean and attack logan - the user insisting on adding it to the BLP has been blocked 48 hours for BLP violations against Logan on the talkpage. see here contributions for User:The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous - I would say while he is out, get it out. I have already objected to its inclusion on the talkpage. I removed it, there is already the comment that other journalists have criticized and two actually focused reasons from two specific journalists which is plenty without the need for a third one especially when it is so attacking-ly opinionated. Off2riorob (talk) 11:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Agree, and thanks for removing the obvious attack. I am now watching the article, and have commented at WP:Requests for comment/Sandstein. Johnuniq (talk) 11:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- I agree that this source should be removed, but it seems to have been restored. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 16:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- I think the actions on that page have become conflicted in regard to Arab - Israeli and that the page should be added to that sector and any violations or edit warring etc be subject to that heightened level of conditional editing as detailed on the {{Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement}} arbitration notice. The disruption of that BLP has been unending over the last couple of months.Off2riorob (talk) 17:12, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thats nonsensical. Neither the article nor the source has anything to do with that topic area. nableezy - 18:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- I can see why you wouldn't want this, as this section on your talkpage reveals previous Arab Israeli editing restrictions current on your account - User talk:Nableezy#Banned from editing Palestine-Israel pages for 2 months - Someone in the crowd shouted Jew which has been repeatedly offered as the reason for the attack and this was edit warring for the first month and finally its in the article, it happened in an Arab country and since the Jew shout is in the article there now appears an effort to demean her as a person and a journalist - Arab Israeli connection imo - this BLP has been disrupted for the last two months - its repeatedly been brought here and again its here, the disrupting of the BLP and its talkpage has to stop and the edit restrictions the template provides will help and if any of the involved editor there has issues and blocks in that sector previously then that can be considered when further violations occur. Off2riorob (talk) 18:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Um, do you have any idea what this is about? This is about statements Logan made close to a year ago about another reporter's piece on the then commander of US forces in Afghanistan. nableezy - 19:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- This BLPN report is one in a longish line, the rise in interest and disruption on the article is all attracted via that Arab Jew issue, the assault. Off2riorob (talk) 20:00, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Ok? This source had been in the article since at least September 2010. To connect the two to each other would require a DeLorean equipped with a flux capacitor. nableezy - 20:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- This BLPN report is one in a longish line, the rise in interest and disruption on the article is all attracted via that Arab Jew issue, the assault. Off2riorob (talk) 20:00, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Um, do you have any idea what this is about? This is about statements Logan made close to a year ago about another reporter's piece on the then commander of US forces in Afghanistan. nableezy - 19:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- I can see why you wouldn't want this, as this section on your talkpage reveals previous Arab Israeli editing restrictions current on your account - User talk:Nableezy#Banned from editing Palestine-Israel pages for 2 months - Someone in the crowd shouted Jew which has been repeatedly offered as the reason for the attack and this was edit warring for the first month and finally its in the article, it happened in an Arab country and since the Jew shout is in the article there now appears an effort to demean her as a person and a journalist - Arab Israeli connection imo - this BLP has been disrupted for the last two months - its repeatedly been brought here and again its here, the disrupting of the BLP and its talkpage has to stop and the edit restrictions the template provides will help and if any of the involved editor there has issues and blocks in that sector previously then that can be considered when further violations occur. Off2riorob (talk) 18:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thats nonsensical. Neither the article nor the source has anything to do with that topic area. nableezy - 18:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- I think the actions on that page have become conflicted in regard to Arab - Israeli and that the page should be added to that sector and any violations or edit warring etc be subject to that heightened level of conditional editing as detailed on the {{Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement}} arbitration notice. The disruption of that BLP has been unending over the last couple of months.Off2riorob (talk) 17:12, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- I agree that this source should be removed, but it seems to have been restored. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 16:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Agree, and thanks for removing the obvious attack. I am now watching the article, and have commented at WP:Requests for comment/Sandstein. Johnuniq (talk) 11:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Clearly that is not noteworthy at all and is quite a personally attacking opinion piece as you can tell immediately by the title of the article. IMO the addition here was also designed to demean and attack logan - the user insisting on adding it to the BLP has been blocked 48 hours for BLP violations against Logan on the talkpage. see here contributions for User:The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous - I would say while he is out, get it out. I have already objected to its inclusion on the talkpage. I removed it, there is already the comment that other journalists have criticized and two actually focused reasons from two specific journalists which is plenty without the need for a third one especially when it is so attacking-ly opinionated. Off2riorob (talk) 11:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Events reported in news articles are notable, because an independent source (i.e. independent from the event itself) mentions them. However, opinion pieces that are not reported on in news articles or similar sources are not notable, because no independent source (i.e. independent from the writer of the opinion piece) mentions them. Cs32en Talk to me 09:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
"Lara Logan You Suck" does not need to be in the article, but the actual source itself is fine. Currently, that source is used for an attributed opinion of Taibbi saying that Logan's remarks reflected what, in his view, was a problem among the establishment news media in that it acted as PR for its subjects, neglecting its duty to inform the public. Can somebody please tell me what the BLP vio in that sentence is? Off2's computerization of that piece is so off-base that it could only be made if the only thing somebody reads is the title of the article. This is published by Rolling Stone and written by a well known journalist, not exactly a self-published blog of some random fool on the internet. nableezy - 18:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- I disagree that the source is fine for a BLP. It's a very strongly worded opinion piece in Rolling Stone, and the point we use it for in the article has been made by other sources in different ways anyway. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 18:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- What in BLP says that strongly worded opinion pieces should not, or can not, be used in articles? nableezy - 19:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Some articles so strongly written as to result in attacking commentary. BLP says we should use the highest quality sources and write conservatively about living people - that would rule that opinionated editorial out. Off2riorob (talk) 10:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but this argument strikes me as dead wrong. This is clearly a high-quality source. We're talking about Logan's professional reputation here, and that can only be addressed through opinion and commentary pieces, just as the critical reception/reputation of a book or film is often established via the commentary and opinion typically published as "reviews." Taibbi's online writing for Rolling Stone is an extension of his regular work for that magazine, for which Taibbi won a National Magazine Award, professional recognition comparable to the Pulitzer Prize. I would hope we don't retreat to the position that only blandly written, wishy-washy opinions are "reliable" enough to use in discussing such matters. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- He just looks like a strongly worded opinionated journo to me, not sure what you call them but the type that say as many controversial comments as possible to raise their profile. - not sure what hes an expert in. We are not looking for wishy washy but there is a big difference between qualified constructive critical comments and johnny is a crap this or that. - Its not a reflection of Tabbi overall just an editorial judgment on that article. Off2riorob (talk) 15:52, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but this argument strikes me as dead wrong. This is clearly a high-quality source. We're talking about Logan's professional reputation here, and that can only be addressed through opinion and commentary pieces, just as the critical reception/reputation of a book or film is often established via the commentary and opinion typically published as "reviews." Taibbi's online writing for Rolling Stone is an extension of his regular work for that magazine, for which Taibbi won a National Magazine Award, professional recognition comparable to the Pulitzer Prize. I would hope we don't retreat to the position that only blandly written, wishy-washy opinions are "reliable" enough to use in discussing such matters. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- Some articles so strongly written as to result in attacking commentary. BLP says we should use the highest quality sources and write conservatively about living people - that would rule that opinionated editorial out. Off2riorob (talk) 10:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- What in BLP says that strongly worded opinion pieces should not, or can not, be used in articles? nableezy - 19:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Line of succession to the British throne
The article Line of succession to the British throne is essentially a list of living people, whose main article is Succession to the British throne. It has been, and is, the subject of a wide variety of editing disputes (including alleged violations of WP:SYNTH, WP:V, WP:NPOV, etc.). It is certainly true that the vast majority of people in the line of succession do not meet the notability requirements, per WP:BIO.
My question: Does this mean the Line of succession to the British throne is in violation of WP:NLIST? If so, maybe it should be an exception to that guideline? Mlm42 (talk) 16:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- The later parts of this list are basically a glorified trivia section full of original research (see the current dispute about inclusion or otherwise of certain people based on different interpretation of arcane details of their non-notable parents' moral conduct). Unfortunately the entire royalty area is basically very much a walled garden. (Disclosure: I am currently heavily involved in the area.) Hans Adler 16:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- A difficult one. I think you can safely state that being third in succession to the British throne is notable in itself, but being 2,500th isn't. Essentially, it is a list of people in decreasing notability in relation to the subject, with an inevitably increasing opportunity for errors etc as one goes down it. I'd suggest that it needs to be severely docked, though at what point I'm not really sure. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comments, but in practice shortening the list (or indeed making changes in any way) seems very difficult. There is a small group of editors dedicated to keeping the list in its entirety, and will revert any changes they don't approve. Do you have recommendations on how to deal with this?
- Also, by cutting down to the descendants of Victoria we would still have a list of over 500 people, and the same problems would exist. Reliable sources, such as the Monarchy's official website, only list the first 40 or so people (and even they are not all notable enough for each having their own article). Mlm42 (talk) 19:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- If there isn't a reliable source that states that a person is in line to the throne, they cannot go on the list. Wikipedia isn't a forum for genealogy or related WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. Editors cannot override policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- If only it were that simple.. the point is that the editors who are maintaining the list believe they are using reliable sources to bring this information together (even if the sources might not be up to the usual BLP standards). I believe they are violating policy, but they do not believe that.. so I'm asking, what's the procedure for dealing with this situation? Mlm42 (talk) 19:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- If they have a reliable source they'll be able to add a source for each and every entry stating that X is NNNN in line. If they can't supply an appropriate source the entry should go. John lilburne (talk) 20:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- John lilburne, it's not that simple. For example, no other source in the world claims that King of Sweden is number 217 in line. You could probably find a source that states the King of Sweden is technically in the line of succession to the British throne.. but the list is constantly changing - for example, a few months ago number 12 in line was born, and thus shifted everyone else down one (notice the numbering is done automatically).
- Indeed, if number 100 in line were married and had a child, the editors of this article argue that it is not original research to include the child in line (even if no reliable source explicitly says it). Furthermore, they would claim if number 100 were not married and had a child, then it's not original research to deduce the child is illegitimate and therefore excluded from the line (even if no reliable source explicitly says it). Mlm42 (talk) 20:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- That is the problem of those wishing to add the information not anyone else's. If the list was the best Tennis players, or the richest people in the world, we'd expect a source for listing X as 1000th in the list, otherwise the information would go, I can't see why different policies should apply to this list. John lilburne (talk) 21:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- If we restrict the list to the top few dozen that will allow full sourcing and avoid original research, etc. There's no reason to exempt this list from WP:V. Will Beback talk 21:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- I'm glad that so many people agree that the list needs to be cut down.. but I'm still not clear on how to proceed. I've been making this case for several months, including a few RfC's, and I don't feel like this list is any closer to being reduced in size, due to the very strong opinions of those involved. Advice and/or help would be appreciated.. Mlm42 (talk) 22:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Find the best available sources, then use the names on their lists. Will Beback talk 22:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- I'm glad that so many people agree that the list needs to be cut down.. but I'm still not clear on how to proceed. I've been making this case for several months, including a few RfC's, and I don't feel like this list is any closer to being reduced in size, due to the very strong opinions of those involved. Advice and/or help would be appreciated.. Mlm42 (talk) 22:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- If we restrict the list to the top few dozen that will allow full sourcing and avoid original research, etc. There's no reason to exempt this list from WP:V. Will Beback talk 21:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- That is the problem of those wishing to add the information not anyone else's. If the list was the best Tennis players, or the richest people in the world, we'd expect a source for listing X as 1000th in the list, otherwise the information would go, I can't see why different policies should apply to this list. John lilburne (talk) 21:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- If they have a reliable source they'll be able to add a source for each and every entry stating that X is NNNN in line. If they can't supply an appropriate source the entry should go. John lilburne (talk) 20:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- If only it were that simple.. the point is that the editors who are maintaining the list believe they are using reliable sources to bring this information together (even if the sources might not be up to the usual BLP standards). I believe they are violating policy, but they do not believe that.. so I'm asking, what's the procedure for dealing with this situation? Mlm42 (talk) 19:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- If there isn't a reliable source that states that a person is in line to the throne, they cannot go on the list. Wikipedia isn't a forum for genealogy or related WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. Editors cannot override policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
There are some thorny questions about appropriate synthesis of sources such as the one discussed by Mlm42. But I think a more immediate problem is that of reliable sources themselves and not how to use them. Is a website on Angelfire created by a hobbyist an appropriate source? Should we be using it to list dozens of living (and likely obscure) individuals? Gamaliel (talk) 22:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Similarly the source "Reitwiesner" is also a self-published source, listed in the article, but determined on the reliable sources noticeboard (discussion here) to be unsuitable for the article. Nevertheless, there do appear to be some printed sources (such as Willis, one of the main sources), which give detailed genealogical information.. Willis doesn't discuss the line of succession explicitly - this is deduced by the editors. Mlm42 (talk) 22:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Reitwiesner is not a self-published source. Reitwiesner is dead. The source is published by Christopher Challender Child, Director of Publications of the New England Historic Genealogical Society, the leading resource in the United States for genealogical studies. Noel S McFerran (talk) 22:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- I have said it before and I will repeat it as often as you spread this misinformation: Whether Reitwiesner is dead or not, according to WHOIS he is still the owner of the domain. That someone else is keeping the domain alive (and we only have your word for who it is) doesn't make it any less self-published. People keep all sorts of things alive on the internet out of piety. It doesn't mean they exert any editorial control. Hans Adler 23:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- This is nothing to do with "my word" at all. The source itself says who the current publisher is. The problem is that the critics haven't even looked at the work. [3]Noel S McFerran (talk) 00:09, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, the source claims it's published by "his literary executor, Christopher Challender Child of Boston, Massachusetts". In other words, it's identified as a personal project by Christopher Challender Child. This makes it a self-published source by another expert. Doesn't change the fact that self-published sources are not allowed for BLP material except under very narrow rules that obviously do not apply here. (In particular it would have to be self-published by the subject.) Hans Adler 10:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- This is nothing to do with "my word" at all. The source itself says who the current publisher is. The problem is that the critics haven't even looked at the work. [3]Noel S McFerran (talk) 00:09, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- The Willis book is published by an American genealogy company.[4] While its listing of marriages and births may be accurate, it might not be a suitable source for issues of the British constitution. Will Beback talk 23:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Indeed; and more generally, as several editors have pointed out, there are aspects of the succession laws whose precise meaning cannot be known, because they have never actually been tested. This doesn't stop editors (such as Noel, the article's main contributor) from interpreting the laws themselves and stating them as fact. Mlm42 (talk) 23:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- There certainly is general agreement about the way the UKGBNI succession law works; the fact that a few people dissent doesn't change the fact that there is consensus. Tiny minority views should not be presented with equivalent weight. While I have been a major contributor to this page in the last few months, the vast majority of the page was created by other editors. My own interests are elsewhere. I have merely tried to improve a page which is well used. Noel S McFerran (talk) 23:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- If knowledge of "the way the UKGBNI succession law works" is being used by contributors to amend the list, this is WP:OR. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. I meant that there is consensus among reliable sources, and that only a small minority of sources suggest anything else. Noel S McFerran (talk) 00:09, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- If knowledge of "the way the UKGBNI succession law works" is being used by contributors to amend the list, this is WP:OR. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- There certainly is general agreement about the way the UKGBNI succession law works; the fact that a few people dissent doesn't change the fact that there is consensus. Tiny minority views should not be presented with equivalent weight. While I have been a major contributor to this page in the last few months, the vast majority of the page was created by other editors. My own interests are elsewhere. I have merely tried to improve a page which is well used. Noel S McFerran (talk) 23:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Indeed; and more generally, as several editors have pointed out, there are aspects of the succession laws whose precise meaning cannot be known, because they have never actually been tested. This doesn't stop editors (such as Noel, the article's main contributor) from interpreting the laws themselves and stating them as fact. Mlm42 (talk) 23:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- I have said it before and I will repeat it as often as you spread this misinformation: Whether Reitwiesner is dead or not, according to WHOIS he is still the owner of the domain. That someone else is keeping the domain alive (and we only have your word for who it is) doesn't make it any less self-published. People keep all sorts of things alive on the internet out of piety. It doesn't mean they exert any editorial control. Hans Adler 23:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Reitwiesner is not a self-published source. Reitwiesner is dead. The source is published by Christopher Challender Child, Director of Publications of the New England Historic Genealogical Society, the leading resource in the United States for genealogical studies. Noel S McFerran (talk) 22:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- I think the list should be trimmed to just what reliable sources (for example the official site) confirm clearly. Everything else is WP:OR at best. The difficulty here is that there are people working on the page who are good people doing good work that they love. It's just work that doesn't belong in Wikipedia.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- The official site lists 39 people. Beyond that we're in more speculative territory. Will Beback talk 10:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- It is more complicated than that as the position of Monarch within the UK is not determined by hereditary it is a "gift of parliament", so you can never be sure until the any monarch dies who will be the new one. It is quite possible that if the QE2 had of died a few months after Diana the position would have been given to William. Essentially this was the crises of 1936 when Edward whatsit abdicated, it was unlikely that he'd get the votes. All in all the list is entirely speculative. John lilburne (talk) 10:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps so. However there is a sourceable "line of succession", at least through the first 39. Parliament could choose to skip some entries, but that doesn't negate the sequence. This is clearly a notable topic and list. It just needs to be kept to a reasonable length. Will Beback talk 10:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- The first 39 on the list here doesn't match with the 'official list'. John lilburne (talk) 11:57, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- Not surprising. That shows how hard it is to create a list like this and how the inaccuracies are likely to grow exponentially with length. Will Beback talk 12:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- Apparently they know better than the official list compilers. John lilburne (talk) 12:57, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- Not surprising. That shows how hard it is to create a list like this and how the inaccuracies are likely to grow exponentially with length. Will Beback talk 12:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- The first 39 on the list here doesn't match with the 'official list'. John lilburne (talk) 11:57, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps so. However there is a sourceable "line of succession", at least through the first 39. Parliament could choose to skip some entries, but that doesn't negate the sequence. This is clearly a notable topic and list. It just needs to be kept to a reasonable length. Will Beback talk 10:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- It is more complicated than that as the position of Monarch within the UK is not determined by hereditary it is a "gift of parliament", so you can never be sure until the any monarch dies who will be the new one. It is quite possible that if the QE2 had of died a few months after Diana the position would have been given to William. Essentially this was the crises of 1936 when Edward whatsit abdicated, it was unlikely that he'd get the votes. All in all the list is entirely speculative. John lilburne (talk) 10:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- The official site lists 39 people. Beyond that we're in more speculative territory. Will Beback talk 10:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
There seems to be a consensus here. So, I've been BOLD and cropped this to the 39 on the official list. I expect I'll be reverted, and I'm not going to edit war, so if others agree with this consensus, they should perhaps involve themselves with the article.--Scott Mac 12:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- Well done. In looking at the history of the article, and the edit summaries,I was struck by the frequent use of papist by one editor. John lilburne (talk) 12:57, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- And another well-done here, I'd missed this discussion, but I support this result. --joe deckertalk to me 18:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I propose a new Wikia wiki whose purpose would be to carry on the work of those who took the line of succession well past the 5,000 mark. The goal will be to see how long it'll take till Jimbo gets on the list. And we'll take bets! I wager that Jimbo is 19,342nd in line for the British throne. ;-) Seriously, I'm glad we've found a way to trim this monstrous nightmare of an article. I'm all for being as comprehensive as possible, but it does get to the point where it's a list of private people, blue-blooded as they may be. szyslak (t) 18:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- Comments about 19,342nd in line are misconceived. The list is finite and I believe complete, or virtually complete, and is maintained quite successfully. There remains issues such as the application of Royal Marriage Act, but the length has been discussed and resolved several times - see the arcchive pages. (For example, there are several sources pointing to Kaen Vogel as the perosn whi is correctly last in line. This page correctly synthesises the sources. Alan Davidson (talk) 01:09, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- The list may very well be "maintained quite successfully". This doesn't however address two issues. Firstly, is such a long (and constantly changing) list encyclopaedic, and secondly, more to the point, doesn't this 'maintanence' involve a considerable amount of WP:OR? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:20, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- Good points, except that these questions have been asked and answered many times on the discussion page. But to briefly answer here. Listing those in line according to British law seems much more enclycolpedic than many other social and trivial lists. Wikipedia here can be accurate and complete. As of OR - The list, simply lists people in line from reliable sources, and may synthesise this with (for example) a new birth. That is listing and compliling the information, it is not original, nor is it research. Reliable published sources exist which are verifiable. Alan Davidson (talk) 01:35, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- As others may have noticed, Alan Davidson, who is one of the list's regular editors, has recently restored the full list of 2500+ names. Mlm42 (talk) 01:58, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- I will also say that, while these issues have been raised several times on the talk page, many (myself included) feel they have not been resolved in a satisfactory way. I think Scott Mac's solution of cutting the list down to the first 39 names (i.e. those listed on the Monarchy's website) is a good move. Mlm42 (talk) 02:03, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- Alandavidson, on what basis are those on the lower (and constantly changing) end of the list in any way notable? That it is (supposedly) possible to compile such a complete list may be notable, but that doesn't make being on it in itself notable. Wikipedia isn't a database. (And WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't much of an argument, either). To clarify why I ask this, an analogy. I understand that this list is finite, in that it is confined to legitimate descendants of Sophia, Electress of Hanover. In what way does this list logically differ from a 'List of descendants of Mitochondrial Eve' - a list of all persons descended via direct matrilinial descent from this verifiably sourced woman, who lived in Africa around 200,000 years ago - or in other words, a list of all living persons? That 'Eve' existed is notable (a lot more notable than Sophia, I'd suggest), but that I'm descended from her isn't.AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:06, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- I will also say that, while these issues have been raised several times on the talk page, many (myself included) feel they have not been resolved in a satisfactory way. I think Scott Mac's solution of cutting the list down to the first 39 names (i.e. those listed on the Monarchy's website) is a good move. Mlm42 (talk) 02:03, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- As others may have noticed, Alan Davidson, who is one of the list's regular editors, has recently restored the full list of 2500+ names. Mlm42 (talk) 01:58, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- Good points, except that these questions have been asked and answered many times on the discussion page. But to briefly answer here. Listing those in line according to British law seems much more enclycolpedic than many other social and trivial lists. Wikipedia here can be accurate and complete. As of OR - The list, simply lists people in line from reliable sources, and may synthesise this with (for example) a new birth. That is listing and compliling the information, it is not original, nor is it research. Reliable published sources exist which are verifiable. Alan Davidson (talk) 01:35, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- The list may very well be "maintained quite successfully". This doesn't however address two issues. Firstly, is such a long (and constantly changing) list encyclopaedic, and secondly, more to the point, doesn't this 'maintanence' involve a considerable amount of WP:OR? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:20, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- This is a list of people in line to the British Throne. It is not a biography. I am not sure why it is being discussed as one. I think it was an attempt to divert discussion. The discussion about Mitichondrial Eve is an example of Reductio ad absurdum. (In relation to restoration, let there be a consensus before a change.) Alan Davidson (talk) 03:29, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- BLP policies apply to content even where it is in articles that as a whole are not biographies. I agree with the people suggesting truncation. Also, even if Andy's mention of mitochondrial eve is an example of a reductio ad absurdum argument, that does not invalidate his point. Reductio ad absurdum arguments are not inherently/innately fallacious. Kevin (talk) 04:47, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- It is emphatically NOT a list of people in line to the British Throne. At best it is genealogy that omits certain people of a particular faith (maybe), and the problem that you have with that is that for most of the non notable members on the list, you have absolutely no idea what their current religious status is, nor do you actually know whether they were born legitimate (under the rules) or not. So way before you get to #100, the list is bollocks. John lilburne (talk) 11:56, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- Since you are clearly unfamiliar with WP:BLP policy, Alandavidson, can I suggest you spend a little more time studying it, and a little less time maintaining your list? Yes, a 'List of descendants of Mitochondrial Eve' is absurd, but at least it is possible to determine from a reliable source who is on it (i.e. all living members of the species Homo sapiens). Can you provide a reliable source that asserts that 'number 100' on your list is (a) definitely in line to the British Throne, and (b) 100th in that line? No, of course not - you have to engage in original research to determine the latter, at least, and are still in no position to make a definitive statement, given the uncertainties that John lilburne has indicated. Though the list is interesting enough, in it's own way, the fact that it is WP:OR, and unreliable, makes it unsuitable for an encyclopaedia. We have no business making 'factual' assertions about living persons that we cannot verify. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- I don't understand how personal the comments are. The use of the word "you" makes it look like I alone am responsible. The statemnent that I maintain it is also wrong. Please use merit arguments, and refrain from personalising this. In asnwer to the questions about 100th, the answer is yes. The person at this person is sourced and verifiable. The list is a result of British law. Alan Davidson (talk) 14:30, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- The list is not 'a result of British law'. The list is the result of the interpretation of British law by persons not qualified to do so, using data that likewise is unlikely to be of the standard that law would require. It is also a list of entirely non-notable persons, many of them minors. Maybe contributors are getting 'personal' about those compiling the list, but given the personal nature of the list (which amongst other factors seems to be based on the supposed legitimacy or otherwise of births), have they any right to complain? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:49, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- (I started writing this before AndyTheGrump's comment of 14.49 so please excuse any repetition.) But interpretation of British law is original research unless it has been published elsewhere. For example, no. 68 on the extended list was/is King Harald V of Norway, who is descended from King Edward VII through Maud of Wales. Maud of Wales received permission under the Royal Marriages Act 1772 to marry Carl of Denmark in 1895; he later became Haakon VII of Norway and they were the parents of Olav V of Norway. Olav married Princess Märtha of Sweden in 1929, but did not seek permission from the British monarch to do so, as the Royal Marriages Act exempts "descendants of princesses who have married into foreign families" from its provisions. However a court case in 1957 established that under the Sophia Naturalization Act 1705 any Protestant descendant of Sophia of Hanover born before the passage of the British Nationality Act 1948 is also a British subject. Haakon VII of Norway was such a descendant, so Maud of Wales did not marry into a foreign family. Olav V was therefore not exempted from the Royal Marriages Act and his marriage to Märtha of Sweden was invalid under British law. As a result their son King Harald V is not in the line of succession to the British throne, on the grounds of illegitimacy under British law. Is it original research to say he is not in line? Yes. But it is equally original research to say he is in line, just because his ancestry is verifiable. Opera hat (talk) 15:15, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with your point entirely, except that the list is complied from reliable sources, it is not the role of those complied the list, (which has not included me) to interpret the law. Your attempt to interpret the law is original research. The role here has been to use reliable resources. Each and every entry that can be found that was not put in from a reliable resource should be removed; but not the others. Alan Davidson (talk) 04:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- Can you indicate where we can find this 'reliable source' that list the line of succession? This source that states that person X is in position Y on the list? If this list cannot be found elsewhere (and apparently it cannot, beyond the first few dozen entries), there is no source - just WP:OR. I have little doubt that those compiling this list are sincere. Likewise, I have little doubt that their sincerity should not be mistaken for relevance to an encyclopaedia that relies on verifiable external sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- There are several sources. Every entry has an intial next to it (W or R or B or D etc) referring to the source. If you can access the article as it was - have a look. As for the position, this is a list of known persons in line from the sources; it does not state anywhere that (for example) the person at position 110 is 110th in line. That seems to be an assuption made by some readers. To do so is wrong; perhaps a should explanation woould alleviate this. A list can have bullet points or numbers next to it - should we change it to bullet points? Alan Davidson (talk) 00:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, if that is the case, then we need an explanation of why such an intentionally-misleading presentation of data was made. This isn't just synthesis, it is outright falsehood. This falsehood is present in the very title of the article - a 'line' implies ranking. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- The sources allowed the individual's descent to be verified, but not whether that gave that individual a place in the line of succession. Opera hat (talk) 03:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, as Opera hat has stated, Alan Davidson's claim is not true. The genealogical information can be found in the sources he lists; the source "R" for Reitwiesner was questioned as a SPS, excludes illegitimate children, but in any case it includes Roman Catholics in the line, so it doesn't coincide with our list anyway. Of course the point isn't about whether there are actually numbers next to the list.. numbers or not, there is no list out there that coincides with ours (or at least not one that's been brought to my attention..). Mlm42 (talk) 17:16, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- There are several sources. Every entry has an intial next to it (W or R or B or D etc) referring to the source. If you can access the article as it was - have a look. As for the position, this is a list of known persons in line from the sources; it does not state anywhere that (for example) the person at position 110 is 110th in line. That seems to be an assuption made by some readers. To do so is wrong; perhaps a should explanation woould alleviate this. A list can have bullet points or numbers next to it - should we change it to bullet points? Alan Davidson (talk) 00:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- Can you indicate where we can find this 'reliable source' that list the line of succession? This source that states that person X is in position Y on the list? If this list cannot be found elsewhere (and apparently it cannot, beyond the first few dozen entries), there is no source - just WP:OR. I have little doubt that those compiling this list are sincere. Likewise, I have little doubt that their sincerity should not be mistaken for relevance to an encyclopaedia that relies on verifiable external sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with your point entirely, except that the list is complied from reliable sources, it is not the role of those complied the list, (which has not included me) to interpret the law. Your attempt to interpret the law is original research. The role here has been to use reliable resources. Each and every entry that can be found that was not put in from a reliable resource should be removed; but not the others. Alan Davidson (talk) 04:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know the orgin of the numbering, it has been there a long time. I don't think that it was intentional - just a method of producing a list. Clearly the list was incomplete in the early days and I would have thought that noone thought it was complete and as such it was a list to that point. If the problem is the numbering, then remove the numbering, not the substance, which is from verifiable sources. Alan Davidson (talk) 01:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- But why is the article entitled 'line' if that isn't what it is intended to show? Frankly, this sounds like bullshit of the first order to me... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- Please be civil and don't use abusive language. I don't know why the list was given this name in 2003. But the recent changes have been about length. If there is a concern with numbers, remove them. If there is a concern about the name, put that on the discussion page and ask for a change. But do not delete verifiable resourced data. Alan Davidson (talk) 06:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- Alan Davidson, I asked (above) "Can you provide a reliable source that asserts that 'number 100' on your list is (a) definitely in line to the British Throne, and (b) 100th in that line?" You replied "In asnwer to the questions about 100th, the answer is yes". Now you claim that the numbering is "just a method of producing a list", and that the numbers have no meaning. Either you were incorrect in your first assertion, or in your later ones. Which is it?AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- Please be civil and don't use abusive language. I don't know why the list was given this name in 2003. But the recent changes have been about length. If there is a concern with numbers, remove them. If there is a concern about the name, put that on the discussion page and ask for a change. But do not delete verifiable resourced data. Alan Davidson (talk) 06:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- But why is the article entitled 'line' if that isn't what it is intended to show? Frankly, this sounds like bullshit of the first order to me... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- It is not about length, although length plays apart, it is about having a listing people who are in themselves non notable and effectively labelling them up as bastards, or adherents of a 'reviled' religion in the 1680s. At a certain point the people mentioned are irrelevant in any meaningful way to subject of the list, and yet in order to include them on the list one has had to also include a whole bunch of other people that for one reason or another are disqualified. The list that was there wasn't just 2500, it was in the 10,000 range. Removing the numbering defeats the purpose of the list and just ends up as genealogy. John lilburne (talk) 07:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for the logical approach. I think the above discussion was a diversion. We have different views and that is to be respected. I suppose I would echo the comments about the list of PM's cats made on the discussion page. After 8 years this list seems as complete as the sources permit; and it remains a matter of opinion as to its value. I think the list remains notable and very interesting. Clearly there are people who disagree. Do you think an arbitration would help? Alan Davidson (talk) 09:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- Arbitration in Wikipedia is more like a criminal court rather than arbitration in the usual sense. It's for long-lasting disputes in which editors misbehave to the point that they can be sanctioned for their behaviour, and even then it's usually expected that enough other venues such as user RFCs, content RFCs, informal mediation (mediation cabal), formal mediation have been tried. Arbcom does sometimes stray into content territory and might be made to express an opinion on aspects of this lists, but they generally try hard to avoid saying anything about content. Arbcom regularly has to reject cases that were requested without taking these constraints into account. Once enough arbitrators have voted to reject such a case, it's removed from WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case by an arbitration clerk and (as far as I know) not archived anywhere. See the history of that page for examples. The last such case, however, was sufficiently important for Arbcom to come up with an injunction to address the immediate disruption, instead of rejecting it. [5]. The last request that was properly rejected was this. You can support the work of Arbcom by not bringing cases that have no chance of being considered. They might be more inclined to consider some aspect of this by motion. Hans Adler 09:55, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Domestic responses to the 2011 Libyan civil war
Domestic responses to the 2011 Libyan civil war (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Re. addition of claims that Saeed al-Aribi "quit his job and joined the rebels" on Domestic responses to the 2011 Libyan civil war (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
That claim was added by 62.107.192.166 (talk · contribs) [6], then reverted [7].
The IP user complained that it was not vandalism [8] and undid the revert [9].
I came across it; I checked the source (which is the Al Jazeera blog [10]), and in my opinion, that was not an acceptable reference (WP:RS, WP:BLP) for such a claim, so I undid the edit [11], explaining it on the IP user talk page [12] and starting discussion on the article talk [13].
The IP user has again reinstated the edit [14] as RV: Certainly is WP:RS. Not just a random blog, but Al Jazeera. See talk for further.
Of course, I will not 'edit war' over this, but I am concerned about this BLP claim, and uncertain whether the source is appropriate.
See Talk:Domestic responses to the 2011 Libyan civil war#Saeed al-Aribi "quit his job".
Thanks, Chzz ► 04:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- I agree - That source alone is pretty poor and they comment taking no responsibility for it themselves and they don't attribute any sources. But he does seem to have said this on Al Arabiya television that he was resigning and joining the rebels. on Thurs May 12. bloomberg - its been reported around a fair bit - reuters-africa - to quote from there for discussion purposes only - "In response to the souls and blood of the martyrs of the February 17 revolution, I, Faraj Saeed al-Aribi, the Libyan consul in Cairo, declare my resignation and my joining of the February 17 revolution," al-Aribi told the television channel. Off2riorob (talk) 09:59, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- The source appears to meet the WP:RS criteria. It's a WP:NEWSORG and the same as a CNN live blog. I would like to know why it is considered not to be a RS, I notice no objective reason has yet been put forward. User:My76Strat seems to be under the mistaken belief that blogs are never a reliable source for BLP's. See Barack Obama a featured article for a BLP Barack_Obama#cite_ref-216 amoung others. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 14:12, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for that.
I hope you will not mind, but merely in the interests of keeping discussion in one place, and for it being helpful in future if it is associated (clearly) with the article, I have copied the above two responses over to Talk:Domestic responses to the 2011 Libyan civil war#Saeed al-Aribi "quit his job".
If anyone has any objection to that, please feel free to revert my paste.
I suggest that further comments would be best on Talk:Domestic responses to the 2011 Libyan civil war - and I'd be very grateful if anyone else could add to the discussion, because currently it does seem unresolved. Cheers, Chzz ► 16:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- I am not sure what you think is still unresolved - the detail you were removing is all over the web in multiple reliable sources. If you still dispute the wikipedia reliability status of the original source you can either change it for the two I presented above or if your focus is specific to the reliability of that external you should ask for opinions at the WP:RSN - as such I am marking this thread as resolved. Off2riorob (talk) 22:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
List of Canadians
List of Canadians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
An editor has been edit warring in order to place Conrad Black under the Criminals section rather than Business where he has been listed up until now. I've gone past my own 3RRs so I'm reluctant to revert but this is a WP:BLP issue. Although Black is a convicted white collar criminal his notability is mainly in business and I think this list should reflect that. The editor Nuthos has reverted one last time listing Black as a criminal. So far, he has not discussed this on the talk page as requested. I've reported him for edit warring and requested the page be protected as well. freshacconci talktalk 22:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- On what basis do you claim that Black's notability is 'mainly in business'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- The first paragraph of his article.... freshacconci talktalk 22:45, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- Given that Black's conviction is referred to in the second paragraph, that proves exactly nothing. In any case, Wikipedia does not cite itself. So can you provide evidence that Black is more notable as a 'businessman' than as a 'person convicted of business crimes'? Actually, there may be grounds for excluding him from the list on the basis that he renounced his Canadian citizenship, but that is another issue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- Well, since the other editor was the one who wants to make the change, the onus is on him to establish this--preferably on the article talk page. As for refs, the actual refs in the article that support the claims of Black being head of Hollinger, newspaper magnet, etc. would be sufficient, unless you're questioning those claims made in the first paragraph. As for first versus second paragraph, again, what is placed first shows what he is most known for. That's the whole point. Not that he isn't a convicted criminal but that his notability is first in other areas. Yes, it's very amusing to place him on a list of criminals, esp. since his name comes right after Paul Bernardo, but I think BLP does apply here. freshacconci talktalk 23:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- Are you going to provide sources that state that Black is more notable as a businessman than as a criminal, or not? The structure of our article is of no relevance whatsoever to this. And no, he isn't being added to the list of criminals for amusement (at least, I assume not). He is being placed on the list because he is one. Or are you suggesting that being a 'businessman' somehow makes crimes less significant? Yes, WP:BLP policy applies here, as with any article discussing a living person. Can you say why you think WP:BLP is being violated? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:09, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- Well, since the other editor was the one who wants to make the change, the onus is on him to establish this--preferably on the article talk page. As for refs, the actual refs in the article that support the claims of Black being head of Hollinger, newspaper magnet, etc. would be sufficient, unless you're questioning those claims made in the first paragraph. As for first versus second paragraph, again, what is placed first shows what he is most known for. That's the whole point. Not that he isn't a convicted criminal but that his notability is first in other areas. Yes, it's very amusing to place him on a list of criminals, esp. since his name comes right after Paul Bernardo, but I think BLP does apply here. freshacconci talktalk 23:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- Given that Black's conviction is referred to in the second paragraph, that proves exactly nothing. In any case, Wikipedia does not cite itself. So can you provide evidence that Black is more notable as a 'businessman' than as a 'person convicted of business crimes'? Actually, there may be grounds for excluding him from the list on the basis that he renounced his Canadian citizenship, but that is another issue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- The first paragraph of his article.... freshacconci talktalk 22:45, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- update - the article has been semi protected and Black has been moved back to the Buisness section. I fully support this position also - Black is primarily a notable businessman that was convicted of crimes - so he belongs in the business section, his crimes and punishment not being weighty enough to move him to the criminal section. Off2riorob (talk) 16:53, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Mordechai Vanunu
Mordechai Vanunu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Eileen fleming (talk · contribs) is back, making contributions potentially in conflict with WP:COI, WP:RS and WP:BLP at Mordechai Vanunu. Despite having been warned before, she continues to incorporate information from real-world Eileen Fleming's blog. Most recent diffs: [15], [16]. (The second of the two has resulted in the article claiming two different dates as Vanunu's birth date.)—Biosketch (talk) 08:43, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- I've reverted the two edits you mentioned. However, the article still has many other cites to Fleming's blog, which I assume were introduced in November 2010 and earlier (there's a 6-month gap in her editing).--Bbb23 (talk) 19:16, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
sunil kumar
sunil kumar
date of birth 2nd december 1985
parents- Ram Tapasya Sharma & Meena Devi,
Brother- Sudhir Kumar
Sister- Sudha Kumari
Birth Place- Bokaro Steel City
Education-10th from BIV-2A,12th from BISSS-2C,
Graduation from BN College of Engineering, pusad in Electronics and Telecommunication
Post Graduation from ISM Dhanbad in Electronics and Communication Engineering.
First job- TCS, India —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.211.86.234 (talk) 18:48, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- Are you asking if you should create an article for this person? If so, what makes him notable?--Bbb23 (talk) 19:18, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- Apparently, the IP is now User:Sunil0212, and I'm guessing that the above information is his own information. Not sure if he wants to create an article about himself or maybe just add some of his personal information to his user page.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:48, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
J.Williams (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I stumbled across this while clearing the backlog at RfPP. It looks like multiple editors have been edit warring ovewr a claim that the subject abused his former partner. I've fully protected the article, without the allegations of domestic abuse in it, and I'll leave it to you folks to work out how best to deal with it from here if that's okay. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- I don't really see the issue with including the information - it is backed up with a reliable source (I can find more if you want, it's a big media feast). It seems that the anons removing the info are just doing so because they like him. WP:NOTCENSORED - Wikipedia should present the truth. Adabow (talk · contribs) 20:45, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- First, the accusation, without more, of a former partner of domestic abuse does not belong in an article about a BLP. Second, it had no context; you just tossed it in the lead. Third, it has no connection with his notability. There are no doubt other reasons for not including it. Just so it's clear, just because something is reported in a reliable source doesn't mean it must be included in Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:09, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- I personally did not place it in the article, but thank you for explaining - I will leave it unless the incident develops into a conviction etc. Adabow (talk · contribs) 21:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- Actually you did place it in the article. It was not there and you added it to the article, you added it twice and then the article had to be fully protected and your addition removed. Off2riorob (talk) 13:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- I think it's fairer to say that Adabow repeatedly supported the inclusion/retention of the material in the article. I believe the material was originally added by another user here.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, an admin, User:Tristanb (check this out for a minimalistic RFA) that from comments on his userpage has no time for this place anymore. Editors need to be aware - if the content is not in the article and they add it to the article they become completely responsible for it - They should think to themselves, why is this content repeatedly being removed...hm, it is a bit personal and there are no charges or conviction, maybe, just maybe even though it has a citation I should leave it out for the time being and open a discussion about it on the talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 00:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe he should cease being an admin if that's how he feels (and if that's the kind of edits he makes). Some of his comments on his user page are downright offensive. He manages to disparage the disabled and lesbians in just a few comments.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, support for that. He has almost never even used or assisted the project with his admin status - he undeleted some of his uploads that were deleted is about the sum of his admin contributions. Off2riorob (talk) 10:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe he should cease being an admin if that's how he feels (and if that's the kind of edits he makes). Some of his comments on his user page are downright offensive. He manages to disparage the disabled and lesbians in just a few comments.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, an admin, User:Tristanb (check this out for a minimalistic RFA) that from comments on his userpage has no time for this place anymore. Editors need to be aware - if the content is not in the article and they add it to the article they become completely responsible for it - They should think to themselves, why is this content repeatedly being removed...hm, it is a bit personal and there are no charges or conviction, maybe, just maybe even though it has a citation I should leave it out for the time being and open a discussion about it on the talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 00:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- I think it's fairer to say that Adabow repeatedly supported the inclusion/retention of the material in the article. I believe the material was originally added by another user here.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- It's not just about whether he is convicted. Certainly, when there are accusations of this sort and the accused denies them, it's generally not appropriate to put them in the article. However, as I read the source, Williams admitted to at least some form of domestic abuse, so it's not the usual he-said-she-said sort of thing. However, I don't see any connection to his notability. For example, Charlie Sheen's personal problems have spilled into his professional life, making them relevant to his career. Similarly, Tiger Woods's personal issues have affected his career. Now I'm sure you'll find editors who believe that if Williams is charged with a crime and subsequently convicted, it's important enough to include in his article, irrespective of its relevance. My view is it depends - on the crime, the aftermath of the crime, and probably other factors. In this instance, we don't have to go there because it's merely an accusation.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- Actually you did place it in the article. It was not there and you added it to the article, you added it twice and then the article had to be fully protected and your addition removed. Off2riorob (talk) 13:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- It is not just an accusation. It has lead to his resignation from a public and honorary position (as an Auckland ambassador for the Rugby World Cup), which makes it relevant to his career. dramatic (talk) 00:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- That makes it more relevant, although it's still a bit attenuated. However, I revisited the article originally cited and it doesn't say that. Do you have a later source for it?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- This - "Auckland ambassador for the Rugby World Cup" is not a part of his "career". - its a promo position - he is a singer. Off2riorob (talk) 00:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- That's why I said it was "attenuated". Still, if he weren't famous as a singer, I'm assuming he wouldn't have the position. Assuming there is a source supporting the loss of the position, I'm perfectly happy leaving out the domestic abuse stuff if Rob and others feel it's not relevant.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- Hehe, I was going to google "attenuated" but I guessed that was roughly what it meant. There are not going to be any charges, no official complaint has been made...I wouldn't add it myself but perhaps a minor comment as the subject has commented himself about it, if someone wants to add something perhaps they could present it for us to consider. As I read, the press reports about it made him feel his position as an ambassador was being undermined and he stood down for that reason. Off2riorob (talk) 14:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- That's why I said it was "attenuated". Still, if he weren't famous as a singer, I'm assuming he wouldn't have the position. Assuming there is a source supporting the loss of the position, I'm perfectly happy leaving out the domestic abuse stuff if Rob and others feel it's not relevant.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- This - "Auckland ambassador for the Rugby World Cup" is not a part of his "career". - its a promo position - he is a singer. Off2riorob (talk) 00:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- That makes it more relevant, although it's still a bit attenuated. However, I revisited the article originally cited and it doesn't say that. Do you have a later source for it?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- I personally did not place it in the article, but thank you for explaining - I will leave it unless the incident develops into a conviction etc. Adabow (talk · contribs) 21:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- First, the accusation, without more, of a former partner of domestic abuse does not belong in an article about a BLP. Second, it had no context; you just tossed it in the lead. Third, it has no connection with his notability. There are no doubt other reasons for not including it. Just so it's clear, just because something is reported in a reliable source doesn't mean it must be included in Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:09, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- In May 2011 Williams former partner told the Herald on Sunday that she had suffered domestic abuse during her relationship with the singer. Williams expressed regret for his mistakes and apologised. As a result of the story Williams felt unable to continue in his position as one of Aukland's fifteen ambassadors for the Rugby World Cup and stood down..[1][2]
- ^ "NZ singer apologises after family violence allegations". Otago Daily Times. May 8, 2011. Retrieved May 17, 2011.
- ^ "Kiwi No 1 pop star's 'horrible' violence". New Zealand Herald. May 8, 2011. Retrieved May 16, 2011.
I started an article on Little Fatty, an internet meme about a man from Shanghai who had his face photoshopped on several other famous faces/figures. The article identified him by name because, even though he originally did not start the meme and originally was upset by the presence of the meme. He made the choice to become a celebrity and a public figure, hired an agent, and even starred in a film. I made sure to explain this in the edit notice. I reviewed Star Wars Kid's decision not to use the name of that figure, and reasoned that Little Fatty's case is different because Qian Zhijun, the subject of the meme, freely interviewed about it and decided that he was going to become a public figure and celebrity.
Anyway, on Baidu Baike the man has his own article separate from the article about the internet meme. At what point would I make a separate article for Qian Zhijun himself (separate from "Little Fatty" the article on the internet meme)? Currently I'm presuming that Qian does not yet have enough independent notability. Would he become a public figure if he starred in a lead role of a movie or a television series? I would have to check Chinese news sources to see the latest about what is going on with Qian. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- Just found out Qian starred in his second Chinese movie. I think he now has independent notability, but I want to keep gathering information until I make the split WhisperToMe (talk) 14:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Naman Y. Goyal
Naman Y. Goyal
This Page has been craeted by shreesh.shrimali (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Naman_Y._Goyal&action=history) - a Friend and Classmates hence is considered a Self Promotion Stint. For Instance shreesh.shrimali has no contributions to wikipedia except these.
naman is considered a self promoting fraud in film circles.
He is desperate for work and hence has created this wikipedia entry through his friend.
the references are Unreliable BLOGS and local city newspaper reportings in INDIA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.203.0.81 (talk) 07:08, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- The non-reliable sources have now been removed, and the article tagged for a total lack of reliable sources, and questionable notability. Please don't call living people "frauds" or describe them as being considered as such - that's not what this noticeboard is here for. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:29, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Infanta Leonor of Spain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Full of unsourced stuff about a 5 yo. Including circumstances surrounding her birth, kindergarten, and collection of stem cells. A similar article exists concerning her younger sister. Is this acceptable in article on minors? John lilburne (talk) 08:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- I think the sourcing needs to be improved dramatically, and the unsourced material could legitimately be removed now, pending sourcing. At the same time, I don't have a problem with the material itself - these two are second and third in line to the Spanish crown and the information doesn't strike me as particularly problematic. (I could be convinced, but at first glance, it seems pretty routine public information.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:30, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- Granted they are 2nd and 3rd in line, which probably means that there will be some mention of them here. But is born by caesarian section a notable event for a biography, or that stem cells were frozen? It seems to be trivia included for want of anything else to write, and gives us no biographical details about the person. Supposing we could obtain details of every person mentioned on the site would we put "[not] born naturally" and "stem cells [not] collected at birth" in all of them? Does the addition make for a better biography, or is it more inclined to make people astonished that such stuff should be recorded in a serious publication? John lilburne (talk) 11:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Details about subjects' homes, precise birth dates or names of children (Middletons again, but not just)
Sometimes subjects' homes are obviously notable, e.g. Prairie Chapel Ranch or 10 Downing Street. But how about the following?
- Bristol Palin: In December 2010, Palin purchased a five-bedroom house in Maricopa, Arizona, a suburb of Phoenix, for $172,000 in cash, according to Pinal County property records.
- Rob Lowe: Lowe married makeup artist Sheryl Berkoff in July 1991; they have two sons: Matthew Edward Lowe (b. Sept 24, 1993), and John Owen Lowe (b. Nov 6, 1995).
(In the second case I removed the days of birth and just left the months.)
These were brought up in an WP:OTHERSTUFF type argument for the following:
- James William Middleton: He now lives in a Chelsea flat, reportedly purchased by his parents for £780,000 in 2002, with his sister Pippa and his black cocker spaniel puppy Ella.
Besides, is being related to famous people and going to a wedding really enough to get your precise birth date reported in encyclopedias while you are alive? The reference for the following is an article with the title "Pippa Middleton Bersinar di Pernikahan Sang Kakak":
- Pippa Middleton: Philippa Charlotte "Pippa" Middleton (born 6 September 1983) [...]
I don't know how to assess how widespread this problem is, but a Google search for "bought a * house" and "living people" brings up some more:
- Meg Bennett: They also bought a $2.8 million house in Beverly Hills, California in 2003.
- Richard Dreyfuss: In February 2008, they bought a $1.5 million house in the rural community of Olivenhain in eastern Encinitas, California, and plan to renovate the 1970s structure with state-of-the-art green technologies.
I think it would be worthwhile to go through BLP articles systematically and remove such trivia, but that would probably be a big effort and would also require strong support each time a trivialist tries to protect their right to invade subjects' privacy in this way. Hans Adler 10:46, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- I cant see in any of these cases the value of the property ever being notable in any blp article and the location is probably only of note if it relates to the subjects notability or public persona. Certainly not notable in nearly all circumstances unless the animal has its own article is how many dogs (or other related domestic animals) they have. Although the number of children and possibly the year is probably OK the actual birth date is not really notable to the articles subject so I would support your removal of childrens full date of birth. MilborneOne (talk) 21:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- The problem I am having is how we are determining what is/is not notable. How is Kate's birthday any more or less notable than Pippa's? Yet Pippa's needs removal? Hans Anderson has publicly stated that he is opposed to the existence of Pippa's article, believing it to be a non-notable subject (despite it surviving two AfDs and a merge discussion) - so is that the standard - what one editor thinks is a worthy article can have such details? Furthermore, how is DOB, place of birth, religion, spouse, or children (almost) ever the subject of a person's notability? And yet those details alone are included in the infobox as commonplace material. It would seem to me that anything that is widely reported by reliable sources is worthy of inclusion in articles that have been deemed worthy of inclusion on this wiki, unless clear guidelines about what is/is not appropriate are formed and justified. Because I just don't see how place of birth is any less "trivial" than a person's widely reported, reliably sourced place of current residence. --Zoeydahling (talk) 23:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- Well he's quite right in his comments about the Middleton article - it is a disgrace which the community ought to be ashamed of. Let me put it this way: suppose something happened to a relation of yours that made them famous, would that justify me creating an article about you, your daughter or son, listing DOBs, religion, their children and where they go to school, what midwifery was practised during the birth, what pets they have, the car they drive, how much their house cost, whether they are behind in their mortgage payments, what their credit status is, what their classmates think about them, etc, etc. John lilburne (talk) 23:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- Then shouldn't that information be banned from all articles? There is no such thing as "sort of notable." Both James and Pippa had AfDs (Pippa had two) which were decided as Keep, and thus the community deems them worthy of articles. Once they have been determined notable, why are they not held up to the same standards as any other BLP? Why is such information allowed to be included on some articles and not others and how do we determine? There is no policy regarding the treatment of "somewhat notable people who have passed AfDs determining their notability but whom certain people refuse to accept and therefore are less notable than any other BLPs"... at least not to my knowledge. The Middletons need to be treated the same way as any other notable person. If that means removing that type of information from all articles, then that should be a clear consensus across the board. But to only apply it here on these articles that a few people deem less-than-notable despite consensus otherwise seems to represent an unfair bias toward these articles. --Zoeydahling (talk) 23:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with John. Such articles have no business being in an encyclopaedia, and that they exist is bad enough. That 'contributors' then choose to fill them with irrelevant personal details (often in breach of WP:BLP policy) only compounds the issue. At some point, Wikipedia is going to have to decide whether it wishes to be an online encyclopaedia at all, or just a dumping-ground for irrelevant tabloid tittle-tattle, overblown ethno-taggery, and other vacuous dross. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- You're asking me whether trivia should be removed from articles? Of course it should be. Neither of the siblings are notable, they have done nothing in their own right that would warrant a biography. That the community seems hell bent on having biographies of them leads to a problem, because there is nothing to write about except to regurgitate tabloid trivia. What you are asking is for WP to be turned into a down market version of "Hello" magazine, perhaps it already has been, but that shouldn't stop us from trying to reverse the trend and point out that an encyclopaedic biography is NOT a collection of press cuttings. John lilburne (talk) 00:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- I don't understand the assertion that the value or location of a home is never notable. To begin with, those facts are frequently noted in highly reliable sources. Second, there are good reasons. The cost of a home is directly related to its size and prestige. If a Saudi prince builds a $55 million chalet then that's very different from the daughter of a politician buying a $180,000 home. Second, the location(s) where one lives is clearly a key biographical fact. Saying that someone bought a house in Beverly Hills informs readers about a person's place in the scheme of things, and saying they moved to Phoenix from Alaska is also informative. That said, the information should only be included if it has actually been reported in multiple reliable secondary sources, and thus risen to the level of notability. We should not troll through property records or gossip columns to find this kind of information. As for birthdates of relatives of biographic subjects, I think we should be very careful especially with minors. It's probably worth indicating whether the subject's children are adults or infants, but the birth year would be sufficient for that distinction. Will Beback talk 00:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- I agree in some cases the value of a home might well be important to a subject's biography. But its is not relevant in all cases, and I don't see a case for it being relevant in this case. Also I don't see that your Beverley Hills, or Phoenix examples are at all relevant. $2.8M house for two writers in the entertainment industry seems probably average, not a slum and for writers not particularly palatial either. As for Phoenix if you move from Alaska I suppose you have to live some place else, and warm might be a change. John lilburne (talk) 00:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see a problem, in general, with giving the price of a house and a vague geographical location (like Chelsea of Beverley Hills). However, what we have to bear in mind is that, questions of notability aside, the se are not public people (with the exception of Kate) and so we should err on the side of caution. They have a right to privacy and knowing where they live, what their dog's name is or when their children were born does not enhance the reader's understanding of the subject and so should not be included. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- Since it was framed as a general question, I answered generally. As for the Middletons, I'm afraid that we're never going to hear the end of them and they will remain private persons only so long as they make no attempts to profit from their connection to the Cambridges, which I expect to happen sooner or later. In the meantime, they should certainly receive circumspect coverage on Wikipedia, if any. Will Beback talk 00:45, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- Then shouldn't that information be banned from all articles? There is no such thing as "sort of notable." Both James and Pippa had AfDs (Pippa had two) which were decided as Keep, and thus the community deems them worthy of articles. Once they have been determined notable, why are they not held up to the same standards as any other BLP? Why is such information allowed to be included on some articles and not others and how do we determine? There is no policy regarding the treatment of "somewhat notable people who have passed AfDs determining their notability but whom certain people refuse to accept and therefore are less notable than any other BLPs"... at least not to my knowledge. The Middletons need to be treated the same way as any other notable person. If that means removing that type of information from all articles, then that should be a clear consensus across the board. But to only apply it here on these articles that a few people deem less-than-notable despite consensus otherwise seems to represent an unfair bias toward these articles. --Zoeydahling (talk) 23:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- Well he's quite right in his comments about the Middleton article - it is a disgrace which the community ought to be ashamed of. Let me put it this way: suppose something happened to a relation of yours that made them famous, would that justify me creating an article about you, your daughter or son, listing DOBs, religion, their children and where they go to school, what midwifery was practised during the birth, what pets they have, the car they drive, how much their house cost, whether they are behind in their mortgage payments, what their credit status is, what their classmates think about them, etc, etc. John lilburne (talk) 23:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- The problem I am having is how we are determining what is/is not notable. How is Kate's birthday any more or less notable than Pippa's? Yet Pippa's needs removal? Hans Anderson has publicly stated that he is opposed to the existence of Pippa's article, believing it to be a non-notable subject (despite it surviving two AfDs and a merge discussion) - so is that the standard - what one editor thinks is a worthy article can have such details? Furthermore, how is DOB, place of birth, religion, spouse, or children (almost) ever the subject of a person's notability? And yet those details alone are included in the infobox as commonplace material. It would seem to me that anything that is widely reported by reliable sources is worthy of inclusion in articles that have been deemed worthy of inclusion on this wiki, unless clear guidelines about what is/is not appropriate are formed and justified. Because I just don't see how place of birth is any less "trivial" than a person's widely reported, reliably sourced place of current residence. --Zoeydahling (talk) 23:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- It's not possible to codify rules for good judgement, so there will always be times when we need to discuss the merits of specific content rather than expecting guidelines to cover all cases. Responding to some of the specific points above:
- "The subject of notability" - just to clarify, the issue is not whether those alone are enough to make a person notable, it's whether they're notable enough to be included in a bio article.
- Religion, place of birth, spouse, and children all have the potential to be highly notable because they often have a strong influence over the person and their values (or over perception of that person). Hillary Clinton's influence has been a significant aspect of Bill Clinton's political career; Julia Gillard's unmarried status gets quite a lot of coverage over here in Australia. Both Obama's religion and place of birth have attracted major political interest in recent months, and a biography of Disraeli would be rather deficient if it failed to mention his religion! And as long as we're talking Royal Family, the Act of Settlement 1701 means that William would have lost his claim to the throne if Kate M had been a Roman Catholic.
- In a lot of other cases these things probably aren't terribly notable. Year of birth is important in putting somebody in historical context; beyond that, I'm not convinced that the precise date matters that much, with rare exceptions. And note what WP:DOB says on the issue: we publish DOB if it's already widely publicised, or if there's good reason to think the subject doesn't object, but if they object then we'd usually delete it. Privacy trumps very marginal notability. (In most cases, the "nobody really cares" factor trumps both, which is why you'll probably see a lot of other articles that don't adhere to that particular part of policy.)
- NB - any info that gets past WP:RS is already likely to be publicly available somewhere, but WP can still do harm by propagating it to a much wider audience. --GenericBob (talk) 00:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- It's not possible to codify rules for good judgement, so there will always be times when we need to discuss the merits of specific content rather than expecting guidelines to cover all cases. Responding to some of the specific points above:
Off topic discussion of ethnicity |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
The hatted discussion seems like old times :) Anyway, I sympathize with the topic here. I don't think this is a notice-board type issue and only directly BLP related (assuming stuff is uncontroversial and sourced), but as a manual of style or biography guideline type issue we should not be reporting on the price of people's homes or the precise birthdates of their children unless it is: (1) impeccably sourced, and (2) sourced to be of some specific biographical importance and not just general background information. I think the number of children and potentially their names, and the approximate period when someone moved from one city to another, are (if sourced) usually considered biographically relevant and would appear in nearly any complete biography of a person, on or off Wikipedia. That may be mediated by privacy (and thus BLP) concerns over not doing harm to young children. And finally, whether someone owns a house or just lives there, and what year a child was born, are in the middle and probably depend on whose biography it is, so perhaps that's best left to editorial discretion. It would make sense to have a guideline somewhere so that we can be consistent. Just my very quick opinion. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- We don't have to report on the precise price of their homes as has been noted above, but a rough figure helps the reader form a picture in their minds of a type of person. Ditto for precise dates of children's births. Bus stop (talk) 03:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yup. Let's not deal with people in articles. Let's instead instead use 'picture[s] in [our] minds of a type of person'. Very encyclopaedic... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- rough figure helps the reader form a picture in their minds of a type of person. Here we go again. What exactly does a £780,000 flat in Chelsea convey to your mind? Hint my grandmother lived in a flat in Pimlico (which is a bit down market from Chelsea), one of the flats in the block sold a few years ago for £750,000. These flats consist of a very small kitchen, a very small combined toilet/bathroom, and a living room. There is no separate bedroom. John lilburne (talk) 08:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- Facts and figures only tell part of the story in any biography but those bare bones are important nonetheless. For example, we may write that someone attended Smith University, but we might not know that they barely passed their courses and were on academic probation twice, while we may also write in another biography that the subject attended this same school without knowing that they received top grades. We could say that someone is a Roman Catholic even if they only attend an occasional Easter service. Meanwhile, we can also say that another person is a Roman Catholic without knowing that they go to church at least twice a week. And so on. Just because a $1 million buys a fortified mansion in Abbottabad but only a small studio in Chelsea isn't a reason to omit the facts entirely. Just because some Catholics are devout while others are ambivalent isn't a reason to omit self-identified religious affiliation. Just because some people have life-changing educational experiences while others float through the same college in a drunken haze isn't a reason to omit educational facts. We can't, as encyclopedia editors, tell readers the significance and meaning of these facts unless someone else has already made those conclusions. But we can give information to readers and let them draw their own conclusions. Will Beback talk 09:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- (ec)Placing trivia in articles leads readers to believe that the information is important in some way. The current Donald Trump article spends paragraphs discussing his religion when he has self-identified as a Presbyterian, and a grand total of one source called him "Catholic" in passing (Telegraph). It then goes into a long aside abiut whether a church which is Presbyterian in governance is actually Presbyterian. So we lead readers to think this is all somehow "important." In the past, we have included prosecutors press releases saying a person "could get up to 55 years in jail" which remains there -- and then the sentence is 1 year, and then gets overturned as unconstitutional in the first place -- but the entire list of charges remains in the articles. Or that an entertainer was alleged to have sexually attacked someone, but that the complainant has a history of doing so etc. We should be grown-up enough to say "allegations shown to be without sufficient foundation do not belong in a biography, no matter how many newspapers printed the initial allegations." Wikipedia should not contain such stuff - and if a Saudi prince has a $1 billion house, it is still not important to a biography in my opinion. Too many articles have too much stuff added for various and sundry reasons which does not belong in an encyclopedia which is supposed to give an overview of the person, and not list that he paid 89p for a Cadbury bar and listed it as an expense on his Parliamentary account. The time has come to make Wikipedia an encyclopedia, not a bunch of stuff, generally added because people really think the subject is "evil incarnate." End screed. Collect (talk) 10:25, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- unless someone else has already made those conclusions and just who has made those conclusions? In most cases no one has made any conclusions as to the significance, it has simply been printed in some article somewhere, and for all we know as filler to make up the required 250/500 words required for the article. In most cases you'll need to wait for a full biography of the person concerned to determine significance. John lilburne (talk) 10:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yep. But just because we're not aware of the full significance of a fact is no reason to omit it. It's the nature of biographies to tell the notable, interesting, and sometimes even boring details of a person's life. Who (besides family, friends fans or astrologers) really cares about the day of the month on which a person was born? To some, it's the most insignificant detail. To others, it's really important. Interesting or not, we report it when it's well-reported in reliable sources. We have good policies on what to include -only what is reported in high quality sources, with careful attention to neutral presentation and weight. I don't think we should clutter those up by getting too detailed about which facts are appropriate to report, because the apparent significance of the issues are different for different people. The personal affairs of rock stars and royalty inevitably get more coverage than those of university professors, and Wikipedia is going to reflect that.
- If Wikipedia were around in 1936, what would we have written about Wallis Simpson, another Duchess who married into the royal family? Probably not much until later in the year because the facts were so extraordinary and the sources were so sketchy, or even non-existent in England. We're still learning things, and I suspect there are sealed archives which will someday shed even more light on the significance of individual facts in that biography. OTOH, if there hadn't been news blackouts then WP might have had a relatively extensive biography of Simpson which included all well-reported facts. Will Beback talk 10:43, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- See collect's reply above, of which I fully agree. Just because a previous marriage status, or religious affiliation may be important in the life of one person, does not mean it is important to every person's life. In the case of Wallace Simpson, what if "the sources" had been wrong? John lilburne (talk) 10:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- Facts and figures only tell part of the story in any biography but those bare bones are important nonetheless. For example, we may write that someone attended Smith University, but we might not know that they barely passed their courses and were on academic probation twice, while we may also write in another biography that the subject attended this same school without knowing that they received top grades. We could say that someone is a Roman Catholic even if they only attend an occasional Easter service. Meanwhile, we can also say that another person is a Roman Catholic without knowing that they go to church at least twice a week. And so on. Just because a $1 million buys a fortified mansion in Abbottabad but only a small studio in Chelsea isn't a reason to omit the facts entirely. Just because some Catholics are devout while others are ambivalent isn't a reason to omit self-identified religious affiliation. Just because some people have life-changing educational experiences while others float through the same college in a drunken haze isn't a reason to omit educational facts. We can't, as encyclopedia editors, tell readers the significance and meaning of these facts unless someone else has already made those conclusions. But we can give information to readers and let them draw their own conclusions. Will Beback talk 09:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is first and foremost a source of information that has as its primary underpinning reliable secondary sources. Editorial selectivity in what to include/exclude poses a potential problem to encyclopedic integrity. Of course we want to be vigilant of that which does not belong in an article for a variety of reasons. But I am opposed to arguments that tell us in advance that a huge area of information is categorically not permitted. Bus stop (talk) 10:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- It should not be a source of trivia. Every 'fact' that is added has an associated cost. The cost is that people for all time have to maintain it. They have to maintain it against undue weight, miss interpretation, fix it if it turns out to be false, and against vandalism. A couple of months ago the community insisted on having an article about a 13yo youtube singer, this last weekend the article was used as a vehicle for spreading scurrilous lies about her, which are now all over the internet, partially fuelled by the false information (since over-sighted) in the WP article. John lilburne (talk) 11:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is first and foremost a source of information that has as its primary underpinning reliable secondary sources. Editorial selectivity in what to include/exclude poses a potential problem to encyclopedic integrity. Of course we want to be vigilant of that which does not belong in an article for a variety of reasons. But I am opposed to arguments that tell us in advance that a huge area of information is categorically not permitted. Bus stop (talk) 10:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- Reliable sources not only serve to verify information but tend to show us that information is apropos and relevant in a way that helps to illuminate the subject of a biography. That reliable sources have seen fit to mention a piece of information tends to show us that we may want to include that information as well—reliable sources also should be understood to be exercising judgement in these matters. Bus stop (talk) 11:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Incorrect. All information contained in reliable sources is not de facto appropriate for an encyclopedia article. No where in any of our policies does it say that we must reproduce here any information available in a source that is deemed "reliable."Griswaldo (talk) 11:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- I wrote in my above post: "...tends to show us that we may want to..."
- Also in that same post I used the wording, "...but tend to show us that information..."
- Just because something is reliably sourced does not translate into automatic inclusion in a Wikipedia article.
- But some pieces of information found in reliable sources should not be excluded on whim or improper selectivity either, which is to say that when sources of sufficiently strong stature include information, we should be required to supply cogent reasons if we want that material excluded. Bus stop (talk) 13:25, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
NOBODY can DANCE like STUDEBAKER HOCH! So many rumors have spread about STUDEBAKER HOCH! (A rumor . . . a rumor . . . ) Consider this rumor (a rumor . . . ), which was published (a rumor . . . ) about three weeks ago in ROLLING STONE! Oh, it's gotta be true! STUDEBAKER HOCH can write THE LORD'S Prayer on the head of a pin! "NO!" Do-do-do-do-do, Doot-doot-do DO DO DO! Do-do-do-do-do, Doot-doot-do DO! etc. (I'm so HIP!) BEEF PIES! He was born next to the BEEF PIES, Underneath JONI MITCHELL'S autographed picture, Right beside ELLIOT ROBERTS' big Bank Book, Next to the boat Where CROSBY flushed away all his stash And the cops Got him in the boat and drove away To THE CAN Where Neil Young slipped another disc FROZE-ing by the PIES! FROZE-ing by the PIES! FROZE-ing by the PIES! (And that was the main influence on HIM!) The influence of a Frozen Beef Pie! - Frank Zappa
- I hope you don't mind but I'm going to call this the "Influence of a Frozen Beef Pie". John lilburne (talk) 12:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- "when sources of sufficiently strong statue include information, we should be required to supply cogent reasons if we want that material excluded". More nonsense from Bus Stop. It has always been a Wikipedia principle that those wishing to include information should provide a justification for doing so when such inclusion is queried. This attitude stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of what a 'reliable source' is. There are no absolute 'reliable sources'. Instead we have to assess whether a source is reliable for the information being sourced. Again, this is standard Wikipedia policy. To include anything in an article that is contested, it is necessary for those wishing its inclusion to demonstrate that it is (a) relevant, and (b) reliably sourced. Unless both conditions are properly met, an article cannot be encyclopaedic - it will instead merely be a collection of random 'data', and Wikipedia is not a database. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- I think that goes to the question of whether to include contested material, where editors disagree. If we step back and ask whether material ought to be contested, I think that if a sufficient weight of strong sources describe a person's living circumstances, family, personal beliefs, etc., as being relevant to their life story then it shouldn't be contentious to include that information. For example, many sources describe certain celebrities such as Barbara Streisand or Hugh Hefner as living in mansions (see the Streisand Effect and Playboy Mansion). For whatever reason, sources often describe the living circumstances of politicians and writers. In those cases there will be some indication not only that it was important to the sources, but why it was important and how it is relevant to the biography. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- "when sources of sufficiently strong statue include information, we should be required to supply cogent reasons if we want that material excluded". More nonsense from Bus Stop. It has always been a Wikipedia principle that those wishing to include information should provide a justification for doing so when such inclusion is queried. This attitude stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of what a 'reliable source' is. There are no absolute 'reliable sources'. Instead we have to assess whether a source is reliable for the information being sourced. Again, this is standard Wikipedia policy. To include anything in an article that is contested, it is necessary for those wishing its inclusion to demonstrate that it is (a) relevant, and (b) reliably sourced. Unless both conditions are properly met, an article cannot be encyclopaedic - it will instead merely be a collection of random 'data', and Wikipedia is not a database. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- I think we have to recognize that reliable sources exercise their own judgement. Reasonable editors can disagree as to the relevance of a given piece of material. But if reliable sources of sufficient stature have chosen to include a piece of material, I think we have weigh that into our considerations concerning the including or excluding of that material. It is incumbent on editors to demonstrate that the conclusions reached by sources should be different from the conclusions reached by editors here at Wikipedia, when several requirements have been met, primary among them is the reliability of the source or sources. A secondary but important consideration is whether other sources contradict or tend to cast doubt on one another in relation to the material being considered. Bus stop (talk) 14:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- Bus stop, what 'you think', and what Wikipedia policy and practice dictate, are two different things. If you wish to have policy changed so that a source can be declared 'reliable' for everything it states, and that anything the source says can be included in an article, you are arguing in the wrong place. I suggest you consider this possible change of policy in more detail, and then make a formal proposal - you aren't going to get it changed here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- AndyTheGrump—I am primarily speaking of sources whose reliability is fairly good. Sources can be unreliable too, but I think the issue under discussion arises when a good case can be made that a source supporting a piece of material can reasonably be argued to be reliable. Bus stop (talk) 15:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- Again, you are suggesting a change of policy. This isn't the place to do it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- AndyTheGrump—this thread is primarily concerned with whether certain types of material should routinely be included in articles. It is assumed that the material under consideration is reliably sourced. Arguments have been made that some sorts of material are almost inherently improper.
- The first post, initiating this thread, mentions the prices of houses owned, the location of residences, the year bought. This information it is argued by some is intrusive or otherwise objectionable. The first post also posits the inclusion of such information as the number of children, the names of children, and even in one instance the name of a pet dog.
- No one really is arguing whether such material should be included if it is poorly sourced. I think we would all agree that given the marginal or questionable importance or relevance of those types of information, it is debatable whether inclusion would be warranted if sourcing were also on shaky ground.
- In my last few posts I have simply tried to make the point that the fact of inclusion of such material in reliable sources is in and of itself an indication of a type of relevance or an indication of importance. This, I am arguing, is because reliable sources are to be assumed to also be exercising judgement.
- You are proposing that inclusion by 'reliable sources' should in itself be seen as an argument for relevance. This would entail a change of policy (one that I would oppose, as just plain bonkers). We cannot make such changes here. Please stick to the topic in question, or make your proposals elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
AndyTheGrump—you say, "You are proposing that inclusion by 'reliable sources' should in itself be seen as an argument for relevance."
I think it is an "argument for relevance". It does not force inclusion. But I think it does tend to support that such material deserves inclusion—on the grounds of relevance and importance. We can always choose to exclude material—no matter how reliably sourced.
You imply above that the inclusion of the sorts of information being discussed will make Wikipedia a "…collection of random 'data'…"
What this fails to take into account is that sources are already exercising judgement as to what to include and exclude. The information that reliable sources include cannot be called "random". I think it has to be assumed that a screening process is in place at every reliable source. It consists of a human being or a committee that choses to omit some information that is available for inclusion. Bus stop (talk) 17:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- Newspapers, periodical, magazines and other ephemeral publications, do not collect random snippets of factoids. They may include the factoid in an article that is transient, printed today, forgotten tomorrow. Little harm is done, particularly if the interest is itself intermittent. So some publication, maybe they are doing a one off article on celebs in their area, print the price that X paid for their house. It is printed on Monday and by Saturday no that read it can even remember it let alone care. Along comes a WP editor searching for stuff to add the article on X "Oooh they paid $Y for their house"; drip ... article on X now has for all time, anyone that wants to know about X's career, is presented with this insignificant detail. The "Floppy-eared bunny society runs an article on famous people that owned floppy-eared bunnies. Along comes some other WP editor "Oooh X once owned a floppy-eared bunny" - drip "X owned a house costing $Y and a floppy-eared bunny". The school that X went to (Cardinal Bighat) asks X to give out the annual prizes and it is reported in the local paper. drip "X is a Catholic, who lives in a $Y house, and once owned a floppy-eared bunny". There are 1000s of publications all running stories with their own agendas. John lilburne (talk) 18:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- No reliable source would include factoids, which are unverified, incorrect, or fabricated. Will Beback talk 22:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- Have you read WP:OTTO? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- As with ATG above, you just cannot rely on most of them for anything. However, true or false a factoid is essentially useless unless it has context, and if it had any context we'd not be getting articles saying "X is a Catholic", but "X is a Catholic and as a result ..." or "X owned a floppy-eared bunny and discovered that ..." etc. In the case of the Middletons and the factoid that son and daughter lived in a £750K flat might result in pub conversations in the depth of Cornwall along the lines of
- but it doesn't tell us anything other than the family has money, but we knew that already. John lilburne (talk) 23:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- No reliable source would include factoids, which are unverified, incorrect, or fabricated. Will Beback talk 22:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- I disagree. I think "X is a Catholic" is as acceptable as "X is a Catholic and as a result…" We can only convey to the reader that which is supported by reliable sources. If sources support the former, I think we should consider including the former, and if sources support the latter, I think we should consider including the latter. Bus stop (talk) 01:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- You can disagree all you like, Bus stop. your opinions are of no relevance here. Article content is decided by editorial consensus, with due regard to policy. And can you tell us whether you think the information referred to in WP:OTTO came from 'reliable sources'? Or are sources only 'reliable' when you want them to be? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
At this point, since Bus stop has once again resorted to editing his/her comments after they have replied to, in contravention of Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, I am going to leave this discussion. It has already been amply demonstrated that Bus stop does not understand policy, or does not consider him/herself bound by it. Such policy nevertheless exists, and should be complied with unless and until such policy is changed.
And Bus stop, don't bother to reply to this. I am sick of your endless trolling of the same old tired arguments everywhere on Wikipedia, and am likely to violate talk page guidelines myself, along with WP:CIVIL, and WP:NPA. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- "I think it has to be assumed that a screening process is in place at every reliable source". I think Bus stop needs to read WP:OTTO - there is no such thing as a 'reliable source' according to Wikipedia policy. Instead, a source may be deemed 'reliable' over particular content. Whether this content is considered relevant is an editorial decision, to be made by Wikipedia contributors, in conjunction with any relevant policy considerations. We cannot change this here. Stop wasting everyone's time by acting as if we can. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- Okay. Where were we? I think the overall conclusion, which different people come to with different rationales, is that there are certain types of minor personal details that we shouldn't add even if they're verifiable. At the other end some personal details may be sourced as significant and relevant enough to include, and barring any reason to do otherwise, they would normally be includable in the article subject to the usual editorial discretion. Exact price of home and birthdays of non-notable children would normally be in the first group. There hasn't been much discussion about what details might fall into the second category, or even if there are any life details that normally do, so there's no reason to make a list here. Action item: it's okay to delete childrens' birthdays and home prices as trivia, unencyclopedic, of undue weight, not relevant, unreliably sourced, TMI in a BLP sense, etc. (take your pick). Is that a fair summary? - Wikidemon (talk) 06:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yup. Though if someone wants to argue that in a particular case there are valid reasons to include such data, they should be allowed to raise the issue. It is however for them to justify inclusion, rather than for others to demonstrate the unjustifiability of inclusion - but this is existing Wikipedia policy in any case. We don't need to change policy - we need to apply it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:31, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- Just like anything else: if it's relevant and well-sourced then it can be included, subject to other policies and assuming it does not intrude excessively on the privacy of non-public figures. We don't need to start creating a detailed list of irrelevant and poorly sourced material that is automatically excluded from biographies. Will Beback talk 21:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- Quite, one has to exercise some assessment of appropriateness, if the information helps one to understand the person included it, if it is simply a by-the-way-did-you-know, excluded it. One shouldn't be constructing a "Truman Show" in the BLPs. 22:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC) John lilburne (talk) 22:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- I saw that movie, but I don't understand how it applies here. Wasn't that about someone who lived in an imaginary world created for the purpose of entertaining TV viewers? I don't see the relevance. Will Beback talk 23:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- Did they not pick over every last detail of his life? Have fact sheets listing the first time he did x and the last time he did y, play by play recaps and reminders of one minor incident after another? John lilburne (talk) 23:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- I saw that movie, but I don't understand how it applies here. Wasn't that about someone who lived in an imaginary world created for the purpose of entertaining TV viewers? I don't see the relevance. Will Beback talk 23:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- Quite, one has to exercise some assessment of appropriateness, if the information helps one to understand the person included it, if it is simply a by-the-way-did-you-know, excluded it. One shouldn't be constructing a "Truman Show" in the BLPs. 22:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC) John lilburne (talk) 22:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Problematic biography
Rick Trainor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This biography has a relatively large "Controversy" section for something that appears to be not very much an actual controversy, but rather the routine sort of dust-up that happens when there's a major policy change at a University. I don't know enough about the situation to be sure whether it should all be removed entirely, but I do know enough to say that on the face of it, it's much too long. I'll wait before making any edits to see what others think about removing the section entirely.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:26, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yes - its the cuts, the student union doesn't like them , no one likes cuts but its being unduly reported, soapboxed in that section. Mr Trainer is just the poor soul the has the task of implementing them. As regards total removal I am unsure, really the cut stuff would better sit in the cuts article (wherever that might be or in the King's College London article itself. As a start I have edited some of the undue weight out of the section and retitled the section. Off2riorob (talk) 13:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Buddhadeb Bhattacherjee
Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The biography contains lines like this: He is chiefly remembered today for his complete failure to govern the state [4], his failed attempt of industrialization in West Bengal, the forceful land acquisition dispute in Singur, the notorious mass-killing in Nandigram [5] and finally the Netai massacre. [6]
This is highly contentious and should be removed. The way it has been put is derogatory.
While the incidents took place during his tenure as the Chief Minister, the way of writing seems to be biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.1.71 (talk) 14:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- I've re-written this sentence to be rather less WP:POV and to better reflect what the cited sources actually say. The sentence as previously written was a very recent addition; within the last few days. The rest of the article seems more balanced (or at least, it manages to combine strong praise with strong criticism). The article has been somewhat in the news recently, given the recent election outcome in the place concerned. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:21, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Pooja Gaur
Pooja Gaur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I came across the article Pooja Gaur while patrolling recent changes. T284 (talk · contribs) insists on posting a link to her private Facebook profile ([17][18][19][20][21][22]) and I am worried that this is an invasion of her privacy. I am in danger of going over 3RR, so I can't edit the article myself; T284 has already gone over 3RR, but I didn't report them to the 3RR noticeboard because my warning came after their last edit. I am not sure if a ban would be appropriate in this case; my intention here is mainly just to open this one up to third-party input. All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 16:02, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- I should also mention that as well as the Facebook link, I am also in doubt of T284's editing of Pooja Gaur's age in the article. I don't consider this quite as important though, and we are discussing it at Talk:Pooja Gaur#Age. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 16:08, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
I think T284 finally figured it out because he has reverted himself. The Facebook link is not "private", as far as I can tell. Whether it's authentic is another issue. It certainly doesn't belong in the lead, as Hullaballoo rightly pointed out in reverting. As for her age, I commented on the Talk page. She says on the video she is 19. Her say-so, unless it's contradicted by a reliable source, is good enough to include. Most sources get birth dates from the subjects. I don't think that many of them actually look at someone's birth certificate. True, she could be lying, but if she lied to a reliable source, and it was reported in the reliable source, we would include it. I don't see much of a difference. Reliable sources generally engage in fact-checking, but, generally, there'd be no reason to do so in this kind of thing. And, not that I'm a great judge of age, but, based on her looks, she could be 19 (you seem to disagree).--Bbb23 (talk) 16:58, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you! I see what you mean about the sources, and getting it from her is definitely better than the Google rumour mill. And about how old she looks, well, I've never claimed to be that great a judge... — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 17:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Vince Mendoza
You have misspelled Vince Mendoza’s name in your article on the Metropole Orchestra at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropole_Orchestra As a result, in your Metropole Orchestra piece, there is no hypertext reference to his biography at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vince_Mendoza To make matters worse, in your biographical piece on Vince Mendoza, you have made no reference to his very active direction of the Metropole Orchestra. We love Wikipedia, use it every day, contribute to your fund drives, and recommend its use to everyone looking for the most outstanding reference tool in the world. Please bring this information to the attention of your editors. They are usually very astute, and they will see what must be done with this information.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP/N
[details removed] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.83.44.142 (talk) 20:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- I've fixed the wikilink from Metropole Orchestra to Vince Mendoza. The article on Mendoza does seem somewhat limited, it's a pity that so few people are interested in improving it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Rob Burton
Rob Burton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hi. This is Mayor Rob Burton. I am concerned that you are allowing reckless and malicious false information to be posted on your web site about me. The material stays on the your web site in the history section. Here is the link to the diff that shows the objectionable material: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rob_Burton&action=historysubmit&diff=425338690&oldid=401364995
In addition, I object to the addition to the page of selected links to selected news stories that are contentious and unresolved - if Wikipedia is to become a pin cushion of links to media stories, let it be to all, not just links selected to paint a negative and distorted picture. This diff shows you these objectionable links by an apparently spurious account called Hal Murabi: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rob_Burton&diff=next&oldid=428701070
I also object to the vandalism of the page, where the link to my official site was changed to a comment board where, doubtless, offensive posts were to be viewed (but have since been scrubbed). Here is the diff showing the vandalism: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rob_Burton&diff=next&oldid=425383225
I would prefer that no page exist. If one must exist, I would greatly appreciate it if it were not allowed to be used by political opponents to engage in attacks. That was not what I understood Wikipedia to be about. Can't you lock the page against this kind of harrassment? Sincerely, Rob Burton - comment added by 24.150.241.95 (talk) 21:07, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- note - this is the second report here from this IP (who appears to be the subject of the BLP and has left contact details) regarding this article - previous from April 2011 Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive115#False.2C abusive.2C defamatory vandalism - Off2riorob (talk) 21:15, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- - I am afraid that as an elected official you automatically qualify for a wikipedia article. I have asked for WP:Semi protection which if granted will stop new accounts from adding attack externals and suchlike content additions. I have also requested that edit is over-sighted (note this has been Done) WP:Oversight which if granted will remove it from the history . If you strongly object to en wikipedia hosting an article about you I suggest you email the foundation, see details here Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#How to complain to the Wikimedia Foundation - note - the request for semi protection has been refused by User:Philippe he says there is not enough vandalism, so when there is some more you can ask again - sorry. Off2riorob (talk) 21:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Darton High School
Darton High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Continuing addition of contrasting negative and positive assessments of non-notables. Will request page protection if necessary. 64.222.237.179 (talk) 21:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- Requesting article protection is at WP:RFPP - Seems like theres a talkpage consensus not to mention the manes , which I also support for the policy reasons there. I doubt protection will help or if it will be grated either and its more of a content dispute than vandalism. I added it to my watchlist, if I was you , just , watch revert and point them to discussion and if they don't discuss and keep re-adding it then report them to the editwarring noticeboard. WP:3RRNB - Off2riorob (talk) 22:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Dominique Strauss-Kahn
Dominique Strauss-Kahn#Sex scandals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
In Dominique_Strauss-Kahn#Sex_scandals an accusation of sodomy keeps getting edited in, in spite of undoing it and agreement at Talk:Dominique_Strauss-Kahn#Sodomy that making such a statement is overblown. This may be an issue for BLP. - 67.224.51.189 (talk) 05:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- That's right. This thing needs more eyes. The talk page is full of comments along the lines of "ZOMG, the wealthy Jew raped a poor black girl!" Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- His wife, Anne Sinclair, probably needs watchlisting as well. There were some attempts to drag the matter there. --Errant (chat!) 10:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Keith Richards
Check the name above photo please —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.96.146.115 (talk) 07:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- Usual vandalism reverted by the cluebot. Off2riorob (talk) 10:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Sarah Michelle Gellar
Sarah Michelle Gellar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The biography stated a reference about a "Christmas tree". How this connection was ever made, is another misconception. It would be more accurate if it would refer to an "ornamented cut evergreen tree." [Of course the tree was used in ancient times because it never "died" in the winter season, and becoming dormant.] If Gellar's family followed Jewish traditions and practices, the festival of Hanukkah is celebrated beginning on the 25th day of Kislev which is approximate to the winter solstice and lasting 8 days lighting a new candle of the Hanukkah menorah on each of the sucessive days. If the "tree" was used to indicate a Christian unholiday to replace the observance of the Jewish holiday of re-dedication of the Temple [John 10.22-23] as was the intent of Constantine then this would have indicated a departure of the family from their Jewish heritage. However having an ornamented evergreen tree AND an Hanukkah menorah would not be inconsistent as is the practice of many Jewish families in the United States. It might be more appropriate if you were to indicate that they had an ornamented cut evergreen tree in addition to a Hannukah menorah during the winter season, if such was the case. If not, I do not think that the conflicting religious significance should be indicated at all. Thank you for the opportunity to offer these facts for inclusion in your excellent biography. Please do not hesitate to request further clarification. I am not familiar with the practices of the Gellar family so I can only guess as what they may have been. There is much history concerning the Maccabbean revolt against the Greek's oppression and cruelty which resulted in re-sanctification and re-dedication of the defiled second Temple of Solomon. I just have not had the time to create a blog referencing this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.86.29.117 (talk) 12:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- - Looking at it, the comment is unsupported in the citation - no mention of a Xmas tree? Off2riorob (talk) 12:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Both of her parents were Jewish, though Gellar's family had a Christmas tree during the holidays while she was growing up.http://www.jweekly.com/article/full/30619/celebrity-jews/
Oxyhydrogen
Oxyhydrogen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There is a continuous insulting of Santilli in the discussion when there are attempts by some hopeful editors to change one single word "fringe scientists" to keep in respect of Wikipedia policies about BLP. I have too many to list so I provide an example RKLawton says" Now as for the previous arguments regarding your friend's support of fringe science and his propensity to attribute conspiracies by his peers to suppress his work - how shall we best describe this? Words that come to mind are: quack, nutter, lunatic, paranoid, delusional, and so on. I think "fringe scientist" would be the more reasonable, and more polite term. The one thing we don't want to do is mislead our readers into believing this fellow is credible. If you would like to suggest alternative wording appropriated for an encyclopedia, please share. Rklawton (talk) 14:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC) " In my previous failed attempts I suggested that the article be changed to reflect the main article on Ruggero Santilli. I am providing below in a nutshell my suggestion by copying my discussion paragraph. I wrote "Please source reliable and peer reviewed publications with the words " fringe physicist" or remove it. Please demonstrate that Santilli's publication in AIP, Springer Verlag, Open Astronomy , Nuovo Cimento, Plenum are fringe science of remove the word fringe. The article about Santilli says "is an Italian-American physicist and a proponent of ideas some of which have been called fringe scientific theories." Quite different from "Fringe scientist" as in the Oxyhydrogen page. What is wrong with saying " physicist Ruggero Santilli who is proponent of the HHO theory which is considered fringe by mainstream scientists" this is also supported by several publication with statements pros and con against his theory. Please explain why my proposed statement is not acceptable or support it with peer -reviewed sources" This was received with insults as you see above. Note the reply in the discussion page of Oxhyhydrogen. There are two people/editors/administrators who dominate the discussion and block what they do not like. Maybe they are sock puppets since they work very closely. A few other editors suggested changes to the articles using notable and peer-reviewed sources but they were all blocked as sock puppets. There are many people who know about Santilli or who agree with him. Are they all disqualified to write in the discussion page?. If peer-reviewed articles or legitimate sources are cited , are they disqualified because they are pointed out by somebody who is familiar or has studied his work? Why are these two editors so opposed to Santilli to avoid any rational discussion? Reussi (talk)ReussiReussi (talk) May 16, 2011
- On the contrary, you are the only one who considers Santilli being a "fringe scientist" as controversial, or different from "considered 'fringe' by mainstream scientists" or "proponent of theories considered 'fringe' by mainstream scientists". The question of whether the clearly sourced "proponent of ideas some of which have been called fringe scientific theories" and "proponent of theories considered fringe by mainstream scientists" (to use Reussi's words, above) are the same is open for review, but the rest of Reussi's comments are without referent to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- I have added in the reference from the main Ruggero Santilli article into Oxyhydrogen to back this statement. The reference states that mainstream scientists have called him that on more than one occasion and that his efforts to sue them because of it have failed in multiple court cases in more than one country. SteveBaker (talk) 01:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- User blocked, as a consistent Sock Puppeteer. So this is moot. Guyonthesubway (talk) 13:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- I have added in the reference from the main Ruggero Santilli article into Oxyhydrogen to back this statement. The reference states that mainstream scientists have called him that on more than one occasion and that his efforts to sue them because of it have failed in multiple court cases in more than one country. SteveBaker (talk) 01:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Luis González-Mestres
Luis González-Mestres (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I'd like to call your attention to this biography. The person is notable, I think, but the bio is vanispam totally lacking in secondary sources. I've trimmed a little bit of the content but don't want to go too far, especially since I've been accused of being on the take and having an involvement with the Bogdanov Affair. For this and more, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superbradyon (2nd nomination) and a discussion on ANI, which also shed light on the multitude of IPs editing the article.
I'd like some uninvolved editor to have a look and trim the article to propriety. Thank you in advance for your help. Drmies (talk) 17:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Andrew Bolt
Andrew Bolt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I'd like to alert editors to this biography. The majority of the article is based upon controversy and crticism of him, despite the fact he is Australia's most popular coloumnist and political blogger. The article even fails to mention his show, The Bolt Report. I would like an editor not involved and who has no bias to try and clean this up. I think the article is vitcim of WP:BIAS and fails WP:NPOV. Thanks, Jackthart (talk) 17:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Romana D'Annunzio- inaccurate information
Romana D'Annunzio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
To the administrator: The information concerning Romana D'Annunzio on this page is inaccurate. The section i am referring to is from R Marsden's book. The comment posted is his personal opinion and not the truth concerning Romana's time on Blue Peter. This is incorrect information from a book that was both unsuccessful nor well-written. Mr Marsden was asked to leave the show after the phone in scandal therefore the content is possibly in retaliation to his demise from a career in television. The information from his book should not be present on Romana's Wikipedia page, that is, if Wikipedia is based upon the 'unbiased' truth. If it remains than the whole ethos of this site is fake and unreliable. On many other celebrity sites, i have never seen a section from a book being posted onto the page in this way, so i can only deduce that the writer of the page has a grudge against or a dislike for this person and wishes to put a negative slant on her time there. I belive this is very unreasonable considering there is not right to reply. Therefore in light of my argument i am asking that it be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.17.178 (talk) 19:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- Trimmed - very large quote from a book. Off2riorob (talk) 21:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Kevin Coughlin
Kevin Coughlin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The article Kevin Coughlin has been repeatedly vandalized with libelous material. This calmed down for a year or so but on May 16, 2011 is started again. The same individual who vandalized the article before, {redacted} also vandalized two Facebook pages today.
I do not want to have a constant battle of vandalizing and deleting on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjcohio (talk • contribs) 20:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- This situation could really use some more eyes. The material added seems undue to me, with only slight sourcing. However, the two editors involved both appear to be editing from a conflict of interest, one on each side. Dayewalker (talk) 21:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yes. This has the potential of not being solved in the near future either. It is pretty clear that Kjcohio has a more than common interest in this article; it is equally clear that the undue weight issue is correctly signaled by Dayewalker. Protection will only prevent edits from one side in the current conflict. Eyes, in the long run, are required. Drmies (talk) 03:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
mojo gurus
- - Mojo Gurus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- - Roxx Gang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- - Kevin Steele (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) <incorrect link, this is about the football coach>
My name is Kevin Steele I am the singer for the Mojo Gurus and Was the singer for Roxx Gang. Both of our pages are incomplete and include gross errors and downright lies. I believe this is the work of a disgruntled ex member. My manager has tried to correct both entries only to be told that we are submitting slanted information when the exact opposite is true. Please help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.34.214 (talk) 22:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- Hi, Im too tired to dig out all the policies that refer here (and I only know like a quarter of them), but as I suspected the article is:
- unsourced
- [redacted late-night attempt at humour, misunderstood by another editor, let's just leave it at that, shall we?]
- in serious need of cleanup or deletion IMHO
- And, Mister Kevin Steele, thanks for posting, you are one of the rare persons to have understood Wikipedia - conflict of interest, maybe without even having read it, how's your ego now?
- Other editors, do your stuff, I'm off! CaptainScreebo Parley! 22:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, Mister Steele, your manager is being told he can't edit due to conflict of interest issues, probably. Neither can you, for that matter. You could open a discussion on each talk page asking other editors to correct the facts, but you will need to provide reliable sources. See here. Please note that blogs or MySpace pages are not useable, but if say Rolling Stone or some reputable local newspaper has ever printed articles about you, then please indicate this. CaptainScreebo Parley! 20:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- Captain Screebo is being a tad harsh. To be accurate; If the things in the article that you disagree with do not have reliable source references (a little blue number in square brackets that links to an acceptable third-part source document), then they can easily be deleted - and almost any experienced Wikipedia editor should be more than happy to do that for you. But if these things are referenced against reliable sources, then there is indeed nothing much that you or anyone else can do about it other than have the original source retract it's claims. I would encourage you to discuss it on the Talk: page of the article in question. SteveBaker (talk) 19:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Steve, okay having given the articles one or two cursory glances I think my reply was in order. I have just checked the view history for each of the two articles and you will see that there is COPYVIO going on, non-respect of NPOV, COI and so on, all by a user with the name User:Steele Management ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs), who apparently rewrites the whole article to suit the band's POV and then gets reverted. I would also say that the user name and their actions appear to violate WP:ORGNAME. As I said above the articles are unsourced, do the bands meet the criteria at WP:BAND? I doubt it, take a look at this google search for the band name, mojo gurus.
- So as I mentioned above looks like a good case for CSD (A7) or maybe just an AfD, other editors care to take a look and deal with the issues that they perceive? Thanks CaptainScreebo Parley! 20:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- I went to put a {{UsernameDiscussion}} template on Steele Management's talk page but the user has already been indefinitley blocked by other editors (promotion and agressive non-NPOV editing). So the question remains to delete or not to delete the articles in question? CaptainScreebo Parley! 20:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Please could somebody else try and take this on board, thanks, I am a bit all over the place, and theses are surely non-notable mentions? CaptainScreebo Parley! 02:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Julia Gomelskaya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The article clearly suffers from COI, lack of reliable sources, look at my resume, etc. I've removed a bunch of offending material, but it was restored I think three times by now. I'm tired of reverting, but the article cannot stand the way it is. I'm not even sure if the person is notable in the first place--I found a few hits, but not a whole lot. Thanks for your help and input. Drmies (talk) 01:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Ray Lewis
Ray Lewis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Section 4 titled Arrest for Murder uses speculative information and a testimony as factual information. References 25 specifically. The section suggest Ray Lewis is guilty and presents him in a negative light. The section should read like this:
Lewis gained infamy through his involvement in a much-publicized tragedy in Atlanta after Super Bowl XXXIV. Lewis, along with Reginald Oakley and Joseph Sweeting, were charged with two counts of murder and four other felony counts in the deaths of Richard Lollar and Jacinth Baker, after a street brawl left two young men dead outside a nightclub. [12][25]
On June 5, a plea bargain was struck, and murder and aggravated assault charges against Lewis were dropped in exchange for his testimony against his companions. He pled guilty to one count of obstruction of justice and was sentenced to a year of probation. NFL Commissioner Paul Tagliabue fined Lewis $250,000 for conduct detrimental to the league, a penalty aimed at the obstruction of justice. [12]
Lewis' testimony didn't help the prosecution in the four-week trial, which ended in acquittals for Oakley and Sweeting. [12]
The following year, Lewis was named Super Bowl XXXV MVP. However, the signature phrase "I'm going to Disney World!" was given instead by quarterback Trent Dilfer.
In 2004, Lewis reached a settlement compensating then four-year-old India Lollar, born months after the death of her father Richard, preempting a scheduled civil proceeding. Lewis also previously reached an undisclosed settlement with Baker's family. [28] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burnsy1627 (talk • contribs)
Farrhad Acidwalla
Farrhad Acidwalla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The report contains vague and falsified information about a minor with no reference links with evidence supporting the mentioned data. The page has been utilized only for self marketing purposes which is against the wikipedia alive persons page policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.195.111.207 (talk) 06:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- He doesn't appear to be wikipedia notable yet - only real claim is to be on a list of the top 25 internet entrepreneurs - which although should impressive I can't access it and I don't think it of any note. Seems to be mostly a twitter user. Perhaps WP:PROD it. Off2riorob (talk) 11:31, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Jonathan King
Jonathan King (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I added the category Category:British people convicted of child sexual abuse to the article. An editor reverted. The cat passes WP:BLPCAT. I'd like confirmation that the cat is within policy. Lionel (talk) 09:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- As a guess - the allegations and conviction are still under appeal - with some of them already refuted. Off2riorob (talk) 11:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- The edit placed King, convicted in 2001 of having had sex with several under-age teenagers in the 1980s, in the same category as Sidney Cooke, a pedophile and killer of one child, and possibly two; and Fred West, a serial killer. That would clearly be absurd. In addition, he maintains his innocence, and there is some sort of appeal to the European Court of Human Rights, though the sources have lost track of whether it's ongoing. Plus, the conviction was not relevant to his notability, which BLPCAT requires. All in all, a violation of (the spirit, if not the letter of) BLP, in my view. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 11:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- While I certainly hold no brief for Jonathan King in any way, I have to agree with SlimVirgin here. -- Alarics (talk) 14:16, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- What difference does it make with whom he shares the category? Fred West is also in Category:People convicted of theft, as are Winona Ryder and Claude Allen. By your reasoning we should also depopulate this cat because there is a serial killer is present. Anyway this cat isn't so bad, Gary Gliltter is there.
- Not relevant to his notability? Really? He has become something of a national spokesman for prison reform. He wrote Earth to King, and "released Vile Pervert: The Musical, which included 21 characters played by King, caricaturing the police, media, PR industry, legal system, and his accusers." This conviction changed his life, had a profound impact, attracted international attention and most certainly contributed to his notability.
- Most criminals claim innocence, and many, the ones with money anyway, are continuously in some stage of appealing or expunging their convictions. If the criteria was "not until all appeals have been exhausted" the only people we'd have in criminal cats would be dead. Well, that is not the criteria. BLPCAT is clear: "the conviction was not overturned on appeal." As of now, the conviction has not been overturned.
- If there is some "philosophical" rationale for not using this particular cat that's one thing. But there is absolutely no basis in policy for excluding this cat. The cat passes WP:BLPCAT and is fully within policy. IMO this is a case of WP:CENSOR and WP:DONTLIKE pure and simple. Lionel (talk) 19:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- He's not notable as a prison reformer. The fact that the conviction changed his life isn't a reason for including the category. There's already a lot (probably too much) of information on his conviction in the body of the article. I too believe the category should not be included.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- I honestly don't understand the arguments against including the category in this article. If the category is allowed at all in BLPs, then clearly it must be included in King's article: He is British and was convicted of child sexual abuse; how can there be any question at all about these facts? The rest is irrelevant noise; either the cat itself is legit and King fits it, or the category is disallowed in BLPs...it can't go both ways. Doc Tropics 20:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- WP:BLPCAT requires more than that for criminal categories: "Category:Criminals and its subcategories should only be added for an incident that is relevant to the person's notability." That's why.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- This incident is absolutely relevant to his notability. Most Google hits prominently refer to his conviction in the first sentence, e.g. "One of the less glamorous guests on the Croisette will be the disgraced pop producer Jonathan King..."[23] Google "'Jonathan King' conviction" and you'll get 648,000 hits. This relevance is borne out by reliable sources. Regarding the length of the section, it is incomplete and should be expanded. King was a member of a pedophile ring with Chris Denning[24]. This should be aded to the article. Lionel (talk) 22:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- Please take it easy with your accusations and either strike them or provide a reliable source that supports such extreme claims. Google-smoogle result returns numbers are valueless. I redacted it, feel free to reliably cite it and attribute to who is asserting this and replace. Off2riorob (talk) 00:14, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- This incident is absolutely relevant to his notability. Most Google hits prominently refer to his conviction in the first sentence, e.g. "One of the less glamorous guests on the Croisette will be the disgraced pop producer Jonathan King..."[23] Google "'Jonathan King' conviction" and you'll get 648,000 hits. This relevance is borne out by reliable sources. Regarding the length of the section, it is incomplete and should be expanded. King was a member of a pedophile ring with Chris Denning[24]. This should be aded to the article. Lionel (talk) 22:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- WP:BLPCAT requires more than that for criminal categories: "Category:Criminals and its subcategories should only be added for an incident that is relevant to the person's notability." That's why.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- I honestly don't understand the arguments against including the category in this article. If the category is allowed at all in BLPs, then clearly it must be included in King's article: He is British and was convicted of child sexual abuse; how can there be any question at all about these facts? The rest is irrelevant noise; either the cat itself is legit and King fits it, or the category is disallowed in BLPs...it can't go both ways. Doc Tropics 20:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- He's not notable as a prison reformer. The fact that the conviction changed his life isn't a reason for including the category. There's already a lot (probably too much) of information on his conviction in the body of the article. I too believe the category should not be included.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- While I certainly hold no brief for Jonathan King in any way, I have to agree with SlimVirgin here. -- Alarics (talk) 14:16, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- The edit placed King, convicted in 2001 of having had sex with several under-age teenagers in the 1980s, in the same category as Sidney Cooke, a pedophile and killer of one child, and possibly two; and Fred West, a serial killer. That would clearly be absurd. In addition, he maintains his innocence, and there is some sort of appeal to the European Court of Human Rights, though the sources have lost track of whether it's ongoing. Plus, the conviction was not relevant to his notability, which BLPCAT requires. All in all, a violation of (the spirit, if not the letter of) BLP, in my view. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 11:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- Lionel, you are confusing notability with "reported on a lot in the press". The two aren't the same. Even in the context of the body of the article, Wikipedia is not a newspaper, but the use of criminal categories is even more restrictive.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
"Police say he may have abused hundreds of boys over the past 30 years"[25] Well, if a member of a pedophile ring who abused hundreds of boys over a 30 year period doesn't get you the "child sexual abuse cat", nothing will! Lionel (talk) 02:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- Without commenting on whether he should be included, I would say it's obvious that a member of a paedophile ring who abused hundreds of boys over a 30 year period according to the police doesn't belong in the category of British people convicted of child sexual abuse if say he is murdered before any conviction. So what police say is not particularly relevent here. Nil Einne (talk) 03:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- He was convicted.Lionel (talk) 08:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- You're missing the point. He wasn't convicted of being a member of paedophile ring who abused hundreds of boys over a 30 year period. You yourself said that it was only a police accusation. Therefore it isn't of relevance in deciding whether he belongs in the category of 'British people convicted of child sexual abuse'. The same as us not placing something who wasn't convicted, but with potentially far more evidence then here of him being a member of a paedophile ring who abused hundred of boys over a 30 year period and a strong probability of conviction considered by anyone who analysed the case the only reason for no conviction either being because the person is dead or because the case is ongoing, in the category. In other words I'm being blunt. I think it obvious that if the category is of people convicted of something, what they may have done (or even definitely did according to all RS) but were never convicted of is not of particular relevance. So I don't see why we're even discussing this. Nil Einne (talk) 08:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- He was convicted.Lionel (talk) 08:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- Stereotyping with BLP categories is trouble: I dislike this notion of needing to "categorize" people in this manner, especially when considering "false confessions" and people framed by planting DNA (or more commonly drugs), then getting the police involved. Start by renaming the category:
- "Category:British people convicted (perhaps wrongly) of child sexual abuse"
- Until the Amanda Knox case, I had no idea someone could travel to Italy and be so-called "convicted" of murder and sexual assault when the coroner testified there was no certain evidence of assault, and no evidence of even being near the victim. Apparently, in Italy, all "early convictions" are subject to re-trial where 50%(?) are acquitted, but it might take 2-4 years of appearing "convicted" before a new verdict of "innocente" in Italy. Prior to that, the outrage was U.S. convictions for "pedophilia" because someone loaned a person that "Rob Lowe" celebrity sex tape with him as 17 years old. Please rename that category to include the disclaimer phrase "(perhaps wrongly)" within the category name. -Wikid77 05:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- I agree. The category is something of an attractive nuisance, in that people will insist on adding it just because it exists. It's a small category, so the existence of a name alongside Fred West's is very noticeable. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 08:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- The category should be abolished in any case. There is no such offence as "child sexual abuse". King was convicted of sexual assault on boys aged over 14, and it only counted legally as "assault" because they were under the age of consent, although only slightly under what the age of consent later became. There was no actual "assault": they were consenting sexual partners. Whether this constitutes what later came to be called "sexual abuse" (the phrase was not in use at the time of the offences) is debatable. As for "being a member of a paedophile ring", that sounds like the police talking it up for the benefit of tabloid press hysteria. It might just be that he happened to know Chris Denning, which someone in his then position would be quite likely to do anyway. If A knows B and C you can make it sound much worse by calling it a "ring". Wikipedia needs to avoid descending to the level of the gutter press. -- Alarics (talk) 14:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- There are many categories that are attractive nuisances. Criminal categories are just one example. There are the ethnic categories, the religion categories, the sexual orientation categories, and there are probably more categories of categories that could be considered attractive nuisances. These categories engender countless and often protracted discussion (argument) among editors. There's no real cause to eliminate this particular category. By that logic, we should eliminate all of them (something that wouldn't bother me personally). As for adding "perhaps wrongfully" to the category, that could be said for any conviction of anything - it shouldn't be added. In response to the consent issue, the idea is children below a certain age cannot effectively consent. Finally, I agree that police accusations are irrelevant and shouldn't even be included in the body of the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- But we don't put BLPs into sexual orientation or religion categories unless the subject has self-identified as such, so those are not comparable situations. The problem with a category called "People convicted of child sexual abuse" is that there no specific offence called, and therefore room for argument about what constitutes, "child sexual abuse". I suggest that if we have to have categories called "People convicted of ...." (which personally I don't see the need for), they should only be the names of precise offences in law. In the Jonathan King case this would be "people convicted of buggery and indecent assault". -- Alarics (talk) 15:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- They are comparable because all of these categories require that they be related to the subject's notability, and that often creates a huge debate. So, self-identify is like conviction, and both require the notability connection. The Jewish category is the worst because people endlessly debate whether it's even subject to BLPCAT (is it a religion? is it an ethnicity?).--Bbb23 (talk) 16:09, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- But we don't put BLPs into sexual orientation or religion categories unless the subject has self-identified as such, so those are not comparable situations. The problem with a category called "People convicted of child sexual abuse" is that there no specific offence called, and therefore room for argument about what constitutes, "child sexual abuse". I suggest that if we have to have categories called "People convicted of ...." (which personally I don't see the need for), they should only be the names of precise offences in law. In the Jonathan King case this would be "people convicted of buggery and indecent assault". -- Alarics (talk) 15:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Dan Adler
Dan Adler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This person's bio reads like an advertisement. Poorly sourced data, broken links can't even source a birthdate. Seems thrown together for the political campaign. Had to revert header tags for neutrality and spam as they were removed.
Maybe revise and mark as a stub until someone gets real info on him.--Cohen2011 (talk) 10:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- SPA repuffed (saying deadlinks and youtube are important, along with laundry list of celebs) - depuffed again. Please someone make sure the SPA whose only edits are to this article gets a clue. Collect (talk) 13:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
I cannot source a non campaign link to support the claim that his father was a holocaust survivor. One editor suggested leave a dead link, it's too sensitive of a claim to make. Please source the non campaign link or leave it removed. --Cohen2011 (talk) 20:39, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- Found it/repaired the external - Dan Adler, who organized the event in memory of his father, Auschwitz survivor Mayer Michael Adler - here - I also repaired a couple of other deadlinks. Off2riorob (talk) 21:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Anne Sinclair
Anne Sinclair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Could the community provide some help here? I am engaged in a discussion which will probably not be resolved without other users' input. Thank you. olivier (talk) 11:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Keith Vaz
Keith Vaz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Had problems with User:Miyagi2 blanking sections of this page as libelous - could do with someone looking over the whole of Section 4 to see what the referencing is like etc. Thanks. Mato (talk) 13:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- - trimmed the uncited and undue reporting of what turned out to be a minor issue. Off2riorob (talk) 13:18, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Israel Shamir
Israel Shamir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I've recently cleaned up and expanded Israel Shamir's entry somewhat to reduce the obvious NPOV and BLP issues, but there remain concerns that his extreme views on Judaism and Israel are not adequately and clearly presented. (As so often, the primary concern with these sort of people seems to be in justifying a label, not explaining what they believe and why. It may be very satisfying for editors, but it's not much use to readers.) The most egregious concern, though, is that after working through the available sources, the placement in Category:Holocaust deniers seems somewhat shaky. Whilst a number of sources make the claim, some of them are clearly based on misquotation, and others are opinion columns. Quite a few sources treat it as established fact, but none seem able to actually establish the fact, with reference to something the subject has said, whilst the subject himself contradicts it. Like the similarly controversial Gilad Atzmon, his concern about the Holocaust is with the use of the narrative (as he sees it), not with the historicity. So, can we improve the sourcing (ideally with something he said)... or what are we going to do? Rd232 talk 23:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- Well done for improving it - I doubt it will last very long. I took it off my watchlist long ago, it was just an attack article - hes not a holocaust denier at all - hes a one man one vote supporter and against Zionist extremists so they attack him with screams of holocaust denier. He complained to OTRS about falsehoods in his article last year. Off2riorob (talk) 00:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Note: With an additional good source, I've now removed Category:Holocaust deniers, as explained at Talk:Israel_Shamir#BLP_disaster. I expect those who helped make the article such a BLP disaster in the first place will object, so would appreciate new editors not previously involved (and especially editors not involved in the Israel/Palestine topic area) chipping in. Rd232 talk 01:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- If there are reliable sources claiming that Shamir has a reputation as a Holocaust denier, and there are, then the category is perfectly valid. Shamir is the kind of guy who thinks he's defending Holocaust denier David Irving against "Jewish mind-control on a world scale" - his exact words, although for some inexplicable reason you've decided to remove that particular quote from his entry. Goodwinsands (talk) 16:22, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- No its not - if some opinionated groups think Shamir is a (whatever?something) then add independent reliable sources and attribute those claims - that doesn't put him into the category. The living subject strongly denies it. Defending someone against what you think is Jewish mind control does not make you a holocaust denier.Off2riorob (talk) 16:25, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- It is not just "Zionist extremists" who describe Shamir as a holocaust denier. I could name dozens of anti-Zionist activists who share this assessment. I agree that this does not necessarily mean that it is accurate; but please don't mischaracterise the nature and politics of those who hold this opinion. RolandR (talk) 18:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- And it does not seem out of place to characterise as a holocaust denier someone who writes "I think it is every Muslim's and Christian's duty to deny the Holocaust". RolandR (talk) 18:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- That is what his opponents do - they take a comment out of context, that comment when read in the article it was written is not a denial of the Holocaust at all. Off2riorob (talk) 22:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- And it does not seem out of place to characterise as a holocaust denier someone who writes "I think it is every Muslim's and Christian's duty to deny the Holocaust". RolandR (talk) 18:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- It is not just "Zionist extremists" who describe Shamir as a holocaust denier. I could name dozens of anti-Zionist activists who share this assessment. I agree that this does not necessarily mean that it is accurate; but please don't mischaracterise the nature and politics of those who hold this opinion. RolandR (talk) 18:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- No its not - if some opinionated groups think Shamir is a (whatever?something) then add independent reliable sources and attribute those claims - that doesn't put him into the category. The living subject strongly denies it. Defending someone against what you think is Jewish mind control does not make you a holocaust denier.Off2riorob (talk) 16:25, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- If there are reliable sources claiming that Shamir has a reputation as a Holocaust denier, and there are, then the category is perfectly valid. Shamir is the kind of guy who thinks he's defending Holocaust denier David Irving against "Jewish mind-control on a world scale" - his exact words, although for some inexplicable reason you've decided to remove that particular quote from his entry. Goodwinsands (talk) 16:22, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Interested readers may find this from the archive of the relevant talk page informative: Talk:Israel_Shamir/Archive_4#Holocaust_denial_section_keeps_vanishing. This shows that there was indeed a clear, wide consensus that Shamir's page should indeed identify him as a Holocaust denier, despite one editor's repeated blanking of the information. That consensus should continue to be respected. I must also agree with Bob that it's simply wrong, utterly false, to characterize the attacks against Shamir as merely acts of "Zionist extremists," when those attacks come from the pages of The Guardian and organizations like Hope not Hate. The accusation of "Zionist extremism" seems purely politically motivated, uninformed, and seem designed to protect a Holocaust denier at all costs. Goodwinsands (talk) 19:25, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- Hope not hate are not the type of opinionated groups that we should allow to label anyone. I wouldn't even cite them they are simply the flip side of the people they oppose. Off2riorob (talk) 22:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, as the link I included above shows, that was your argument, and your argument was rejected by everyone who wasn't you. Goodwinsands (talk) 22:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- Controversial consensus claims supported by opinionated externals by their very nature do not last long. User:Rd:232 also objects to the label now. Why don't you use his comments in reliable externals to show when he denied the holocaust and how he did it. What part of the holocaust does he deny? Off2riorob (talk) 23:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, as the link I included above shows, that was your argument, and your argument was rejected by everyone who wasn't you. Goodwinsands (talk) 22:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Chris O'Connor
Chris O'Connor, singer for the alternative rock band Primitive Radio Gods, is alive and well. He was definitely NOT found dead in his appartment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.129.165.12 (talk) 02:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- I have removed the apparent vandalism [26] added by an IP belong to the US Army which has a contrib history suggesting it may be used by a school [27] [28] [29]. Feel free to do so yourself in the future. Nil Einne (talk) 03:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Requesting Admin. Arbitration for Tim Jones (politician)
Tim Jones (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hello, I hope I've posted this in the correct place. I'm requesting help with an ongoing editing conflict between myself and BlackOpsMo regarding content of Wiki Tim Jones (politician). The crux of the matter is the inclusion about Mr. Jones participation in a "birther" lawsuit. BlackOpsMo has repeatedly removed all content from pertaining to it from the Wiki, as well as rewritten the article multiple times adding problematic (NPOV, Peacock) materiel. I have asked them numerous times for discussion, tried to avoid edit warring, and asked them to participate in aribtration. They do not respond, and further, have taken to even deleting my warnings/requests from their usertalk page. The Tim Jones Wiki is the only activity they partake in here on Wikipedia, leading me to believe that they are acting on the behest of Mr. Jones -- either a staff member, family/friend, or Jones himself. I have to the best of my ability taken a neutral point of view, provided reliable resources and quotes from Mr. Jones himself. In fact if it matters I'm even a Missouri Republican like Mr. Jones, but I place truth above ideology or party loyalty. As Joe Friday in Dragnet would say, Wikipedia should be "just the facts, ma'am". I'm very willing to abide by whatever decision the arbiter might make on this issue, I only hope BlackOpsMo will as well. Thanks for your help! Sector001 (talk) 03:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Sergio Ramos
Sergio Ramos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Under Personal Life, this is listed: "Sergio is currently married to English journalist Elle Disley. They couple live together in Madrid and have been dating since 2007."
Sergio Ramos is unmarried - he is a public figure and this is a well known fact (up until last month he was dating Spanish TV presenter Lara Alvarez). If you Google this Elle Disley person, you will find that she is a 16 year old English blogger. Please remove this incorrect information.
Google examples below:
Mar 5th 31815 notes - Elle Disley.
Mar 5, 2011 ... im elle, im 16, and i live in Liverpool, england. i support real madrid & words cannot describe my love(L) i watch alot of football ... ellegore.tumblr.com/post/3667489453
Elle Disley.
Elle Disley. Hala Madrid! Elle Disley. Untitled ... im elle, im 16, and i live in england. my blog posts speak louder than words. ellegore.tumblr.com/post/.../tight-shirt-look-pretty-on-you - Cached —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canederli (talk • contribs) 03:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- I have removed the entire section. While this may or may not be just a misunderstanding, it was completely unsourced, and is contentious at least in as much as you have concerns with it. Maybe someone can come up with a reference or two... or maybe it was a nasty piece of vandalism. Please let us know of any other similar concerns. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- The same user has added exactly the same information back into the article. I've reverted this again and issued a final warning to follow up from Rob's previous level 2 warning. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Ryan Giggs
Ryan Giggs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Ryan Giggs and sources he has obtained a Super Injunction
I would like third party input on the restrictions imposed by one editor (User:Ianmacm) at Talk:Ryan Giggs on the use of non-english sources on Ryan Giggs. There have been a number of sources including Sina.com that have reported that Ryan Giggs is the UK footballer that obtained a Super Injunction keeping his name out of a sex scandal involving model Imogen Thomas. However User:Ianmacm has insisted that “Realistically, a mainstream English language source is going to have to break the super-injunction for it to be reliable enough information to go into the article.” (here). This seams at odds with WP:WELLKNOWN. VERTott 08:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- I have tried hard to uphold WP:BLP here and explained the reasoning behind the edits. Further input is welcome.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- I would take great care with this issue as there were reports on twitter that were false and can easily get repeated in lowish quality sources. I don't support using that particular external as a reason to support UK injunction busting claims - If there was a real quality external I would reconsider. What that expression - exceptional citations for extraordinary claims or something like that. WP:Notnews would be more relevant in this case than WP:Wellknown and remove "poorly sourced contentious material" - WP:BLP - It looks like looking around some press outlets are commenting on these super injunctions so the whole affair could well be unraveling...but we have no reason to be a part of the unraveling, no reason to be at the front of this breaking news, breaking injunctions issue. Lets allow it to play out and see if/how it unravels. Off2riorob (talk) 08:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- (repeated edit conflicts) since this is looking like a quality of source issue, I have posted a note on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard asking for comments here. VERTott 09:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- I think its a bit simplistic to suggest its only a WP:RS issue. Off2riorob (talk) 09:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- That was what I read into your first comment (see here) VERTott 09:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yes - if there was a "real quality external I would reconsider" - but clearly this external wouldn't clear that hurdle. http://news.sina.com.hk/news/12/1/1/2332415/1.html%20sina.com.hk - Off2riorob (talk) 09:25, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- There is WP:NORUSH. Super-injunctions are becoming politically controversial in the UK, and some of the current injunctions are tottering but have not collapsed yet. See also Jimbo on this issue at [30].--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yes - if there was a "real quality external I would reconsider" - but clearly this external wouldn't clear that hurdle. http://news.sina.com.hk/news/12/1/1/2332415/1.html%20sina.com.hk - Off2riorob (talk) 09:25, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- That was what I read into your first comment (see here) VERTott 09:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- I think its a bit simplistic to suggest its only a WP:RS issue. Off2riorob (talk) 09:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- (repeated edit conflicts) since this is looking like a quality of source issue, I have posted a note on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard asking for comments here. VERTott 09:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- I would take great care with this issue as there were reports on twitter that were false and can easily get repeated in lowish quality sources. I don't support using that particular external as a reason to support UK injunction busting claims - If there was a real quality external I would reconsider. What that expression - exceptional citations for extraordinary claims or something like that. WP:Notnews would be more relevant in this case than WP:Wellknown and remove "poorly sourced contentious material" - WP:BLP - It looks like looking around some press outlets are commenting on these super injunctions so the whole affair could well be unraveling...but we have no reason to be a part of the unraveling, no reason to be at the front of this breaking news, breaking injunctions issue. Lets allow it to play out and see if/how it unravels. Off2riorob (talk) 08:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Harry Cook
Harry Cook (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Report above from a couple of days ago Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Harry Cook
A new user is repeatedly adding a comment with BLP issues into the lede of the article - My position is the cited to such a minor publication that the content as yet should not be inserted. I have asked him to move to discussion and seek support but the user has simply started repeatedly inserting without discussion. There is some talkpage discussion here Talk:Harry Cook#Harry Cook facing 7 charges of sexual assault - Hexham Courant report now online - and he has replaced it again , not in the lede this time but the content is currently in the article.I was a little dubious considering the allegations that as the citation is a single local minor publication that wikipedia would become the primary vehicle for the allegations and also that the external has the subjects personal address in. Off2riorob (talk) 10:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Phillip Arnold Paul
Phillip Arnold Paul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article seems to be written in the first person by the subject, who is a schizophrenic murderer. The wording of the article is extremely biased, disjointed, and is in no way a factual account. The article is an incoherent rant about drug treatment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crisw (talk • contribs) 14:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- I've trimmed out what seemed to be a misplaced essay about his case. The article could still do with some more tidying up. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Environmental Defense Fund
Environmental Defense Fund (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
An editor is repeatedly reinserting a potentially defamatory quotation questionably attributed to Dr. Charles Wurster, a founding trustee of the EDF. Wurster is still living and denies making the comment. To me, that alone would be grounds for removal of the quotation based on the biographies of living persons policy.
The secondary sources to which this editor refers for corroboration trace the quote back to EDF cofounder Victor Yannacone, who was either dismissed (if you believe Wurster) or resigned (if you believe Yannacone). There is no source other than Yannacone that can corroborate Wurster's having made this comment. Some of the secondary sources are also clearly partisan (e.g., Horner, Christopher (2007). The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism. Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, Inc.)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by EAHull (talk • contribs) 16:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- This is troubling. A disputed, inflammatory quote shouldn't be sourced to such dubious, partisan sources. Gamaliel (talk) 17:05, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thats not an entirely accurate summation of the sources used for the material. The three sources are as follows:
- The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism by Christopher Horner
- Bountiful harvest: technology, food safety, and the environment by Thomas Thomas
- Rational Readings on Environmental Concerns by Jay Lehr
- I also cannot find any mention of the quote being disputed. ZHurlihee (talk) 17:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- It is accurate when the sources are published by the fringe publisher Regenery and the right-wing Cato Institute. That's not much to attribute an extremely inflammatory quote to a living individual who apparently denies it. Gamaliel (talk) 17:30, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for the reply. Regenery hardly qualifies as a WP:FRINGE publishing group and while Cato most certainly has an ideological mission statement, that does not automatically disqualify them as a source does it? Then there is the third source, Lehr's book. Are all of these sources deemed not reliable just because a perceived point of view? If that is the case, a great deal of content from all Wikipedia articles would be left on the cutting room floor.
- Additionally, I have not read any WP:RS where he disputes the quote and I have found a number of citations on google scholar as well as from a congressional hearing that also attribute this quote to Wurster. ZHurlihee (talk) 17:38, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- I looked at the first source on Google Books, the book from fringe publisher Regenery. The quote only appears as a pull quote on one of two cited pages and provides no context and spells his name wrong. It cites a book called Toxic Terror. I looked at that on Amazon books and it cites only "remarks by J. Gordon Edwards" at some conference. According to the Wikipedia article on Edwards, he is associated with the Lyndon LaRouche Movement. This is pretty thin stuff, source wise. You can think Regenery (who brought us the error-filled hatchet job Unfit for Command) is the most honest, reputable publisher on Earth and this would still be pretty thin stuff to hang such an inflammatory quote on a BLP. Gamaliel (talk) 17:47, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- I went to WP:RSN and carefully read WP:FRINGE and there is no mention of Regenery anywhere. Is your statement that Regenery is WP:FRINGE supported by some consensus or is it purely your own personal belief? What are your opinions on the other two sources cited in the article as well as the other links I provided? ZHurlihee (talk) 18:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- Regarding your edit to your comments adding google links and such. A lot of people have repeated the quote, and just because it makes it into a book somewhere doesn't mean it passes the BLP test automatically. Most of these are repetitions which can be traced back to what is essentially hearsay testimony. One of the sources says he said it in front of a reporter, supposedly. So where is that news report? Gamaliel (talk) 18:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- The language, as I left it, clearly states that the remark was made in front of Victor Yannaconne. Is Yannaconne not a reliable source for this? ZHurlihee (talk) 18:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- According to the first EL in the WP article, "Yannacone was deemed a poor team player and some saw him as an abrasive egomaniac. He was fired after just one year at the EDF." So I have some reservations about citing comments he may or may not have made about something someone else many or may not have said when that someone else is a founder of the organization that fired him. I don't know what the backstory of all of this is and I've never heard of these people until today, but this is all an untrustworthy morass and we shouldn't be using it to attribute inflammatory quotes to living people. That's the kind of thing BLP is designed to prevent - office backstabbing and third-hand accounts getting into an encyclopedia. Gamaliel (talk) 18:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- See another decidedly partisan source, John Berlau's Eco-Freaks: Environmentalism is hazardous to your health! (p. 36, available on Google books) for an account of the Wurster-Yannacone schism, which includes a reference to Wurster disputing the quote in a letter to the House Committee. (The Congressional testimony was Yannacone's). This seems a straightforward "he said, he said" situation. If Yannacone was indeed fired, he would have powerful motivation for smearing Wurster by attributing this highly inflammatory quote to him. The original source for the quotation is unreliable and it should be removed. --EAHull (talk) 18:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- I agree, he is an aggrieved partisan person claiming a controversial unconfirmed position and the subject denies it. Off2riorob (talk) 18:30, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- The Berlau book seems like a more even-handed, reliable account of this incident. I would have less of a problem using this as a source for more neutral edit, but the EDF article is so short there would of course be weight concerns. Gamaliel (talk) 18:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- See another decidedly partisan source, John Berlau's Eco-Freaks: Environmentalism is hazardous to your health! (p. 36, available on Google books) for an account of the Wurster-Yannacone schism, which includes a reference to Wurster disputing the quote in a letter to the House Committee. (The Congressional testimony was Yannacone's). This seems a straightforward "he said, he said" situation. If Yannacone was indeed fired, he would have powerful motivation for smearing Wurster by attributing this highly inflammatory quote to him. The original source for the quotation is unreliable and it should be removed. --EAHull (talk) 18:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Andrew Bolt
Andrew Bolt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I'd like to alert editors to this biography. The majority of the article is based upon controversy and crticism of him, despite the fact he is Australia's most popular coloumnist and political blogger. The article even fails to mention his show, The Bolt Report. I would like an editor not involved and who has no bias to try and clean this up. I think the article is vitcim of WP:BIAS and fails WP:NPOV. Thanks,Jackthart (talk) 16:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- I would agree, but I wouldnt even know how to go about cleaning it up without deleting the material. ZHurlihee (talk) 20:07, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Romana D'Annunzio
Romana D'Annunzio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Romana D'Annunzio - INNACURATE AND BIASED INFORMATION
- Previous thread from a couple of days ago Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Romana D.27Annunzio- inaccurate information
Hi, i received an email that stated the inaccurate quote had been 'trimmed' from Miss D'Annunzio's page. I am afraid to say that this has not been carried out. The quotation still appears in its entirety. This information from Mr Marsden autobiography is not fact and should not be a part of Miss D'Annunzio's wikipedia page. This has been written by a man who had obviously not done appropriate or full research. I have not seen this kind of insert from a work of 'fiction' in any other presenters Wikipedia page. If this is not removed it will be a matter that will be taken further owing to the defamatory and false comments from a book that is in no way comparable to the truth of Miss D'Annunzio's career on Blue Peter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.22.127 (talk) 19:59, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- If you can cite the specific quote you are concerned with I can try and take a look at it.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- I trimmed about nine tenths of the quote a couple of days ago.diff..If someone wants to remove the rest I wouldn't have an objection - I left the last tenth so as not to completely whitewash the biography. Off2riorob (talk) 22:09, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Producer Richard Marson was less than complimentary about D'Annunzio's time on the program, and wrote "When the inevitable request for Romana to take part in a pantomime, something we usually refused, I let her go."[1]
As I couldn't google foo this book content and it is a bit attacking I have removed the last of it. Off2riorob (talk) 22:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- update - a user User:Nomoskedasticity has replaced it with the edit summary of "his edit directly violates the part of WP:RS that says sources do not have to be available on-line" - I don't know if he has verified the content himself. - Off2riorob (talk) 22:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Karen Armstrong
Karen Armstrong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Two related issues in this BLP article.
- Is it a BLP issue to include disproportionate amounts of negative criticism, largely from self-published (whether by an individual/think tank/non-RS website, but not by a legitimate RS newspaper or journal) sources?
- Is it a BLP issue for the critic if we misrepresent their piece as criticism of Armstrong when it has nothing to do with her except for the one cherry-picked quote that appears in the article, as in this lecture by James M. Powell and this article by Sam Harris?Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, the WP:NPOV policy applies to BLP's as you obviously know. If you can give us the exact text that concerns you and where it is located in the article perhaps an uninvolved editor can take a look at it and give some feedback.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- The text in question:
- Self-published:
- Daniel Pipes criticized her book, Islam: A Short History, as "foully dishonest," containing "factual inaccuracies" and engaging in "moral relativism". (formerly sourced to Daniel Pipes's personal blog, now sourced to a publication of the Middle East Forum, a right-wing think tank founded and led by Pipes)
- Thomas Madden criticized her book Holy War: The Crusades and Their Impact on Today’s World as "largely an exercise in modern left-wing rhetoric about sensitivity, tolerance, and the evils of Western civilization" (sourced to the Hudson Institute, another conservative think tank)
- Misrepresentation of the sources as mainly criticism of Armstrong:
- An article by Sam Harris in the Huffington Post criticized Armstrong as an example of a Western scholar who lives in a world of "political correctness and religious apology" in obfuscating the problematic issues of Islam (the quote in context actually runs "the point is that Islamists themselves acknowledge and demonstrate this connection at every opportunity and to deny it is to retreat within a fantasy world of political correctness and religious apology. Many western scholars, like the much admired Karen Armstrong, appear to live in just such a place." This is the only reference to Armstrong in a 3,000 word article on Muslims.)
- Regarding Armstrong's writing on the Crusades, a lecture by the late professor James M. Powell of Syracuse University called Armstrong's The New York Times Magazine article The Crusades Even Now as following "more in the tradition of a moral sermon than an effort to understand the past" (the lecture is 6,000 words long and is about the Crusades; this is the only reference to Armstrong)
- Other pieces of coatrack-y self-published criticism have been removed or eventually cited to real sources, but if they are restored by the user who insists on adding these, I'll bring them up here as well. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- Other pieces of coatrack-y self-published criticism have been removed or eventually cited to real sources, but if they are restored by the user who insists on adding these, I'll bring them up here as well. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- Sure. All this sanctimony about SPS violating Wikipedia guideline is just that: sanctimony. If people go to the talkpage, they'll see that I've made the point that think-tanks aren't classified as self-published sources (and there's good reason to think that too, if you start suggesting that think-tanks qualify as SPSs, then it's hard to see why that shouldn't be applied to every other type of Wikipedia source like books or newspapers). You'll also find that the user apparently has no problem with SPSs, especially when I raised to the user the issue of the works of Media Matters (a think-tank which, according to her view, classifies as SPSs) being cited on Daniel Pipes's page (to which her response was...OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) and the work in a political blog by the name of IslamToday that had no independent evidence of the work ever existing (to which her response was to ask me that to provide evidence that it did not exist...despite the fact that WP:BLP says, "The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material."
- As for the word count, so what? How does that disprove the fact that the authors made the criticisms of Armstrong? How does it also subtract the relevance of cited paragraphs to the larger point the authors make in their articles?Sleetman (talk) 20:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- User:Sleetman is clearly on a crusade to smear Armstrong. One would think his recent experiences would make him more careful about this kind of editing... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- I am smearing Armstrong....how? Because you say-so? Do you have anything to contribute to the current dispute at hand (i.e. the reliability of sources currently in dispute)?Sleetman (talk) 20:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- I do say so -- and NW says so and a few others on the article talk page as well. I would encourage other editors to keep a close eye on this article (and perhaps on this editor's other contributions). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- Again, sir, do you have anything more than heresay to prove that I have an agenda to smear Armstrong? (I guess you missed my immediate edit after NW's, where I write that I'm not out on an agenda to smear Armstrong [31]) So much for double-standards and keeping a close eye on my contributions.
- Now putting that red herring aside, do you have anything to contribute to this debate regarding the reliability of the sources critical of Armstrong?Sleetman (talk) 21:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- I do say so -- and NW says so and a few others on the article talk page as well. I would encourage other editors to keep a close eye on this article (and perhaps on this editor's other contributions). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- I am smearing Armstrong....how? Because you say-so? Do you have anything to contribute to the current dispute at hand (i.e. the reliability of sources currently in dispute)?Sleetman (talk) 20:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Vyjayanthimala and conventions regarding use of surnames in articles
Vyjayanthimala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) How do you deal with a situation like Vyjayanthimala. We may have patrynomics rather than surnames involved. And then we have a woman who made her mark before she got married, but when she did get married she changed her name to that of her husband, so referring to her work prior to her marriage by her married surname doesnt seem right.... I am at a loss. (in addition, the article seems to have been heavily edited by a fan who is not always within the NPOV presentation, so if anyone is familiar and wants to do some clean up)Active Banana (bananaphone 21:06, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- I've seen articles with worse fan POV but this one also qualifies for some fan pov clean up. I have place a Fan POV tag on the article, commented on the talk page and edited the first part of the lead for puffery. I hope that helps. Cheers.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:43, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- (thank you, and indeed I have seen many worse fanpages as well!) But as far as the main question, how do you refer to a woman whose accomplishments happened before she married and changed her name? Using two names for two parts of the article seems really awkward, but using the married name for work she did before getting married seems wrong too (and for editors not overly familiar might complicate their ability to fact check if they are looking for a different name) Active Banana (bananaphone 22:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- Fortunately, the article is mostly organized by chronology, which makes it easier. The proper thing is to refer to her in each period with the name name by which she was known. The transition can be marked in the text, with something like "After her marriage she acted under her married name, XY." Both names should appear in the lead. A common example is the American boxer who became famous as Cassius Clay, but changed his name to Muhammed Ali. The article refers to him as "Clay" in his early life and as "Ali" in his later life. Will Beback talk 22:30, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- Will Beback has it right. Both names should be explained in an article's lead section. The name used by contemporaneous reliable sources to describe the person in each phase of their life should also be used in a Wikipedia biography to describe their activities during that time period. The body of the article should note the name change again at the point in the chronology when the change took place, along with the reason for the change, if discussed by reliable sources. Cullen328 (talk) 05:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Charice Pempengco
Charice Pempengco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Charice Pempengco discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There are separate pages for this article and the relevant discography at Charice Pempengco discography, although there does not seem to be enough relevant detail to justify two articles. There seems to have been a debate started on a merger proposal, but rather than a rational discussion, it appears some users steamrollered the initial proposal. Do this really merit two separate pages? I would add a merger proposal but judging by the comments on the talk page, that wouldn't resolve the issue. 86.131.2.12 (talk) 21:59, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Rommel Banlaoi
Rommel Banlaoi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) With the flood of new accounts editing this article, circular references, and contentious nature of the new BLP, I think it could stand to have a few other editors look at it. I am not sure what's going on, but something seems, well, off about it. VQuakr (talk) 07:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the report. I had a look and it seems harmless enough, promo involved contributors with not much wiki experience. A bit bloated already and primary supports and circular citations, but he might likely pass WP:GNG - clearly passes WP:PROD level. From my experience in such situations its good to just leave them to it and wikify it up when they have quietened dowm. Nothing contentious in the content as I can see. Off2riorob (talk) 09:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Tra Telligman
Tra Telligman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Plagarism: Material appears to be copied from another website/source. Poorly formatted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.30.146.161 (talk) 12:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- Seems it had just got miss formatted - Replaced a decent version. Off2riorob (talk) 13:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Leonard Jacobson
Leonard Jacobson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This biography seems to me to be pure guru advertising. He or whoever wrote the article is trying to sell Jacobson's books, published by a vanity press, his workshops. <ARRust (talk) 13:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)>
- Yes, pure promotional - he looks notable though, won a couple of peace awards and written a few books - though perhaps not enough independent reliable reports about him to survive an AFD. Its been tagged as a speedy delete A7 - lets see how that goes. The article has existed since 7 May 2007 so four years of existence is not very speedy is it.Off2riorob (talk) 13:16, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- Note I have decline the A7 deletion; there is enough importance asserted to make the A7 criteria inapplicable in this case. If there are concerns over the legitimacy of the assertions with regards to notability, I would suggest beginning an AfD. As it reads now the article is very heavily weighted towards the promotional, and the sourcing is less than ideal. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 20:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Lars von Trier
Lars von Trier (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
There has been a lot of activity on the Lars von Trier article in the last day, following his controversial comments at the Cannes film festival. There have been edits trying to present his comments as fact or as a self-admission, or not including enough context ([32][33][34][35][36]), which are being added despite talk page discussion (here and here). My initial reaction was that semi-protection would be a good idea until the news reports have died down, but then three out of the five linked edits were sourced, and they mostly appear to be made in good faith, so it looks like it might not qualify for protection. I would appreciate your advice on how to proceed. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 14:31, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- Since writing this I see that von Trier's comments have led to him being banned from the Cannes film festival, which makes this more notable and probably worthy of inclusion. So this might be a non-issue unless there is more obvious vandalism to the article. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 15:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Jerry Seinfeld - Scientologist?
- Jerry Seinfeld (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of Scientologists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There appears to have been a discussion on Talk:Jerry Seinfeld about whether or not to label Jerry Seinfeld as a Scientologist. While Seinfeld seems to have been open about having taken Scientology courses, he does not seem to have self-identified as a Scientologist. In fact, our article currently says "He has denied ever being formally a member of the church...", yet includes him in Category:Former Scientologists. He is also listed on List of Scientologists as a former Scientologist.
WP:BLPCAT is quite clear that to be included in lists and categories "unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question". (I have added emphasis for those editors who cannot tell the difference between the subject publicly self-identifying and the author of a biography claiming that Seinfeld told friends he was a Scientologist.) Sorry to bring yet another Scientology-related BLP problem here, but it seems to be an area in which clear policies continue to be ignored by a small set of editors. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:56, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- You've created a needlessly inflammatory post here. No-one is "labelling [him] as a Scientologist". Very poorly done. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- Can you suggest an alternate word? Also, please do not put quotes around things I have not written. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- The issue of the category hasn't come up at the talk page, so I'm not sure who is being accused of ignoring policy or why this wasn't brought there first. Will Beback talk 20:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- Will, you commented in a recent discussion on proposed changes to WP:BLPCAT, so I assume you are familiar with it. Even if the specific question of category was not raised on the Seinfeld talk page, that discussion also encompasses List of Scientologists. WP:BLPCAT is explicitly about sexual orientation and religious beliefs in regard to lists and categories, so when discussing the inclusion of someone's BLP in a list based on religious belief, it would seem obvious that BLPCAT should be observed. As for why I didn't bring the issue to that talk page, the single edit I made to the BLP of someone who is not in any Scientology categories earned me a warning under WP:ARBSCI so I do not edit even the talk pages of Scientology-related articles. Also, having observed the discussion, I felt more eyes would be useful. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- In what way, even if he were a Hubbardista, is it relevant? Is his notability in any way contingent on Hubbardista status? If not kill the CAT. John lilburne (talk) 20:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- There's no requirement that his notability be "contingent on" his involvement with Scientology -- only that it be relevant to it. The available sources demonstrate the relevance. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- Really 'cos there are a whole load of admins and others over at the DSK and Anne Sinclair articles removing religious cats and labels, that the Jew baiters want adding. Now I'm pretty sure that what is being said over there is "self identification' and WP:RS for why their religion is part of the notability. John lilburne (talk) 20:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- There's no requirement that his notability be "contingent on" his involvement with Scientology -- only that it be relevant to it. The available sources demonstrate the relevance. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm not very familiar with the ins and outs of Scientology. It sounds like the principle activity is attending classes. Seinfeld says he attended Scientology classes, and that the lessons he learned there were valuable to his comedy career and that he still uses them. How do we define "Scientologist" - is it someone who has attended Scientology classes? Someone who's reached a certain level within the organization? Beats me. Will Beback talk 22:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- I'd suggest it should be the same way that we define "Roman Catholic" or "Baptist" or "Zen Buddhist", i.e., that the person self-identifies as being a member of that particular faith group in their own words as reported by a reliable source. Attending courses offered by a particular faith would not be sufficient; my friendly neighbourhood Lutheran church offers courses as well (for which they charge a fee), and the minister tells me that over 70% of the attendees do not adhere to that faith. Risker (talk) 22:47, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- Agree with Risker. --JN466 23:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yup. Policy (WP:BLPCAT) is quite clear over this. If Seinfeld doesn't say he is a Scientologist, we don't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- And I'd agree too. And if Seinfeld doesn't say that he was a Scientologist (as in former) then we don't either. Lots of people go to a few classes, places of worship, political meetings etc. It doesn't mean they have signed up and joined the cause. And in this case, I gather Seinfeld has specifically stated that he didn't sign up. --Slp1 (talk) 01:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Evgeny Artyukhin
Evgeny Artyukhin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article contains false and insulting information about Evgeny Artyukhin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilyana88 (talk • contribs) 22:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for raising this issue. I have removed some material from the article because it was negative, disputed, about a living person, and the references provided were either poor, non-existent, or did not support the statements made. Please be more specific about any other material in the article that you feel is not correct. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Marisol Deluna
Marisol Deluna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I believe this article needs to be deleted as the subject does not meet Wikipedia's notoriety standards. At the very least, it needs a lot of work since most of the article reads like a self-promotional vanity piece written by the suject herself. Every edit gets reversed within hours (sometimes minutes) even when I know the information I am editing is correct and an improvement on what is currently written. There are also almost no outside sources or citations to any of the information contained in the article. Almost none of the information in the biography is verifiable or even knowable unless it had been written either by the subject herself or a close family member. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aa1232011 (talk • contribs) 22:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree that it's very self-promotional and has no citations to any of the information. It's also heavy on the name dropping and as previously mentioned, no outside sources to verify anything written in it. I'm especially curious about the list of people who have allegedly worn her designs. It sounds like an impressive list but no photos, articles, or mention anywhere online of where her designs are sold? Very strange.