NorthBySouthBaranof (talk | contribs) |
Sophiedookh (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 393: | Line 393: | ||
::You made [[WP:BOLD|bold]] changes to the article. I made [[WP:BOLD|bold]] changes to your changes, in an effort to improve them and make them conform to the sources. Rather than continue engaging in good-faith back-and-forth editing, you just undid all my edits. What does that tell me? That you're not interested in editorial engagement, but simply making the article conform to your POV. In my mind, that makes all of your edits suspect. So I reverted them in return. |
::You made [[WP:BOLD|bold]] changes to the article. I made [[WP:BOLD|bold]] changes to your changes, in an effort to improve them and make them conform to the sources. Rather than continue engaging in good-faith back-and-forth editing, you just undid all my edits. What does that tell me? That you're not interested in editorial engagement, but simply making the article conform to your POV. In my mind, that makes all of your edits suspect. So I reverted them in return. |
||
::You can hardly argue that it's somehow fair and justifiable for you to revert my edits but unfair and unjustifiable for me to revert your edits. Well, I suppose you can argue it, but nobody is likely to buy it. It amounts to "I get to edit this article, you don't." And that's not how Wikipedia works. [[User:NorthBySouthBaranof|NorthBySouthBaranof]] ([[User talk:NorthBySouthBaranof|talk]]) 05:29, 13 September 2014 (UTC) |
::You can hardly argue that it's somehow fair and justifiable for you to revert my edits but unfair and unjustifiable for me to revert your edits. Well, I suppose you can argue it, but nobody is likely to buy it. It amounts to "I get to edit this article, you don't." And that's not how Wikipedia works. [[User:NorthBySouthBaranof|NorthBySouthBaranof]] ([[User talk:NorthBySouthBaranof|talk]]) 05:29, 13 September 2014 (UTC) |
||
== Irene Caesar == |
|||
This article about a Russian "conceptual artist" is seeing some energetic back-and-forth editing, and, I think, would benefit from some scrutiny by BLP-experienced editors. --[[User:Arxiloxos|Arxiloxos]] ([[User talk:Arxiloxos|talk]]) 00:19, 13 September 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 07:19, 13 September 2014
Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here. | ||
---|---|---|
This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input. Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem.
Additional notes:
| ||
Requesting advice on Will Hayden
Will Hayden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Up until the last couple days, Will Hayden was solely notable as a cable reality TV personality on one show, Sons of Guns. Today, TMZ ran an article about an arrest (which has since been added to the article, though with slightly better sourcing), which I believe brings this article within the ambit of WP:BLPCRIME. I had redirected it today, and was reverted by the article creator (who left a note on my user talk). I'm reasonably certain that an AfD would have resulted in redirect prior to the arrest, and I don't think the arrest should change that per BLPCRIME. But since I'd rather not edit war over the redirect, and there's every chance I'm wrong, I'd appreciate some outside input from those more familiar with BLP than me. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 17:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- WP:BLPCRIME relates to people who have articles written about them specifically because of the crime they are suspected of. In other words, the suspected crime is why they're notable. Will Hayden was notable for being the star of Sons of Guns - a national prime time cable TV show. Him having an article is no different than all the people who were on Jersey Shore, Pawn Stars, American Pickers, etc. who have had articles written about them. They all fit WP:BLP standards. It would have been different if Hayden was just some guy off the street who got arrested, and somebody wrote an article about him - then you'd have a case about non-notability. But Hayden had already been established as a TV personality long before he got arrested, and the article had long been written before news of the arrest came out. Vjmlhds (talk) 17:44, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- If anyone is "reasonably certain that an AfD would have resulted in redirect prior to the arrest," then it could go to AFD, but stars of TV shows have often been found to be notable in AFD, since they often have multiple independent and reliable sources with significant coverage. It is not the general practice at Wikipedia to eliminate an existing article just because the subject is charged with a crime, as might be the practice in the UK under their "sub judice" practice. It would be a good idea to monitor both his article and the show article for vandalism and BLP violations. Both articles could be semi-protected if problems arise. A foreseeable problem is how specifically the alleged 11 year old victim can be identified in either article. Edison (talk) 19:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- It's long been my understanding that going to AfD intending for the outcome to be a redirect is considered inappropriate. If that's changed in recent years, I'd be interested to know. But I'll be the first to admit I could be incorrect about this. In the meantime, I think this article needs more eyes: some of the details of the alleged crime as reported by TMZ and the NY Post have been added to the article, including the probable identity of the alleged victim. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 22:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- It's called a 'Blank and redirect', and per WP:BLAR, it should be submitted to afd is editors cannot find consensus on whether it's safe to do so. Though I also think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of notability. It's not temporary, as long as the person meets the WP:GNG, an arrest or conviction doesn't simply make them 'non-notable' anymore. Tutelary (talk) 16:15, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- It's long been my understanding that going to AfD intending for the outcome to be a redirect is considered inappropriate. If that's changed in recent years, I'd be interested to know. But I'll be the first to admit I could be incorrect about this. In the meantime, I think this article needs more eyes: some of the details of the alleged crime as reported by TMZ and the NY Post have been added to the article, including the probable identity of the alleged victim. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 22:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- Nobody knew who (or what) a Snooki was before Jersey Shore, but does that mean she's not notable? Rick Harrison was just some local pawn shop owner in Las Vegas prior to finding fame on Pawn Stars, but does that mean he's not notable? Will Hayden was just a gunsmith/gun shop owner in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, but one hit TV show later (Sons of Guns), he became famous. If he was still just a local gunsmith, the horrible crimes he's accused of doing wouldn't have made the news it has. But because he's a star of a prime time TV show, it's all over the place. Vjmlhds (talk) 21:19, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- I still wasn't sure what a Snooki was till South Park explained it. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:07, September 9, 2014 (UTC)
- Nobody knew who (or what) a Snooki was before Jersey Shore, but does that mean she's not notable? Rick Harrison was just some local pawn shop owner in Las Vegas prior to finding fame on Pawn Stars, but does that mean he's not notable? Will Hayden was just a gunsmith/gun shop owner in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, but one hit TV show later (Sons of Guns), he became famous. If he was still just a local gunsmith, the horrible crimes he's accused of doing wouldn't have made the news it has. But because he's a star of a prime time TV show, it's all over the place. Vjmlhds (talk) 21:19, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- I see someone has changed four source article titles to "Hayden Arrested". This sort of lying goes beyond what Wikipedia should do for a living person. Goes to the other extreme of non-neutrality. I've fixed them, and hope they'll stay as they were actually written. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:47, August 28, 2014 (UTC)
Will Hayden victim
Will Hayden was arrested on child rape charges. Victim is still a minor. Most respectable journalism articles don't identify child rape victims or use identifying information. Identifying information is not necessary for the charge nor is necessary for the BLP. There was some initial reports that had identifying information with victim rumor. I removed what I saw. Probably should be rev deleted, too. --DHeyward (talk) 17:53, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- I added this this earlier as I missed this other section. Made it subheading here. Looks like some has delrev'd versions but more could be done. No source we use should in any way identify victim and no old version should exist that does it either. The paramount BLP issue is minor victim of sex crime. --DHeyward (talk) 04:43, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- It is bizarre to say that we cannot cite reliable mainstream news sources just because their stories identify the victim in some way. This is an amazing argument and should not be applied in this case. See Trial of Michael Jackson where the alleged minor victim is specifically named. See Roman Polanski sexual abuse case where the 13 year old victim is named. Harvey Milk names his 16 year old sex partner (no prosecution involved). The name of the victim is more likely to appear in all the news coverage if there is a trial. Wikipedia cannot "unring a bell." That said, we need not repeat the specific identification hints pointing to the victim at this point in this case. Edison (talk) 13:33, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- It's not real bizarre when the reliable sources like AP decided to do it when it was announced that the new charge was rape. AP specifically moved to that stance and removed all identifying language. For Wikipedia, the standard is what value does identifying the victim have in the article? In this case, none. What harm can it cause? Lots. WP will have records long after the news sites have archived theirs. Look at the Discovery Channel website. Purged. But we still have his article and will continue to. The least we can do is not increase the harm already inflicted. AP seems to agree. The article does not suffer by leaving it out and it doesn't gain by adding it in so do the least harm. --DHeyward (talk) 21:32, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- Please cite the "AP" source itself, not a source that cites the AP, or only has a photo from the AP. Otherwise, it is withholding public information from Wiki. 9711CA (talk) 14:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
- I did. [1] Here's another [2]. Note the lack of identification of the victims. Also note that your source is the "gossip" section of sensational rag. --DHeyward (talk) 00:17, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- There is plenty of public information that is not in Wikipedia; it is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This is a person who we have not yet considered separately notable, and need not be identified, even indirectly. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:58, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Please cite the "AP" source itself, not a source that cites the AP, or only has a photo from the AP. Otherwise, it is withholding public information from Wiki. 9711CA (talk) 14:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
- Relevant policy is WP:AVOIDVICTIM as the victim is not notable outside the crime and is not the subject of any articles. The event can be covered without identifying the victim and indeed, most crimes of this nature do not name the victim especially if the are minors. There is no information relevant to the topics covered in WP to name the victim and prolonging victimization through identification is simply wrong. --DHeyward (talk) 21:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
This is potentially likely to resurface with other victim. Noting material has changed though. No new charges and no new developments to the now-cancelled show. --DHeyward (talk) 03:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
The naming needs to stop
I've provided two AP sources above that comply with our WP:AVOIDVICTIM and BLP policy as requested above. They do not name victims. 9711CA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) continues to try to insert the victims identifying information. It is not encyclopedic, is grossly harmful, indecent and unnecessary. The crime is rape of child. Multiple counts. It's covered. There is no indication that the victims are seeking publicity or that they are separately notable. Neither victim is the subject of a WP article. Nor does it appear that the identity of the victims would change the charges or the decision to cancel the show. WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information. @9711CA: has been asked before to not do this and appears determined not to abide by policy, consensus or decency. Do I need to propose a topic ban on ANI or can this be handled here? --DHeyward (talk) 07:11, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Praveen Togadia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The subject is a very popular figure(1,88,000 Google hits). Link to disputed content which was re-inserted three times before any discussion on the talk page was started. It is present in the article as of now. I have never made any edits to this article, but I am involved in Indian politics area. Talk page discussion is here.
1. From WP:PUBLICFIGURE: "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." 2. "The petition was endorsed by the Indian Journal of Medical Ethics in its Editorial." is not present in the provided reference. 3. "according to an analysis in the press" is typical WP:GRAPEVINE. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 11:09, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- These claims are a bit hilarious.
- AmritasyaPutra is contesting the mention of a petition by Medico Friend Council against Praveen Togadia on the grounds that it is "grapevine". There are three references cited in the article itself: [3], [17] and [18]. The reference [17] is The Hindu, a national newspaper. The reference [18] is the Indian Journal of Medical Ethics, a national journal of physicians. If we do a Google search for "Togadia" with "Medico Friend Council", we get 129 hits. If we search for him along with "Medical Council of India", Google brings up even more references. This is by no means a "grapevine". It is public information.
- AmritasyaPutra also claims that the endorsement of the petition is "not present" in the journal. I see very clearly the statement "Shouldn't medical associations withdraw the license of Dr Togadia - and all others in the medical profession who have spoken and acted as he has?" which was precisely the content of the petition.
- AmritasyaPutra also claims that the so-called "disputed content" was re-inserted three times before any discussion. When? By whom? I have stated on the talk page that I have re-inserted it only once, after the discussion started, after I have produced additional support. To be precise, the talk page issue was opened at 03:43 UTC on 3rd September, and I re-inserted the material at 20:16 UTC along with a reference to substantiate "notability" of the petition along with a response on the talk page Talk:Praveen_Togadia#Non_notable_controversy. No issues to do with BLP were raised on 3rd September.
- AmritasyaPutra got involved at 08:49 UTC on 4th September, claimed that it was BLP issue because it supposedly constitutes "grapevine". Frankly, I don't see it. Kautilya3 (talk) 15:36, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Hmmm, You definitely gave a weird interpretation to what I said above.--AmritasyaPutra✍ 15:42, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Kautilya3, you still don't seem to be changing the fact that every single news channel or journalist seeks for more drama and news. There is no guarantee that any credibility exists there. So a non notable petition by a school students is a blatant propaganda, violation of BLP.
- You should not paste the refuted argument here, keep your explanation short and new. We are here to seek opionion from other editors, not to paste the arguments from talk page. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:05, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Reputable newspapers are reliable sources as per WP:RS. If you believe this is just "propaganda", you should be able to find other reliable sources that contradict it. Kautilya3 (talk) 09:41, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- We have enough reliable sources for claiming that world will end in 2012. Doesn't means we promote such gossips, you have to verify each. Bladesmulti (talk) 01:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
- There is not a single reliable source that talks about 2012 in its own voice. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
- Yes there was never one, even those fringe ones couldn't confirm. That's what I tried to say, representation cannot be that notable as long as it cannot be verified. DY made good opinion below. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
- Kautilya3 doesn't get the basic that not everything has a contradictory view published in RS. Why don't you interpret it such that no RS has every considered it worth spending their editorial space on such things? If someone says Aeishwarya had an affair with Salman, and may would say that, you are not going to find a RS which specifically says they did NOT have an affair. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
- The affected persons can issue denials and, if the denials are not printed, they can file defamation suits, which the BJP politicians have gotten rather good at doing, e.g., see [3]. Our policies say multiple reliable secondary sources are needed to report a BLP accusation and we have that in this case. Kautilya3 (talk) 20:22, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
- Kautilya3 doesn't get the basic that not everything has a contradictory view published in RS. Why don't you interpret it such that no RS has every considered it worth spending their editorial space on such things? If someone says Aeishwarya had an affair with Salman, and may would say that, you are not going to find a RS which specifically says they did NOT have an affair. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
- Yes there was never one, even those fringe ones couldn't confirm. That's what I tried to say, representation cannot be that notable as long as it cannot be verified. DY made good opinion below. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
- There is not a single reliable source that talks about 2012 in its own voice. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
- We have enough reliable sources for claiming that world will end in 2012. Doesn't means we promote such gossips, you have to verify each. Bladesmulti (talk) 01:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
- Reputable newspapers are reliable sources as per WP:RS. If you believe this is just "propaganda", you should be able to find other reliable sources that contradict it. Kautilya3 (talk) 09:41, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Hmmm, You definitely gave a weird interpretation to what I said above.--AmritasyaPutra✍ 15:42, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Beatrix Campbell
Beatrix Campbell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I wish to report a problem occurring with the Wikipedia site "Beatrix Campbell". I am not Beatrix Campbell, nor am I a relative or close friend. Like her I am a researcher and writer, and I know and value her work. Last year I noticed defamatory material on the site. I consulted Campbell and made corrections, with her agreement (see Cynthia Cockburn, 2 December 2013). Since then several seriously biased and hostile reinsertions and new material have been made relating to highly contested contemporary debates on the issue of child sexual abuse (4 and 22 August 2014). On 22 August 2014 I wrote to Wikipedia to ask for advice on procedure to protect or remove the entry. Robert Laculus replied helpfully on Aug 22 and this report is in response to his advice.
The entry "Beatrix Campbell" did not originate with Ms Campbell herself. It has from the start contained serious bias, inaccuracies and defamatory material. I can substantiate this in detail as and when appropriate. My question now is how can I deal with a situation in which the Campbell entry appears to be an arena in which certain parties are continually intervening to rehearsing longstanding critiques of evidence of child abuse in Britain.
As recently as yesterday, Sept 3, a long politically interested addition to this effect was made to the site. Much but not all of it was immediately excised - perhaps due to my previous reporting of a BLP problem. I have myself intervened today (sturdytree, Sept 4) to revert to a brief factual rendering that is to the best of my knowledge accurate and unbiased, and has been verified as acceptable to Ms. Campbell.
I understand from the Wikipedia website that there are two possible resources for dealing with such a case - one is called "blocking" and is to prevent further interventions by identified persons. The other is "protection", whereby an administrator may agree to protect or semi-protect pages when convinced that inappropriate material may be added or restored. This seems to me to promise a more satisfactory and enduring solution, since there appear to be not one but a 'community' of parties engaged in combat with Campbell via the site.
I would urgently appreciate advice of administrators as to whether one or both of these steps is appropriate and possible in the present case, and guidance as to how to proceed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sturdytree (talk • contribs) 11:44, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- @Sturdytree: I just took a look, and the first half of what you removed appears to be reliably sourced, and the what was in the article was what was in the source. The portion where it says the team investigating was friend of ... was not in the article at all, and that could be removed, but not the first half. Can you explain why you'd remove the whole paragraph ? KoshVorlon Angeli i demoni kruzhyli nado mnoj 17:01, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- It would appear that sturdytree is interested in expunging unpleasant but well sourced material from the article, against WP:BLP. I don't like where this is going. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 18:54, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- I don't know anything about this person, and I can't rightly figure out what they're trying to argue here, but Sturdytree's recent edits look fine to me. The fat paragraph they removed contains names that probably shouldn't be mentioned, and accusations of undue influence sourced to tabloids and sustained by innuendo, with the addition of (unacceptable) primary material (court documents). I'd like for a smart person like Newyorkbrad to have a quick look--thanks. Drmies (talk) 18:15, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Seriously, we may have to go back to this version. Drmies (talk) 18:20, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- I entirely support the removal and redaction of the sep 3rd edit, but I don't understand the suggestion to stubbify the article, as I think that though the source for the recently removed sections (the Mail) is distasteful in itself, it is accurate in the facts used. Campbell was a figure in an unpleasant episode in the recent history of the NE of England, to wipe it away is not what wikipedia should do. The article as it stands shows her notability (OBE anybody?) but is lacking in important detail due to the most recent edits. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 18:55, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with Roxy the dog. Just because some media (media that Drmies labels "tabloid") have chosen to cover a story, and others have not, does not mean that the basic facts of that story as related in those media are unsuitable for Wikipedia. Sturdytree has not stated that there is any core untruth in the content that has been deleted, all that editor is saying is that the subject of the article has said that she disagrees with the content. Since when has the content of a blp article required to be "acceptable" to the subject covered? I find the assertion by Sturdytree that this article must be "verified as acceptable to Ms. Campbell" to be very troubling. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:56, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Roxy the dog, for the hell of it you should click on the "next diff" link in that early version and check out the sourcing. Or you can go to a more recent version, before Sturdytree got to it, and see what the sources are--one from the Guardian, sure, but then there's court documents (unacceptable in a BLP) and an article from the Daily Mail, also unacceptable. Drmies (talk) 01:28, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Drmies, please cite some discussion that places a blanket ban on using the Daily Mail as a source for BLP articles (or Wikipedia articles in general if there is nothing blp specific). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:38, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Huh? It's a tabloid, a gossip rag. I'm sure John can easily point you to such a discussion, but let's establish first that common sense is of great help here. Drmies (talk) 13:53, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Sounds awfully like an "I just don't like it". You are the one wanting to exclude this source as a source, so it is really up to you to back that exclusion opinion up (if you are still holding to it). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:37, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Drmies, The editor that is responsible for firing my enthusiasm for wikipedia has said that there are three things you need to be successful here. Sources, sources and sources. In this particular article, I'd add a fourth source! The article version after your stub link above is truly terrible, and clearly, court documentation (that doesn't seem to be available) which is the report of a Judicial Enquiry into the biggest child abuse scandal in the UK last century, is an unreliable source. In my own noodling around (I'd hardly call it research) on Google, I have come across the European "right to be forgotten" notification on two different related names. I too would like to know if there is policy or guidelines of some kind which rules out the "Fail" as a source? (forgot to sign, sorry)-Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 10:03, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Roxy, if I were certain about everything here I would have already nixed the section and deleted it from the history. I'm not that certain about tone and content so I haven't. That the Daily Mail is in general not to be used for BLPs, and especially not when it comes to Horrible Crimes and Suggestive Innuendo, that's, as I said above, common sense. It is a better idea to milk the Guardian article for what it's worth, and I may just do that. In fact, I'll ping a couple of folks with some experience in Brrrritish matters: Sitush, Eric Corbett, if you have a moment, will you please have a look at this discussion and the article? Your help is appreciated. Thanks Roxy, Drmies (talk) 13:53, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Huh? It's a tabloid, a gossip rag. I'm sure John can easily point you to such a discussion, but let's establish first that common sense is of great help here. Drmies (talk) 13:53, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Drmies, please cite some discussion that places a blanket ban on using the Daily Mail as a source for BLP articles (or Wikipedia articles in general if there is nothing blp specific). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:38, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Roxy the dog, for the hell of it you should click on the "next diff" link in that early version and check out the sourcing. Or you can go to a more recent version, before Sturdytree got to it, and see what the sources are--one from the Guardian, sure, but then there's court documents (unacceptable in a BLP) and an article from the Daily Mail, also unacceptable. Drmies (talk) 01:28, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with Roxy the dog. Just because some media (media that Drmies labels "tabloid") have chosen to cover a story, and others have not, does not mean that the basic facts of that story as related in those media are unsuitable for Wikipedia. Sturdytree has not stated that there is any core untruth in the content that has been deleted, all that editor is saying is that the subject of the article has said that she disagrees with the content. Since when has the content of a blp article required to be "acceptable" to the subject covered? I find the assertion by Sturdytree that this article must be "verified as acceptable to Ms. Campbell" to be very troubling. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:56, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- I entirely support the removal and redaction of the sep 3rd edit, but I don't understand the suggestion to stubbify the article, as I think that though the source for the recently removed sections (the Mail) is distasteful in itself, it is accurate in the facts used. Campbell was a figure in an unpleasant episode in the recent history of the NE of England, to wipe it away is not what wikipedia should do. The article as it stands shows her notability (OBE anybody?) but is lacking in important detail due to the most recent edits. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 18:55, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- The BLP policy is quite specific about the use of tabloid sources such as the Daily Mail.[4] Eric Corbett 18:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- It does not say that. The BLP policy talks about "tabloid journalism" - that is, if the source (i.e., the article or commentary or editorial or whatever containing the material) is written in an overly sensationalist "tabloid" style it should not be used if it is the only sourcing. I have not looked at the sources in question so I do not know their content or the journalistic approach. But if it is the August 3, 2002 story titled The Witchfinder we are talking about, except for the typical ott headline and the synopsis-blurb (or whatever that is called), it seems non-tabloid in style. Anyway, I see no blanket ban on stories originating in the Daily Mail, or even in using Daily Mail sources written in a tabloid style as long as there are other sources that consider the same story in a non-sensationalist way. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 18:41, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Don't use the Daily Mail for BLPs or, indeed, any biographical articles. It is often highly sensationalised even when discussing people who by common consent lead fairly mundane lives; when there are suggestions of something out of the ordinary in a life, the DM almost always goes overboard. Sometimes they do it subtly, more often they take a hatchet to it. - Sitush (talk) 10:39, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
- It does not say that. The BLP policy talks about "tabloid journalism" - that is, if the source (i.e., the article or commentary or editorial or whatever containing the material) is written in an overly sensationalist "tabloid" style it should not be used if it is the only sourcing. I have not looked at the sources in question so I do not know their content or the journalistic approach. But if it is the August 3, 2002 story titled The Witchfinder we are talking about, except for the typical ott headline and the synopsis-blurb (or whatever that is called), it seems non-tabloid in style. Anyway, I see no blanket ban on stories originating in the Daily Mail, or even in using Daily Mail sources written in a tabloid style as long as there are other sources that consider the same story in a non-sensationalist way. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 18:41, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- The BLP policy is quite specific about the use of tabloid sources such as the Daily Mail.[4] Eric Corbett 18:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- The present state of the article is unsatisfactory. It is mostly written from a wholly uncritical perspective. Campbell (like others) badly and publicly burnt her fingers over the Satanic abuse affair, and it should not be expunged from the article because it is now awkward for for fans. Johnbod (talk) 11:21, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
The subtopic at issue does not strike me as necessarily off-limits, but it should be given only its due weight, and the most reliable sources available should be used. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:30, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
"Sturdytree" suggests above that they were previously responsible for this edit as "Cynthia Cockburn." Both IDs are responsible for the removal of a significant paragraph on the BC page, claiming it was "incorrect" and "malicious," yet at no time have they attempted to explain those edits on the article Talk page. As others have noted above, these edits seems to be aimed at removing historical detail that in retrospect may be embarrassing to the subject, though not untruthful, which doesn't seem very surprising, given the editor's acknowledged collusion with the subject. Nick Cooper (talk) 20:37, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Something more on using the Daily Mail as a source. There are a number of sources around that claim there is a deliberate silence on this subject from media sources, and that only the Daily Mail has dared tackle the subject. As an example: about the Haut de la Garenne story, "The Sunday papers, however, are almost completely free of such self-criticism. The only detailed report which carries the story forward in significant respects is, as might have been expected, by David Rose in the Mail on Sunday. His substantial article, 'How Lenny lost the plot', appears in the Review section of the paper. It provides an excellent summary of the main points of the Haut de la Garenne saga for which one can only be grateful. Indeed, given the grave implications of the story which he relates, it is both astonishing and depressing that none of the broadsheet Sunday newspapers has even attempted to run a similar investigation." [[5]]. Here we have a journalist who wrote for the Observer, Telegraph, Guardian, etc, praising the investigative contribution by the Daily Mail, and is saying that because of that paper's history in investigating this subject area, this positive contribution was expected. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:59, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
An American politician whose article has been fluffed up considerably based on primary sources. I've reverted those changes, but the article could benefit from the eyes of experienced editors. There's a couple of SPAs in the history (no need for me to link them--you'll see them immediately) and I have warned the most recent of them, Bradleyhaberstroh, for non-neutral editing. (See also Google.) Anyway, your attention is appreciated. Drmies (talk) 14:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Are there BLP issues? You may wish to ask for help on a different noticeboard. Choor monster (talk) 17:16, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Seriously? Yeah, it's a BLP and it's been fluffed up. He's a politician. This is an election year. Drmies (talk) 18:10, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Seriously, yes. You mentioned primary sources, sounds like WP:OR problems. You mentioned fluffing up and the like, it sounds like WP:NPOV problems. You mentioned SPAs, could be WP:COI or worse. As for this noticeboard: "This page is for reporting issues regarding biographies of living persons. Generally this means cases where editors are repeatedly adding defamatory or libelous material to articles about living people over an extended period." Are these problem editors also editing Schweich's opponent? And up top it also says: "For general content disputes regarding biographical articles, consider using Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies instead.
- Perhaps we need an election-year noticeboard that cuts across issues, but until then, you haven't given any hint of BLP policy specific violations, hence my comment. Seriously. Choor monster (talk) 18:53, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- BLP articles often have to be protected from friends or supporters making them look to the general reader like ads, fantasies, or resumes. Sometimes BLP subjects will demand changes to an article that, if they received them, are more likely to put them in serious danger of public ridicule. WP:BLP seeks to avoid all situations of avoidable harm, removing material
whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable
. If someone's making a BLP non-compliant with WP:BLP, it doesn't matter if it's friend or foe, it's still an issue regarding a biography of a living person.__ E L A Q U E A T E 20:16, 5 September 2014 (UTC)- Thank you Elaqueate. I'm not going to waste any more time explaining the obvious to this other editor; I have 236 edits here and I think I know what this board is for. Drmies (talk) 02:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
- Elaqueate: I asked about this noticeboard, not BLP policy itself. Your response doesn't seem to say a thing about this noticeboard. Yes, very good, BLP policy concerns several things: increased levels of verifiability, neutrality, increased sensitivity to privacy, and the like, and at one level, it does not distinguish, as you point out, the good or the bad. But BLP policy also stresses the urgent removal of one particular subclass of BLP violating items: the negative. And this noticeboard is, as I conveniently quoted above, primarily concerned with the negative, and recommends other venues for other extended problems. So whatever "obvious" point you were trying to make, I don't see it. Choor monster (talk) 17:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
This page is for reporting issues regarding biographies of living persons.
BLP policy only specifically stresses anything about the "negative" if it's so bad that the whole page arguably has to be deleted; most of the issues currently on this board are not for situations like that. Otherwise it stresses the urgent removal of the "contentious". That is usually negative, and this board usually filled up with the negative cases. But positive or neutral material that is considered contentious when included should be removed quickly as well, per WP:BLP. If someone repeatedly filled a BLP's lead paragraph with how wonderful the subject was in bed, it would still be a BLP issue no matter how "positive" an editor could argue they were being. In any case "usually negative" is by definition not "only negative". Poorly sourced BLP puffery is a BLP issue and I never thought I'd see anyone argue it wasn't. __ E L A Q U E A T E 19:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)- BLP policy stresses that contentious material must be eliminated immediately. Unreferenced derogatory statements inserted into a BLP are not resolved by deleting the article, they are resolved by immediately deleting the material. Unreferenced statements in general, anywhere on WP, are subject to removal, but not with the same urgency, we have a tag for that. This includes non-contentious BLP statements. (Deleting the article is for newly created attack pages.)
- I have the terrible, seemingly unique, habit of reading manuals, support documentation, policy statements, small print. It seems that most people not only do not do this, they have absolutely no comprehension of the concept of reading such material, and make nearly random guesses at what I must be asking about, keying off a few words. In this case, I have no questions whatsoever about what BLP policy states. I'm not probing some border where meaning might be not so clear. I have been asking about what this noticeboard's policy is, since Drmies summary did not accord well with it. See explicit quotations above.
- I'm perfectly happy with actual policy not being the same as written policy, having done my share of neglecting documentation over the years. I'm also perfectly happy with names being simplistic approximations. Choor monster (talk) 17:29, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- That sounds like an awful problem, having a unique comprehension of words. I flurn for you. Your question specifically about the board has been asked and answered repeatedly at this point;
This page is for reporting issues regarding biographies of living persons.
If you've found somewhere in the fine print that "issues" mean "only negative material, strictly defined" then you can point it out, but it will be news to the hundreds of threads this noticeboard has handled that concerned puffery, BLP-specific COI, general notices about news spikes regarding high-profile BLPs, technical changes to BLP templates, copyright issues specific to BLPs, requests made by BLP subjects, etc. and other things under the umbrella of "BLP issues requiring the eyes of more BLP-cognizant editors". There are multiple threads on the page now that are equivalent to this one, and it will be the same next month, as it was last month. The actual advice directing people to use this noticeboard isIf you are concerned about the accuracy or appropriateness of biographical material on Wikipedia, report problems at the biographies of living persons noticeboard.
Concerns about accuracy and appropriateness have always been welcomed here, if they can't be easily dealt with in the article by the questioning editor alone. I hope User:Drmies is appreciating all the time he saved not dealing with this, as time is precious and once lost, does not come around here no more, as they say. __ E L A Q U E A T E 23:39, 11 September 2014 (UTC)- Thanks Elaqueate, but I wonder if there is any value in continuing this. Apparently I don't know the place and its guidelines as well as I should, but then, I haven't made half as many edits as some others have, and I'm happy to be corrected here. If anyone is still around, perhaps they can close this thread; the BLP in question has seen no activity recently. Drmies (talk) 01:27, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- No reason to correct you; the Carl Dix, Nick de Bois, Bob Avakian threads currently active are identical to this one in general concern seeking feedback about the appropriateness of BLP material or editor behavior on BLP articles. Other examples can be found in any BLPN archive. If this is a closed issue I won't add anymore to it. __ E L A Q U E A T E 01:54, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks Elaqueate, but I wonder if there is any value in continuing this. Apparently I don't know the place and its guidelines as well as I should, but then, I haven't made half as many edits as some others have, and I'm happy to be corrected here. If anyone is still around, perhaps they can close this thread; the BLP in question has seen no activity recently. Drmies (talk) 01:27, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- That sounds like an awful problem, having a unique comprehension of words. I flurn for you. Your question specifically about the board has been asked and answered repeatedly at this point;
- Elaqueate: I asked about this noticeboard, not BLP policy itself. Your response doesn't seem to say a thing about this noticeboard. Yes, very good, BLP policy concerns several things: increased levels of verifiability, neutrality, increased sensitivity to privacy, and the like, and at one level, it does not distinguish, as you point out, the good or the bad. But BLP policy also stresses the urgent removal of one particular subclass of BLP violating items: the negative. And this noticeboard is, as I conveniently quoted above, primarily concerned with the negative, and recommends other venues for other extended problems. So whatever "obvious" point you were trying to make, I don't see it. Choor monster (talk) 17:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you Elaqueate. I'm not going to waste any more time explaining the obvious to this other editor; I have 236 edits here and I think I know what this board is for. Drmies (talk) 02:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
- BLP articles often have to be protected from friends or supporters making them look to the general reader like ads, fantasies, or resumes. Sometimes BLP subjects will demand changes to an article that, if they received them, are more likely to put them in serious danger of public ridicule. WP:BLP seeks to avoid all situations of avoidable harm, removing material
Accuracy vs. WP:BLPCRIME
Article is Indictment of Rick Perry
Afronig wishes to insert the word "allegedly" in the opening sentence. [6] I contend this is incorrect as indictments don't use "allegedly" in their wording (neither does the source). Bringing this here as any decision could affect a multitude of articles. --NeilN talk to me 15:54, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
- Compare
"X was indicted on the charge of first-degree murder"
with"X was indicted for allegedly killing his wife"
. The second one needs an "allegedly" while the first one is clearly a charge name and does not. It has to be clear whether we're talking about what actions they allegedly did, or clearly talking about the formal legal name of the specific charge they were indicted for. If the phrasing in the article isn't clear it must be made clear.In your supplied diff, it's being done incorrectly either way. The "allegedly" is being put in weird inappropriate spots. It's clear from sources that the threat of veto and the request that she stand down happened. Those shouldn't have "allegedly"s unless there are sources that put those events in doubt. "Allegedly" could arguably be put in front of "abusing his official capacity" or "coercion of a public servant" unless it is made crystal clear that those are the formal names of the charges, and couldn't be confused as our description that the events were "abuse" or "coercion". If there's still any reasonable chance of misreading, try putting the charge names in quotes or re-writing. It wasn't an "alleged" veto, the formal name of the charge is not alleged, but if we have written the sentence too loosely, it is "alleged" abuse and "alleged" coercion.__ E L A Q U E A T E 17:08, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
- Indicted is not the same as "proved". BLPCRIME will prevail, especially as Perry pleaded "not guilty". YES for "alleged". Lindashiers (talk) 18:17, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
- Here is the passage in question:
- On August 15, 2014, Texas Governor Rick Perry (R) was indicted by a Travis County grand jury, for abusing his official capacity by allegedly threatening to veto $7.5 million in funding for the Public Integrity Unit, a state public corruption prosecutors department, and for coercion of a public servant, in regards to allegedly asking the resignation of Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg, a Democrat, [2] after she was convicted of drunk driving, and incarcerated.
- By the simple fact that an indictment is an accusation (and therefore implicitly alleged), adding allegedly is redundant, and it runs afoul of WP:WEASEL and WP:NPOV.- MrX 19:09, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
- The "allegeds" in that passage are wrong, as written. It is not "alleged" that he threatened to veto or asked for a resignation, the sources say he did that. The only thing that could be considered "alleged" is that the threat constituted abuse or should be described as illegal. It's not "alleged" that he was indicted on specific charges.
Here's the difference shown in the Washington Post, where it's written in a way that requires a version of "allegedly":
A Travis County grand jury on Friday indicted Gov. Rick Perry on two felony counts, alleging he abused his power by threatening to veto funding
[7];and here's an example in the Dallas News showing how it doesn't need "allegedly" when it's written this way:
A Travis County grand jury on Friday charged Perry with two felony counts, abuse of official capacity and coercion of a public servant, after he vetoed funding for a county office that investigates public corruption.
[8] __ E L A Q U E A T E 19:37, 7 September 2014 (UTC)- I think our current wording is awkward. "... Rick Perry (R) was indicted by a Travis County grand jury, for abusing his official capacity... " should probably be edited to read "... Rick Perry (R) was indicted by a Travis County grand jury, on charges of abusing his official capacity... ", or something like that.- MrX 20:13, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
- You're right, that works better, or something similar. It's better to be specific about the part that is a specific charge, and call it that.__ E L A Q U E A T E 21:36, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
- Whatever gets across that he was 1. indicted on specific charges of "abuse of official capacity" (specific charge, no alleged), or 2. indicted for allegedly abusing his office (non-specific charge, alleged) because of 3. the veto stuff and calling for her resignation, which everyone agrees happened so shouldn't be termed alleged.__ E L A Q U E A T E 21:48, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
- on charges of abusing his official capacity... is much better wording, and avoids the need to over-use "allegedly" - Cwobeel (talk) 16:34, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
- You're right, that works better, or something similar. It's better to be specific about the part that is a specific charge, and call it that.__ E L A Q U E A T E 21:36, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
- I think our current wording is awkward. "... Rick Perry (R) was indicted by a Travis County grand jury, for abusing his official capacity... " should probably be edited to read "... Rick Perry (R) was indicted by a Travis County grand jury, on charges of abusing his official capacity... ", or something like that.- MrX 20:13, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
- The "allegeds" in that passage are wrong, as written. It is not "alleged" that he threatened to veto or asked for a resignation, the sources say he did that. The only thing that could be considered "alleged" is that the threat constituted abuse or should be described as illegal. It's not "alleged" that he was indicted on specific charges.
- Here is the passage in question:
- Indicted is not the same as "proved". BLPCRIME will prevail, especially as Perry pleaded "not guilty". YES for "alleged". Lindashiers (talk) 18:17, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
GamerGate
GamerGate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article desperately needs attention from BLP-minded folks. Lots of pejorative epithets, unfounded accusations and piss-poor sourcing. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:22, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
- By
Lots of pejorative epithets
, he means 'Social Justice Warrior' (no source for it being a ' Lots of pejorative epithets' btw.) By unfounded accusations and piss poor sourcing, he means The Guardian. Tutelary (talk) 16:53, 7 September 2014 (UTC)- Well, yes, "social justice warrior" is a pejorative epithet, and by "no source" he means this one, or hell, even this one, which, while not a reliable source, is a pretty clear indication of the meaning of the term. Your disingenuous argument that it's not an insult is self-evidently ridiculous. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:00, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
- As far as I see, the article doesn't name anyone to be a "social justice warrior" but instead it's attributed to the discussion around GamerGate - the Guardian discusses the social justice warriors as well. These are opinions from WP:RS and belong to the article. Similarly, the article mentions that the other side is being characterized as "misogynistic" - yet it doesn't name anyone specifically to be one either. It isn't a BLP issue. --Pudeo' 02:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
- This is a good analysis. There are known statements that I could from that say "X is an SJW", but it doesn't make sense to include them, and simply leave it has broad claims made by one group to the other, and vice versa. --MASEM (t) 02:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
- Right - the current version is acceptable because it explains that the term is an opinionated statement considered to be pejorative. That version hasn't always been there. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
- As far as I see, the article doesn't name anyone to be a "social justice warrior" but instead it's attributed to the discussion around GamerGate - the Guardian discusses the social justice warriors as well. These are opinions from WP:RS and belong to the article. Similarly, the article mentions that the other side is being characterized as "misogynistic" - yet it doesn't name anyone specifically to be one either. It isn't a BLP issue. --Pudeo' 02:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
- "Social Justice Warrior" is being used as a pejorative by some elements of the online right wing, yes; I've had the epithet hurled at me a time or two myself. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
- I have seen people describing themselves as Social Justice Warrior with pride, so no, it isn't definite that it is pejorative. Article in Pastemagazine is very emotional and engaged, so not really sure if it can be treated as objective source of information.However to avoid unnecessary drama, we can always attribute the description making it clear that this is a description by one of the sides of the controversy.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:46, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
- Well, yes, "social justice warrior" is a pejorative epithet, and by "no source" he means this one, or hell, even this one, which, while not a reliable source, is a pretty clear indication of the meaning of the term. Your disingenuous argument that it's not an insult is self-evidently ridiculous. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:00, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
This needs some additional eyes on it, as it's a mess even with protection. It really needs admin attention to keep the discussions from veering into BLP territory. Unfortunately, I can't be much help in that regard now that the article includes Anita Sarkeesian, as I'm involved in editing that article.--Cúchullain t/c 19:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Tom Paulin
- Tom Paulin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The article places significant undue weight on one poem that Paulin published in the Observer in 2001. Paulin's entire life and works as highly notable author, lecturer and pundit are poorly summarised in just 370 words, while his opinions on pro-Israel politics and the phrase "Zionist SS" in a poem in 2001 has been given 680 words in the article. This is not what he is most notable for. Could someone look at addressing this imbalance please? --Fæ (talk) 11:57, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
- A tad past "significant undue weight" indeed. I cut the section in half, but it might be pruned further. Collect (talk) 13:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
- We need to be careful here. If the notability of this person is predicated in his controversial poems and ideas, then it is not undue weight. We are here to reflect what significant views are reported about a person. If the author has other works that received coverage and were reported in RS, then add these for balance, but don't delete material just because it is controversial in BLPs. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:23, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
- This removal of more that 4,000 characters [9] is totally unnecessary. You can instead attempt to summarize the content rather than delete statements by Paulin and his critics. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
- Um -- the section fails UNDUE by a mile -- that you seem to think more than half a BLP should basically say "this loon is really anti-Semitic" is not sufficient for Wikipedia to violate the strictures of the WP:NPOV non-negotiable policy and the WP:BLP policy as well. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:44, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
- I am also "amused" that you gave a lengthy reinsertion of the Labour Party connection when you then had to DELETE what was basically the same material! PLEASE abide by WP:BLP and WP:NPOV no matter how much you hate someone. Collect (talk) 16:48, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
- I am not hating anyone. This person's notability is directly related to a great extent on his controversial statements. Do some research on this person before you jump the gun. Your edit removed material and kept material that responded to the deleted material. That is not good and contrary to NPOV. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:59, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
- And as one that forcefully ask others to assume good faith: The pot calling the kettle black - Cwobeel (talk) 17:03, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
- BTW, I agree with some of the "controversial" statements Paulin has made, so your response and assumption that I hate the guy are completely out of place. Paulin speaks his mind and rattled some of the establishment with some comments. Good for him, IMO. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
This BLP is not precisely nice to the person -- but I find the adding of iterations and permutations of "conspiracy theorist" to tax the concept of WP:NPOV and WP:BLP and I am offended by such edit summaries as this belongs in the lead, being a nutjob conspiracy theorist is what put him on the map and Collect: you'd be wise to cease your edit-warring. Rm the nitpicked "nutjob" word from the summary and it still applies. Again: stop edit-warring' to indicate a certain POV and uncivil attitude entirely. The fact is we make clear a few dozen times that the man is a loon, but loons damn well are as protected by Wikipedia policies as anyone else, and the idea that we can really really really hit the man with an editorial sledgehammer just because we can is not my idea of how this project s intended to work. Other opinions welcome on just how nasty we ought to be to a living person. I would note that one of the participants in this "how nasty can we be" exercise is doing the same on other BLPs. Collect (talk) 20:56, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
- The edit that you've reverted seems okay to me, well in conformity with WP:LEAD. This is the wrong place to complain about behavioural issues. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:04, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
- Collect, you've failed to provide any diffs, sources, or specific content, so it's unclear what sort of input you'd like from this board. Your complaint consists mostly of aspersions cast at another (un-named, and un-notified) editor, which are impossible to evaluate given the complete lack of diffs or other supporting evidence. Glancing at the article history, I see you and Gaba p (talk · contribs) are involved in an edit-war, and are both at or over 3RR right now. You appear to be edit-warring over the placement of properly-sourced material; this is not a protected category of revert, so you're both angling for edit-warring blocks with your current behavior. In the future, please use this board more appropriately; specify the BLP issue you're concerned about; provide diffs instead of casting unsupported aspersions at other editors; and notify editors when you are complaining about them here. MastCell Talk 21:41, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
- Violation of due weight is, indeed, a policy violation, and I am aghast any admin would fail to notice that. There is a substantial majority of the entire BLP which is already negative in tone and wording, and the addition of yet more to the lead would violate WP:NPOV quite clearly. More than half of the entire lead is negative, and none is actually positive about the chap. I realize to some he may be the epitome of looniness, but that does not mean we accord "nut jobs" (as one editor calls him) less protection that anyone else in a BLP. Everyone with a BLP must be treated equally. Cheers to all. Collect (talk) 22:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
- Collect, you've failed to provide any diffs, sources, or specific content, so it's unclear what sort of input you'd like from this board. Your complaint consists mostly of aspersions cast at another (un-named, and un-notified) editor, which are impossible to evaluate given the complete lack of diffs or other supporting evidence. Glancing at the article history, I see you and Gaba p (talk · contribs) are involved in an edit-war, and are both at or over 3RR right now. You appear to be edit-warring over the placement of properly-sourced material; this is not a protected category of revert, so you're both angling for edit-warring blocks with your current behavior. In the future, please use this board more appropriately; specify the BLP issue you're concerned about; provide diffs instead of casting unsupported aspersions at other editors; and notify editors when you are complaining about them here. MastCell Talk 21:41, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
- Two points: First, editors should not be calling living people "nutjobs" especially in edit summaries (which cannot be changed without admin intervention). Second, I read the lede (as it currently stands) and I don't see anything objectionable. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with both points. (Since Collect is apparently incapable of providing diffs, the "nutjob" edit summary is here for anyone wondering). MastCell Talk 22:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
- I was not the one using that epithet. The edit summaries are at [10] and [11] where the editor deliberately iterates "nutjob". The "controversies" already make up a majority of the lead and to pile Ossa on Pelion should not be countenanced by any admin who knows that analogy. And the use of ad homs admins is, regrettably, something the admins will someday have to face. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:14, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
- I assume you're referring to me, since I'm the only admin who had commented to date. I guess I don't see the "ad hom". I gave you some guidance on how to file a more useful, constructive request on this board. And I reminded you of some of this site's basic behavioral expectations (provide diffs; don't cast unsupported aspersions; don't edit-war; notify people when you complain about them on a noticeboard), which you'd neglected. My goal is for you to be able to frame your future requests in such a way that editors can give useful feedback, and also to make clear that edit-warring in this case (both yours and GabaP's) was inappropriate. MastCell Talk 15:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- I was not the one using that epithet. The edit summaries are at [10] and [11] where the editor deliberately iterates "nutjob". The "controversies" already make up a majority of the lead and to pile Ossa on Pelion should not be countenanced by any admin who knows that analogy. And the use of ad homs admins is, regrettably, something the admins will someday have to face. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:14, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with both points. (Since Collect is apparently incapable of providing diffs, the "nutjob" edit summary is here for anyone wondering). MastCell Talk 22:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
- Two points: First, editors should not be calling living people "nutjobs" especially in edit summaries (which cannot be changed without admin intervention). Second, I read the lede (as it currently stands) and I don't see anything objectionable. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
- Collect is apparently incapable ... appears to be a direct comment aimed at an editor -- which to most people is a clear ad hom. Apparently you do not think a derogatory comment aimed at a specific editor is an ad hom, but I suggest you buy a dictionary if that is, indeed, your understanding of that term. "Abusive ad hominem usually involves attacking the traits of an opponent as a means to invalidate their arguments." "marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made." "directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining" etc. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:13, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- "Collect is apparently incapable of providing diffs" is an expression of frustration at your repeated refusal to provide diffs to support your concerns and your aspersions against other editors. You've been here long enough to know that doing so is a basic expectation, but even after prompting you refused to post any actual diffs. Regarding "ad homs", I don't think I failed to "answer your contentions"; rather, I answered your contentions by clarifying that you need to provide specifics and diffs in order for others to evaluate them. When you simply repeated your contentions without any evidence that you'd read or understood anything anyone else had said in response, I became a bit frustrated, hence the "apparently incapable" remark. MastCell Talk 16:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- REPEATED REFUSAL???!!! Um -- look at the damn time stamps and note all my "repeated refusals." You will find no "refusals" at all, much less repeated ones in the three hours from my first post to where I give the diffs you snarkily say I "repeatedly refused" to give. Now simply (fill in the blank). And that you think that telling falsehoods about "repeated refusal" about an editor is the very essence of an ad hom attack. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Here are the timestamps: Your original post at 20:56 (no diffs). My response at 21:41 (asking for diffs). Your response at 22:20 (still zero diffs). At 22:39, I finally provide the diff which (I imagine) you had in mind in your original complaint. If I'm missing something, feel free to let me know, ideally on my talkpage to avoid further cluttering this thread. MastCell Talk 19:27, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Neat --- Now tell me where I refused anything at all in those three hours ? Amazingly enough, I do not expect a reply here. Collect (talk) 19:31, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- You refused even to acknowledge that diffs were required, which you should know as an experienced Wikipedian. If your point is that you didn't explicitly refuse, very well. You tacitly refused to provide diffs by ignoring basic good practices and ignoring responses you received from other editors. Consider this a correction on my part. MastCell Talk 19:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Aha -- so my post giving diffs well before the three hour mark does not exist in your Weltanschauung? Curiouser and curiouser. You made an angry and abhorrent ad hom -- now you say I "tacitly refused to provide diffs" even though it quite appears that I did provide diffs, and never "refused" to provide them. Do you realize just how odd that argument looks? Collect (talk) 19:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- You refused even to acknowledge that diffs were required, which you should know as an experienced Wikipedian. If your point is that you didn't explicitly refuse, very well. You tacitly refused to provide diffs by ignoring basic good practices and ignoring responses you received from other editors. Consider this a correction on my part. MastCell Talk 19:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Neat --- Now tell me where I refused anything at all in those three hours ? Amazingly enough, I do not expect a reply here. Collect (talk) 19:31, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Here are the timestamps: Your original post at 20:56 (no diffs). My response at 21:41 (asking for diffs). Your response at 22:20 (still zero diffs). At 22:39, I finally provide the diff which (I imagine) you had in mind in your original complaint. If I'm missing something, feel free to let me know, ideally on my talkpage to avoid further cluttering this thread. MastCell Talk 19:27, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- REPEATED REFUSAL???!!! Um -- look at the damn time stamps and note all my "repeated refusals." You will find no "refusals" at all, much less repeated ones in the three hours from my first post to where I give the diffs you snarkily say I "repeatedly refused" to give. Now simply (fill in the blank). And that you think that telling falsehoods about "repeated refusal" about an editor is the very essence of an ad hom attack. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- "Collect is apparently incapable of providing diffs" is an expression of frustration at your repeated refusal to provide diffs to support your concerns and your aspersions against other editors. You've been here long enough to know that doing so is a basic expectation, but even after prompting you refused to post any actual diffs. Regarding "ad homs", I don't think I failed to "answer your contentions"; rather, I answered your contentions by clarifying that you need to provide specifics and diffs in order for others to evaluate them. When you simply repeated your contentions without any evidence that you'd read or understood anything anyone else had said in response, I became a bit frustrated, hence the "apparently incapable" remark. MastCell Talk 16:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Collect is apparently incapable ... appears to be a direct comment aimed at an editor -- which to most people is a clear ad hom. Apparently you do not think a derogatory comment aimed at a specific editor is an ad hom, but I suggest you buy a dictionary if that is, indeed, your understanding of that term. "Abusive ad hominem usually involves attacking the traits of an opponent as a means to invalidate their arguments." "marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made." "directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining" etc. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:13, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- (e) There are some people that make a living by being controversial, and Jones is one of them (there are a few others in particular on the fringe right). In these cases, there should be no problem in describing their controversies and positions in the lead. Actually we have to. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:35, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
I apologize for using "nutjob" in the summary, next time I'll be more careful. The point I made is still valid and Collect knows this. He keeps repeating that this information is already present in the lead which is not true. The lead merely lists some of his most famous conspiracy theories but makes no mention of any entity having referred to him as a "conspiracy theorist" except in the statement he insists in moving down the article, out of the lead. Given that this "conspiracy theorist" quality is precisely what made him known, there is absolutely no valid reason in attempting to obscure this fact. Regards. Gaba (talk) 23:44, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
- You mean ignoring the fact that conspiracy theorist is in the very first sentence of the lead? And that the lead then includes several clear conspiracy theories? I suggest we are not trying to "obscure any fact" but are trying to abide by WP:BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:13, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- There seems to be a very basic misunderstanding of policy here. WP:BLP does not forbid describing someone as a "conspiracy theorist". It forbids describing them as such without strong reliable sources. If someone is, in fact, widely described by reliable sources as an exponent of conspiracy theories, then it is appropriate (and, in fact, mandated by policy) that we follow the sources' lead and describe them as such. A more rational and less histrionic discussion would be helpful here: if there are concerns about the "conspiracy theorist" descriptor, then which sources support the term? Post them, and let's discuss whether they support the term or not. Despite all the obnoxious shouting, I haven't seen any of the disputants here take this very basic step, which is the foundation for any meaningful discussion here. MastCell Talk 17:02, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- The term "conspiracy theorist" is in the very first sentence of the lead, and is sourced. And shouting is sometimes needed when one fears another might be hard of hearing -- or did you really simply not notice the very first line of the BLP? Collect (talk) 17:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I did, but I fail to understand your specific BLP concern, which you haven't clearly articulated despite many loud and prolix posts on this thread. Is your contention that this material is properly sourced and appropriate in the body of the article, but constitutes a BLP violation if placed in the lead? MastCell Talk 19:30, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- The term "conspiracy theorist" is in the very first sentence of the lead, and is sourced. And shouting is sometimes needed when one fears another might be hard of hearing -- or did you really simply not notice the very first line of the BLP? Collect (talk) 17:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- There seems to be a very basic misunderstanding of policy here. WP:BLP does not forbid describing someone as a "conspiracy theorist". It forbids describing them as such without strong reliable sources. If someone is, in fact, widely described by reliable sources as an exponent of conspiracy theories, then it is appropriate (and, in fact, mandated by policy) that we follow the sources' lead and describe them as such. A more rational and less histrionic discussion would be helpful here: if there are concerns about the "conspiracy theorist" descriptor, then which sources support the term? Post them, and let's discuss whether they support the term or not. Despite all the obnoxious shouting, I haven't seen any of the disputants here take this very basic step, which is the foundation for any meaningful discussion here. MastCell Talk 17:02, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- You mean ignoring the fact that conspiracy theorist is in the very first sentence of the lead? And that the lead then includes several clear conspiracy theories? I suggest we are not trying to "obscure any fact" but are trying to abide by WP:BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:13, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Apart from the edit summary, does anyone have any specific concerns with this article? Coretheapple (talk) 14:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Yes. Please see this thread. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 17:06, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- No, I'm not going to "see this thread" or any thread. If you or some other user have a problem with an article, it is your job to sum it up here succinctly. Editors monitoring this noticeboard are under no obligation to go to talk pages and try to figure out what an editor's concern is because he or she doesn't feel like articulating it. Coretheapple (talk) 17:19, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- If you feel so strongly about my good-faith attempt to give you a link of my concerns that you had to give me a reprimand for doing so, please disregard. I'm not interested in pursuing this further. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 17:22, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Cta was simply pointing out that it's your responsibility to sum up the issue here. Why should editors at this page be required to wade through a morass at the talkpage to figure out what your issue is? LHMask me a question 17:27, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- If it can't be summed up succinctly, perhaps there is no valid complaint here. That's my takeaway from this. Coretheapple (talk) 17:36, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Sum: And the conspiracy theories are already mentioned at length in the lead. The term "conspiracy theorist" is already sourced and in the first sentence of the lead. The issue is when we use a sledgehammer approach adding as much nugatory material as we can find into the lead and not just leave it in the body of the BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:43, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- What's the BLP issue? Coretheapple (talk) 17:59, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- 1. Using 3/4 of a lead to sledgehammer home a point is a violation of WP:BLP -- and of WP:NPOV. No number 2 is remotely needed here. Collect (talk) 19:27, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Again, this is a basic misunderstanding of policy. If 75% (or more) of a person's notability derives from promoting conspiracy theories, then it is reasonable for 75% of the lead to be taken up saying so. That's the essence of WP:WEIGHT. As best I can tell in wading through the not-particularly-coherent discussion here, there does not seem to be any serious contention that the sources are inadequate to describe Jones as a conspiracy theorist. The dispute (and purported BLP violation) has to do with describing him as such in the lead of the article. Is this correct? MastCell Talk 19:34, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- It has to do with using a sledgehammer to iterate what is already in the lead (about 75%+ of the lead) and piling Ossa on Pelion (85% of the lead). And using the outré excuse that it is somehow right to do this because he is a "nutjob". If so, it is more important to be conservative in our wording, not trying to beat him with that proverbial sledgehammer. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Again, this is a basic misunderstanding of policy. If 75% (or more) of a person's notability derives from promoting conspiracy theories, then it is reasonable for 75% of the lead to be taken up saying so. That's the essence of WP:WEIGHT. As best I can tell in wading through the not-particularly-coherent discussion here, there does not seem to be any serious contention that the sources are inadequate to describe Jones as a conspiracy theorist. The dispute (and purported BLP violation) has to do with describing him as such in the lead of the article. Is this correct? MastCell Talk 19:34, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- 1. Using 3/4 of a lead to sledgehammer home a point is a violation of WP:BLP -- and of WP:NPOV. No number 2 is remotely needed here. Collect (talk) 19:27, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- What's the BLP issue? Coretheapple (talk) 17:59, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Sum: And the conspiracy theories are already mentioned at length in the lead. The term "conspiracy theorist" is already sourced and in the first sentence of the lead. The issue is when we use a sledgehammer approach adding as much nugatory material as we can find into the lead and not just leave it in the body of the BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:43, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- If it can't be summed up succinctly, perhaps there is no valid complaint here. That's my takeaway from this. Coretheapple (talk) 17:36, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Cta was simply pointing out that it's your responsibility to sum up the issue here. Why should editors at this page be required to wade through a morass at the talkpage to figure out what your issue is? LHMask me a question 17:27, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- If you feel so strongly about my good-faith attempt to give you a link of my concerns that you had to give me a reprimand for doing so, please disregard. I'm not interested in pursuing this further. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 17:22, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- No, I'm not going to "see this thread" or any thread. If you or some other user have a problem with an article, it is your job to sum it up here succinctly. Editors monitoring this noticeboard are under no obligation to go to talk pages and try to figure out what an editor's concern is because he or she doesn't feel like articulating it. Coretheapple (talk) 17:19, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Yes. Please see this thread. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 17:06, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Collect you can drop the "nutjob" argument now. I've already apologized for using it in the summary, it has been made exceedingly clear that it has nothing to do with the reasons why the sources should be in the lead, and it hurts your case immensely by demonstrating how little policy-based reasoning your comments contain. This person is known for being a conspiracy theorist. Period. There is no "sledgehammer" here, just reliable sources being put at use. I would actually move "conspiracy theorist" first in the description of what he is in the lead. Regards. Gaba (talk) 20:36, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- OK -- right now with the added material, the lead is 93+% negative, 4% self-description by Jones. Removing the questioned material still leaves the editorial content of the lead at 92% negative. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC) Balanced? Collect (talk) 21:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- As argued in Talk, I don't see any "negative" content there. It is all factual stuff and a few opinions sourced to RS that express that he is a leading/prolific conspiracy theorist. - Cwobeel (talk)
- I tend to agree with Cwobeel. It seems that the overwhelming sourcing of this article points to him being a leading conspiracy theorist. If it was just one source or if it could all be traced back to one smear campaign or one source of heckling it would be a different matter. But I don't believe that the emphasis in the lead on his conspiracy theorist aspect is a BLP issue or even especially controversial. I disagree with Cwobeel about it being negative. It clearly is, and would be a BLP issue if it was unwarranted. Does he even deny that he is a conspiracy theorist? Coretheapple (talk) 21:41, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- The opposite:
You don’t reject the term conspiracy theorist? No. People now learn that that means someone who questions known liars in government and media. So that definitely means what heretics did during the Inquisition. I find myself proud to be listed as a thought criminal against Big Brother.[12]
- Cwobeel (talk) 21:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)- Well then it is not in dispute, so I don't see a BLP issue here. If someone can point to one, or if the subject of the article has a
validcomplaint of any kind, then I'd like to hear it. Coretheapple (talk) 22:36, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Well then it is not in dispute, so I don't see a BLP issue here. If someone can point to one, or if the subject of the article has a
- The opposite:
- I tend to agree with Cwobeel. It seems that the overwhelming sourcing of this article points to him being a leading conspiracy theorist. If it was just one source or if it could all be traced back to one smear campaign or one source of heckling it would be a different matter. But I don't believe that the emphasis in the lead on his conspiracy theorist aspect is a BLP issue or even especially controversial. I disagree with Cwobeel about it being negative. It clearly is, and would be a BLP issue if it was unwarranted. Does he even deny that he is a conspiracy theorist? Coretheapple (talk) 21:41, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- As argued in Talk, I don't see any "negative" content there. It is all factual stuff and a few opinions sourced to RS that express that he is a leading/prolific conspiracy theorist. - Cwobeel (talk)
- MONGO was once almost famous...lol....nevertheless all BLPs should do no harm...no matter what one may feel about the subject.--MONGO 16:20, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- I agree, and I think in this case that no harm is done. We do have to police biographies for that factor. The fact that one editor used disparaging terms was definitely a red flag, and we need to act harshly in situations in which editors with records of hostility to living people are editing those articles. I don't know if BLP covers such a situation but it should. Coretheapple (talk) 14:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- I started a discussion at Talk:BLP about tightening up the BLP rules to prevent such situations. I don't happen to feel that Jones was a victim of editing by antagonists, but he is the kind of person who evokes strong feelings so I can see that happening. Coretheapple (talk) 15:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- What's the issue again? Is calling Jones a conspiracy theorist contentious? You bet it is. Is it reliably sourced? Hell yes it is. Other than the "nutjob" summary, which has already been addressed with a sincere apology, what else is there left to do? If the sources all have overwhelming negative information, we should too (phrased neutrally).Two Kinds of PorkMakin'Bacon 18:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Caprice Bourret
Caprice Bourret (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Would an experienced BLP editor be able to glance at the "personal life" section of this bio? Whilst most of the content there is linked to some sort of source, I'm concerned whether a lot of it is due, or balanced. From the talk page and history I see this content has been previously removed, and then reinserted, more than once. Some of it probably deserves a mention, but as presented now, it does concern me somewhat. Thanks. Begoon talk 08:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Done Noting that this has now been addressed: [13]. Thank you Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Begoon talk 16:19, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Nick de Bois
Nick de Bois (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This page on UK MP Nick de Bois reads as an advertisement for the MP's local constituency work, consisting mostly of largely non-notable local campaigns he has run, with references to irrelevant external sources and an overabundance of references from the MP's own website. This smacks of political (or even constituency/parliamentary office) editing and should be amended to conform to Wikipedia:NPOV and the standards of other MP pages. -Kez (talk) 10:25, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
[14] is the edit in question.
All charges against Bieber were dropped by Toronto prosecutors. This edit says that they could not "prove" Bieber committed the crime, but even the existence of the crime is not affirmed by the prosecutors at all in the first place. Bieber has a host of "allegations" still in his BLP, but retaining this one which rather implies he was guilty but could not be "proven" guilty seems to violate the spirit and substance of WP:BLP. (this charge was dropped on September 8 when evidence could not prove Bieber was the assailant seems quite weaselly to me) The Reuters article specifically does not assert what this edit manages to imply (the article says the prosecutor said there was no reasonable prospect of conviction and the photo caption uses the words The driver had alleged that Bieber had struck him on the back of the head several times during an altercation. , and I fear "implying" truth of an allegation is improper. AFAICT, there is a reasonable inference that the prosecutors simply did not believe the specific claims of the driver, who also has sued for damages. Bieber may need anger management, but he does not deserve having his BLP implying he got off on a charge which we then reiterate just to make sure everyone knows about it, and then imply he may be guilty anyway. Collect (talk) 12:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC) Note also that the entire "legal issues" section has massive amounts of duplicated material and should be trimmed severely at this point. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:31, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Stephen Yagman
Stephen Yagman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article could use some more eyes on it. The subject is a former lawyer and convicted felon, and there has been a slow edit war going on with IPs accusing each other of COI, whitewashing, vandalism, etc. The best version of the article might be somewhere between the two versions the IPs are pushing, and I was going to have a look through the sources to try to check for balance/undue weight, but the more, the merrier on this type of controversial BLP, I think. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 21:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
User:Madconservationist did vandalism
Madconservationist edited wrong information aiming at harassing the target.
- Are you talking about this edit, which is the only one that shows up under that editor name? I am not clear on how that amounts to harassing the target; given that it is the user's only edit and its three months old, I don't see any ongoing problem. The edit was unsourced, but so is the current claims about his family. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Karl Racine
Karl Racine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article about a current candidate for municipal office in the District of Columbia. subject of edit war over last few days, previously had NPOV issues biased to smear the subject, but after very long recent edit has NPOV issues biased to paint the subject in a positive light and squash all negative information, despite significant media attention (subject is white collar criminal defense attorney). would greatly benefit from disinterested editors willing to sort through the sordid history and distill it down to relevant bits. -166.137.88.42 (talk) 05:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- I agree that this article could benefit outside attention. This edit ostensibly is for POV reasons but I see no issue in the material removed. Coretheapple (talk) 16:55, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Carl Dix
The article is almost entirely primary sources written by the subject of the article himself. I would suggest opening it up for deletion for lack of notability. But some outside perspectives should come look at it with more experience and decide for themselves. Please check out this article. The article also seems to serve as a soapbox for the previous editors of the article who are likely part of the same organization as the subject of the article. --xcuref1endx (talk) 17:06, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- I believe that Carl Dix is at least marginally notable. Please take a look at the BLP of his close associate Bob Avakian whose article has undergone a major and justified "haircut" in recent days. None of these articles should be "political leaflets" for fringe political parties. Similar attention can be devoted to this article as well. Use of a machete is highly recommended. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- The issue with these articles though is that they are generally watched over by members of the organization, so any changes are usually reverted back, so is there someone with administrative authority to look it over? See the Bob Avakian article, the changes it has undergone the past few days has already been reverted back to what it was. --xcuref1endx (talk) 12:34, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Kamrul Hassan Elahi
Kamrul Hassan Elahi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Article appears to be an autobiography. A few hours ago when the article did not have any references I added a WP:BLP PROD tag to it. Author responded by removing the tag and adding external links to the subject's (author's?) LinkedIn and Google+ profiles. By my reading of WP:BLP PROD (and please correct me if I'm wrong) removal of the tag requires the addition of a reliable source, which a social media profile is not. I re-added the template and notified the author; shortly thereafter it was removed again. I have since re-added it again. Input is appreciated: what do I do now? If I keep re-adding the template will it be a violation of WP:3RR? Did I violate WP:BITE in my interaction with the author? --Richard Yin (talk) 20:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- PRODing it was OK, and I would not worry about 3RR in these circumstances. I'll keep an eye on it. - Cwobeel (talk)
- Frankly, I think CSD A7 applies here. I don't see anything that shows this is a significant person. —C.Fred (talk) 20:29, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- Speedy-deleted per WP:CSD#A7. JohnCD (talk) 20:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with the speedy. But for future reference, Richard Yin, please note the PROD rule: "If anyone, including the article creator, removes a PROD tag from an article, do not replace it." Bold in the original. Don't restore a removed PROD tag. The user doesn't have to explain the removal; it's all in the linked policy. (It can be very frustrating, I know.) Once a PROD tag has been removed, the article will have to be either AfD'd or speedied. No more prodding. BTW, I see that you said you'd userfied it,Richard, but I think you forgot to actually put it on the user's page.[15] Bishonen | talk 20:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC).
- Not necessarily true. As the template documentation says, "If the template is removed from the article, it may be replaced in certain cases. Please refer to the BLP PROD policy for details." —C.Fred (talk) 20:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- I did userfy it. It was blank at the time. I may have been too hasty. --Richard Yin (talk) 05:09, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with the speedy. But for future reference, Richard Yin, please note the PROD rule: "If anyone, including the article creator, removes a PROD tag from an article, do not replace it." Bold in the original. Don't restore a removed PROD tag. The user doesn't have to explain the removal; it's all in the linked policy. (It can be very frustrating, I know.) Once a PROD tag has been removed, the article will have to be either AfD'd or speedied. No more prodding. BTW, I see that you said you'd userfied it,Richard, but I think you forgot to actually put it on the user's page.[15] Bishonen | talk 20:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC).
- Speedy-deleted per WP:CSD#A7. JohnCD (talk) 20:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- Frankly, I think CSD A7 applies here. I don't see anything that shows this is a significant person. —C.Fred (talk) 20:29, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Dennis Rawlins
Dennis Rawlins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dennis Rawlins is an unsourced one-line biography, followed by an extensive discussion of various controversies he has been involved in. Much of the material appears to be WP:FRINGE to me. Many of the refs are simply to a journal and a year, without article name, author or page number making checking challenging. As far as I can tell, not a single biographical fact in the biography is well supported. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:16, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- What a mess of an article. One approach could be to stubify and build from there. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:28, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
michael brown RFC
The following RFC Talk:Shooting_of_Michael_Brown#RfC:_Should_article_mention_Brown_had_no_.28adult.29_criminal_record.3F could use additional input from uninvolved editors. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:24, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Zak Ibsen
Zak Ibsen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This is Zak Ibsen, the subject of a Biographical page. I have attempted to engage the editors of a page with my name as the subject, in a constructive manner, to correct the contents of the page. The results have not been positive, so request the page titled, Zak Ibsen, be removed from Wikipedia, as the information contained is not accurate. Thank you for removing the Zak Ibsen page from Wikipedia's Biography pages.
Zak Ibsen Zak Ibsen (talk) 14:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Zak, I don't think the article can be deleted, but in its current state the article is a stub, with just minimal and what seems to be accurate information. If there is incorrect information, please point it out so that it can be looked at. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:31, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, as per Cwobeel, what is it exactly that is not correct? It seems the information you were attempting to add read far too promotional and was unsourced. Meatsgains (talk) 00:10, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- @Zak Ibsen: I'm sorry this has been frustrating for you. As this diff shows, user TheRedPenOfDoom correctly removed a large amount of unsourced and promotional-sounding material from the article. We can't have a "vanity CV" in lieu of a biography - we prefer a stub instead. You are welcome to add material, neutrally worded and properly sourced, or refrain from editing the article altogether. And we do not delete articles because the subject can't edit them to their liking. We understand it's difficult to write about yourself neutrally, and we understand that some aspects of subjects' lives sometimes cannot be sourced, and personal recollections by the subject are not acceptable, so that type of material must be omitted. But these things are not negotiable. As I said, we'd rather be stuck with a stub. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 00:36, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Well, as the subject of the article with an inherent conflict of interest, Zak Ibsen should not edit the article directly. they should place sources and suggested content on the talk page and let a third party determine whether and how to include it in the article itself. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:41, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- In the process of removing self-promotional content and tone from the text, a lot of basic, non-contentious content got removed as well (notably, his MLS tenure and championships and his membership on the Olympic and men's national teams). This left the text noticeably incomplete, even for a stub. I've revised the article to include the basic facts with reliable sources. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for the clean up! (But I will note that claims of being an Olympian and professional national athlete do in fact fall in the bucket of "contentious".) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:29, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- In the process of removing self-promotional content and tone from the text, a lot of basic, non-contentious content got removed as well (notably, his MLS tenure and championships and his membership on the Olympic and men's national teams). This left the text noticeably incomplete, even for a stub. I've revised the article to include the basic facts with reliable sources. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Well, as the subject of the article with an inherent conflict of interest, Zak Ibsen should not edit the article directly. they should place sources and suggested content on the talk page and let a third party determine whether and how to include it in the article itself. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:41, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Just a head's up
I've been reading various versions of Sarah Palin's appearance -- one is here -- at an Anchorage party last Saturday night which, er, doesn't reflect well on her. (Another, which is fuller, can be read here.) I'm not advocating that it be added -- while I find this story very entertaining, I'm undecided whether it's notable -- I figure an edit war is waiting to break out over adding it to one of the articles about Palin. -- llywrch (talk) 05:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Malik Mohammad Jehangir
Malik Mohammad Jehangir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) How I could improve article on Malik Mohammad Jehangir? I wrote many others but no idea why I am not able to enhance it. Kindly assist that I be able to furnish my writing skills and to write on more living persons --Zainkazmi1 (talk) 06:28, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- In general, you find reliably published sources that discuss the subject and present the the contents of those sources in the importance that mainstream academics view them. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:31, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Carl Baugh
- Carl Baugh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The lead of this article is currently being edited to say that Baugh's young-earth Creationist views (and use of "science" to flog them) have been "challenged" or "questioned", instead of debunked by scientists. The language desired by other editors is a violation of WP:FRINGE, in my view -- especially as that language suggests that Baugh's views might actually be right. When these views include the notion that humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time, I think we're well over the line of doing a disservice to our readers. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:30, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Premakeerthi de Alwis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premakeerthi_de_Alwis Assassination section
Please note that there has been a dispute going on about the assassination of the person mentioned in the article, Premakeerthi de Alwis. De Alwis's murder has been officially investigated and murderer has been sentenced in the High Court of Colombo, Sri Lanka and the verdict has also been upheld by the Appeals Court of Sri Lanka.
However, nearly a quarter century later, his wife, Nirmal de Alwis has written a book accusing Hudson Samarasinghe, the Chairman of the Sri Lanka Broadcasting Corporation and self published it. Recently at the 25th death anniversary of the deceased, Nirmala has shouted out at the president of Sri Lanka "why he was protecting, her husband's killer, Samarasinghe". This shouting at the president received a huge amount of publicity from mainstream media. However, those media reports are merely quoting what Nirmala de Alwis was saying. Not a single person in the world has made this accusation except for Nirmala de Alwis. Her claims are knowingly false and unsubstantiated. Mr. Samarasinghe has never been questioned or investigated for the murder of de Alwis.
A user named Wipeouting(other names -Academiava, Academiava2, Academiava3) has been trying to get this information included in the article. This information has been repeatedly refused by Wikipedia administrators as it violates the biographies of the living persons. However, wipeoutings plea was heard by an administrator (Bill w) and has been requested another administrator Obi2canibe to rewrite the article to include this unsubstantiated claim by his wife. Although Samarasinghe's name was not mentioned, all the references are indirectly pointing to Hudson Samarasinghe which ultimately injures Samarasinghe. You can find an analysis of her false accusation at http://ceylonreport.com/premakeerthi-de-alwis-official-court-ruling/
I am kindly requesting that unsubstantiated accusations starting with the line "In 2009 de Alwis' widow Nirmala" be removed from this article. --Ramya20 (talk) 16:39, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Igor Girkin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Poorly sourced rumor about Igor Girkin "found hanged in Rostov-on-Don, Russia" should be removed.
Were this true, there would be good sources. This entry is neither verifiable nor neutral.
Just look at claimed source. Makes wikipedia look foolish, being used for implied death threats.
Thank you.
(I have never commented or posted at wikipedia in any way before now.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.4.102.71 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Pardon me for editing the top of the discussion, but for clarity we are discussing material in the Atrazine article, and not currently included in the Tyrone Hayes article. Formerly 98 (talk) 23:36, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
There is a disagreement about the admissibility as a reliable source of the following material posted (all at the same URL) on the Syngenta corporate website:
- 1 A letter from Syngenta to the University of California complaining of "unethical behavior" by Tyrone Hays. This letter makes certain allegations that I will not repeat here in the event pending a ruling on whether this would be a violation of BLP, but the letter can be seen here.
- 2 A letter from University of California legal counsel, on University letterhead and signed by University of California Vice Provost Nancy Chu, stating that Hays had acknowledged certain behaviors and agreed to cease and desist.
- 3 Photocopies of some emails sent by Hays to Syngenta scientists. These have been linked to in a a Nature article, have been directly quoted by the New Yorker having been on the Syngenta website since 2010, and would surely have sparked a libel suit if they were faked.
I believe these letters and the cited emails from Hays are a reliable source, as they have been quoted/linked by at least two reliable secondary sources, the letters are on official letterhead and signed by senior officials of the company and university, and have been on the website unchallenged by either Hays or the University for over 4 years. I'd like to ask @Binksternet: his opposing point of view also, so we can be careful to remain within the guidelines. thanks Formerly 98 (talk) 22:35, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- No, we cannot use the Syngenta-hosted documents, which can of course be shown in altered form by Syngenta, for the purpose of attacking Hays, their bitter enemy. The correct guideline here is WP:BLPPRIMARY, which says no legal documents. Instead, we rely on third party discussion of the matter. Binksternet (talk) 22:41, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Binksternet. This is what I took from WP:BLPPRIMARY:
- "Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies"
- I believe that in citing the Nature article, my use of this material was compliant. Also, I disagree with your characterization of these letters as legal documents. Aside from wikilawyering, is there any particular reason you believe this material to be non-authentic? Formerly 98 (talk) 22:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- I don't believe it adds anything to the article and the secondary source is sufficient to discuss the issue. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:00, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Binksternet. This is what I took from WP:BLPPRIMARY:
- Thanks NorthBySouthBaranof. Any objection to the use of the following secondary source? http://news.sciencemag.org/2010/08/i-told-ya-you-cant-stop-rage-uc-endocrinologist-hayes-writes-syngenta
- Syngenta has also attacked Hayes in many ways, including threatening his family, disrupting his lectures, funding an attack website, and so on. Both sides have delivered hot broadsides at the other. However, this is an encyclopedia we're writing, and we're not here to fan the flames. We use calm, neutral language rather than language to inflame. None of the spiteful little details of this brouhaha should be in any of our articles, just a general description or summary. Binksternet (talk) 23:22, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks NorthBySouthBaranof. Any objection to the use of the following secondary source? http://news.sciencemag.org/2010/08/i-told-ya-you-cant-stop-rage-uc-endocrinologist-hayes-writes-syngenta
- Well said Binksternet, but the article already contains several paragraphs describing Syngenta's alleged improper behavior. I think that {{WP:NPOV]] requires that we treat the misbehavior of both sides in the dispute equally. I will be happy to leave out the Science Magazine material if we can agree to cut back the lengthy discussion of the allegations against Syngenta, some of which have no corroboration.
- No, that's not what NPOV requires. NPOV does not require that we treat things "equally" — rather, it requires that we weight allegations in accordance with the weight given them in reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:46, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
- Well said Binksternet, but the article already contains several paragraphs describing Syngenta's alleged improper behavior. I think that {{WP:NPOV]] requires that we treat the misbehavior of both sides in the dispute equally. I will be happy to leave out the Science Magazine material if we can agree to cut back the lengthy discussion of the allegations against Syngenta, some of which have no corroboration.
- @NorthBySouthBaranof: I respectfully request that you stop editing the article for POV while the discussion is ongoing here and that you revert the edits you have made during the previous 30 minutes pending the attainment of a consensus. Formerly 98 (talk) 23:27, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Then likewise, I have reverted your recent edits per the bold, revert, discuss cycle and I request that you discuss your proposed additions and changes on the talk page and gain consensus before adding them. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:45, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
@NorthBySouthBaranof: You reverted my edit without giving any reason other than "Please discuss before making changes per BRD", which directly contradicts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle#What_BRD_is.2C_and_is_not.
- "BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring: instead, provide a reason that is based on policies, guidelines, or common sense."
Please also see WP:FIXED
- ""Please discuss before making such drastic changes." is listed as an argument to specifically avoid. It is certainly not reason enough by itself to revert.
I respectfully request that you return the article to the state it was in at the beginning of this discussion, and engage in a meaningful discussion regarding why you don't think that Haye's behavior, which is discussed at length in 3 first tier scientific publications, is worthy of equal coverage with that of Syngenta. Thanks. Formerly 98 (talk) 04:08, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with the removal of the primary materials sourced to atrazine.com, which is of course extremely biased in the matter. Regarding the BRD cycle: discussion is supposed to be conducted with the recent change reverted, that is, the article staying the way it was before the editor made the disputed change. Binksternet (talk) 04:34, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
- Sauce for the goose, Formerly 98. You did not discuss my good-faith efforts to improve the section before simply flatly reverting all of my changes back to your preferred version.
- You made bold changes to the article. I made bold changes to your changes, in an effort to improve them and make them conform to the sources. Rather than continue engaging in good-faith back-and-forth editing, you just undid all my edits. What does that tell me? That you're not interested in editorial engagement, but simply making the article conform to your POV. In my mind, that makes all of your edits suspect. So I reverted them in return.
- You can hardly argue that it's somehow fair and justifiable for you to revert my edits but unfair and unjustifiable for me to revert your edits. Well, I suppose you can argue it, but nobody is likely to buy it. It amounts to "I get to edit this article, you don't." And that's not how Wikipedia works. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:29, 13 September 2014 (UTC)