|
Welcome to the biographies of living persons noticeboard | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||
Additional notes:
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:
|
Contents
- 1 109 BLP articles labelled "Climate Change Deniers" all at once
- 2 Lexi Love
- 3 Joe Atuhaire
- 4 Rick Alan Ross
- 5 Ben Carson
- 6 David Cardoza
- 7 Amiya Taga
- 8 Andrew Glover (composer)
- 9 Muckraker
- 10 Category:Blue-eyed soul singers
- 11 Proposal: re BLP § Privacy of personal information and using primary sources
- 12 Many female BLPs up for deletion
- 13 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Plaisted
- 14 Ray Reach
- 15 Daniel Scioli
- 16 Leonid Lebedev
- 17 BLPCAT violation at Tom Metzger (white supremacist)
- 18 Samuel P.N. Cook
- 19 Albert Brooks
- 20 Wade Burleson
- 21 Jonathon Hafetz
109 BLP articles labelled "Climate Change Deniers" all at once
On October 13 a bot put 109 BLP articles into category "Climate Change Deniers" due to a CFD discussion. Number of editors participating: 10. Number of notices on the BLP talk pages: zero. Number of reliable sources cited to support the changes: zero. I claim that WP:BLPN is the appropriate discussion venue for such a large set of BLP changes, and that labelling people "deniers" is not appropriate without a strong consensus of subject-specific sources plus a strong consensus of editors who have actually seen the BLPs and are aware of previous discussions on the BLPs' talk pages and are aware of WP:AE. The articles are: Khabibullo Abdussamatov Stuart Agnew Syun-Ichi Akasofu Claude Allègre J. Scott Armstrong Michele Bachmann Sallie Baliunas Timothy Ball Robert Balling Joseph Bast Joe Bastardi Godfrey Bloom Joe Barton David Bellamy Maxime Bernier Marsha Blackburn Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen Christopher Booker Barry Brill Paul Broun Douglas Carswell Robert M. Carter John Christy Petr Chylek Ian Clark (geologist) John Coleman (news weathercaster) Piers Corbyn Ann Coulter Vincent Courtillot Ken Cuccinelli Judith Curry Edward E. David Jr. James Delingpole Martin Durkin (television director) Myron Ebell Nigel Farage Chris de Freitas David Deming David Douglass Don Easterbrook David Evans (mathematician and engineer) Ivar Giaever Steven Goddard Vincent R. Gray William M. Gray William Happer John Hawkins (columnist) Rodney Hide Ole Humlum David Icke Craig D. Idso Keith E. Idso Sherwood B. Idso Jim Inhofe Wibjörn Karlén Michael Kelly (physicist) Steve King William Kininmonth (meteorologist) Václav Klaus Steven E. Koonin Lyndon LaRouche David Legates Lucia Liljegren Rush Limbaugh Richard Lindzen Scott Lively Craig Loehle Anthony Lupo Bob Lutz (businessman) Steve McIntyre Ross McKitrick Patrick Michaels Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley Andrew Montford Patrick Moore (environmentalist) Marc Morano Nils-Axel Mörner Tad Murty Joanne Nova Bill O'Reilly (political commentator) Vladimir Paar Sarah Palin Garth Paltridge Tim Patterson Melanie Phillips Ian Plimer Denis Rancourt Arthur B. Robinson Marco Rubio Burt Rutan Pat Sajak Murry Salby Nicola Scafetta Harrison Schmitt Tom Segalstad Nir Shaviv Fred Singer Willie Soon Roy Spencer (scientist) Bret Stephens Peter Stilbs Philip Stott Henrik Svensmark George H. Taylor Hendrik Tennekes Anastasios Tsonis Fritz Vahrenholt Jan Veizer Anthony Watts (blogger). I will place appropriate notices on the talk pages. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:23, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Per WP:BLPCAT, I think it is a really bad idea to have a category called "Climate change deniers" into which we put living people. Many of the listed people have been described as climate change deniers, often by reliable sources, so there may be some justice to applying the term—but in that case, the justification and sourcing for the term needs to be described with appropriate attribution and nuance in the body of the relevant articles. Categories, by their nature, are devoid of nuance, and so I don't think this is an appropriate use of categorization. MastCell Talk 17:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Agree that a category based on a labeled term ("denier") for BLP is very very iffy. If we even should keep the category, it should be at something like "Climate change theory opponents" but that's even if we should keep the category. A list where we would be able to include inline sourcing where the individuals have self-stated opposition to climate change would be at least reasonable to avoid a question of unsourced contentious claims. --MASEM (t) 18:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- This is analogous to religious views. If someone claims to be a climate change denier, he or she will be offended if this isn’t included provided a RS supports it. I edit Godfrey Bloom whose views are unequivocal. JRPG (talk) 18:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Agree with the concerns about this. Categories are blunt tools and the term "denier", while found in sources, is clearly pejorative and judgmental, regardless of the science and even if many both here and in the real world might think it fair. N-HH talk/edits 18:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- [EC] Fully agree with N-HH. Many extremely pejorative terms are found in sources that oppose those views. This phrase should only be used for BLPs of people who self-identify as "climate change denier". It is also imprecise, lumping together a blogger who thinks that the climate isn't changing and that all the scientists are liars with a respected climate scientist who agrees with the majority scientific view regarding climate change, including the most controversial part (the claim that all or nearly all climate change is the result of human activity) but doubts that proposed solutions that only involve a few countries and exclude China, India, etc. will solve the problem. Those are two completely different categories of people and should no be lumped together. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:27, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- As RevelationDirect said, maybe we could use a more neutral name like Category:People rejecting anthropogenic climate change. Prhartcom (talk) 18:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
-
- The parent category is named Category:Climate change skepticism and denial which is a little wordy but seems inclusive. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- I tend to agree with Masem that this probably shouldn't be a category (under any name). --JBL (talk) 18:37, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
-
- Agree that a category based on a labeled term ("denier") for BLP is very very iffy. If we even should keep the category, it should be at something like "Climate change theory opponents" but that's even if we should keep the category. A list where we would be able to include inline sourcing where the individuals have self-stated opposition to climate change would be at least reasonable to avoid a question of unsourced contentious claims. --MASEM (t) 18:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with MastCell's argument here; while I think they're clearly outside the scientific mainstream, the category name is needlessly pejorative. Prhartcom's suggestion strikes me as sensible. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:40, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Please also have the courtesy to alert each editor involved in the October discussion. — TPX 18:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- I hope it's redundant since notifications have been made on all the talk pages now, but I hereby alert Youknowwhatimsayin 烏Γ Marcocapelle RevelationDirect Prhartcom Jerod Lycett Peterkingiron Nederlandse Leeuw Ssscienccce Cirt and the closing administrator Good Ol’factory. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- This notification, at least for me, was in no way redundant; I had no way of knowing this discussion existed. —烏Γ (kaw) │ 19:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for the notice. RevelationDirect (talk) 20:23, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- This notification, at least for me, was in no way redundant; I had no way of knowing this discussion existed. —烏Γ (kaw) │ 19:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- I hope it's redundant since notifications have been made on all the talk pages now, but I hereby alert Youknowwhatimsayin 烏Γ Marcocapelle RevelationDirect Prhartcom Jerod Lycett Peterkingiron Nederlandse Leeuw Ssscienccce Cirt and the closing administrator Good Ol’factory. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
The articles were already in the category Climate change skeptics, which was renamed to deniers. Frankly, I think that the inclusion of most of those people in the original category was not controversial. What is controversial is the new category name, which sounds pejorative. I don't see this is a BLP issue. I didn't participate (or even know about) the original discussion. But to the extent that the new category name is pejorative, I'd certainly vote to revert to the skeptic category name. M.boli (talk) 18:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- "Skeptics" is just as bad as "deniers", even when knowing how the term is normally used in that field. Out of context, it implies "their opinion is wrong", and unless they self-identify as that, that's a label that runs afoul of BLP even if if the claim is made by a reliable source. And that's where we need the strength of inline sourcing to justify when such a label can be used. Hence why any type of category to group these people seems wrong and it is much better to use a list here which can be sourced and better maintained to avoid BLP problems. --MASEM (t) 18:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) We represent how the reliable sources represent. And basically all the reliable sources that discuss the people who oppose the science that mankind is changing climate are "deniers" . That positions they hold and espouse may reflect badly upon them is not a BLP issue.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:27, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- It has already been skeptics and before that it was deniers. We have been going back and forth between those two with many discussions along the way. If we're going to change it, change it to anything but either of those two. See other suggested names above. Prhartcom (talk) 18:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- It's worth pointing out that there's a difference between skeptic and denier. Skeptic accurately relates that someone doesn't believe it. Denier implies that climate change theories are proven and that they won't accept it. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- People who deny climate change probably do not see the term "denier" as pejorative. See, e.g., Category:Holocaust deniers. The category definition may be incomplete if they only deny human-induced climate change. A new CFD can be started if needed to adjust either "denier" or the scope. But there is no BLP crisis requiring immediate response.--Milowent • hasspoken 18:40, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps some sort of climate category might be okay, but it's very difficult. If someone denies that the US can unilaterally take action to stop climate change, does that make them a "denier"? If they deny that climate change would be a totally bad thing, without any silver lining, does that make them a denier? If they acknowledge climate change but attribute 51% of it to non-human causes, are they a "denier"? Maybe a better category would be "people with a position on climate change".Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:41, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Strongly agree with Milowent -deniers are proud of their claims though wp:FLAT applies to those believing that CO2 doesn't cause it. JRPG (talk) 18:57, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note that the current list includes Richard Lindzen, former Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a lead author of Chapter 7, "Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks," of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Third Assessment Report on climate change, and Judith Curry, former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Categorising those two as "climate change deniers" is madness. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:59, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- I favor either of the paths suggested by MastCell and Anythingyouwant: delete the category per WP:BLPCAT, or expand the category to Category:People with public views on climate change or similar. alanyst 19:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- having a public view on climate change is not notable or distinguishing. Denying the overwhelming scientific consensus about human induced climate change is. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- What consensus exactly? Th UN report on climate change? Some kind of academic work? Something else? And to what extent does one have to 'deny' the 'overwhelming scientific consensus' to be included? What if one thinks the UN report on climate change is too optimistic? Are they a 'denier' too? Bonewah (talk) 19:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Mr. Doom, sure it's distinguishing. It distinguishes people who have a public position from those who don't.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- TRPoD, notability of a person's public views on climate change is up to the sources, and should not depend on our notion of how valid those views are. Whether a person has expressed public views on the subject is a rather objective question, much more suited to the binary nature of WP categorization than the nuances of the nature of those views. alanyst 19:19, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- having a public view on climate change is not notable or distinguishing. Denying the overwhelming scientific consensus about human induced climate change is. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
-
-
- In my opinion, categorizing people, living or dead, is the first step in creating a stereotype, which has been used for centuries as a divisive technique, from the Christians who were accused of burning Rome to the modern war on drugs, in essence to find support for a cause by finding someone to rally the masses against. Categories of things like athletic achievements, professions, or Nobel Prize winners are fine, but I personally am opposed to any categorization of things like race, religion or personal beliefs, because Wikipedia should not be participating in the stereotyping of individuals. Zaereth (talk) 19:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Although I disagree strongly with this category name, if someone is known largely as a critic/skeptic/doubter/denier/revisionist/debunker of climate change, I see nothing wrong with categorizing them as such. It makes it easier for readers to find other, similar articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- I'm sure McCarthy didn't see anything wrong with his actions either, and that was the real problem with McCarthyism. This is no different. The real problem is not seeing how our actions affect others until it is too late. If Wikipedia existed in the 1950s, would you be in favor of a category of "Communist sympathizers?" The world is simply not as "black and white" as categorizations, which is exactly what makes them useful tools. It's much easier to rally people against a "perceived evil" than it is a spectrum of individuals. The Romans did it, as did the Nazis, the Americans, the English, and everyone else since the beginning of recorded history. George Bush Jr. had it handed in his lap, but like an idiot chose to take the fight to an enemy that the people were not even considering. As an encyclopedia, we're expected to do better than the politically-controlled news outlets we use as sources. Zaereth (talk) 09:58, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- Godwin's law @Zaereth: If Wikipedia existed in the 1950s, the term would probably be "Fellow Travelers" rather than "Communist Sympathizers" but, under either name, it should be deleted per WP:OCASSOC. RevelationDirect (talk) 16:51, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- I'm sure McCarthy didn't see anything wrong with his actions either, and that was the real problem with McCarthyism. This is no different. The real problem is not seeing how our actions affect others until it is too late. If Wikipedia existed in the 1950s, would you be in favor of a category of "Communist sympathizers?" The world is simply not as "black and white" as categorizations, which is exactly what makes them useful tools. It's much easier to rally people against a "perceived evil" than it is a spectrum of individuals. The Romans did it, as did the Nazis, the Americans, the English, and everyone else since the beginning of recorded history. George Bush Jr. had it handed in his lap, but like an idiot chose to take the fight to an enemy that the people were not even considering. As an encyclopedia, we're expected to do better than the politically-controlled news outlets we use as sources. Zaereth (talk) 09:58, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- Although I disagree strongly with this category name, if someone is known largely as a critic/skeptic/doubter/denier/revisionist/debunker of climate change, I see nothing wrong with categorizing them as such. It makes it easier for readers to find other, similar articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- In my opinion, categorizing people, living or dead, is the first step in creating a stereotype, which has been used for centuries as a divisive technique, from the Christians who were accused of burning Rome to the modern war on drugs, in essence to find support for a cause by finding someone to rally the masses against. Categories of things like athletic achievements, professions, or Nobel Prize winners are fine, but I personally am opposed to any categorization of things like race, religion or personal beliefs, because Wikipedia should not be participating in the stereotyping of individuals. Zaereth (talk) 19:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
-
- I share the concern expressed above that the current name for the category is potentially misleading. Many public officials who are currently included in the category have indicated that they believe in climate change, but doubt the significance of human activity as a factor. I think it's misleading to say that they are "climate change deniers".CFredkin (talk) 19:19, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- And what are they "denying"? That change is occurring or that it's a man made problem and not a natural cycle? Niteshift36 (talk) 19:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- I've never been a fan of the word "denier" as a label; I prefer describing instead of labeling: "...advocates for climate change denial", "...who denies climate change", "...rejects the scientific consensus on...", etc. However, that's just a personal preference. Our sources are extremely clear on these articles that the subject denies climate change. Our sources are also very clear that the term "skeptic" is incorrect, and intentionally misleading. I'm frustrated that Pete is forum shopping; this discussion has been had many times, twice now at CfD, so Pete is trying somewhere new to get a different result. Nearly everything he's said in his first post here is untrue to some degree. If anyone wants the cat renamed, we can have that conversation (that's why WP:CfD exists), but please look into the sourcing and the BLPs first. Try Anthony Watts (blogger) for an example, and investigate the talk page and sources. As our sources there indicate clearly, "skeptic" is absolutely not the right word. — Jess· Δ♥ 19:39, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- CFD Notification Procedure "Number of notices on the BLP talk pages: zero." The current procedure for notifying other editors of category nominations is to tag the nomination category page which does two things: 1) it brings the page to the notice of anyone who is "watching" that page and 2) it places an alert on any WikiProject that is on the talk page. There are limitations to both: many long-term editors are watching so many pages they may miss the tag (that's why I always tag the category creator with a notice as an extra courtesy) and categories are much more likely to not have WikiProjects on the talk page.
- When this category was nominated, the Skepticism and Environmental WikiProjects had tagged the corresponding talk page so they were automatically notified here and here. If the WikiProject Biography had tagged the category talk page, the alert would have shown up here.
- As much as I disagree with the outcome of this particular nomination, as someone who routinely nominates other catgories, I don't think it's fair to claim the nomination was out of order when the process was followed. Rather I think it's worth emphasizing the importance of tagging category talk pages and watching the alerts pages. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to agree with Jess that this is forum shopping. There was consensus for the new name; two days later, another CfD was opened and is largely being opposed. My participation in this collective discussion has been unintentionally contentious, and while I would prefer a more neutral name if possible, we can't ignore the sources. —烏Γ (kaw) │ 19:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
-
- I'm not sure if it's intentional forum shopping (the concerns here were BLP focused) but it is the wrong forum. (And, as an opponent of "denier" my viewpoint would benefit from moving it to this forum.)RevelationDirect (talk) 20:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Skip the whole category. "Denier" is obviously a BLP violation; as it implies that there is something wrong with scientists who hold a minority view; as opposed to seeing them as a natural part of a scientific discourse. That's basically an anti-science view as dissenting views and open debate are important in all science. But "climate change sceptics" is also misleading; since in most cases the issue for debate is human impact on climate change more than the existence of the change that are up for debate (they may also doubt the prognosis for further cliamate change and/or the negative effects of such changes). All in all, this is too complicated to get correct in a short category; the list category is called "Scientists opposed to the mainstream view on climate change" or something similar. Iselilja (talk) 20:01, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
-
- There are more than two options: doubters, critics, or "skeptics and deniers" would all be a middle ground. RevelationDirect (talk) 20:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Forum I strongly agree with the sensitivity shown in this conversation toward categorizing people as "deniers" when they would likely reject that label and think we should find a middle ground between skeptics and deniers. At the same time, the frequent viewpoint in the CFD nominations that this group of people is objectively wrong (they are) so we should apply this unwanted label seemed inappropriate to me. Nonetheless, this is the wrong forum.
- Category nominations need to occur in the CFD pages where they are centrally located. As much trouble as interested editors here had finding the official category discussion, it would be even more unlikely for editors to find an unofficial category discussion on this page. There is an open nomination to reverse the name back to to skeptics here and that is the correct forum for input (pro/con or other). RevelationDirect (talk) 20:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Reconsider change Many of the "deniers" do not deny the existence of climate change, but only challenge the cause. The previous label, "skeptic", captured this, while calling this group "deniers" does not. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
-
That was my reason for supporting the name change:edit: I had a similar but different reason: Helps more clearly distinguish between skeptics and those who think change is beneficial. People in the latter group should not be in the category of course Ssscienccce (talk) 20:13, 30 October 2015 (UTC) edit: 20:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Wrong forum here. CFD is the right forum for these discussions, see link offered by RevelationDirect below. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:57, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Those who hold a position here because of what they "know to be the truth" are precisely analogous to those who favour or oppose any "truth" in the first place. Rather, we should divorce this from what we "know" or "believe" or "believe we know" and stick strictly to the precept that people should not be categorized for their beliefs except on the basis of categories they place themselves in by stating their own self-categorization.
Else we are as bad as any who have labeled folks on the basis of beliefs as "heretics" or "witches" or any other category susceptible of "guilt by association" tactics. I, for one, have always opposed "guilt by association" arguments on Wikipedia and in real life, and if I be the only one left in the world holding that personal belief, if I be the only one in the world in my self-identification in the category of "do not classify people because they differ from you in religion or any other belief at all" then I proudly assert my position in that category. Collect (talk) 21:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Speedy delete category Since this is a BLP issue and WP:BLPCAT disfavors this sort of "known sinners" category for living people, the category should be deleted immediately pending some consensus on whether any category name change would pass muster.--agr (talk) 21:03, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note The CfR was not properly noted on the article pages affected at all. The discussion had far fewer participants than the current discussion. Further such comments as
-
- "But climate change deniers are not engaging in scientific skepticism, but rather political rhetoric and ideology"' ,
- " I'm saying this for NPOV, even though I personally agree they should be ridiculed.",
- "Valid science is not a "Point of view." It isn't controversial among anyone with any scholarship in the subject matter. We don't have to pretend there is a real controversy because there are a small number of fanatics out there who cry "controversy." We don't treat the flat-Earthers that way either"
- appear on their face to say that the change was designed to make a statement in Wikipedia's voice about everyone in the category whether or not we can provide reliable sources that the persons affected are 'deniers' . As such, the "rename" was seeking to make a point which could not be properly made about each living person affected, thus should be considered improper from the start.
- In fact, the reasons explicitly given for the rename in the discussion before were and remain violative of WP:BLP, violative ofWP:RS, violative of WP:NPOV and of common decency about categorization of living persons. Wikipedia should never be used as a weapon to show how wrong anyone is, how evil they are, or how much they oppose truth - our task is to make an encyclopedia which will pass the "laugh test" in another century. Collect (talk) 08:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- Correct Procedure @Collect: I certainly agree that the current category name is inappropriate and was one of the few editors to oppose the original nomination. Proceduraly, the CfR was fine though and the appropriate tag can be seen here. The good news, is that there is an open nomination to reverse the use of "deniers". RevelationDirect (talk) 17:32, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- I would note that there were actually only a few supporters of the use of "deniers" (some of whom sought the name of a category as a means of publically shaming those placed in that category for the express purpose of "ridicule." IMHO, those !votes were a red flag to anyone closing the discussion that there were major problems with use of any category anywhere on Wikipedia for such a purpose. Collect (talk) 17:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- Correct Procedure @Collect: I certainly agree that the current category name is inappropriate and was one of the few editors to oppose the original nomination. Proceduraly, the CfR was fine though and the appropriate tag can be seen here. The good news, is that there is an open nomination to reverse the use of "deniers". RevelationDirect (talk) 17:32, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- Our article Climate change denial states that "Climate change skepticism and climate change denial form an overlapping range of views, and generally have the same characteristics; both reject to a greater or lesser extent current scientific opinion on climate change." Perhaps we could retitle the category to Category:Climate change deniers and skeptics to cover that entire spectrum? By the way, we have an article, List of climate change deniers, which is actually called List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. But maybe we could also start an article called List of climate change deniers and skeptics, which would encompass non-scientists too, and would, like List of atheists in music, require a direct quote (listed in the footnote) for each person. From that list article we could accurately tell who belonged in the Category. Softlavender (talk) 08:53, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Softlavender, With respect, I feel that this would be a poor solution. There is a reasonable likelihood for readers to assume the worst of members in a combined category. And there is not necessarily a consensus above that climate change skeptics is any better as a category. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 09:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- Keep Climate change deniers The overwhelming scientific evidence supports the theory of climate change. Sceptic instead of denier is transparent POV-pushing. How long until right-wing POV pushers suggest renaming the Holocaust deniers category to Holocaust sceptics? Also, climate change deniers matches the article Climate change denial. Finally, this is blatant WP:FORUMSHOPPING. This discussion should be closed as an abuse of process AusLondonder (talk) 09:06, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
-
- AusLondonder put these additional 26 BLPs in the category "Climate Change Deniers": Cory Bernardi Tracy Byrnes Ben Carson George Christensen (politician) Derek Clark Ted Cruz Bob Day Steve Fielding Bernie Finn Nathan Gill Nick Griffin Roger Helmer Dennis Jensen Alan Jones (radio broadcaster) Alan Keyes Nigel Lawson Jean-Marie Le Pen Peter Lilley Ian Macdonald (Australian politician) John Madigan (Australian politician) Deroy Murdock Paul Nuttall Benny Peiser Peter Phelps (politician) Chris Smith (broadcaster) Roger Wicker Brian Wilshire. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:53, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- And your point is, User:Peter Gulutzan? AusLondonder (talk) 17:10, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- I said in my initial post what my claim is. You decided to intervene, and your edits have similarities, so I showed them. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:45, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- Delete I support User:MastCell and others here that per WP:BLPCAT it is a really bad idea to have a category called "Climate change deniers" into which we put living people. Govindaharihari (talk) 13:00, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
-
- This is not a deletion discussion. AusLondonder (talk) 17:10, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- On the contrary. This is the BLP Noticeboard and our WP:BLP policy clearly states "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." A bot insertion of a "sinners" category on over a hundred bios of living persons cannot possibly be verified as properly sourced so this category should be deleted immediately.--agr (talk) 15:25, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- This is not a deletion discussion. AusLondonder (talk) 17:10, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- I think there is a scientific consensus that the quickest and most effective way to stop exacerbating climate change would be to rapidly switch over to nuclear power. Can we have a category for people who deny that? I would support such a category if we wish to have categories like "climate change denier" that are designed to give BLP subjects a poor reputation.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:23, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per Mastcell and many others. (If this turns out to be the wrong venue to argue for deletion interpret my position and being in favor of removing every entry from the cat. If some actually belong, add them following a discussion. Maybe there are some, but most in the cat do not belong.) --S Philbrick(Talk) 17:26, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- Delete All. Obvious attempt to demonize people with unpopular viewpoints is obvious. If any are legit, they can be re-added after the mass deletion. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:00, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- Comment This is not a deletion discussion. That takes place at WP:CFD. The astounding incompetence of some editors is deeply worrying. The cat corresponds to the article Climate change denial. The cat corresponds to independent, reliable sources. The matter should not have been brought here. The appropriate place is CFD. Could someone address why we can have these cats, if Climate change deniers is not allowed?
- Category:Holocaust deniers
- Category:Armenian Genocide deniers
- Category:Nanking Massacre deniers
- Category:Rwandan Genocide deniers
- Category:Japanese war crime deniers
Sadly, Wikipedia is turning its back on scientific source in favour of becoming a poor imitation of Conservapedia. Far-right politicians and their conspiracy theories are being given undue weight, fringe theories being promoted. AusLondonder (talk) 22:51, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
-
- Hardly a NPOV approach: I don't see how Patrick Moore (environmentalist) could be considered a far-right anything, for one. Indeed, it seems like the whole point is to obfuscate any distinction among anyone who in any way or on any basis questions the political orthodoxy on this. Going through the scientists subcat I see people who merely question the certainty of the science, people who question the politics driving the scientific research, climatologists and meteorologists who don't agree with the science in their own field, and engineers and the like whose authority for expressing an opinion is at best doubtful. What it really looks like to me is a politically-motivated attempt to label them all as kooks. The comparison to long-settled matters of historical record is inapt. Mangoe (talk) 19:18, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- Request for more admin input I'm asking -- not due to their authority but because I guess they've experienced the rules a bit more -- the four administrators who've been involved in this: MastCell, Masem, S Philbrick, agr. What do you think are the appropriate next steps so that we can come to a speedy resolution? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 02:45, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
-
- I thought I had the perfect solution. After watching the intense feelings expressed on this issue, not just here but carried out on the talk pages of articles such as Climate change denial, I did some thinking about the theory of categorization, helped by the article Categorization, and realized we were trying to solve the wrong problem. Roughly speaking, we were trying to debate the best term to be applied to a group of people, with some wanting to call the collection "deniers", others wanting "skeptics", and others suggesting alternatives. However, the problem isn't the identification of the correct word or phrase, the problem is that the collection isn't a proper category.
-
- Categories ought to be "clearly defined, mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive". That is generally true of most categories but fails miserably when it comes to this set of people. Note that while one aspect of the discussion is the word choice, and equally important part of the discussion is which people belong in the category even given one of the several word choices. That ought to be a big red flag. Imagine, for a second, that some outside force simply degrees that the category name will be "deniers", or "skeptics", or "deniers and skeptics". With the debate be over? Only the narrow debate about the word and then the debate will be over whether person X belongs in the category.
-
- This debate has carried over to the CfD discussion, but that discussion has a framing problem. It was presented as a discussion of whether Category:Climate change deniers should be renamed to Category:Climate change skeptics. While it is supposed to be a discussion, which allows all options and some have weighed in with a recommendation for removal, most of the participants are focused in on which of those two options is the best.
-
- I thought I'd try cutting the Gordian knot and request that the category be deleted rather than argue over the right terminology. However, when I made this proposal here, it was procedurally closed, on the understandable argument that the discussion was already taking place. While understandable, I think it was flawed, as it missed the framing problem. It currently looks to me like some admin is going to have some god-awful challenge to close a discussion and choose one of the bad options. Once closed, I will try again to make the case that it ought to be deleted, but it should be nice if we could save the effort and delete it now. I think too many participants are entrenched in their own view, and see it as a tool to advance their position in the general global warming debate. Would be better off if we thought about it as a category not as a global warming tool and realize that it's not a proper category.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
-
-
- I agree on pretty much everything you say here. I've been trying to look at how similar issues have been treated in the past, and superficially there seems to be a lot of overlap with the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_February_9#Bias_categories. Is that right or am I missing something? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:35, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- Comment (Non-Admin) @Sphilbrick: CfD discussions begin with a specific proposal (in this case rename) but the conversations often end with a different outcomes than the nomination. You'll see a lot of delete votes and alternative rename votes in that discussion. (If you haven't already, please do add your thoughts into that main CfD nomination.) In this case, I think the first third of the discussion was distracted not by the rename proposal but by procedural objections over reopening a recently closed discussion. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:14, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- I agree on pretty much everything you say here. I've been trying to look at how similar issues have been treated in the past, and superficially there seems to be a lot of overlap with the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_February_9#Bias_categories. Is that right or am I missing something? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:35, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
-
-
- Jurisdiction Who ultimately owns enforcement of WP:BLPCAT: the BLP side or the cat side? @Peter Gulutzan: and I were having a side conversation on his talk page about this. There's been accusations of WP:FORUMSHOP here but I really think this is a valid question. For now, I've started putting notices (below) for open category discussion with WP:BLPCAT implications to encourage more participation. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:50, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
-
- We didn't specifically discuss WP:BLPCAT on my talk page. I don't bother with WP:FORUMSHOP allegations because this isn't the proper forum. I thank Sphilbrick for replying; I realize that the other administrators may lack time. I'm thinking now that requesting a close could work. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:02, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:Climate change theory opponents or similar, per WP:NPOV. Yes, climate change is real, and yes, it's anthropogenic, and yes, it's a crisis and political action is desperately needed. But the current name of this category isn't helping any of that. -- The Anome (talk) 15:50, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
-
- This is flawed, User:The Anome. Some issues do not require equal weight to all sides. Should Wikipedia take a neutral position on the Holocaust or whether the Earth is flat? AusLondonder (talk) 22:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- Wikipedia does not take a neutral position on climate change. Our article on Global warming reports what authoritative sources say on the topic without equivocation. In particular it says "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reported in 2014 that scientists were more than 95% certain that global warming is being caused mostly by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases and other human (anthropogenic) activities." However we have strict policy WP:BLP on biographical information that requires any contentious information be well sourced. "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation." As the arguments over the name for the disputed category make clear, positions on climate change can be highly nuanced. I looked at a couple of the articles to which the category was originally added by bot and found Andrew Montford who's is quoted as saying "I believe that CO2, other things being equal, will make the planet warmer. The six million dollar question is how much warmer. I'm less of a sceptic than people think. My gut feeling is still sceptical but I don't believe it's beyond the realms of possibility that the AGW hypothesis might be correct. It's more the case that we don't know and I haven't seen anything credible to persuade me there's a problem." Does that make him a denier? Some might think so other might not. But the connection does not rise to the level required by WP:BLP. Categories are particularly problematic because there is no mechanism for adding a source to a category designation within an article. So our policy discourages label categories for living persons. The category was removed from Montford's article a few days ago, but who is going to check all 133 entries in the category and its sub categories on a regular basis?--agr (talk) 18:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- This is flawed, User:The Anome. Some issues do not require equal weight to all sides. Should Wikipedia take a neutral position on the Holocaust or whether the Earth is flat? AusLondonder (talk) 22:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
I intend to go to WP:ANRFC and ask "Closure by admin requested for WP:BLPN discussion 109 BLP articles labelled "Climate Change Deniers" all at once", on Thursday November 12, unless other editors say more time is needed. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:02, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Peter Gulutzan: My only hope that this would be closed in tandem with the CFD discussion. I don't think two dueling close results would be constructive. RevelationDirect (talk) 13:59, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- Delete Cat per WP:BLP ("Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.") Labeling people who think climate change is beneficial or who doubt that the US acting alone can reverse climate change while China and India increase CO2 production without limit as "climate change deniers" is a classic example of an unsourced negative claim in a BLP. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Lexi Love
The subject of the article is complaining on Twitter about her article: https://twitter.com/TheLexiLove/status/661012543658323968. Gamaliel (talk) 02:15, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- It seems, Gamaliel, that her gripes are that poorly sourced claims about her being a member of SAG-AFTRA and having performed as mouse characters at Disney World early in her career, are being reverted. Disclosure - I took the photo of the SAG-AFTRA headquarters in its Wikipedia article. If I have missed something, I apologize. If well referenced, that information might possibly belong in the biography, though very few actor biographies mention their union membership, unless they have a leadership role. If the goal is to pad the biography of a person known primarily as a pornographic actress, to facilitate her career plan to branch out more broadly, then I am personally sympathetic, but must point out that Wikipedia is not a career marketing website. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 09:13, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Joe Atuhaire
It appears that a swimmer did not advance to the semifinals in the 2000 Olympics, and was then accused of sexual assault, arrested, then released when charges were dropped without explanation. The article is very short so the accusation fills half of it. Apart from the WP:UNDUE balance, WP:BLPCRIME probably means the mention should be omitted. That would not leave much of an article. Thoughts? Johnuniq (talk) 09:30, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
- I think there's a case for WP:WELLKNOWN, but would not describe it as an open and shut case; and agree that consideration of WP:BLPCRIME applying is reasonable. Have made some changes to the article text to improve the phrasing & better align with the referenced sources. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 09:51, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think someone who (apparently) has only one claim to notability, namely that they competed in one Olympic event without making the semifinals, would be regarded as a "well known" public figure. Johnuniq (talk) 10:28, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to agree with you, but also feel that it's a case that could be made. As you suggest above, it would not leave much of an article; do you think we would/should be looking at AfD? - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 10:37, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
- In a quick search, I couldn't find mention of the subject apart from a couple of old stories about the one swimming event and the arrest, so I would say the subject does not satisfy WP:GNG. It's a while since I saw the sportsperson notability guide, but my guess is that it would not cover someone who did not qualify for the semifinals. So, yes, I'm inclined to think WP:AFD is right. @Raymarcbadz might like to comment. Johnuniq (talk) 10:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
- Exceedingly marginal notability - we could potentially have some hundreds of thousands of such articles about athletes who do not win anything - it is tough enough dealing with the hordes who have won or placed in a major event. No mention in any major news sources generally used. Collect (talk) 13:34, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
- If you check our guidelines for inclusion of athletes, you'll see "The guidelines on this page are intended to reflect the fact that sports figures are likely to meet Wikipedia's basic standards of inclusion if they have, for example, participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level (such as the Olympics)." In otherwords, yes, competing at the Olympics is seen as qualifying. Beyond that, this is not an issue for this page. The issue of whether he meets notability should be handled at Talk:Joe Atuhaire at through any deletion process appropriate; the issue of whether the standards are appropriate should be handled over at the standards page. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:43, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
- Exceedingly marginal notability - we could potentially have some hundreds of thousands of such articles about athletes who do not win anything - it is tough enough dealing with the hordes who have won or placed in a major event. No mention in any major news sources generally used. Collect (talk) 13:34, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
- In a quick search, I couldn't find mention of the subject apart from a couple of old stories about the one swimming event and the arrest, so I would say the subject does not satisfy WP:GNG. It's a while since I saw the sportsperson notability guide, but my guess is that it would not cover someone who did not qualify for the semifinals. So, yes, I'm inclined to think WP:AFD is right. @Raymarcbadz might like to comment. Johnuniq (talk) 10:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to agree with you, but also feel that it's a case that could be made. As you suggest above, it would not leave much of an article; do you think we would/should be looking at AfD? - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 10:37, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think someone who (apparently) has only one claim to notability, namely that they competed in one Olympic event without making the semifinals, would be regarded as a "well known" public figure. Johnuniq (talk) 10:28, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Note latest edits - not only reprising the "criminal charge" but also appearing to defame others:
- Atuhaire is part of a line of succession of poor Olympic attempts by Ugandan swimmers, including Daniel Mulumba, Supra Singhal, Edgar Luberenga, Gilbert Kaburu, Ganzi Mugula"
And adding the famed Makerere Open swimming championships to make a notability case for this marginal (at best) BLP. Collect (talk) 22:53, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
-
- As I added, there is more than just the accusation and unexplained withdrawal of the charges, well covered in WP:RS. There are subsequent reactions, by the Ugandan press about the system of selecting athletes, and later his case in name being used as a negative example of behavior for future athletes, not only from Uganda but Sri Lanka and likely others. If nothing else, the global notoriety of the charges seems to demand their inclusion. Being included, an accurate description of the charges being dropped in the same sentence seems like the appropriate response.
-
- The additional competition is the first additional competition I was able to find. Because of the notoriety of both his athletic futility and the aforementioned case with its reactions, Google is overloaded with hits to his name. My contention was/is, for every athlete selected to the Olympics, there is more to the story. Its not always easy to find with a multitude of factors against us, but its always there.Trackinfo (talk) 23:08, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- Consensus is that there is a strong presumption of notability for any athlete who has competed in the Olympics, whether or not they won anything, or even came in last. But when an athlete of relatively minor accomplishments is later involved in a sexual abuse arrest - well, this presents us with challenges in building this encyclopedia. Any such neutral biography must adequately present the person's athletic accomplishments, which must be considerable or they would never have reached the Olympic games, while also accurately and neutrally presenting the allegations of sexual abuse. It isn't easy, but there are plenty of easier articles to edit, for the faint of heart. Let's deal with tough situations fairly. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- Just one small note that may have little bearing - the strong presumption of notability can be rebutted, and it isn't always true that someone's athletic accomplishments "must be considerable or they would never have reached the Olympic games". Smaller/poorer nations may find it worthwhile to field a rather large slate of competitors, even those who are really not particularly accomplished.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:52, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- Consensus is that there is a strong presumption of notability for any athlete who has competed in the Olympics, whether or not they won anything, or even came in last. But when an athlete of relatively minor accomplishments is later involved in a sexual abuse arrest - well, this presents us with challenges in building this encyclopedia. Any such neutral biography must adequately present the person's athletic accomplishments, which must be considerable or they would never have reached the Olympic games, while also accurately and neutrally presenting the allegations of sexual abuse. It isn't easy, but there are plenty of easier articles to edit, for the faint of heart. Let's deal with tough situations fairly. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- The additional competition is the first additional competition I was able to find. Because of the notoriety of both his athletic futility and the aforementioned case with its reactions, Google is overloaded with hits to his name. My contention was/is, for every athlete selected to the Olympics, there is more to the story. Its not always easy to find with a multitude of factors against us, but its always there.Trackinfo (talk) 23:08, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Rick Alan Ross
Rick Alan Ross ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I would like some clarity regarding Wikipedia policy concerning BLP. My bio has a "Further Reading" section, which includes published works by me and about me, which further explain my work and history. I recently suggested at the Talk page that my book "Cults Inside Out: How People Get In and Can Get Out" be included at Further Reading. The book is published in Chinese by Peace Book in Hong Kong, CreateSapace in English at Amazon and will soon be published in Italian. This request was refused by editors who instead relegated the book to a newly created subsection titled "Sources" and then cut footnotes listed in References. It sees appropriate that the book be listed at Further Reading and that the footnotes be properly restored in References. It's of concern that the same rules cited by some editors don't seem to apply to all BLP entries equally. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Hassan Am I missing something here? Would appreciate some feedback. Rick Alan Ross (talk) 17:03, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- Normally, if a book is used as a reference in the article, it is not included again in a "further reading" section. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:07, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- But shouldn't a footnote be complete with book title?Rick Alan Ross (talk) 17:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- All due respect, I can't help but see your request here as wanting permission to add WP:BOOKSPAM and self promotion to help sell more books. Wikipedia isn't your personal online resume service. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- Isn't the book relevant if the BLP is an author and the book explains the author's work?Rick Alan Ross (talk) 17:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- Relevant, but not to the extent you seem to think it is or want the article to reflect. What you are wanting seems to go into undue weight territory. What's more, Rick, it's already been explained to you several times at the article's talk page what policy is on the matter. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- Winkelvi—I don't think undue weight applies. The subject of this biography is raising a valid point. The reason for notability of the subject of the biography is cults and getting out of them. A reader understandably wants access to a subject that a book addresses. I don't think a book that is squarely on the topic of the article should be construed as constituting undue weight. Bus stop (talk) 02:08, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- Relevant, but not to the extent you seem to think it is or want the article to reflect. What you are wanting seems to go into undue weight territory. What's more, Rick, it's already been explained to you several times at the article's talk page what policy is on the matter. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- Isn't the book relevant if the BLP is an author and the book explains the author's work?Rick Alan Ross (talk) 17:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- I have moved all books to a "Books" section. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:10, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- The books have been removed, based on an edit summary that mentions that the books are self-published. I have also reorganized the sections to meet our standards for BLPs. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- The book is not self published. It was published in Chinese by Peace Book in Hong Kong, the English version is released through CreateSpace at Amazon. See Hong Kong newspapers with interviews about the book http://cultsinsideout.com/pdf/a5_screen.pdf Also see http://cultsinsideout.com/pdf/a14-0722.pdf Why are BLP rules not applied consistently? See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Hassan Note self-published books, self published sources cited, etc. Also, how will anyone know what the footnote is citing without a book title at the Reference section of my BLP?Rick Alan Ross (talk) 18:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- CreateSpace's website states, "CreateSpace provides free tools to help you self-publish and distribute your books...on Amazon.com and other channels". So, yes, it is considered self-published if released through CreateSpace. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- I did choose to self-publish the English version through CreateSpace. But the Chinese version in not self published. It is published by Peace Book Publishing in Hong Kong. There will also be an Italian language version by an Italian publisher coming out soon. Please note the links to proof of Chinese press reports about the book and note photo of Chinese book version.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 18:24, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- CreateSpace's website states, "CreateSpace provides free tools to help you self-publish and distribute your books...on Amazon.com and other channels". So, yes, it is considered self-published if released through CreateSpace. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- The book is not self published. It was published in Chinese by Peace Book in Hong Kong, the English version is released through CreateSpace at Amazon. See Hong Kong newspapers with interviews about the book http://cultsinsideout.com/pdf/a5_screen.pdf Also see http://cultsinsideout.com/pdf/a14-0722.pdf Why are BLP rules not applied consistently? See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Hassan Note self-published books, self published sources cited, etc. Also, how will anyone know what the footnote is citing without a book title at the Reference section of my BLP?Rick Alan Ross (talk) 18:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion seems to be an attempt at forum shopping. The issue was already discussed here where Mr. Ross was basically told numerous times what policy is on the issue and that continued attempts to influence the article on him would not be met favorably. The final comment from an editor to Ross expressing understandable impatience with him was this: Re. "Why put it under Sources?" – Really?? Because it is used as a source, evidently. Mr. Ross, please stop wasting our time on this topic. If your book attracted substantial press or the like we might list it in a "Bibliography" section above the references, but as long as there are no reliable sources attesting something of that kind, it stays under the references section as a "source" while it can be, and is, used as a source for the content of the article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:31, 4 November 2015 (UTC). Besides myself, editors involved in the discussion also suspected self-promotion. The discussion was closed on 11/4/2015. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:45, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
-
- The book has attracted substantial attention. It has been reported about in the Hong Kong press. It was also featured at the Hong Kong book fair by Peace Book Publishing, the Chinese version publisher. I have done interviews in which the book was prominently cited and/or featured including CNN Nancy Grace, LipTV and New York radio. Also Sirius Radio interview with Jenny McCarthy and the documentary "Deprogrammed," which premiered at a Toronto film festival. The book includes a chapter about the history of cult intervention work.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 19:47, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
There are other issues with this article. The subject is notable for his involvement in the Jason Scott case and there are some mentions in primary sources about an unsolicited involvement in the Waco siege. So, it may conform to WP:GNG. Having said that, we now have an entire article based on limited sources (mainly the subject's website and some obscure sources), with content such as his working at his cousin's car-salvage company], and other material that may be deemed not notable at all. The article may benefit from a through cleanup and more eyes. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
-
- I am not notable for the Jason Scott case, which occurred more than 20 years ago. I am notable for the Cult Education Institute database launched in 1996, my court expert testimony in 10 states including US Federal Court, university lectures, media work, blog and now book. I would like to better understand how Wikipedia BLP works. Are the same guidelines and rules applied consistently to all BLP entries? See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Hassan It seems like one BLP has one set of guidelines while another does not.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 19:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- Notability in Wikipedia is assessed in the context of secondary, reliable sources reporting on significant viewpoints about an article's subject. You may want to read WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOTABLITY. If there is significant coverage of your book or your media work and testimony then it should not be an issue. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:59, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- There has been and this is well documented and reported by reliable sources. I am interviewed by the press, radio and media on monthly basis. Most recently the Guardian newspaper in London cited and linked to the Cult Education Institute as a resource about the Kabbalah Centre see http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/26/kabbalah-religion-marcus-weston-madonna Rick Alan Ross (talk) 20:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- Notability in Wikipedia is assessed in the context of secondary, reliable sources reporting on significant viewpoints about an article's subject. You may want to read WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOTABLITY. If there is significant coverage of your book or your media work and testimony then it should not be an issue. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:59, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- I am not notable for the Jason Scott case, which occurred more than 20 years ago. I am notable for the Cult Education Institute database launched in 1996, my court expert testimony in 10 states including US Federal Court, university lectures, media work, blog and now book. I would like to better understand how Wikipedia BLP works. Are the same guidelines and rules applied consistently to all BLP entries? See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Hassan It seems like one BLP has one set of guidelines while another does not.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 19:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Rick, you've violated WP:FORUMSHOP by coming here. You've already been told numerous times at the article talk page why your request isn't going to happen, you've been told here, as well. At this point, all I'm seeing is WP:IDHT. As Frances Schonken already pointed out to you a few days ago, you're exhausting the community's patience and wasting the time of the volunteers who contribute here. Enough, okay? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
-
- OKRick Alan Ross (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:25, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- I have a question. I was previously told by Wikipedia through emails to come here if I felt the editing at my bio is unfair. Am I to understand now that whatever is determined by editors at my bio Talk page is to be accepted as fair and final? And that coming here is no longer suggested, but rather forum shopping?Rick Alan Ross (talk) 20:41, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
-
- Rick, you've violated WP:FORUMSHOP by coming here. You've already been told numerous times at the article talk page why your request isn't going to happen, you've been told here, as well. At this point, all I'm seeing is WP:IDHT. As Frances Schonken already pointed out to you a few days ago, you're exhausting the community's patience and wasting the time of the volunteers who contribute here. Enough, okay? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
It's forum shopping because consensus regarding the content on the book was already reached and policy pointed out to you. You didn't like the consensus, so you came here to try again. Plus, you were told that you have exhausted the patience of several editors and wasted their time. Yet, you are here and even after being told to let it go (see "drop the stick"), and agreeing to do you, you're back again. Like others have said and I have said, this is really starting to look like an attempt to get your book noticed -- a form of advertising via Wikipedia. That is simply not appropriate and it violates policy. I will ask you again: please drop this. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:47, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- OK. So the emails I received from Wikipedia directing me here were somewhat misleading. Your decision is that I must accept whatever the editors at the Talk page determine is fair and they are the final arbiters. The fact that I have a published book reported about by the media is up to them to decide upon and determine regarding its weight and relevance.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 00:14, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- You came here, which is fine, but there was already consensus made at the article talk page. Please read both WP:CONSENSUS and WP:FORUMSHOP. And, I thought we were done. You said "OK" (here) when I told you it was time to drop the stick. Enough is enough. The policy is what it is. I'm sorry you don't like it, but Wikipedia policies and guidelines on this have been in place for quite some time. Please, please stop. If you do not, I will be forced to take this to another forum where the larger community (including administrators) may not be as patient with you as Cwobeel and I have. My patience is at an end. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:37, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- Ok I read the links you posted on consensus and forum shopping again. But it is quite confusing when different people acting on behalf of Wikipedia offer conflicting advice. So according to your understanding of consensus whatever is decided upon by editors active at the Talk page page of my bio is the final word despite the advice I was emailed by Wikipedia to come to this page and post if I thought that consensus was unfair. That advice must be disregarded. Right? Just trying to sort out which Wikipedia advice and interpretation of the rules to follow in the future. it gets confusing, but I'm doing my best.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 14:18, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- You came here, which is fine, but there was already consensus made at the article talk page. Please read both WP:CONSENSUS and WP:FORUMSHOP. And, I thought we were done. You said "OK" (here) when I told you it was time to drop the stick. Enough is enough. The policy is what it is. I'm sorry you don't like it, but Wikipedia policies and guidelines on this have been in place for quite some time. Please, please stop. If you do not, I will be forced to take this to another forum where the larger community (including administrators) may not be as patient with you as Cwobeel and I have. My patience is at an end. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:37, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
I personally think there was no problem at all in raising the issue here -- it's not forum shopping at all. It would be forum shopping if you went to multiple noticeboards -- but bringing it to BLPN is not forum shopping. Having said that: I don't disagree with what other editors have said about the book itself. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:45, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- OK. I will come here if I cannot resolve something at the Talk page. I will only come here after I advise whatever editors are working at my bio, before presenting a editing disagreement here. We do disagree about the book, which has been cited in numerous media interviews and press reports and is published by an old Hong Kong publishing house. Nevertheless, I realize that I must accept the Wikipedia view of my book as somehow unworthy of inclusion at my bio. Thank you for your comment.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 17:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- Nomoskedasticity, sorry, but it truly is forum shopping. He already had his answer at the article talk page, and that discussion was closed as he was continuing to demonstrate WP:IDHT. He didn't like the consensus that was reached, so he came here looking for a different answer. Keep in mind, this individual's living is made by the art of persuasion and wearing people down. Not that there's anything wrong with being able to do that successfully in a profession, but in Wikipedia, it's just not an indicator of collegial and cooperative, community-focused behavior. Note the comments at the thread on the talk page that was closed: more than one editor was exasperated by him, and more than one editor believed the impetus behind his tendentious behavior was about self-promotion and the release of his book. Forum shopping and unrelenting attempts at persuasion to get what he wants in addition to WP:COI? Yes, most certainly. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:14, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- It's never forum-shopping to bring a discussion to a single noticeboard. More than that: it's exactly the right action for a COI-afflicted editor. No guarantee that the answer here will be any different -- but it's entirely appropriate to raise the matter here. Doing so could give a different perspective relative to the way things are seen by editors with long-standing involvement in an article. 23:40, 7 November 2015 (UTC)Nomoskedasticity (talk)
-
-
- I think we welcome input from subjects of biographies when raised with care as in this instance and I think this noticeboard should be considered the very standard place for recourse and I think there should be no discouragement presented to the subject of this biography for raising this question here. Bus stop (talk) 01:10, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- I agree. This is the right place for the issue. It's fundamentally a content problem, and this board can fix content problems. AN/I just blocks people. Properly, the injured party should be discussing problems with the article on the article talk page, but not editing the article itself, and experienced editors should be fixing the article. This was brought up at WP:COIN, but since it's a biographical article, it's more of a BLP issue than a COI issue. John Nagle (talk) 20:23, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- I think we welcome input from subjects of biographies when raised with care as in this instance and I think this noticeboard should be considered the very standard place for recourse and I think there should be no discouragement presented to the subject of this biography for raising this question here. Bus stop (talk) 01:10, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
-
- A thread at is open at ANI discussing the behavior of Rick Alan Ross. JbhTalk 22:45, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Note The BLP at issue was affected by name in the famed Scientology case a few years back. I suggest that those who are most anxious to figuratively whack Ross read the material therein. Collect (talk) 22:45, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- Where can it be read? Link? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:49, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology and Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia probably. clpo13(talk) 22:57, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- It is because of the problems he had there, including impersonators on his article, that I was willing to work with him for so long. I am still, and always will be, willing to work with him on factual errors and BLP violations. I was willing to work with him on some minor tweaks but he wants things the way he wants them and no other way. He may back off for a bit but will soon be back at it no matter how many times he is told something is against policies and guidelines. I feel he uses editors AGF to get 'minor' change after 'minor' change and then tries to wear them down when he stops getting what he wants.
TL/DR he has used up the grace from the Scientology issues. If a BLP issue comes up he can and should expect it to be addressed promptly but the micromanaging of his article needs to stop. (Also note he gave no notice this thread was being opened - and he knows he must do so - not a good faith move.) JbhTalk 02:41, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- Show me that stricture. If an editor is named, that editor must be notified, but that does not appear to be the case at hand. Collect (talk) 12:42, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- I have raised issues about consistency in applying Wikipedia rules regarding BLP. Also, the way some editors have micro managed the editing process to slant my bio to their POV. I understand that all I can do is raise these issues at the Talk page and hope for fairness. But at times it seems their is no interest in fairness at the Talk page. I hope that I am wrong about this.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 21:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- The problem you will have re "consistency" is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Consistency isn't really the way "fairness" is understood here. I am interested in fairness, though, and I think this section (and the associated ANI thread) has established pretty conclusively that you will not face sanctions for bringing matters here. I suggest being judicious in doing that. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:28, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- I have raised issues about consistency in applying Wikipedia rules regarding BLP. Also, the way some editors have micro managed the editing process to slant my bio to their POV. I understand that all I can do is raise these issues at the Talk page and hope for fairness. But at times it seems their is no interest in fairness at the Talk page. I hope that I am wrong about this.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 21:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- Show me that stricture. If an editor is named, that editor must be notified, but that does not appear to be the case at hand. Collect (talk) 12:42, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- It is because of the problems he had there, including impersonators on his article, that I was willing to work with him for so long. I am still, and always will be, willing to work with him on factual errors and BLP violations. I was willing to work with him on some minor tweaks but he wants things the way he wants them and no other way. He may back off for a bit but will soon be back at it no matter how many times he is told something is against policies and guidelines. I feel he uses editors AGF to get 'minor' change after 'minor' change and then tries to wear them down when he stops getting what he wants.
- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology and Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia probably. clpo13(talk) 22:57, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- It doesn't belong at Further reading, as we keep that for independent sources. However if you're notable for your writing work, and if a text forms a significant part of that corpus, then it could go under Publications.
- Thanks for asking BTW, and thanks for using this forum. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:27, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
COI tag
Unlikely to go any further given tone and multiple venues. Samsara 18:43, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
BLP page has been repeatedly templated as "COI". Problem is that the actual neutrality of the extant article is not being discussed n the talk page, as required by use of that template. The only claim by Jbhunley appears to be based on the conflicted person properly using the article talk page and noticeboards to get his objections to certain material being stressed in the BLP. ("He has managed to keep a lot of extremely critical material out of the article.") but makes no assertion that Mr. Ross has made any substantia edits to the BLP or that the article fails NPOV as a result. Is the template being properly used (and possibly edit warred into place)? Note the talk page already identifies the editor, so this templating, IMHO, is being used improperly. The BLP is also up for AfD as well. Collect (talk) 17:41, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Collect: This should not be in a standalone report, rather, should be deleted here and then added to the already open report on RAR above. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:45, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- The report concerns a biography of a living person. And as it concerns a matter not dealt with above, it can stand. Title amended to assuage your concerns. Collect (talk) 17:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- Frances Schocken has removed it. If someone re-adds it, I'll remove it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:05, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- Alternatly, you could discuss the matter on the talk page, where you opened a discussion only an hour or so ago. You know, the page the page the people editing the article watch. JbhTalk 18:29, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Ben Carson
Ben Carson presidential campaign, 2016 ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
That section of the article is becoming an apologetic mess, and could benefit from some additional input from BLP patrollers. - Cwobeel (talk) 05:31, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
David Cardoza
This entry is completely biased and libellous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmaciocia (talk • contribs) 09:10, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- I've carved the page back to a sourced stub (it looks like there may have been other sourced information earlier in the article's history, but I don't have time to rescue it at the moment) and the page has been put under page protection, to prevent such material from being easily added. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:04, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Amiya Taga
Amiya_Taga ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Amiya Taga is Imaye Taga. see his facebook pagehttps://www.facebook.com/amir.taga?fref=ts — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.57.136.32 (talk) 09:29, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- Discussion started at the article Talk page. Will move if no objections. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 01:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Andrew Glover (composer)
Andrew Glover (composer) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Can editors please have a look at this article and its talk page? I've blocked the IP for making legal threats on its talk page but they may have valid points about the content itself. --NeilN talk to me 11:24, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Muckraker
Muckraker ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The term "muckraker" is not a term that is positive, though it can be. Here are the current dictionary synonyms for "muckraker": noun: faultfinder, detractor, attacker, carper, caviler, complainant, complainer, defamer, disparager, doubter, maligner, nagger, quibbler, scolder, slanderer, vilifier. Antoher thesaurus uses as synonym: "mudslinger". An editor has added a self-created list of modern "investigative journalists" to the "muckraker" article on the basis that an academic has expressed the written opinion that "investigative journalist" is the modern term for "muckraker. There are no refs in this list that show the individual journalists described as "muckrakers". So we have original research that takes living people and assigns to them a potentially defaming term without references. As a point of fact not all investigative journalists are or consider themselves "muckrakers" and slapping that label on them is synthesis and contrary to WP:V and BLP policy. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:11, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed. Solid analysis & sound conclusion. Support removal of this information. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 03:18, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- This is an odd term. It's used as a positive term for historical figures like Ida Tarbell, but is often used as a pejorative towards living journalists. I support removal of all the names in the section "Since 1945". Gamaliel (talk) 03:38, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed. The use of "muckraker" was originally pejorative but was embraced by the McClure’s crew (and Theodore Roosevelt) in the Progressive era. Its application after 1945 is an anachronism, and some of the nominees (Studs Terkel? Bob Woodward?) seem arbitrary at best. It's an interesting proposition, but for an encyclopedia is makes sense to stick to the historical usage and not wring too many hands over whether Hunter Thompson or Truman Capote is a muckraker or something else. MarkBernstein (talk) 03:50, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Category:Blue-eyed soul singers
Category:Blue-eyed soul singers, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:15, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Proposal: re BLP § Privacy of personal information and using primary sources
In light of Talk:Michael Lohan#Birth dates and the previous BLP/N discussions linked therein, I would like to see something in "stone" (or as much as possible within a Wiki) with respect to birth dates—or death dates, etc.—of relatives within biographies of living persons. My take: it's both trivial and a DOB issue unless the date(s) in question can be demonstrated to have some relevance to the specific subject of the article. (Using Michael Lohan as an example, he first became notable following his eldest daughter's rise to fame, not for her birthdate.)
With that in mind, DOB currently reads, in pertinent part:
With identity theft a serious ongoing concern, people increasingly regard their full names and dates of birth as private. Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object. If the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year. ...
... and I would propose this change:
With identity theft a serious ongoing concern, people increasingly regard their full names and dates of birth as private. Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth for an article's subject that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object. If the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year. Dates (such as birth or death) of an article subject's relatives are relevant only if demonstrably pertinent to the subject. ...
(Proposed changes in boldface per the strike-old bold-new standard; I'm not proposing that they be added in boldface. ) —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 🖖 23:15, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- I tried something similar before. You will find you come up against people who want to include everything about a BLP's private life in their article. Support change though. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:21, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
RfCs are supposed to be written neutrally. This is anything but. That comment made, I add:
- Oppose - As explicated in the RfC that closed here in September, children's birth dates are a standard part of any professional biography, whether in a book by Robert Caro or a Who's Who entry. When celebrities or their representatives issue a press release announcing their children's birth, subsequently published online and in magazine sources cumulatively reaching tens of millions of people, it has become extremely public information. To say that Wikipedia should censor the birthdate of Kim Kardashian's child goes against both common sense and professional standards of biography.--Tenebrae (talk) 23:25, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
-
-
- 1) I made every effort to write this neutrally and still offer the reason for the request; 2) WP is an encyclopedia, not a professional biography. —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 🖖 23:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not sure you really mean to argue that Wikipedia should have less than professional standards. And an encyclopedia should be at least up to the standards of popular-press and academic biographies. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:36, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Not my argument. At all. Ever.Sorry; I'm going to come off as a wise-ass if I'm not careful. I argue that a professional biography is specifically designed and written to include every fact that can be garnered about its subject. Conversely, an encyclopedia is designed and written to include the notable and the relevant. —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 🖖 23:41, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not sure you really mean to argue that Wikipedia should have less than professional standards. And an encyclopedia should be at least up to the standards of popular-press and academic biographies. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:36, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- 1) I made every effort to write this neutrally and still offer the reason for the request; 2) WP is an encyclopedia, not a professional biography. —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 🖖 23:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
-
- Support Especially in regard to non-notable minor children. In no way does having the exact birthdate and name of a non-notable minor child of the article subject enhance the reader's understanding of the article subject. The only exception I can think of is in the case of people like the Duggar Family who have made a living from the notability of their children via their (now-cancelled) reality show. Just because it's readily available online, that doesn't mean it's encyclopedic or inclusion worthy. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:38, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose - Every birthdate in Wikipedia is already online, especially celebrity children whose births are covered obsessively by pop-culture sites (not to mention the parents' own social media). This is encyclopedic information and banning it will absolutely not prevent a single identity from being stolen. Should we rename Sarah Jessica Parker to just Sarah Jessica so nobody can use Wikipedia to figure out her son's mother's maiden name? —МандичкаYO 😜 00:00, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- Comment For actual "notable persons" the date of birth is a commonly found fact. Dates of births etc. of those who are not notable, however, (especially with regard to third parties, minors, etc.) should often' be excluded. I find the use of "identity theft" as a preamble to be not very useful. "Full names" are generally readily fond in reliable sources, and Wikipedia ought not decide that we do not give any middle names of people <g> as it would be too risible. I would remove that preamble, and state that we follow what the best reliable sources do with regard to any person, with the added caveat that birth dates and names of those who are not notable, but who are mentioned in any article, are absolutely not required. Collect (talk) 00:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose, per Collect, Wikimandia and Tenebrae. The proposed wording seems to be addressing a personal quibble and not a significant problem with biographies on Wikipedia. The identity theft argument is laughable. DOBs are basic and indispensable facts. As an encyclopaedia we can and must exhibit them; I see no strong argument against doing so. That being said, I commend the want to establish inclusion criteria of some sort. We cannot rely on this text for justifying adding absurd facts such as someone's cousin's cousin's DOB to an article, which is especially prone to happen via PR-editors. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 00:22, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose per Tenebrae and Wikimandia. Perfectly valid to include names and birth dates IF RELIABLY SOURCED. Any "privacy concerns" are entirely moot when the parents themselves announce such births and when other reliable sources announce them. To not give a birthdate or name is simply vague and I informative for readers. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:15, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose any rely on editors' discretion. Where notable relatives have widely publicised relatives' personal information and the relatives have not objected, it seems proper to consider that personal information for the biography of the notable party. Where the notable party has not publicised (or where the relative has objected and/or withdrawn from public life) it seems intrusive. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:41, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
-
- Stuartyeates, an article's subject directly announcing the birth of a relative—say, a la Kimye—would indeed be "demonstrably pertinent" within my proposal. Your comment reads as if in support; do I read it correctly? —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 🖖 04:13, 9 November 2015
- Oppose per Snuggums and others. We should not be censoring information that is reliably sourced, readily available online and in many cases made public by the parents themselves. Calidum T|C 02:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Comment by proposing editor: at least three points have been/are being made in these discussions which, in my view, are false arguments:
- Reliably sourced birth dates should be included. They are—in their respective subjects' articles. To use the instant example, Michael Jr.'s, Lindsay's and Ali's pages all include their birth dates as published. Their inclusion in their father's is entirely peripheral and irrelevant (he originally became known following his eldest daughter's fame, not her birth).
- By not including the data, Wikipedia must be hiding/censoring it. Just because someone with a modicum of search skills can find someone's birth date does not necessarily mean a Wiki article simply hands it to them. (This is an ancillary argument anyway, speaking solely to the issue of including birth dates at all, and does not address this proposal.)
- There's no reason to not include relatives' birth dates. Yes, there is: unless it can be demonstrated that a relative's dates of birth/death/graduation/marriage/bris/etc. are specifically relevant to the subject's article, they are trivial if not fancruft. (In short, "Why not?" is not a valid response to "Why is this here?")
I should also mention that the identity theft language is already there. My proposal does not affect that in any way. —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 🖖 02:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
-
- Birth, getting married, having children and death are typically milestones in one's life and are vital information for an encyclopedic biography when available. Surely we are not disparaging Michael Lohan by suggesting it was his daughter's fame, and not the birth of his children, that are critical life events in a biography about him. Your spouse's birthdays and your cousin's birthdays are not significant in your biography, but your children's birthdays are! —МандичкаYO 😜 04:57, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- You're correct: by not including his children's birth dates—as opposed to, say, not including his children at all—we are in fact not disparaging Mr. Lohan. 😜 —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 🖖 05:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- Birth, getting married, having children and death are typically milestones in one's life and are vital information for an encyclopedic biography when available. Surely we are not disparaging Michael Lohan by suggesting it was his daughter's fame, and not the birth of his children, that are critical life events in a biography about him. Your spouse's birthdays and your cousin's birthdays are not significant in your biography, but your children's birthdays are! —МандичкаYO 😜 04:57, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I can't agree that any of the numbered 1, 2, 3 responses hold water. Children's birth dates are not "trivial fancruft" but as much a standard a part of biography as the death dates of subjects' parents or background on subjects' spouses — read any biography of a president or a movie star or, I dunno, Henry Ford. Robert Caro is not including "trivial fancruft" when he writes about when LBJ and Lady Bird Johnson had their daughters. The reasons for this could fill a semester of college class — there are whole courses on writing biography — but at its most elementary and basic, the timeline of when someone has a family is integral to understanding a person. And so there is every reason to include at bare minimum the birth dates of subjects' children when released by the subjects or their representatives themselves.
- I understand the RfC proposer is not a professional journalist, biographer or academic, and that's OK ... we're all volunteers trying to do what's best. But the idea of not including such basic information is as unusual to me as suggesting a restaurant not have salt on its tables because high blood-pressure "is a serious ongoing concern."
- Finally, I do need to point out that obfuscating by making straw-man arguments about "graduation/marriage/bris", which no one here is talking about, is improper. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- I was a professional journalist, but that's really irrelevant. Apparently, I'm not allowed a sense of humor, either ... —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 🖖 05:30, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
-
-
- I'll take you at your word and I apologize — and I mean it; I'm being sincere — for any assumption I made that you may not have been a journalist at some point. I have to say, that just makes the position you've taken all the more remarkable to me. I acknowledge your good intentions, and I hope you'll acknowledge that the use of what you say is humor has the same practical effect as saying it seriously would have had in terms of cloud the issue, which I accept was not what you meant to do. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:16, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
-
- Did you work for TMZ? I'm still trying to understand how the date someone's child becomes a celebrity is more important than the date that someone became a parent. I'm not familiar with that value system. —МандичкаYO 😜 06:41, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- No—and I'm still trying to figure out whether you're trying to disparage me or TMZ. Seriously, the argument serves to misdirect: the birth of your child may have been the greatest day of your life, but it is only notable in encyclopedic terms when presented within your child's article, unless it is because of that birth that you became notable (and even then it's a potential WP:INHERIT issue). We're not discussing a value system; we're discussing an encyclopedia. —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 🖖 07:14, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- As has been pointed out, the birth of children is an encyclopedic fact vital in any biographical article along with the subject's own birthdate, own death, and any marriage, and this is not a new concept. The "famedate" of when any relative became a sparkly celebrity is fortunately not regarded as vital. —МандичкаYO 😜 11:14, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- *sigh* the birth of children is not in dispute. The birth date is. —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 🖖 12:13, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- As has been pointed out, the birth of children is an encyclopedic fact vital in any biographical article along with the subject's own birthdate, own death, and any marriage, and this is not a new concept. The "famedate" of when any relative became a sparkly celebrity is fortunately not regarded as vital. —МандичкаYO 😜 11:14, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- No—and I'm still trying to figure out whether you're trying to disparage me or TMZ. Seriously, the argument serves to misdirect: the birth of your child may have been the greatest day of your life, but it is only notable in encyclopedic terms when presented within your child's article, unless it is because of that birth that you became notable (and even then it's a potential WP:INHERIT issue). We're not discussing a value system; we're discussing an encyclopedia. —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 🖖 07:14, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
-
- I was a professional journalist, but that's really irrelevant. Apparently, I'm not allowed a sense of humor, either ... —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 🖖 05:30, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose. Concerning the relevancy issue, just the fact that we're disagreeing on it suggests that the answer is not clear or self-evident. And to the extent that there is doubt, I believe we should play it safe and include the information in question. (The reader can always ignore it if he's not interested.)
To the extent that privacy is concerned, I would simply cite WP:NOTCENSORED, as long as the information is accurate and well sourced.
Richard27182 (talk) 09:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC) - oppose. I was notified of this discussion on my talk page. I first became aware of this issue when I closed this RFC. The result of the RFC was that dates of birth of children and other family members can be relevant information, and should be included at the discretion of the editors involved in the article, assuming of course that there are verifiable, reliable secondary sources. No further tweaks are necessary in my opinion.--Aervanath (talk) 22:27, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose - unless you're the world's oldest something or youngest something, are DOBs actually pertinent to any articles? Not really. This change would not work and would hinder the encyclopedia's scope and worth. GiantSnowman 22:29, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
-
- [inserted: Nov. 10, 2015]
ping:@GiantSnowman: No disrespect intended, but I find your above posting somewhat puzzling. You suggest that dates of birth are not really pertinent to articles; but you !vote against a proposal that would restrict their use in articles. Richard27182 (talk) 10:29, 10 November 2015 (UTC)- @Richard27182: None taken - let me try to clarify. There's lots of information that would be deemed non-pertinent with regards to notability (date of birth; place of birth; nationality etc.) but which should remain in articles because it is useful information, supported by reliable sources, which gives a more complete encyclopedic article. GiantSnowman 11:05, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- Hi GiantSnowman. If I'm understanding you correctly, what you're saying basically is that, while you consider the type of information in question to not be pertinent, you nevertheless would be opposed to adding a restriction against it in the MOS. Am I interpreting that right? Richard27182 (talk) 12:22, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Richard27182: yes. GiantSnowman 12:28, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- Hi GiantSnowman. If I'm understanding you correctly, what you're saying basically is that, while you consider the type of information in question to not be pertinent, you nevertheless would be opposed to adding a restriction against it in the MOS. Am I interpreting that right? Richard27182 (talk) 12:22, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Richard27182: None taken - let me try to clarify. There's lots of information that would be deemed non-pertinent with regards to notability (date of birth; place of birth; nationality etc.) but which should remain in articles because it is useful information, supported by reliable sources, which gives a more complete encyclopedic article. GiantSnowman 11:05, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- [inserted: Nov. 10, 2015]
- Supportish. - my thinking is somewhat similar to Winkelvi's. If a DOB doesn't add anything to the information value of the article, why include it. But I don't think you can set it in stone because sometimes DOBs add to the information value of the article. Red Fiona (talk) 22:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose - no evidence presented here that Wikipedia is in anyway increasing visibility of a cited birthrate in a way that increases probability of identity theft. So it would seem the argument would come down to relevancy and usefulness on an encyclopedic nature. I would argue yes, helping trace family lineage over time is one very well know use of encyclopedias. Especially for lesser known notables. With that said, I think adding poorly cited birth dates to Wikipedia should be more vigorously policed (on par with profanity bots). Once Wikipedia cites a birth date, it's one fact about a person that gets meme'd out into the interwebs more than almost anything else. If we get it wrong initially, it creates a citation nightmare later as many respectable sources follow our lead (making me questing their respectability). I've edited more than a few biographies where tracking down a credible source for a birth date was made difficult because so many sources followed our lead instead of tracking down a more credible source. I'm not proposing anything, just venting to other editors concerned about birth date sourcing. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 23:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Many female BLPs up for deletion
I am too tired to check up on all of them, but all I checked meet Wikipedia notability and sourcing requirements. Check the AfD listings as I think that at this point in Wikipedia history, removing a host of articles about women is less than wise. Your mileage may differ. Collect (talk) 01:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- I think this is neelix fallout. I took a look, lots could go either way. Only in death does duty end (talk) 01:44, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- IMO I've never noticed much of a gender bias at AfD but I have seen a few lately that irked me from apparent male nominators. For example, this one included the nominator's rationale that it had "same routine coverage as all Soviet era female pilots" (because there were just soooo many WWII female fighter pilots!) and in this one, for the daughter of the current Chinese president, the nominator implored us that "this girl just wants to lead a normal life" (even though this "girl" is a woman of 23) and said the "Obama girls" don't have articles so she shouldn't either. Meanwhile the son of the previous Chinese president has even less coverage and his article was created while his dad was in office, even though "this boy" apparently just wants to lead a normal life as a regular business
boyman. —МандичкаYO 😜 02:26, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- IMO I've never noticed much of a gender bias at AfD but I have seen a few lately that irked me from apparent male nominators. For example, this one included the nominator's rationale that it had "same routine coverage as all Soviet era female pilots" (because there were just soooo many WWII female fighter pilots!) and in this one, for the daughter of the current Chinese president, the nominator implored us that "this girl just wants to lead a normal life" (even though this "girl" is a woman of 23) and said the "Obama girls" don't have articles so she shouldn't either. Meanwhile the son of the previous Chinese president has even less coverage and his article was created while his dad was in office, even though "this boy" apparently just wants to lead a normal life as a regular business
-
- @Collect and Only in death: I raised [more or less] the same issue at User talk:Kelly#Neelix (I noticed Kelly had been nominating an awful lot of Neelix's human rights/women's rights organization/activist articles.) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:35, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- What drives my up the wall is an editor attacking me for saying things on the AfDs I simply did not say! The fact is that women are systematically underrepresented in the BLP area on Wikipedia, that this is widely known, and is widely considered a matter of concern. Yet when I suggest that notable people remain notable even if they are female, I get accused of saying we have an "anti-Canada bias" on Wikipedia. Sigh. Collect (talk) 02:45, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping, User:Collect and your laudable defence of unrepresented women. I completely agree we need more articles about notable women. We evidently diverge, though, on whether having creepy shrine-like articles related to beauty pageant models who have met Tara Teng is the most sensible way to address gender bias on Wikipedia. Interestingly, I feel such articles make the gender bias worse. They are off-putting to women. I somehow don't feel that the editor who created these articles did them with the intention of addressing gender bias (if he did why did he make so many redirects about cancerous "tits", the female "shape" and "tiny tits"? Regarding the Canada "attack" you have grossly misrepresented my comments and given me no opportunity to respond. As you must know, I was not referring to gender bias when I said that. I was referring to your comment: "Canada is clearly "not worth noticing" I fear" AusLondonder (talk) 03:02, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- I did neither wrote nor edited the "creepy shrine-like" articles - I only noted that the people are notable per Wikipedia guidelines. Your apparent belief is that it is not the people who are important here, but the fact the editor who wrote the BLPs was abhorrent to you. I point out that this noticeboard is not the place to address the third party without notifying him or her, and that, in any case, AfD is not concerned with how nasty an editor is or is not. Lastly, I note you seem to iterate your personal attacks at every opportunity - including those attacks addressed to an editor whom you did not even have the courtesy to notify. And I disagree with the claim that this noticeboard is not the place to mention AfDs which are decidedly about living persons. The only other board would be the RfC/biographies which is much further afield than this board is. And you seem to still forget my "Canada" comment was specifically a response to Montanabw in the first place. Collect (talk) 12:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- Neelix notified at this point now that we have the "tits" useless argument raised here about persons whose BLPs have naught to do with that aside whatsoever. Collect (talk) 12:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping, User:Collect and your laudable defence of unrepresented women. I completely agree we need more articles about notable women. We evidently diverge, though, on whether having creepy shrine-like articles related to beauty pageant models who have met Tara Teng is the most sensible way to address gender bias on Wikipedia. Interestingly, I feel such articles make the gender bias worse. They are off-putting to women. I somehow don't feel that the editor who created these articles did them with the intention of addressing gender bias (if he did why did he make so many redirects about cancerous "tits", the female "shape" and "tiny tits"? Regarding the Canada "attack" you have grossly misrepresented my comments and given me no opportunity to respond. As you must know, I was not referring to gender bias when I said that. I was referring to your comment: "Canada is clearly "not worth noticing" I fear" AusLondonder (talk) 03:02, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- What drives my up the wall is an editor attacking me for saying things on the AfDs I simply did not say! The fact is that women are systematically underrepresented in the BLP area on Wikipedia, that this is widely known, and is widely considered a matter of concern. Yet when I suggest that notable people remain notable even if they are female, I get accused of saying we have an "anti-Canada bias" on Wikipedia. Sigh. Collect (talk) 02:45, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Collect and Only in death: I raised [more or less] the same issue at User talk:Kelly#Neelix (I noticed Kelly had been nominating an awful lot of Neelix's human rights/women's rights organization/activist articles.) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:35, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- Can we leave the bickering at AFD where it belongs thanks. Essentially this isnt a BLP issue. Good faith AFDs of BLPs who may/may not be notable are not a violation of the BLP policy. Although I do thank Collect for posting a notice here given the amount of them, I dont think there is anything that needs to be done. People will turn up shortly to defend their favorites no doubt. Not touching Tara Teng with a 10 foot pole though, its creepy and weird that level of detail on someone and I have no wish to put myself in the sights of someone who does that. Discussions about addressing gender bias on wikipedia are also not an issue for this noticeboard. The GGTF is still around isnt it? I assume they will be on the case as soon as. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:18, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Plaisted
Hi, The article about David Plaisted only quotes self-published papers. Should everyone who publishes something have a Wikipedia page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geochron (talk • contribs) 12:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
-
-
- Good point. Should likely be nominated for AFD. Quis separabit? 21:22, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- He is mentioned in books by others on the topic of AI etc. - I suspect he is notable in his field, but that does not always mean one is covered by the NYT. Collect (talk) 12:47, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
-
[1] shows his work being specifically cited by others. GoogleScholar shows a large number of citations by others as well. Collect (talk) 12:52, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Ray Reach
Factual information is incorrect. Page should be deleted. Mr. Reach is not credible - employment history needs to be checked. Mr Reach is NOT the most important figure in Alabama Jazz History - his factual information needs to be corrected, as most of it is made up.
Daniel Scioli
Section "Sport Career" completely unsourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.1.116.50 (talk) 17:43, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Leonid Lebedev
The last section of the "Leonid Lebedev" biography entitled "Compromising Information" violates the biographies of living persons policy because it is libelous. The entire section is authored by one person (Julie Coop) making a personal attack on Leonid Lebedev. The negative information in the section does not present a neutral point of view and is not verifiable by citations to reputable sources. The links to the articles either do not work or synthesize the articles to form a point of view not stated in the sources (which are not reputable). In fact, whereas the other information in the bio is linked to reputable sources, the "Compromising Information" section has no footnotes at all. The title of the section itself demonstrates that it is not neutral.
It is clear that this section was posted by one person seeking to defame Leonid Lebedev. The last section should be removed from the biography in its entirety. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alpha5mj (talk • contribs) 04:59, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- Poorly sourced and polemically sourced material is not used in BLPs. And in some cases the "sources" did not resemble toe claims made. Collect (talk) 12:42, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
BLPCAT violation at Tom Metzger (white supremacist)
User:Lebuzz is continually adding an atheism category to Metzger's BLP. His latest addition is accompanied with a text addition to the article, " Heis an atheist. <ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/tom-metzger|title=Tom Metzger |work=Extremist Files| publisher=[[Southern Poverty Law Center]]| accessdate=2015-11-10}}</ref> Metzger may well be an atheist, but this is a violation of BLPCAT as there is no indiciation in the article that " the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources." I'm not sure about the status of the text. Doug Weller (talk) 13:14, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Samuel P.N. Cook
Samuel P.N. Cook ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
My name is Samuel P.N. Cook, and I am the living person on this page.
I would like to request the removal or edit of this page because there are edits on this page that are slanderous and unsubstantiated.
These comments in particular should be removed from the history of the post.
(cur | prev) 04:03, 25 May 2011 Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk | contribs) . . (5,071 bytes) (-224) . . (take to AFD please) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 12:33, 24 May 2011 Scott MacDonald (talk | contribs) . . (5,295 bytes) (+178) . . (Proposing article for deletion per WP:PROD. (TW)) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 18:02, 23 May 2011 Rjwilmsi (talk | contribs) m . . (5,117 bytes) (+4) . . (→Insurgent Amnesty Program: Citation parameter fixes, , date, date, date, date using AWB (7718)) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 21:14, 18 November 2010 Topbanana (talk | contribs) m . . (5,113 bytes) (0) . . (Link repair: Salahuddin Province -> Salahuddin province - You can help!) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 01:38, 5 November 2010 RjwilmsiBot (talk | contribs) m . . (5,113 bytes) (+5) . . (→References: Adding Persondata using AWB (7356)) (undo) (cur | prev) 18:16, 16 September 2010 SmackBot (talk | contribs) m . . (5,108 bytes) (+249) . . (Date maintenance tags and general fixes: build 540:) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 12:02, 16 September 2010 Srich32977 (talk | contribs) . . (4,859 bytes) (-35) . . (tag notability IAW WP:MILPEOPLE; remove white space) (undo | thank)
I either want this page removed entirely, or these comments and the history removed.
Please let me know what i can do to make this happen.
Regards, Samuel P.N. Cook — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamescookpublishing (talk • contribs) 14:54, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- Tempted to AFD this, it seems like the campaign he was involved in is what's notable rather than the person. Article is poorly sourced but I don't see anything thats an obvious BLP violation. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:41, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- No showing of notability of the individual here, and it reads like an extended anecdote at best. Collect (talk) 17:46, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Albert Brooks
This article seems to have come under attack recently and there's been a sequence of edits and reverts and/or partial reverts which have also removed content (as far as I can see). Needs more eyes I believe as I will cheerfully admit to being unable to work out where the last sane version of the page existed. As far as I can see, it's probably here. Thanks. Eagleash (talk) 19:34, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Wade Burleson
- Wade Burleson ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Viatruth (talk · contribs)
Puffery and copyright violations, with the above account carrying the same name as this website [2], which is connected to the subject of this biography. Probably merits a block for the username. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:48, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Jonathon Hafetz
Subject's name is misspelled. Page should be moved to "Jonathan Hafetz."
See: See: http://law.shu.edu/Faculty/fulltime_faculty/Jonathan-Hafetz.cfm
- Done. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:15, 11 November 2015 (UTC)