Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:54, 14 January 2015

• WP:BLPN
• WP:BLP/N
• WP:BLPNB
• WP:BLP/NB

This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input.

Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem.

Additional notes:

• Edits by the subject of an article may be welcome in some cases.
• For general content disputes regarding biographical articles, try Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Biographies instead.
• Editors are encouraged to assist editors regarding the reports below. Administrators may impose contentious topic restrictions to enforce policies.

|- ! colspan="3" style="background: #CAE4FF; font-size: 110%; border: 1px lightgray solid; padding: 0.5rem;" |

• A request for adminship is open for discussion.
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Allowing page movers to enable two-factor authentication
• Rewriting the guideline Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers
• Should comments made using LLMs or chatbots be discounted or even removed?

Shooting of Michael Brown

Shooting of Michael Brown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A Volokh Conspiracy news blog post is being used as a source here , I believe it violates BLPPRIMARY, OR and FRINGE (since it implies that the grand jury was only involved to investigate the incident without investigating possible crimes), though a violation on any one of these grounds should be sufficient to remove it. Any thoughts? --RAN1 (talk) 19:27, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Relative to what the source says, it looks like a fairly innocuous statement about an observation made by a former judge, Misplaced Pages's voice is not being using to state an opinion as fact. That said, I think the scrutiny regarding the content should be focused on the judge, Paul Cassell. Are his comments noteworthy in this case or not? It helps that he has an article, but is this his area of expertise? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:37, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

You seem to have a fairly large misunderstanding about what those policies mean.

• Sources, by definition, cannot commit WP:OR. Only we editors can.
• Since it is a secondary source making the statement, it clearly isn't BLPPRIMARY
• There is no science or fact involved here, and there are opinions all over the place. Picking this one and calling it fringe is without basis.
• the opinions expressed are largely about a process, and not a person so claims as to BLP are weak, and in any case the claims are not defamatory.

Gaijin42 (talk) 19:43, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The Volokh Conspiracy is a group blog. Although it's hosted by the Washington Post, it does not fall under their editorial control: "We are not Washington Post employees, and we have sole editorial control over the blog" and may not be used as a source regarding living people. See WP:SPS for more information. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:44, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

@Scalhotrod: @A Quest For Knowledge: - The Volokh Conspiracy is hosted by the Washington Post, so it contains full editorial control over its content. The Blog exerts its own editorial controls and it is one of the extremely few important blogs because its content is by recognized experts. This is a case where the "blog" format belies its true impact, reliability and authority. Cassell, as his Misplaced Pages article correctly states: "is a former United States federal judge, who is a professor at the law school of the University of Utah. He is best known as an expert in and proponent of the rights of crime victims." Cassell has written extensively on the case for The Volokh Conspiracy. Cassell has argued cases relating to crime victims' rights before the United States Supreme Court, the 4th through 10th, and D.C. Circuits, and the Utah Supreme Court. Cassell is one of the most prominent and well-respected figures discussing the case and has been performing a key role for over 30 years in this very part of the legal system. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:59, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

@ChrisGualtieri:, I was not discounting the Volokh Conspiracy because it is a blog, I was trying to get to the heart of the matter. I would prefer that the Cassell article was better developed so we had more to go on, but it is what it is. IMO the content is sourced and contextually used properly. Beyond that, I don't consider myself expert enough in legal analysis to know if this is WP:UNDUE or something similar. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:20, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Because he's mostly published in a self-published source, Cassell's work should have been published by reliable third-party publications before he may be considered an expert. Otherwise we should scrap it. I'm looking at his statement about McCulloch, and that should definitely go since it's a statement about a BLP by an SPS. His opinion regarding the grand jury is also suspect since he has no experience in MO law. --RAN1 (talk) 20:25, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Fair points, how uniquely do MO grand juries operate versus the other 48/49 states? I'm taking into consideration that Lousiana's legal system is based on the Napoleonic code. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:33, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

The relevant sections are Missouri statute (specific operations) and the Missouri constitution (general characterization). They're convened to try and determine felonies, but can indict on all crimes. They also can ask questions of witnesses and subpoena for information. While they definitely can investigate, they have both that and the ability to indict. My complaint is that Cassell implies the grand jury isn't meant to investigate possible crimes, but to investigate based on the premise that there may be no criminal conduct at all. Compare to Utah, where grand juries are convened only if a panel of judges sees fit or it finds the actions of prosecuting attorneys to be inadequate. --RAN1 (talk) 21:09, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

VC is not self published, it has its own editorial control - the Washington Post republishes it without further editorial. Cassell is widely cited in the media and other sources on this issue, including the New York Times. As a whole, grand juries are secret proceedings, even Louisiana which 'is unique, is still secret as stated in the article. "A policy of secrecy exists in regard to grand jury proceedings. Various purposes are served by secret proceedings."Page 9-10. Cassell has gone forThis is no different and Ran1 seems to be keen on ignoring the fact that the citations and proceedings to Missouri law which Ran1 so pounded actually assert the same rights as Cassell's "opinion". Ran1 is trying to shift the burden of evidence because their own argument has no weight. Cassell actually has argued in the 8th district, which is part of Missouri. He may teach at Utah University, but has even gone before the Supreme Court. But even if the specific tiny details of the differences between jurisdictions - they are all secret and share a common reason for doing so which has been well-established for over 200 years. Ran1 is trying to shift responsibility and introduce doubt when there is none on whether or not grand juries are secret - as for Ran1's questionable legal knowledge of "investigative" this is purely the user's own inability to comprehend the material. There is so much misguided notions injected into Ran1's statements that even a week of trying to inform the user has been all for nothing. Prosecuting Attorney Jean Peters Baker, from Missouri, says "The difference between a regular grand jury and an investigative grand jury is that the investigative grand jury is the decision maker on the charge." Ran1 decided to argue this as well. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:33, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

My argument is that the Volokh Conspiracy self-describes itself as a group blog, which is explicitly defined under WP:SPS as a self-published source, regardless of editorial control. Also, the method behind grand juries is established in public law, as the links to government websites I've provided demonstrate. As for that last source, who is the decision maker in a regular grand jury? I thought all indictments were based on the vote of the grand jury. --RAN1 (talk) 21:45, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

That "blog" is republished by WaPo, which is exactly how WaPo handles all "op-ed" commentary, just in case you missed it. "Op-ed" are not fact checked by WaPo etc. It is written by notable experts in the field, whose opinions are notable as such. A blog written by experts in a field is generally allowed as a source for their opinions in their field of notability. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:48, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. Even then though, we did have consensus for not including expert opinions that were biased. This should probably be taken into account. --RAN1 (talk) 23:09, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Self-published sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications and does not involve third-party claims about living people. It is not a reliable source in this context. Please see WP:SPS for more. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:17, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, many of the contributors are indeed notable, thus within their field of notability, the blog is indeed usable. WaPo republishes those opinions much as it does op-ed columns, which are also not separately fact checked. Cheers. Collect (talk) 05:52, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

It's a blog hosted by WaPo, not a republishing. Op-ed news blogs are under WaPo's editorial discretion, not Volokh, which has its own editorial discretion, so it's effectively a self-published source. The Volokh Conspiracy should not be treated as a law review. --RAN1 (talk) 06:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

RAN1 please stop making false statements around even after they have been pointed out. The Volokh Conspiracy retains its own editorial control and its own functioning site, the content is republished on WaPo. Cassell is a contributor, not the owner or operator of the site. Though it is also widely respected and even acclaimed by the American Bar Association Journal. As @Collect: confirmed, twice now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I haven't made a false statement. Volokh's original site is a meta-tag redirect to WaPo. They're hosted by the WaPo, which the link you've provided verifies. Hosting is not republishing. It's an SPS, and there's no indication that it's a reliable source (seriously, being in a top 10 list of "favorite legal blogs" from ABAJ is not an accolade). --RAN1 (talk) 08:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

The "blog" is physically on WaPo's site - thus it is "republished" by WaPo and is not a "personal web site" by a mile. WaPo quite apparently pays for this right (VK specifically gets a share of the WaPo ad revenue at least per LA Observed - if a publisher pays to carry something you wrote, it is clearly republishing what you wrote. Thus the "SPS = personal web site of a non-notable person" argument fails, as it has always failed. It is widely cited by lawyers, scholar.google.com shows it as being mentioned and used in many law journals including Virginia Law Review, HeinOnline , Washington University Law Review, Alabama Law Review, Drexel Law Review, Georgetown Law Review (actually a slew of law review journals), American Association of Law Libraries, and roughly one thousand other sites (scholar.google.com stops at page 100 of results). With such stature, the cavil that it is a "personal blog" fails with a resounding thud. Consider this from the ABA Journal. "Volokh Conspiracy" is not a trivial "SPS blog" it is a major resources cited in over a thousand scholarly articles. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:34, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

@Collect:Self-published sources fall under two categories:

1) If authored by an established expert who has been previously published third-party reliable sources, they may be considered reliable as long as they don't involve claims about living people. However, if such information is truly worth including in a Misplaced Pages article, other non-self-published reliable sources will have published it. For more information, please see WP:BLPSPS

2) Otherwise, the following conditions apply:

1. The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim.
2. It does not involve claims about third parties.
3. It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source.
4. There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity.
5. The article is not based primarily on such sources.

For more information, please see WP:BLPSELFPUB

Can you please indicate which conditions this source should be considered reliable in this particular instance? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:10, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

@A Quest For Knowledge: Perhaps next time you could read the responses the sources and check basic facts before you make such a rebuttal. It makes you seem foolish when you forget that it is not SPS, that the content is not about a person, and so it cannot possibly be BLPSPS. Also, Ran1 misrepresented the source and its content and you are continuing to be ignorant of the discussion. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:34, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

@ChrisGualtieri: Huh? In what way is this not an SPS? In what ways are the members of the grand jury and Robert McCulloch not human beings? Since I am "ignorant" (your words, not mine), perhaps you should educate me. Or perhaps you should take your own advice and check "basic facts" otherwise it may make you "seem foolish" (again, your words, not mine). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:07, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

See the responses above and re-read WP:NEWSBLOG. I rather not repeat myself when you do not understand WP:IRS. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:00, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Then I'll assume from your WP:ICANTHEARYOU reply that you don't actually have any real responses to any of these questions. Please note that BLPs are under discretionary sanctions and any misconduct may result in being sanctioned. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 06:14, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll respond on your talk page since you are not advancing the discussion. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:18, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I see that you've already been alerted. You can respond anywhere you want, but failing to provide any real answer to simple questions isn't going to advance this discussion:

1. How is this not an WP:SPS? The blog itself says that they are a group blog, not Washington Post employees and they themselves have "sole editorial control" (their words, not mine).
2. How are members of the grand jury and Robert McCulloch not living people?

Why can't you answer simple questions? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 06:24, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

It's an opinion piece and therefore usually not reliable for facts. Possibly the expert nature of the writer would make it rs but, if so, why use in-text citations and treat it as an opinion? OTOH, if it is an opinion, then why is this opinion so important? And why not disclose that the writer has right-wing views? In reporting opinions it is best to use secondary sources that report them so that the weight they hold can be disclosed. This case is so well known it is pointless using for obscure sources such as this one. TFD (talk) 06:44, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Cassell was used for three claims two of which were that the grand jury operates in secret and the advantage it conifers. The third was that it was an investigative grand jury. The first two are easily replaced and not even in the article or needed anyways. The third was actually corrupted by Ran1 in the filing. Ran's issue that it is a BLP issue because "... it implies that the grand jury was only involved to investigate the incident without investigating possible crimes". This does not make sense and does not reflect fact. The investigative grand jury was presented the charges and it would decide what charge, if any, to indict Wilson on. Even if Cassell is reliable and its under WP:NEWSBLOG - the fact Ran1's conclusion is not even in the source should be a highlighter that something is wrong with Ran1's argument. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:22, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

And just to confirm this is not a normal blog, its been cited in the opinions of the US Supreme Court. A major citation which changed the entire legal debate, now a book, A Conspiracy Against Obamacare: The Volokh Conspiracy and the Health Care Case is strong evidence of WP:RSOPINION and WP:NEWSBLOG. Though it is not the only time because even the government cited the blog, and not just the contributor - but the originator - continue to cited by the courts including the government itself. A legal citation of this nature is ground breaking, having it discussed numerous times is even more so. Also, I remember a contributor lamenting that the blog's editorial process was very unfriendly to him and that the basis and relevancy of certain arguments were rejected by the internal editorial process of the blog. Anyways - most blogs are not discussed and cited in the highest court nor are the arguments cited in the highest court unless they are pretty reliable. Cassell is a former U.S. District judge appointed by the president and teaching law professor who has also written extensively on the topic. Ran1's misunderstanding of the text is at fault, not Cassell. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:47, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

The fact the the blog was cited in a government brief does not mean that everything written in the blog is of such great significance that we should include it. Furthermore, we need to establish the degree of weight this particular opinion holds. TFD (talk) 08:10, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

So, the issue is whether we need a blog to tell us it was an investigative grand jury? As for the rest, Volokh Conspiracy is an opinion blog, there is going to be plenty of wheat from chaff to go through. It's certainly possible to cite an opinion blog for an opinion but not usually for anything else. A Conspiracy Against Obamacare: The Volokh Conspiracy and the Health Care Case makes it clear that the blog tests opinions - so yes they have opinions but not every opinion of theirs is going to be worthwhile for a pedia article (and for it to be usable at all it does have to be in the law field - which granted the jury issue is). Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:08, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no opinion being used. Ran1 is misrepresenting the source and went to 6RR and ended up inverting basic facts of Cassell and other sources. I'm glad everyone is serious about things and that everyone means well, but it is essential to make sure we are discussing the same thing. "The difference between a regular grand jury and an investigative grand jury is that the investigative grand jury is the decision maker on the charge." Ran1 does not understand what the grand jury was investigating much less understand how grand juries work. Comments from Ran1 repeatedly allude to being a "federal grand jury" which this is not. The Cassell source is from a prominent judge and was simply used for statements of fact which are not in any dispute and even if so, we have plenty of others to use. Ran1 does not understand what Ran1 is talking about. Because of Ran1's edit warring and flipping of meanings we have another error in the article which is now fully protected. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:18, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Then it's generally unusable to cite an opinion blog - we can cite non-opinion from other sources. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Toobin, Parloff, Nolan... all the sources were originally deeply flawed or cherry picked right out of context to make one of the worst BLP and NPOV violations I have ever seen. Many sources, opinion indeed, were so ripped out of context and twisted into attacks that immediate action and deletion of these problematic sources was met with reinsertion and then defended, repeatedly. Cwobeel in particular reinserted many problems with this edit that contains information directly from the Shooting of Michael Brown page. I've asked for help repeatedly, but Ran1 and Cwobeel have continuously defended this and complain - loudly - about how these are reliable sources and I am misusing BLP. Huffington Post and others have no place on that page and its been like an uphill battle to prevent defamatory content from being used. Any help is appreciated. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:20, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This is a rather strange discussion for the Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard because there has been no mention here of any specific BLP violation. It appears to be a content dispute and reliable source discussion. The article passage that is being discussed here was being discussed at the article talk page where consensus was against RAN1. As I recall, RAN1 didn't make any mention of this discussion there. I only found out about this discussion here when ChrisGualtieri mentioned it on the article talk page a little while ago today. Considering that no BLP violation has been specified here, this appears to be forum shopping, after consensus was against RAN1 on the article Talk page. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

P.S. In addition to RAN1 discussing the subject content in this article Talk page section mentioned above, earlier RAN1 also discussed it in this article Talk page section , also without success. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:28, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

? If the statement we are discussing is "Paul Cassell, former US federal judge, said that Ben Caselman incorrectly compared . . . McCulloch's intentions to . . ." Then it looks like opinion involving at least two living people, opinion about what one said, and opinion about what another intended. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:30, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

See the opening message of RAN1 which gives the diff . The content added in that diff was "...the investigative grand jury was unique because they were investigating with no assurance that any criminal conduct was present, in contrast to normal grand jury proceedings which have been screened for probable cause by a prosecutor." --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:51, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

So "unique" is the opinion, and doesn't that statement fall right admisdt those about Caselman and McCullough that I quoted? It's all cited to the same opinion piece. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:02, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not following you. For instance, your quote isn't referred to in the opening message of RAN1 or in any of the above discussion previous to your introducing it here AFAIK. Could you give a link to where you got it from and directions on where to find it there? --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:34, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

This section of the article first paragraph last two sentences: Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:44, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

The link you gave was for the current version of the article, which differs from the version when RAN1 started this BLPN talk section and gave this diff . The earlier version referred to by RAN1 had the following as the last two sentences of the first paragraph,

"Paul Cassell, former US federal judge, said the investigative grand jury was unique because they were investigating with no assurance that any criminal conduct was present, in contrast to normal grand jury proceedings which have been screened for probable cause by a prosecutor. McCulloch's intentions to present all the evidence resulted in the proceedings which took far longer than regular grand juries which decide within days."

The current version that you are referring to contains an addition about Ben Caselman.

"Paul Cassell, former US federal judge, said that Ben Caselman incorrectly compared federal prosecutions to the investigative grand jury, which was unique because they were investigating with no assurance that any criminal conduct was present, in contrast to normal grand jury proceedings which have been screened for probable cause by a prosecutor. McCulloch's intentions to present all the evidence resulted in the proceedings which took far longer than regular grand juries which decide within days."

The part about Ben Caselman wasn't the issue that RAN1 brought up and I don't think it was part of the discussion here. In fact, RAN1 was the editor who put in that part about Ben Caselman with this edit . (As a side comment, I would agree to restoring the earlier version of the two sentences that don't have the Ben Caselman part because it doesn't fit there, considering that Ben Caselman's comparison hadn't been previously mentioned.) --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:16, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Update: I have proposed on the article talk page that the Ben Caselman part of the two sentences be removed. See Proposal re Ben Caselman. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:03, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• This edit summarizes the problem with that page, "Neither I nor BLP care if it makes accusations against McCulloch. Negative opinion, cited as opinion, is not a BLP concern solely because it's negative." This is why I keep having to revert claims that McCulloch is a racist, a criminal and other heinous accusations from Op-ed pieces or other poor sources with an axe to grind. It is exhausting to defend against such things when the basic reading of WP:BLP is ignored by some parties. Bob K31416 and Isaidnoway and a few others have been very supportive in removing some of the worst WP:BLPGOSSIP and other attacks using Misplaced Pages's voice. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:07, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Obviously, it is delicate but the BLP issue with opinion is whether it's due - (if a public official is accused of being , it maybe due or it may not be due), see WP:PUBLICFIGURE, if not due exclude, if due, then the issue is proper balance between due opinions. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:26, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

The above statement is mine and is presented out of context. I made it in response to the statement "This is still invalid as opinion piece because makes accusations against McCulloch and is a WP:BLP concern for that reason," in which ChrisGualtieri is advocating the removal of a well-sourced opinion that the prosecutor in the Brown case had a conflict of interest due to his relationship to the police department. That's hardly "claim that McCulloch is a racist a criminal," and Chris's attempt to present my statement as advocacy for the inclusion of either type of claim is insulting, absurd, and arguably mendacious. Some negative statements about living persons are BLP violations, but it doesn't follow that all such negative statements are BLP violations. And stating those opinions as opinions does not in any sense involve "attacks using Misplaced Pages's voice." Dyrnych (talk) 19:43, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I did not apply it to you nor link it to you with such a strong intention. However, you are defending material that begins by saying that the police officers in the Brown and Garner case got away with murder and that the grand jury was fixed. It is inappropriate Op-ed which goes against WP:NEWSORG and your response to defend it was the very example I used - you just spun the context a little because it did not perfectly line up all in one source, but I am pretty sure that beginning by implying (as if as it is a fact) that McCulloch rigged a jury to let a murderer go free is not the type of material we should be even referencing on Misplaced Pages. The source should not be used. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:20, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

You sure did apply it to me, but that has nothing to do with the source. The whole point of attributing opinions to their authors is that we explicitly do not imply those opinions to be fact. I don't see what's hard to understand about this. Dyrnych (talk) 06:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Chris you have put a spin on that editorial by that law professor, which is questionable, at best, the editorial's first two paragraphs are:

"The lesson to be learned from the refusal of two grand juries, in Missouri and New York, to indict police officers in the deaths of Michael Brown and Eric Garner is not that police can get away with murder. Nor is it that the grand jury vending machine can be programmed to return a “no bill of indictment” in addition to the “true bills” it normally dispenses. We’ve known that all along.

The real lesson, at least in terms of criminal procedure, is that there is an inherent conflict of interest in giving local prosecutors so much control over the decision whether to charge police for allegations of bias or excessive use of force — and a compelling need for an independent special prosecutor to handle such cases from start to finish. That’s true in states such as Missouri, where prosecutors can choose to initiate charges either directly or via grand jury, and in states such as New York, where felonies must be charged through the grand jury process."

Now, whether it should be a source for an article is another issue, but spinning it is not the way to settle anything. You can be assured that there is no libel in that op-ed. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:10, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Libel? I said nothing of the sort - I said the op-ed had a clear agenda and that it made logical fallacies and misstatements of fact. It concludes that a conflict of interest exists because of manipulation and that manipulation proves a conflict of interest without actually proving any manipulation. Instead refers to the conflict of interest and a few examples of half-truths to assert that its manipulation. McCulloch has over 20 convictions of police officers and 33 prosecutions according to records obtained from McCulloch's office. If a conflict of interest exists, that is 33 prosecutions of "biting the hand that feeds him" with more than half actually ending in convictions. Claiming that the prosecutors criticized witnesses that did not support Wilson - how do you explain Witness 40 (the so-called expert witness by some) who was revealed by the prosecutors as a lying racist who was not even there that day? Witness 10 was the key supporter, who is black, and was interviewed with statements on record with all the information before it came out that not only collaborated Wilson's account, but actually was more accurate than Wilson in terms of the shooting details. It uses cherry picked audio clips by Tom Jackson to allude that Wilson was unaware of the robbery - but Wilson has always maintained he was aware - because he's on tape asking the officers searching for the suspect if they need him. Wilson doesn't recognize them as suspects until after the first interaction, but this infers that McCulloch implied something that was never a reality. Look, I can go on about why Op-eds are not great sources, this is a pretty clear example, but if you are not familiar with the facts it can be difficult because Silvers uses logical fallacies and distortions to make the case. There is a reason Op-eds are not reliable, because they do this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:29, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

But none of that, in which you disagree with his published take on things seems relevant because we are not going to put your take on things anywhere in an article. The professors thesis that there is an inherent conflict of interest because local prosecutors rely on the police to do their job day-in-and-day-out is a published opinion on a systematic issue. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:22, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

It is actually a moot point and I need not defend or attack such pieces because opinion pieces should not be used in the first place. Evaluating the content is irrelevant when the source itself is poor. I do not need to list the faults or argue them as if disproving Arming America, because by virtue of the op-ed it is already at the bottom of the barrel of ideal sources. Thanks, your comment below fixed my perspective problem. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:15, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

To be clear, are you suggesting that opinion sources should not be used on Misplaced Pages? Can you explain why we have guidelines explicitly permitting their use? Dyrnych (talk) 01:35, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

BLP application to negative opinions

Given that @ChrisGualtieri: has raised the issue above (and significantly misrepresented what exactly is going on with the page), I thought it would be appropriate to discuss the issue of opinion that presents criticism of living persons as a BLP issue. My thesis is that in and of itself, negative opinion does not present BLP concerns. ChrisGualtieri seems to believe otherwise, and has consistently advocated for removal of well-sourced opinion material solely because it presents a negative view of a living person (which he sometimes phrases as "accusations" against that person). One of us is very wrong about what WP:BLP means.

Additionally, ChrisGualtieri apparently believes that it is an acceptable exercise for Misplaced Pages editors to evaluate the conclusions of well-sourced opinion pieces for "factual correctness" before they can be included in an article. While this may not be the best forum to discuss this particular editorial tack, ChrisGualtieri has defended this practice on the basis that a BLP concern is presented by including opinions that are based (in his own opinion) on incorrect facts and are therefore "false". I'd like to hear some opinions from other editors. Dyrnych (talk) 20:38, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

ChrisGualtieri is completely wrong in its application of BLP, and actually uses BLP as a bludgeon to remove any material that he believes is "not factual", "disproved", or "negative", with complete disregard if the viewpoint is notable and significant, only to do exactly the opposite when the source is one that he personally agrees with. It is WP:TENDENTIOUS editing, despite ChrisGualtieri's verbosity and claims of scholarship. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:57, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Opinion pieces are not generally used for facts, see WP:NEWSORG, this makes sense because opinion pieces seek to have facts serve an opinion and not a neutral exposition, which is what the Pedia is trying to do, it also tends the avoid the unecyclopedic structure of 'they said, no, they said'. Opinions may be used for opinion if the opinion is due, but again our purpose is exposition not opinion, it is also extremely careful against placing living persons in a false light, so they should be used carefully, if at all. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:04, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the above and should have noted that I'm confining this to opinion pieces cited for their opinions (as opposed to facts) and properly attributed to their authors. Would you also agree that part of a neutral exposition of the Michael Brown case concerns the enormous controversy that the case has presented? And, if so, that a notable part of that controversy includes criticism of and support for the way that the prosecutor, a public figure, handled the grand jury process? Dyrnych (talk) 21:08, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no reasonable justification to use op-ed pieces to try and get around BLP by claiming that someone else said it. Cwobeel and Ran1 has argued this. Dyrnych right now you are defending the inclusion of an op-ed which begins with the premise that Wilson committed murder and the grand jury process was deliberately manipulated to not indict him. Are you so sure you want to blindly include the conclusions of anyone who bases their entire argument on manipulation and a conflict of interest let police get away with murder? The conclusion which contains these provisions is being used in the article and comes from, "The conflict of interest at the core of the grand jury process and the pass given to police who kill civilians are an abuse of authority..." Really. And this is just a minor one compared to others, but I thought it would be appropriate to use the example from above. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:35, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

What you don't seem to understand is that including these opinions is not an attempt to "get around BLP." Including notable opinions is appropriate when those opinions are part of the subject matter of the article, despite the fact that they may reflect poorly on the prosecutor's office. I would be just as vigorous in my defense of inclusion of material that defended the prosecutor's office, assuming that that material was appropriately attributed as opinion. Dyrnych (talk) 06:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Drynych, It depends. But for all of you, it's difficult to imagine that you can keep out opinion of "it's not fair" if you include opinion of "it's fair" and vice versa - so don't use opinion pieces for facts and keep them out in that regard, or if they need to go in per WP:Public Figure or as commentary on process, not person, then balance them per WP:Due. Also, it may help to confine all opinion pieces, as sources, to one section of the article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:34, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

The problem with opinions is that they arguing whether or not someone was right or wrong, instead of just providing the plain disinterested facts. Misplaced Pages should not be engaging in conflict - and all of these op-eds and poor sources are doing that. Heck, I introduced a few bad ones which I removed and replaced because I didn't catch them either. NEWSORG and BLP are sensitive matters and that is why I've been replacing Huffington Post with sources like the New York Times, Time and balanced St. Louis Public Radio sources. Dyrnych thinks pointing out logicial fallacies or facts in these op-eds results in original research, well, WP:OR applies to article space - not evaluating the claims of these op-ed pieces to try and explain why they are not suitable. The Silvers piece above got a partial analysis, but I digress... in situations like this, any notable and significant criticism will be picked up and evaluated by a better source. This is one such source. We do not need to rely on Op-ed pieces when such sources exist. NPOV does not mean giving each "side" or "stance" space for each argument, nor should we. The usage of such op-eds is by itself a WP:IRS and WP:BLP issue. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Then why are you spending so much time defending an opinion piece above? Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:05, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Mmm... good point. The argument whether or not it self-published really doesn't matter if its under RSOPINION when we already have the citations to fix it. I saw an issue and was arguing the wrong aspect of it. Originally, I was under the impression the since an editorial control exists that the judge who wrote the book would be acceptable for basic statements of fact without dragging up an offline source on law which did not directly parallel this case in such a fashion. In the aim of sourcing convenience I argued a point very inconveniently when I had systematically gone through and replaced other op-ed sources in the similar manner. Well damn, I made an appeal to authority argument (by RSOPINION) when I did not need to just to defend the inclusion of a source I already had plans on removing like I did with Cassellman's. This is actually good, because it means we do not need to have rebuttals to op-ed pieces against other op-ed pieces to balance it per NPOV - neither are needed because secondary sources already cover the facts without injecting personal opinions into it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:02, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

On further inspection to @Alanscottwalker:'s comments, this resolves my perspective problem and I'll submit a few secondary RSes to cover Cassell - since moving towards an "op-ed" free page is ideal. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:18, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Coming in from another article that ChrisGualtieri is involved in, Chris seems to want to trivialize all analysis as "op-ed" pieces. To paraphrase myself, get book biographies disqualified as sources for BLPs (cause they're long op-ed pieces, right?) and then I'll back you up. Misplaced Pages articles should and do contain analysis of a subject's actions, performance, legacy, influence, etc. by experts in that field. This inherently comes from opinions the expert has formed and can be positive or negative. Automatically removing the analysis of an expert because it's negative is nonsense. --NeilN 07:09, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

It looks like Chris has staked out the even-more-extreme position that opinion sources of any sort should not be used. As I alluded to above, this raises the interesting question of why (if Chris's interpretation is correct) Misplaced Pages has specific policies governing proper use of opinion. Dyrnych (talk) 07:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

NeilN is just being dramatic but Op-ed sources should not be used for contentious statements about living person is exactly what policy indicates. Misplaced Pages has specific policies governing the proper use of opinion because opinions are a part of many aspects of the humanities. Opinions like on reviews of media are completely different then accusations and commentary on living people. WP:BLP demands high quality secondary sources, op-eds reflect personal opinion, they are rarely reliable for statements of fact per WP:NEWSORG. We should not be using personal opinions for content in BLPs. Let's use NYT pieces and others which are not op-eds that make thinly veiled accusations of murder and manipulation in their opening paragraph. Also - this includes "positive opinions" - we have no need for any op-ed pieces when high quality secondary sources exist. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Chris, numerous editors have tried to explain this to you: there is no policy that prohibits opinion sources from being used for contentious statements about living people unless those sources are themselves poor, which would be analyzed on a case-by-case basis. An additional overlay on this is that opinion sources should generally not be relied on for claims of fact, but are reliable for statements of opinion. And finally, we have WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV to consider, so we should cite the range of opinion and do so in proportion to their prominence. You ignore all of this policy when you claim that opinion sources should not be used in BLPs or that opinion sources are somehow deficient on the sole basis that they're opinion sources.

Controversy is most often expressed in statements of opinion, whether those statements appear as part of a "straight" news piece or a dedicated opinion piece. The fact that so much of Michael Brown's notability relates to the controversy surrounding his death, the protests, and the grand jury means that we are failing to follow the fundamental dictate of NPOV if we do not include the range of notable opinion as to those events.

Also, opinion pieces are primary sources for their own opinions, but by definition secondary sources for the things on which they comment. Dyrnych (talk) 18:24, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Your argument is good, but it is not responding to my argument at all. Misplaced Pages needs to severely limit the use of personal opinions about living persons because they reflect an inappropriate appeal to authority and often a questionable cause. The oversimplified cause fallacy runs rampant in these pieces. Opinion pieces are poor sources because they are not subject to proper editorial controls and as a result are WP:QUESTIONABLE and under WP:GRAPEVINE. Broader non-opinion sources are more likely to be reliable and reflective. There is no serious debate between a biased opinion piece or an in-depth report by the New York Times. Use the New York Times report. I've stated this repeatedly. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:38, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there's any doubt this is a valid source, it's published in the Washington Post by one of the most reputable legal commentators one can find in the press. If one is going to say blogs and personal opinions can't be used as sources in BLP articles, then one might as well just remove every Daily Kos and ThinkProgress source from BLP articles (as well as many Huffington Post articles), because they are blogs. Furthermore, established news anchors are known to publish through blogs, for example CNN's Jake Tapper and Anderson Cooper or NBC News' Rachel Maddow. My point is that a blog can at times be little distinguished from a news story or broadcast. It ultimately comes down to the reputability of the blogger. If the Washington Post source were to become unreputable, much of Misplaced Pages sourcing would have to be removed, as that high a standard would be one few sources measure up to. --7157.118.25a (talk) 23:49, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

BLP concerns at Stevens–Johnson syndrome

Per a request at the helpdesk, Misplaced Pages:Help_desk#Request_to_change_a_picture, it would appear that there are BLP issues with the use of this image...? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• Ultimately they'd have to file a ticket through ORTS that confirms that this is their brother. I'd wager that from a legal perspective the picture is sound, as the patient probably signed away the rights for the image when he went in for treatment with the doctor (likely was listed in fine print under something like "patient gives the right for the doctor to use the image in a teaching context, blah blah blah"). However as far as personal privacy goes, if the claims are legit and the IP can prove this is the case, then odds are that the image would be deleted due to the request of the depicted individual. It'd be a shame to see the image go since it would be fairly helpful for the article, but we should also respect the personal privacy of the individual in the picture. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Beatarix Campbell

Since August I have been making attempts to correct errors I perceived in the Beatrix Campbell entry. My insertions are continually removed and either the original replaced, or similarly erroneous material is substituted. A tedious and depressing process, and I am wearing of the attempt! Now, in response to messages from UKexpat and Clive Power recently, following the latest re-deletion of my latest re-insertion, I got in touch directly with Beatrix Campbell and asked her, with her greater knowledge, to help me to formulate a reasoned argument for the changes I have been proposing in the entry. I have now heard from her, and I hope it will not be considered incorrect if I paste in her own reply, see below. I would now greatly value advice as to how to proceed. I would like to learn in particular whether there is provision, if an erroneous paragraph is continually reinserted into an entry, of placing an immovable statement to the effect that the subject of the biography contests its truth. And secondly, is there provision, in cases where the subject of a biography finds it continually misrepresents her, to have the entry in her name removed from Misplaced Pages completely. Advice will be very welcome. Meantime, here, as suggested by Clive Power, is BC's argument concerning the contested para. Sturdytree (talk) 11:31, 12 December 2014 updated and amended 9 January 2015.(UTC)

Dear Misplaced Pages I am writing this in response to Cynthia Cockburn who came to me with members of your community’s queries and comments. I am not sure if I have to reply directly to you, or if that is allowed. But this is what I wish to say to you. There are always issues on a Wiki page where others’ perceptions of a person might seem to be unfair or possibly misinformed. As a journalist and public person who has reported on difficult and contentious issues (and received prizes for this) this is par for the course. I am relaxed about this being on a general continuum of “fair comment.” The problem with my page, which I didn’t set up, and with which I have never engaged previously, is that it has been used by some who appear to wish to use it as a forum to argue their corner and discredit me. This cannot be right. What I am asking is that Wiki accords it with the journalistic and indeed legal principles of fairness and balance. I have no objection to people with different opinions adding to my page, or indeed engaging with me as they do on Twitter or through my website. My profession invites this but, on Misplaced Pages, any engagement must be accurate and fair, particularly as in general I would not personally intervene on WIKI. The issues which I argue are biased and malicious mostly arise in the section on child abuse. My objection is that my page is used to fight old wars. I am simply asking for fairness and balance. I am open about my position - a position, I might add which in the current climate, is gathering more public and political weight Let me give you some examples: Cleveland Child abuse controversy. “Campbell also wrote in favour of now discredited allegations raised in the Cleveland Child sex abuse Scandal as well as similar discredited allegations in Nottingham. On 9 February 1991 Campbell appeared on television discussion programme After Dark together with the then deputy director of Nottinghamshire social services Andy Croall and others.” Neither Cleveland or Nottingham are referenced, yet this is a section which is used to discredit me. Re After Dark and Croall: I was invited to participate in the After Dark programme because I had written about the Notttingham case, and I was also awarded a prize for my documentary about it. Andy Croall had appeared on After Dark to give the point of view of Nottinghamshire County Council (he had recently been appointed Deputy Director of Social Services, and, therefore, had not been involved in the Nottingham case.) It was only during the programme, as a result of my questioning, that he revealed he had another agenda: he was a fundamentalist Christian, who strongly opposed abortion. This horrified the then Director of Social Services and the social work team involved in the case. He was sacked. Why then include him as if somehow I was aligned to him and his christian evangelism? The reference is, therefore, misleading and biased. It is not correct to say Cleveland was ‘discredited’. It is much more complicated than that. The Cleveland case aroused great national debate and a judicial inquiry. The Wiki references misrepresents my involvement. I was the ONLY journalist allowed by the judge, Butler Sloss, to interview witnesses giving evidence (after she had consulted articles I had already written on the controversy). My book was one of two written at the time. It was well received and has had a further edition, and in fact it is being reissued in the New year.It was well reviewed at the time and has remained as a reference on numerous university reading lists. The other book was written by Stuart Bell MP “When Salem came to Cleveland” who was severely criticised by the Butler Sloss inquiry. I enclose the Misplaced Pages reference to Cleveland on his page “At Westminster, Bell became the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition Roy Hattersley in 1983. He was promoted to the shadow frontbench in 1984 by Neil Kinnock as a Spokesman for Northern Ireland. However, he chose to resign his post after the Cleveland child abuse scandal which occupied two years of his life, after making unsubstantiated accusations of 'clinical error' against local pediatricians and child sexual abuse specialists. The paediatricians, Dr. Marietta Higgs and Dr. Geoffrey Wyatt, were later absolved and their forensic clinical work validated at a committee of inquiry overseen by Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss.” There is a view the doctors in the Cleveland case were wrong, faulty in their diagnosis. This is contrary to the Butler Sloss report itself (which did not criticise the diagnosis, but rather the management of the case), and to the conclusions of both the Northern Regional Health Authority and panels of eminent experts brought in to consider the contested cases. It is not true that Nottingham was discredited, as my attached account shows. Certainly, it was the subject of highly contested opinions, but there were convictions in the criminal court, there were findings in wardship proceedings, where it was the judge who described the activities as satanic, and in the Appeal Court. Indeed all the court proceedings affirmed the work of the foster carers and social workers, and found the children’s allegations to be reliable and persuasive. The workers who were put under severe pressure by the media were never disciplined, indeed their work was commended by every judge who dealt with the case. They were even commended in parliament by the Prime Minister. In the Wiki Page on Cleveland child abuse scandal, the references are largely from the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday, which in the 90’s consistently held a position that was anti-state, anti child abuse professionals. The Mail was subject to successful libel actions by medical professionals who first published research ‘reflex anal dilatation’ - the diagnosis at the heart of the Cleveland controversy. Furthermore, in the WIKi Cleveland page, references cite someone called Charles Pragnell. If you check his webpage: http://www.fassit.co.uk/charles_pragnell.htm you will see that he is highly positioned, he writes articles about child protection professionals which border on the hysterical and are utterly unreferenced. I object to the use of Pragnell as a source without any serious scrutiny of who he is. More generally, I acknowledge that I am a positioned writer, but even writers who don’t agree with me acknowledge that I am a painstaking reporter, and have drawn my attention to what they regard has been a biased Wiki account of me. My page should not be used to fight out these child wars - they are and have been toxic, though, of course, in the current climate those ridiculing and undermining the child protection work of the 80’s and 90’s may be regarded with more scepticism than they were then. I have included my referenced account of both Nottingham and Cleveland. I sincerely hope this might reassure Clive Power, and would be grateful if you could advise me about the next step forward. I apologise for the fact that I am not a WIKI participant and therefore unfamiliar with your procedures. Beatrix Campbell — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sturdytree (talk • contribs) 10:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

This looks like an attempt to cover-up her reporting the Cleveland child abuse scandal, which was a case of confirmation bias and quackery run amok, instead of what was argued to be a case of mass sexual abuse 24 years ago. Nottingham is also contested here. The sources presented as to how Campbell supposedly reported actual cases of abuse are questionable at best: a paywalled oped and a government review irrelevant to the Cleveland case. Nottingham is similarly ludicrous, a report from 1990 (from before this case got debunked). Non-reliable sources, dubious claim, personal conflict of interest - looks like a POV push to me. --RAN1 (talk) 04:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Took a second look at the Guardian Nottingham article. Nottingham was an actual case of abuse, but nothing to do with satanic rituals. The details of that is something that would best be figured out using Highbeam. However, the rest still stands, and doesn't seem to affect the article. --RAN1 (talk) 03:28, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Nadia Marcinko

Nadia Marcinko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An IP editor recently inserted material sourced to The Guardian, see diff. The Guardian strikes me as a reliable source, and its report specifically mentions the subject of the article, but another editor regards the report as unreliable, and has reverted the addition. See User_talk:JohnInDC#Civil_cases. It seems to me to be an obvious Keep for the article, and have restored the material with a couple of clarifying edits, but I confess to not being too well versed in the nuances of BLP issues, and figure just to raise the issue here straightaway. Thanks for any and all advice. JohnInDC (talk) 08:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

• The Guardian is reliable, but I would definitely proceed with caution here due to the nature of the allegations. So far I'm not seeing a huge amoutn of coverage for this in reliable sources. I do see coverage in The Daily Beast, Daily Mail, and Colorado NewsDay, but that's about it. I'd probably lean towards removing it in this instance since it's just an allegation and so far nobody has really picked up on the story. However at the same time since these stories are fairly "new" (meaning that the Guardian article was from only a few days ago), if this is covered more in the news then that could probably change. It's just that right now none of this is confirmed (ie, they were only questioned in regards to allegations), no charges were filed, and the coverage is insanely light. Given that this is pretty contentious stuff, we'd really want to have the most high quality sources possible and they just don't seem to exist right now. If more sources/coverage does occur then it'd probably warrant re-adding to the article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:34, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I also found coverage in Business Insider (Jan. 6) and The Telegraph (Jan 5) along the same lines as what you located; there is also an abundance of material from 2006-08, not all of it high-quality, but still including ABC News (July 2006). It seems that prior events are pretty well established and that the only issue here is one of identity, which can be sourced quite recently to at least The Guardian, Daily Mail and Colorado Newsday. Am I missing something? Thanks BTW for your quick response to my initial question. JohnInDC (talk) 14:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I think that, considering Alan Dershowitz has filed law suits in 2 countries, claiming that the girls claims are fraudulent, to repeat the "assisting in a prostitution case", based on the claims in these 12 year old allegation's could end up getting a law suit for Defamation slapped upon this site by Alan Dershowitz himself. I have reviewed the police report, and it make NO mention of this person in the roll that John in DC has placed upon her page "prostitute". Frankly speaking, if I was her, at this junction I would join Dershowitz and hit this site, as well as the one that stole my photo with a restraining order, and any judge would grant it. Why on earth would this accuser wait for 13 years and then come out of the woodworks with this claim. (answer: MONEY) Are we sure that is the route to go with this story? The UK is far more liberal, in regard to defamation and slander, then the US media is. You really don't see "that allegation" in any responsible US publication. I am going to remove the concerning comment until a reasonable consensus is obtained here and perhaps a admin chimes in here out of an abundance of caution. talk→ WPPilot  14:18, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

The original events (potential charges, 5th Amendment responses) were reasonably well reported at the time and since (in addition to ABC News above see Broward Palm Beach New Times, Daily Mail), and there are multiple UK sources connecting current with past events. Again I don't profess any particular expertise in BLP matters but I also don't see any particular reason to doubt the truth of what is being (multiply) reported and so, other than possible Weight issues, am not sure what the objection would be. JohnInDC (talk) 15:20, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

• Here is JohninDC's addition: "According to one article, Marcinkova was identified by prosecutors as one of four “potential co-conspirators” in the Epstein's prosecution for soliciting underage girls for prostitution, and, while never charged." The Wiki is about "Nadia Marcinko" and we have one publication that has claimed this is the same person. So far that is not enough to toss this girl, under the bus, and is a direct violation of BLP. So far we have a ton of assumptions an no proof whatsoever that this is not a direct violation of BLP as noted here above. This is an outright assertion that this girl is a criminal even though we are not totally sure, as JohninDC mentiones that this is even the same person. talk→ WPPilot  15:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree that "potential co-conspirator" is vague and inflammatory and is best avoided. But the sources above make it clear that a person under the first name was described in detail in a police report, was directly & personally involved in the matters at issue, pleaded the 5th when questioned on the subject, and was never charged. All of this is pretty well sourced, contemporaneously and today, and again other than possible issues of weight, am not sure what the BLP problem is. Tokyogirl79 offered helpful observations but I've identified several more sources since. Further thoughts from Tokyogirl or others? Thanks - JohnInDC (talk) 16:09, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

• There are more sources now, which is helpful, but this is still just an allegation and the coverage still isn't heavy enough to really warrant it being added. Like others have said, it's a legal issue because ultimately we're posting about an allegation that has yet to be proven in court and that Marcinko has never been officially charged with. Even then the wording in these articles says that this was all something that potentially happened, meaning that it could also potentially be that Marcinko had nothing to do with any of the allegations. Since no charges were brought, they apparently could never prove anything in order to make it stick, very few papers are even picking up on this story, and that the ones that do are very delicately tapdancing about naming Marcinko or the other woman, I think that the allegations should be left out of the article. If we get more coverage and Marcinko is officially taken to court then it could be added, but not before then. If we were to look at it as far as long term coverage goes, the coverage as a whole is fairly weak and isn't really enough to show that in the long run that this is ultimately worth adding to her article. At most we can say that she worked for Epstein but we can't say that people are claiming that she helped him solicit underage girls. The potential legal issues of adding unverified claims that have yet to receive any large amount of coverage is just too big to take a chance with. We're not really like a newspaper in that we have to have the most up to date claims and allegations- we can wait and see if this gets more coverage in the long run. Jumping to add it too quickly could get us slapped with a lawsuit. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. The story has a few twists and turns (the original events, the third party plea agreement in 2007 that specifically exempted her from prosecution as part of the bargain (WFLX TV report, 2009, still another source); and her subsequent testimony in a separate civil suit in 2010 where she pleaded the 5th) which frustrate brief summary anyhow. Also, while "assistant" does not really capture the relationship, see sources above, in the interest of caution and moving on, we may as well just leave it as is. Thanks for your insights. JohnInDC (talk) 14:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps it might be a good idea to do a semi protect here, as it has had 1 IPv4 and 3 IPv6 vandal's over the last two weeks. The comments have been extremely disparaging. talk→ WPPilot  04:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Women's rights in 2014

I have a vague unease and since no-one is responding to my comment at the article talk, I'll ask for input here. Quoting that comment:

Mentioning the UK in "Australia, the UK and Singapore barred US-based dating coach Julien Blanc after complaints that his aggressive techniques amounted to abuse of women" might be troublesome. As the source says, the UK authorities do not comment on individual cases and while it is true that there was a petition opposing his entry (it didn't get that many signatories - 15k is pretty trivial), linking cause and effect as we do might be unfair. We'll not know for sure for another 30 years, I guess, and perhaps not even then if it is redacted. It seems to be a pretty obvious connection but can we make it, bearing in mind WP:BLP? - Sitush (talk) 19:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Is the article phrasing sufficient to avoid a BLP issue or are we tarring the guy with an unverifiable UK government rationale? - Sitush (talk) 11:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

The source says 150K rather than 15K, which is a significant difference. In the absence of any alternative explanation other than public outcry, I think it's probably fair to link the petition to the visa denial. Note that the prose doesn't explicitly state that the barring was caused by the complaints, which would be unwarranted. Dyrnych (talk) 16:52, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Yikes, bad eyesight, sorry! I still think we're implying something that lacks verification when we say "after complaints that ...". There are any number of reasons why the government decided as it did but we will not know for many years to come, if ever. I haven't even looked at the Australia or Singapore situations yet but perhaps there is some alternate phrasing that would work better? "There were complaints from the public in several countries alleging US-based dating coach Julien Blanc's aggressive techniques amounted to abuse of women. He was barred from entering Australia, the UK and Singapore." or something similar? - Sitush (talk) 17:03, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Robert Spencer (author)

Has recently sprouted a "Praise" section the sourcing/POVness of which seems a bit suspect. Would be interested to hear other editors' views. Alexbrn 17:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Considering that the "Spencer's views on Islam" section already contains praise for Spencer (including the "foremost Catholic expert on Islam" claim from the National Catholic Register that's repeated in the "Praise" section) and the "Criticism" section contains some rebuttals by Spencer, the "Praise" section seems like an NPOV violation even without the poor sourcing. I'm going to revert it. Dyrnych (talk) 18:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

The editor who added the "Praise" section, Broter, has continued to add material. It consists largely of personal opinions and positive assessments from persons who share Spencer's views on Islam. It's not clear why any of the opinions expressed are relevant beyond the editor's assertion that it balances the article's "Criticsm" section (which itself probably needs to be integrated into the article), and it's not clear that the opinions come from notable sources. Dyrnych (talk) 21:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

George Zimmerman

There is a discussion about whether to include content at George Zimmerman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) regarding run-ins with the law that never made it to trial. Input from the regulars here would be helpful. VQuakr (talk) 01:48, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Laura Owen

This is a page of a living person and only created to tarnish their public profile. It's purpose is more of a tabloid than actual fact. Most of the articles referenced are from opinion pieces from small newspapers with zero news credibility. Other citations are taken out of context and completely irrelevant to the statement being made. I ask that you put it up for deletion / removal. As shown in the history, the creator has already had the page taken down multiple times for copyright violation, but still continues to try and re post the page.

Your assistance would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.129.252.194 (talk) 18:29, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Could you point to which sources you consider "opinion pieces from small newspapers with zero news credibility"? The sources appear to be news pieces, some from major sources such as The Philadelphia Inquirer. The item that would appear to be the strongest point of concern, regarding the end of her government job, may be cited to a smaller paper (Fort Scott Tribune), but is an Associated Press story. The page appears to be recently under attack by a string of sock puppets of blocked User:Loveconquers1. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:16, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

per discussion at User talk:Gunner Sabot and now the article talk page the subject apparently used the OTRS system, and OTRS volunteer and admin FreeRangeFrog has been in contact with the subject and has reviewed the article. I'm closing this thread. 22:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC) (update Jytdog (talk) 14:13, 13 January 2015 (UTC))

Repeated vandalism on Biography of Living Person (Polaroid Kiss Music Band)

• Polaroid Kiss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello, We are experiencing repeated vandalism on our page for several days now. Our page is about a rock-band. Someone deletes the name of one of the band members and says he is not a part of the band which is wrong. Every time we edit the page, this person deletes what we have done, without checking our information. We do consider this as threat and it is very harmful for the band's reputation and for the band members. We would like to block this person and then prevent them to vandalize our page. Thanks for your help. ArtemisOfMars (talk) 09:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Leslie Waddington

Leslie Waddington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Leslie's father Victor Waddington died in 1981, not 2010. He was no longer a director of Waddington Galleries Ltd after Alex Bernstein became co-owner in 1966 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferriel Waddington (talk • contribs) 13:38, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

@Ferriel Waddington: Could you provide a source for this? Thanks. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Barnaby Miln

Barnaby Miln (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm trying to avoid an edit war on Barnaby Miln. User:Barnabymiln has been repeatedly removing a sentence about a conviction cited to two reliable national British newspapers saying it is "false information". I didn't write the original sentence but changed it to better reflect the references. He (presumably - wasn't logged in) brought up the issue on my talk page earlier. Haminoon (talk) 19:37, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Only one of the references actually supports the specific assertion at all. The Guardian one merely states that he "had served a short prison sentence". And the Independent piece is actually about something else, only mentioning Miln in passing. I'd be wary of using it as the sole source for such an assertion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Right, but considering its the very reliable Independent, that doesn't mean it should be removed either. I would expect the conviction was dealt with by newspapers heavily at the time but I don't know how to find those references. Haminoon (talk) 20:09, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, per WP:BLP policy, it probably does. An article about gay clergymen in the 'Life and style' section of the Independent is questionable as the sole source for a matter of such significance. And incidentally, it doesn't say that Miln had any connection with the old people's home. If better sources exist, they need to be found. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Allen Leech and Charlie Webster dating?

I see reports of Allen Leech and Charlie Webster dating together. Are these sources reliable: ? --George Ho (talk) 19:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Even if they were, Misplaced Pages is not a gossip magazine. Who is dating who is rarely of encyclopaedic interest. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:53, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

"Celebrity gossip" even from the New York Times etc. is not particularly reliable for BLP usage. Collect (talk) 21:09, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree that the sources are unreliable in general, and that this is not of encyclopedic value unless it terms into a long term relationship, marriage, kids, or is significantly commented upon by the parties in question in the future. Completely fails the WP:10YT. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:12, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Steve Dangle youtube personality

My sincere apologies if this is not the most ideal venue to ask this question. I am currently monitoring the Steve Dangle article, and have been hoping to find better sources to support the article. I believe that this subject may be notable due to the numerous passing references which mention Steve Dangle, but I have come up empty handed when attempting to find any sources of substance for expansion purposes. Aside from the talk page of the article in question, what's the best location to bring up these sort of issues? Regards, Yamaguchi先生 23:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

This page is for specific issues about living people in articles/talk pages etc. For help with an article, you should try one of the Wikiprojects related to the subjects import. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:25, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Charlie Hebdo shooting

There is currently discussion on the talk page of the article in question whether the speculation in the "Killed" section of the cousin Elsa Cayat should be removed from the article. Any input is welcome, probably best at the talk page of the article. John Carter (talk) 23:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Steve Atwater

Steve Atwater career stats are wrong. He has a great early career that's not reflected at all.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/A/AtwaSt00.htm

Thanks - I am not sure how to edit so I thought I would pass on the correct stats.

Frank — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.254.147.8 (talk) 00:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

What specifically is wrong with his career stats? Ah, I see. There's a discrepancy in tackle and fumble stats between the source we're using and the one you've provided. I'm genuinely unsure of which one is correct as to the fumbles, but tackle stats were unofficial prior to 2001. Dyrnych (talk) 00:20, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

George Jackson (conductor)

I was wandering why this article hasn't been deleted yet. It smells like a piece of self promotion and self-exaggeration of minor musical achievements. Happy New Year!--Karljoos (talk) 00:42, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Above message was left at my user talk page by Karljoos (talk · contribs).

Can someone please look into this?

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 02:10, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Mark DeSaulnier

Very biased towards donations when Mark was a republican, misleading where the author states how he donated to a number of republicans campaign funds when $200 was donated to a general fund. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.222.152.98 (talk) 08:05, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Patricia Driscoll (Armed Forces Foundation)

First paragraph lists 'assassin' among careers. Seems to be subject of repeated edits to add & delete. Claim is made by subject's ex, who's embroiled in a legal battle; no independent confirmation of claim is found.

I noticed this when looking-up subject after reading a news story.

I don't know how to edit on Misplaced Pages, but took a look at the edit history & it shows 'assassin' having been repeatedly added & removed from the page. Wonder if it perhaps needs a notation of the controversy & to be locked for a while.

Thanks for all you do. Best regards.</ref> — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrinaLovesInfo (talk • contribs) 03:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

References

1. http://www.komonews.com/news/national/NASCAR-driver-accused-of-abuse-says-ex-is-trained-assassin-288463261.html

• I'll semi-protect the article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

• On a side note there does seem to be somewhat of an issue of notabilty here: I don't entirely see so far where she's notable outside of her relationship. Of course I haven't looked for sourcing yet, but I figured that I would state that the article does have issues with sourcing as a whole. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:03, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

NB on the principle that disambiguating titles should be as simple and general as possible, I have moved the article to Patricia Driscoll (business executive).--ukexpat (talk) 13:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Lydia Cornell

Lydia Cornell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

We could use some eyes on this article. 108.252.17.151, states "YOU HAVE VIOLATED MY PRIVACY RIGHTS: I HAVE A STALKER THAT THREATENED MY LIFE AND FOUND MY HOME BASED ON BIRTHDATE. YOU HAVE DESTROYED MY PRIVACY AND RIGHT TO WORK. REMOVE BIRTHDATES OFF IMDB AND WIKIPEDIA" A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Since the date of birth is unsourced and a brief search for reliable sources turned up empty, and given the subject's complaint above, I've removed the DOB from the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

• I've left a message on their talk page about this. The first thing is that they'd have to verify that they are who they say they are. From there I figure that we can decide if the DOB would be something that would do harm to her as far as stalking and such goes. As far as work goes... that's sort of something that we can't help. I know that there have been people who have complained that having their DOB visible keeps them from getting jobs, but I don't know if that's what she meant by that and/or if that would be a good reason to remove it. I've also let them know that we cannot remove the information from IMDb, as that's a different website. On a side note, can people really track you down using your DOB? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:52, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The information is sourced. See the talk page. If we need to clarify the sources, let's do so.

Her birth date has been discussed in detail on the article talk page.

She and her publicists have tried to obscure and confuse her birth year, repeatedly publishing erroneous dates.

Misplaced Pages is not censored. --Ronz (talk) 18:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and made the sources a bit clearer. To summarize, we have no sources contesting that she was born 23 July, we have multiple secondary sources stating that she was born Lydia Korniloff in El Paso Texas, her birth record is available and confirms 23 July 1953, we have multiple secondary sources confirming she was 9 in 1963 when she won the "Little Miss Cotton" contest. --Ronz (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive151#Lydia_Cornell --Ronz (talk) 19:19, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Giannis Kazoukas

Giannis Kazoukas (Greek:Γιαννης Καζουκας),born in 21 April 1991 is a Greek footballer who plays as a Forward.212.233.45.102 (talk) 16:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Heather Bresch

I am affiliated with the article-subject. Between Heather Bresch M.B.A. controversy and Heather Bresch#Controversy, currently most of Misplaced Pages's content about her is regarding this controversy. Rather than using Summary Style on her page, the Controversy section is about half the length of the full, dedicated article. I have offered a draft on the Talk page and a discussion has been started with the original author, user:Nomoskedasticity. More eyes and participants are welcome. CorporateM (Talk) 17:53, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Heather Bresch should focus on her, so the section on the MBA controversy should be far shorter, summarizing the other article and focus on her part in it, such as including that she apparently lied about earning the degree. --Ronz (talk) 23:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution