Misplaced Pages talk:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages talk:Biographies of living persons Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 04:43, 29 January 2009 editArcayne (talk \| contribs)Rollbackers26,574 edits →Not sure how to proceed - Murder suspects: reply← Previous edit		Revision as of 04:55, 29 January 2009 edit undoThuranX (talk \| contribs)Pending changes reviewers20,147 edits →Not sure how to proceed - Murder suspects: bring on the blocks, I'm fine with it.Next edit →
Line 90:		Line 90:
	::Inescapable fact: the sources point out the police source who states - unequivocally - that the suspect wore face paint, eye makeup and hair dye similar to Heath Ledger's Joker character in the ''Dark Knight''. At least two of the sources say this. That the suspect's attorney denies this comparison is splendid (and likely even something to be added); it doesn't cancel out the comparison. OJ Simpson's attorney saying he didn't do it doesn't negate either the accusation. Even being innocent doesn't negate our role to write what the sources say (as per ]).		::Inescapable fact: the sources point out the police source who states - unequivocally - that the suspect wore face paint, eye makeup and hair dye similar to Heath Ledger's Joker character in the ''Dark Knight''. At least two of the sources say this. That the suspect's attorney denies this comparison is splendid (and likely even something to be added); it doesn't cancel out the comparison. OJ Simpson's attorney saying he didn't do it doesn't negate either the accusation. Even being innocent doesn't negate our role to write what the sources say (as per ]).
	::The crux of ThuranX' argument ''here'' is that the sources are barely reliable. Or that noting the description is. Clearly, they aren't. Back on one page, his argument is that the description is a BLP violation. On yet ''another page'', it morphs into an Undue Weight issue. I brought the question of BLP violation here, to get some input. - ] ]		::The crux of ThuranX' argument ''here'' is that the sources are barely reliable. Or that noting the description is. Clearly, they aren't. Back on one page, his argument is that the description is a BLP violation. On yet ''another page'', it morphs into an Undue Weight issue. I brought the question of BLP violation here, to get some input. - ] ]
			:::The crux is taht the sources say nothing. I have no doubt that this reply will result in attempts at sanctions, that's ok. Arcayne's been waiting long enough, let him have his fun. The point is that the sources say nothing. Nothing found in them is attributable to a person or group who are accountable for what they've said. We've got, in one article, an unnamed police source, and in all others speculation. if I Speculate that Arcayne is a Something, and publish that there is speculation out there that Arcayne is a Something, is that enough? No. Per BLP, We'd need to know who. BLP is designed to protect people from being maligned in our articles. Suggesting a person is deranged enough to imitate the Joker, when that very claim has NOT been in any way repeated by any member of the police, but has specifically and clearly been refuted by the suspect's lawyer means it is a highly contentious claim. The attorney hasn't said that the charges are rubbish, but has said so about the rumor he was playing Joker. I find this a measure of contentiousness worth respecting and avoiding repetition of. I further note that Arcayne's response included the basic concept 'I don't care about the consensus and opinions of others, I'm right cause MY interpretation of policy trumps theirs'. He says it's only 2:1, and makes out that i'm keeping score. I'm not. There are numerous editors all arguing policy and editorial content with him, and he's decided to dig his heels in till he has his way. And he's now running for the authority figure, just because all the other kids won't let him have his own rules for the game. I'll take my block now, I don't give a fuck. ] (]) 04:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:55, 29 January 2009

Shortcuts

Archives

Archive 1 Aug 2006 - Mar 2008
Archive 2

template:blpwatch-links

I've renamed this to the shorter and more canonical (standardized) name blplinks. {{Blplinks|George Bush}} works identically to how {{blpwatch-links|George Bush}} did, and avoids two identical templates.

The old name will work, but can the new one be used form now on for simplicity?

Thanks! FT2 23:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Linking to oversight

Should there be a link from the project page to requests for oversight? Andjam (talk) 06:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Bot archiving

I see a bot is archiving this noticeboard. Are there precautions in place to ensure that unanswered requests don't get archived by the bot? It would seem sensible, given the important nature of some of the requests, that they don't get prematurely archived. Carcharoth (talk) 12:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Heading level

Why are the top 10 or so issues H3s and the bottom 15 h2s? Is this intentional? I can't see anything on the page to indicate that.... Protonk (talk) 23:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Ahhh. I get it. Protonk (talk) 16:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Suppression of newsworthy detail in a biography

Why was there no discussion here about the redaction of the article on Nadhmi Auchi to exclude news-worthy and significant items like the connection between Auchi and US Presidential candidate Barack Obama?

I think that the redaction (which apparently happened this morning) was done without any regard to the facts of this case; it was, not to put too fine a point on it, a cover-up of a highly newsworthy event - the evident purchase of a candidate's mansion with the proceeds from a very shady multi-million dollar loan.

In this case, the article WAS neutral - its redaction by persons unknown was not. The original article cited articles in the London Times, Chicago Tribune, the Guardian and the Independent, all reputable newspapers, which backed every point made in the article.vfrickey (talk) 14:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for wider input on discussion at WikiProject Tennis

Hi, there is an extremely long and muddled discussion going on at WP:Tennis about the tournament tables found on tennis player articles (i.e. this type of table). The dispute is over the "Tournament Name" column, with the options being to either use the "sponsored tournament name" - in other words, the name involving the sponsor, for example Internazionali BNL d'Italia - or the "non-sponsored tournament name" - in other words, Rome Masters. I appreciate that this conversation is very long and convoluted, so a brief summary can be found here, which is also where I request the discussion continues. Thanks, rst20xx (talk) 22:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Scope of this Noticeboard

Is this Noticeboard the appropriate place for raising an issue about material concerning a living person that appears in an article other than a bio of the person? I have twice removed material that I consider improper. I've provided a lengthy explanation on the talk page, referencing Misplaced Pages policies. If that's the end of it, fine, but if the material is added again, should I post on the Noticeboard? (The person in question doesn't have a Misplaced Pages article. His name redirects to the article about the subject that involves him.) JamesMLane t c 21:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The noticeboard is for anything that relates to a a living person anywhere on wikipedia per WP:BLP. Post on the project page, not the talk page though. Ty 22:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Huge transcluded page

The Ongoing BLP concerns page which is transcluded on the main BLP noticeboard page is currently near 180kb and growing. Of that total, "Porn actors' birth names" alone is about 130 kb. Can those who know what's going on here check out the situation and remedy it? Perhaps other sections (e.g. "Using the word fraudulent, and third party sources") should be vetted as well. — Athaenara ✉ 06:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

(See Misplaced Pages talk:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive 1#Ongoing WP:BLP-related concerns for related February 2008 discussion.) — Athaenara ✉ 08:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Moved from below.
The section "Porn actors' birth names" has gotten to be the majority of this project page. Can we please factor it out to a page of its own and just link it from here? - Jmabel | Talk 18:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
End moved from below.

I see I'm not the first to bring this up. Didn't notice it was in a transcluded page. But, again on that transcluded page, can we factor it out & link from there? - Jmabel | Talk 18:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Right now, the page contains no ongoing BLP concerns. That can't be right, can it. Have they all been resolved? If not, a link to the transcluded ongoing concerns page ought to be inserted. I don't know how. Would someone please do it? David in DC (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Help!

A BLP rule says: "The burden of evidence for any edit on Misplaced Pages, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material." If everyone agrees that an edit is truthful and well-sourced, but there is no consensus that the material would be appropriate in the BLP (e.g. undue weight), then does this particular BLP rule say that the material must stay out of the article?

I've got a situation where editors are evenly divided about whether some material should go into a particular BLP. An editor that I've been dealing with says that consensus is required to REMOVE that material for undue weight reasons. I say that consensus is required to add or restore it. Who's right?Ferrylodge (talk) 05:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

If in doubt, leave it out. Would a Request for Comment be appropriate? Itsmejudith (talk) 19:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Reference library category

Just a FYI post, really: In order to help facilitate easier location of potential sources of offline information to help verify the notability of article subjects and contents, I have created Category:WikiProject reference libraries and placed into it all of the reference library pages of which I am aware. Please add more project reference libraries to this category if you know of more. Additionally, feel free to create new reference library pages for any particular project as well. They can be very useful. ···日本穣 20:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Not sure how to proceed - Murder suspects

A question has arisen regarding BLP concerns surrounding an edit in both The Dark Knight (film) and Joker (comics):

Dendermonde nursery attack

(tagged both with current event and main article tags)

In January 2009, a young man with a white-painted face, black eye shadow and ginger-dyed hair stabbed two infants and an attendant to death, injuring twelve others in a children's daycare centre in Dendermonde, Belgium. Among other newspapers, De Standaard noted that the appearance and method resembled those of the Joker. The perpetrator is also said to play games with the police and laugh during police interrogations. The assailant, 20 year old Kim De Gelder, allegedly committed the crime influenced by Heath Ledger's portrayal of the Joker from the latest Batman film, The Dark Knight.

A few anons had reverted in each article, prompting some little back and forth, and then an editor claimed that the issue is a BLP concern (regarding the suspect). I am unsure as to how it applies in this case, since we are not giving the suspect's address or any sort of personal information beyond the arrest for the crime; every piece of information is from at least three different sources, all quoting policemen on scene. Someone also made the argument of Undue Weight, but this isn't the Undue Noticeboard and of course, it doesn't really apply either. The statement is neutral and goes no further than the sources it cites.
Some input from folk here would be grand. - Arcayne () 03:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, centered, in part, on recentism problems, related to the Dendermonde attacks. Numerous editors on each article find the material tenuously connected at best to the topics of the articles. This argument, that consensus was against inclusion, was not enough for Arcayne. Since then, every single opposition argument has been derided, ignored, and the editors making them maligned. Arcayne, for example, accused me of attacking him in edit summaries, which I did not do, given that just a couple weeks ago, he swore to police and punish me for anything I do on Misplaced Pages which he feels violates his personal mores. When I pointed out that unsourced statements, from a single wire source, made vague, speculative (the articles specifically say "Some are speculating that..." without identifying the 'some') comparisons between the killer and The Joker. The articles identified Joker not as a comic book villain, but as a character from The Dark Knight. I pointed out that unfounded rumors aren't appropriate in the articles Arcayne seeks to place them in, he insists that anything published in a reliable source, (The Sun being such a reliable source), can be included. I pointed out that one, the rumors are refuted by a specific person, the suspect's attorney, and that there is no attribution in the articles to WHO made the speculation. Despite all this, despite multiple editors on each page opposing the edits, arcayne continues to revert. I'm sure he's got a 3RR filing prepared, should I revert again in the next week, complete with 'gaming the timer' accusations, so I cannot do any more, especially in light of Arcayne's public declaration to get me. Arcayne needs to be aware that consensus is against him, that a majority of involved editors don't find the sources sufficiently credible for inclusion and that as a current event can change, and should credible, reliable evidence in RS prove that he was imitating the Joker, based on EITHER the comic or movie, then the issue can be revisited. ThuranX (talk) 03:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. This isn't about ThuranX. It never, ever is. As you might have guessed, he is not in love with me, but ThuranX' personal issues with me are pathetically unimportant compared to the issue prompting this comments, and its a damn shame that he felt it necessary to either confuse the matter or attempt to poison the well by treating the wiki like a battleground. It isn't, and it shouldn't be muddied by his petty behavior, and silly accusations.

That aside, the source is both verifiable, reliable and notable. As it is a developing event, facts will eventually emerge. It might be that the suspect wasn't idolizing the Joker. What part of the description by witnesses is incorrect until then? We are stating what the police have released to the media regarding witness statements. We are remaining neutral, verifiable and providing reliable citations that speak to the content of the above boxed text.

Consensus doesn't consist of 2:1 - never has. As well, consensus doesn't override our policies.

Inescapable fact: the sources point out the police source who states - unequivocally - that the suspect wore face paint, eye makeup and hair dye similar to Heath Ledger's Joker character in the Dark Knight. At least two of the sources say this. That the suspect's attorney denies this comparison is splendid (and likely even something to be added); it doesn't cancel out the comparison. OJ Simpson's attorney saying he didn't do it doesn't negate either the accusation. Even being innocent doesn't negate our role to write what the sources say (as per Richard Jewell).

The crux of ThuranX' argument here is that the sources are barely reliable. Or that noting the description is. Clearly, they aren't. Back on one page, his argument is that the description is a BLP violation. On yet another page, it morphs into an Undue Weight issue. I brought the question of BLP violation here, to get some input. - Arcayne ()

The crux is taht the sources say nothing. I have no doubt that this reply will result in attempts at sanctions, that's ok. Arcayne's been waiting long enough, let him have his fun. The point is that the sources say nothing. Nothing found in them is attributable to a person or group who are accountable for what they've said. We've got, in one article, an unnamed police source, and in all others speculation. if I Speculate that Arcayne is a Something, and publish that there is speculation out there that Arcayne is a Something, is that enough? No. Per BLP, We'd need to know who. BLP is designed to protect people from being maligned in our articles. Suggesting a person is deranged enough to imitate the Joker, when that very claim has NOT been in any way repeated by any member of the police, but has specifically and clearly been refuted by the suspect's lawyer means it is a highly contentious claim. The attorney hasn't said that the charges are rubbish, but has said so about the rumor he was playing Joker. I find this a measure of contentiousness worth respecting and avoiding repetition of. I further note that Arcayne's response included the basic concept 'I don't care about the consensus and opinions of others, I'm right cause MY interpretation of policy trumps theirs'. He says it's only 2:1, and makes out that i'm keeping score. I'm not. There are numerous editors all arguing policy and editorial content with him, and he's decided to dig his heels in till he has his way. And he's now running for the authority figure, just because all the other kids won't let him have his own rules for the game. I'll take my block now, I don't give a fuck. ThuranX (talk) 04:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)