Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:48, 17 April 2012

• 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?

Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman

Shooting of Trayvon Martin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This needs resolution, article talk is unable to develop consensus, and slow edit war (overwhelmed by massive number of productive edits elsewhere) is happening

George Zimmerman, shooter, made allegedly racist comments during incident, and allegedy racist statements in the past and had arrests but not convictions for assault and domestic violence

Trayvon Martin, victim, described as "on drugs or something", and "up to no good", "suspicious" during incident, has history of pot, grafitti, and theft, but no convictions

All information incredibly well sourced by both parties. All information is being added (or removed) without OR/SYNTH, just pure recitation of the facts as reported in MANY MANY MANY reliable sources, and in the case of Martin's past, publicly acknowledged by the parents, and an ongoing part of the controversy "They killed him, and now they are trying to kill his reputation"

There is consensus that the information regarding Zimmerman should be included. No consensus if the information for martin should be included. I believe it should be both, or neither. (personally I think both should be included) In both cases, the history informs the user about the participants past actions. In both cases the information provides no direct evidence as to what happened or didnt happen during the conflict. In both cases the information can be used to judge (by the reader, NOT OR/SYNTH in the article) the reliablility/accuracy of the statements by or about the participants.

Zimmerman is accused, by the family and the media of being a racist, and tendency to violence. Martin is accused, by Zimmerman as acting suspiciously, as if on drugs, and of violently attacking Zimmerman.

Either the background is relevant, or it isnt, but it is exceptionally widely reported, there are no real BLP/BDP issues as everything is sourced, notable, public, and acknowledged.

Gaijin42 (talk) 13:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

To be specific, here are the details that are being debated being included

Zimmerman : Arrest but not conviction for assaulting an officer, previous statements alleged to be racist attributed to zimmerman by neighbors (no actual proof they occured other than statements), restraining order against ex-fiance regarding domestic abuse (abuse alleged in both directions, both spouses subject to restraining order)

Martin : 3 school suspensions for 1) pot residue, 2) being in an unauthorized area of schoool while under suspicion of grafitti - and found with a backpack full of womens jewelry Martin said "was a friends" that he declined to name while in possession of a screwdriver on school described as "burglary tool", tardiness (obviously of lesser importance/relevance to the article).

In both cases no convictions, but were administrative actions taken by the relevant officials.Gaijin42 (talk) 13:54, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Just because something is "widely reported" does not mean it is acceptable or appropriate for a Misplaced Pages article. see WP:BLP1E and WP:BLPCRIME for example. -- The Red Pen of Doom 13:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Quoting policy does not help, everyone knows the policy. The question is does the policy prevent inclusion of one or both or none of the participants background. Additionally, the policy does not say "do not include", it says "give serious consideration". Thats what this debate is about. Also that policy specifically says "For people who are relatively unknown" which does not apply to either person at this point. Gaijin42 (talk) 13:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

BLPCRIME says to defer to Misplaced Pages:WELLKNOWN for well known individuals. I think these two fit that criteria a this point. "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article — even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." That bar is far surpassed for all of this information. Gaijin42 (talk) 13:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

As I've argued on the article talk page, I think that histories relevant to the topic should be used, while everything else shouldn't. To whit, the reasons for Martin's suspensions has no relevance, so it shouldn't be in there. However, Zimmerman's history of violence seems relevant, and may be used. I have heard it argued, though, that we shouldn't detail histories of violence unless they resulting in convictions. Zimmerman has no "convictions", though it appears he did reach a deal on his resisting arrest with violence charge. If WP policy does explicitly ask us not to include incidents which didn't result in convictions, than the whole shebang should be excluded.LedRush (talk) 14:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Zimmerman accused Martin of looking like he was on drugs. And up to no good. A history of drugs and behavior that directly qualifies as up to no good (trespass, graffiti, alleged theft) is not relevant? It is an alleged pattern of behavior in both the case of Zimmerman and Martin. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Our purpose here as Misplaced Pages editors is to provide an informative article for our readers. If something can be sourced to multiple high quality reliable sources, it probably belongs in the article. As WP:BLP says, "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article — even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, martin is dead, so the protection of BLP are significantly weakened. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I know I, and others, have made this argument on the article talk page, but just to get it on the record here, I want to respond to comments regarding the suspension for pot possession. Firstly, there wasn't even a criminal charge, nontheless a conviction. This adds weight to the argument that it shouldn't be noted, but is not dispositive. More importantly, the fact that Martin had been suspended for possession of pot has absolutely no relevance to the shooting incident. Zimmerman had no knowledge of this, and therefore the fact that he told the operator that Martin looked like he was on drugs is neither more or less reasonable with the information regarding pot possession. What including the information does is insinuate that either Martin was indeed on drugs or that Zimmerman had reason to believe he was. The former is a clear WP:BLP violation, and the second is factually untrue as Zimmerman had no knowledge of the prior events. If, however, the toxicology report comes back and it is shown that Martin was on drugs at the time of the incident, we must include that information. Martin's state at the time of the incident is the only information that can inform the actions of Zimmerman and Martin during the incident.LedRush (talk) 17:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

A past history involving drugs, when related to a later insinuation of drugs, has the exact same relevance that a past history of violence, or racism has to a later insinuation of violence and racism. A pattern of past behavior makes an accusation of later behavior more plausible. It is not direct evidence. But If I said I saw Lindsay Lohan drunk and high, most people would believe me. They would not believe me if I said the same thing about one of Obama's kids. This has nothing to do of if I personally happened to know about their previous history (or non history). Zimmerman accused martin of acting suspiciously. The readers deserve to know that Martin had some history of trouble that makes that a plausible (not necessarily factual) accusation. They also deserve to know that Zimmerman has a past history of alleged racism (be on the lookout for black youth), which makes the accusation LESS plausible. For us to decide that one or both are not relevant is clear OR and POV, when the practically infinite number of RS, including both media and official agencies have said it is relevant (but again not definitive)Gaijin42 (talk) 19:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

← This is basically one step away from bringing up a rape victim's sexual history to try to discredit them. One has the right to go to the store to pick up snacks for one's family without being accosted by a large, angry, armed man and ultimately shot to death. A previous school suspension for marijuana has exactly zero bearing on that right. If Martin had a history of violence (as, apparently, did Zimmerman) then that might have some bearing on this particular act of violence. But bringing up the fact that a high school kid apparently used marijuana is evidently an effort to insinuate that he somehow brought what happened on himself. That's the reality of how high-profile cases are tried in the media, but it's beneath us to be party to it. That's WP:BLP in a nutshell. MastCell  19:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

You are putting words into my mouth. I did not say he deserved it. I think he did not, and Zimmerman should be tried. Zimmerman is being called a racist for the things he said and his suspicion of Martin. Removing all things that might corroborate that suspicion is POV against zimmerman. Martins past has no impact at all on the actual shooting. It DOES have impact on zimmeramns decision to find him suspicious, follow him, call the police on him. The ONLY information directly related to the shooting, is what was happening in the 10 seconds prior to the shooting, if zimmerman was getting beat or not, if martin reached for the gun or not, made a death threat or not (all not-proved allegations from zimmerman) and who started the physical confrontation. But there are MANY things relevant to the events that immediately preceded the shooting. the past behavior and prejudices of BOTH participants ARE absolutely relevant to if zimmerman was justified in being suspicions in the first place. If he was not justified in having the initial suspicion, then that increases the probability he is a racist, and increases the probability the shooting was directly due to his racist mindset. If he was justified, that decreases the chance he was acting under a racist mindset as well. WE ARE NOT IN A POSITION TO DECIDE. To claim the information is irrelevant is to be directly making this decision on behalf of the readers and is OR and POV. it is absolutely a POV to decide that information is not relevant, and that POV is NOT SUPPORTED BY POLICY. WP:WELLKNOWN WP:VERIFIABILITY WP:BLD If you thin you are supported by policy, please quote the specific passages of the policy that you think preclude this information.Gaijin42 (talk) 20:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

But it doesn't have an impact on Zimmerman's decision to find him suspicious etc. etc. Zimmerman did not know these things when he decided to follow Martin. These are being brought up after the fact in order to justify Zimmerman's actions. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

How, exactly, would Zimmerman have known that Martin was suspended from school? Wait, I understand - you want the article to say he was suspended from school so we insinuate that he was a drug addict, and thus Zimmerman should have shot him? Got it. Yeah, you probably shouldn't edit articles about people. We don't insinuate negative things about people. Hipocrite (talk) 20:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

My logic has nothng to do with zimmerman knowing about the suspensions. It has to do with the plausability of martin actually and objectively acting suspiciously at the time. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

your "plausibility" has headed into untenable grounds. it may impact your personal belief, but cannot be used in any form in an article without actual specific sources making the "plausibiity" claim.-- The Red Pen of Doom 21:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, Gaijin42, you're kind of digging yourself deeper and deeper here...if your reason for including the information is because it makes it seem as though Martin was "objectively acting suspiciously," you really need to reexamine your commitment to NOR and NPOV. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

MastCell and LedRush are right. Martin's "trouble" is not relevant to the incident and only serves to make the unsupported-by-sources implication that Zimmerman had a reason to shoot him; it does not belong in the article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Zimmerman said that he thought Martin was acting like he was on drugs, so if Martin has a history of drug use, it is relevant. It's no different than Zimmerman having a history of violence. But honestly, I'm really not comfortable with this line of reasoning because this rationale violates our policy on NPOV: using our own personal opinions to overrule what reliable sources say on this topic.

But ultimately, we exist to serve our readers. By omitting key parts of the controversy from the article, we leave our readers less informed. If a reader says to themselves, "Hey, what's this I hear about Martin getting suspended from school for marijuana?" or "what this I hear about Zimmerman making a racist comment?". If they come to our article and we don't cover it, we have done them a disservice. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

We are WP:NOT a tabloid. This makes as much sense as "teach the controversy" does in science class. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The autopsy report hasn't been released yet. If it says that Martin was on drugs at the time he was shot, then the marijuana incident, as LedRush said, becomes relevant. Until then, or if it comes back clean, Zimmerman's speculation that his victim was on drugs is meaningless to us. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:29, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

How about "up to no good"? There will be no autopsy findings that can show that, and some of the suspension were definitely for things that were "up to no good" - grafitti, backpack full of jewelry. There is no evidence that Martin had already engaged in a crime while on the walk, but the backpack indicates he may have been involved in crimes in the past, and may have been acting suspicius (casing?). This is counterbalanced by Zimmermans alleged racism (hypothetically seeing all blacks as criminals?) and mall-cop attitude that may have seen completely innocent behavior as suspicius. We should let the reader evaluate both of their histories and decide which one is more plausible. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

We don't insinuate to the reader that persons were engaging in crimes when no reliable source has said that said that persons were engaging in crimes. I am not kidding - you really need to stop now. Your willingness to defame the recently dead without reliable sources is rapidly reaching the point where you will be sanctionable under WP:BLPSE. Hipocrite (talk) 20:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Bring it on. HE IS DEAD. BLP does not apply. I am not insinuating he was acting suspiciously. HE WAS DIRECTLY ACCUSED OF THIS BY ZIMMERMAN. As a result, zimmerman has been called a racist. Nobody knows what martin was doing. Martin does have a history of things that people would consider suspicious. Therefore, it is possible and plausible, he actually WAS engaged in such behavior at that time. this in no way justifies his being killed. stop putting words into my mouth. It also does not prove he was engaged in such action. Zimmerman has made statements many consider to be racist. This makes it possible, and plausible that he was a racist bastard who hates black kids. we do not know. we should let the reader make their own opinion. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

"However, material about dead people that has implications for their living relatives and friends, particularly in the case of recent deaths, is covered by this policy." We do, in fact, know what Martin was doing. Reliable sources have reported that he was returning from a 7-11 with tea and skittles. The only words being put in to your mouth are yours, when you say that we need to insinuate to the reader that Martin was "casing" (your word) or "acting suspicius" (your word). Please find reliable sources for your racism. Hipocrite (talk) 21:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

BTW, there's a big difference between saying "Martin was acting suspiciously" and "Zimmerman said that Martin was acting suspiciously". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

And it's in the article now that Zimmerman said that. What's not in the article now is the proposal that the article say "Zimmerman said Martin was acting suspiciously. Martin was suspended from school for being in an unauthorized area, vandalzing, and having MJ residue in his backpack, so who KNOWS what he was doing - We report, YOU DECIDE," which is what's being proposed here. Hipocrite (talk) 21:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Articles on controversial topics like this are always a mess, and I try to stay out of them, preferring to offer advice at a distance. The article is rapidly changing and it's been a couple days since I last read it. I see now that it says "Martin's suspicious behavior" in Misplaced Pages's voice. That's not right. Nobody know whether Martin was acting suspiciously. We only know that Zimmerman said he was acting suspiciously. We need to be very careful on how we phrase things. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

This has now been fixed. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I consider you calling me a racist a personal attack. why dont you take a look at WHO FUCKING STARTED THE ARTICLE, and the edits I put in, before you call me a racist.We DO NOT know what martin's actions were. We know what martins parents SAID his actions were, and they were not there. I am absolutly not saying that we should put into the article that martin was casing the homes. I am saying zimmerman said he was suspicious. Martin had previously acted in ways that are suspicious. It is directly relevant to if Zimmerman is completely making shit up or not, or might have actually seen something. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)No, it has nothing to do with being tabloid. Do you think we should ommit the Monica Lewinski scandal from Bill Clinton's article? Of course, not. And we do have an article on Intelligent design. It's a Featured article if I recall correctly. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

"But ultimately, we exist to serve our readers" - as an encyclopedia. I really dont think that it is Misplaced Pages's responsibility or that we are actually serving our readers either short term or long term when we specifically vere from presenting encyclopedic coverage in favor of "clearing up" potential misinformation in current public media circuses. That easily leads to UNDUE focus on ephemeral, emotional trivia. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Roscelese that the Trayvon/marijuna residue suspension is irrelevant unless and until a positive toxicology report is released. Let's also remember that 'possession' (of residue) is different from 'under the influence', and that school violations are significantly different from arrests and convictions or incidents resolved by the criminal justice system. Keeping POV out of this article is very difficult, and I hope everyone can engage in some introspection. Part of that difficulty is the scope of the article itself. It's too early to characterize the meta-event, and yet that is the scope. I think in these cases, less is more, and simple is preferable, knowing that over the course of time, just what all this was about will become clearer and less controversial. ArishiaNishi (talk) 21:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

A comment from someone who has so far stayed out of this dispute: I think that one or two editors may need to be reminded that Misplaced Pages is not a court of law. We are not here to present 'evidence for the prosecution', or 'evidence for the defence'. Our readers are not jurors, assigned with the duty of determining innocence or guilt. This is an online encyclopaedia, and we should confine ourselves to summarising, accurately but briefly, the more cogent details of the events around which the article is centred, in due proportion to the weight assigned by such sources - with the obvious proviso that we consider tabloid tittle-tattle etc of little merit. We do not have to cover every bit of 'evidence' that might be seen as significant at a later trial - if for no other reason than that we should not be engaging in crystal-ball-gazing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Gaijin. Both sides of this story belong in this article, good or bad. As long as the information is presented in a non-biased view, then we have done our job of creating a complete and informative article that a reader will be able to access and come away with their own opinions. That is what WP was designed for was to create a source of information that is presented in a NPOV that leaves the reader with the satisfaction that he was presented with "all' of the information and not had certain information ommited or censored. We leave it to the reader to form an opinion for themselves, after being presented with all of the reliaby sourced facts in this case.Isaidnoway (talk) 03:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with LedRush, MastCell, ArishiaNishi, Hipocrite, Roscelese, and maybe others here that I missed. Martin's school suspensions have no place here - not the reasons for them, and likely not even the fact that he had been suspended. Unless George Zimmerman is clairvoyant, as I have said repeatedly on the article's talk page, we have no information that says that he somehow knew that Martin should not have been inside that gated community (in fact incorrect), or had a history of anything, and that is all that matters. We do not know how Martin was acting, or what made Zimmerman suspicious. No one is claiming that Zimmerman smelled weed. He had no knowledge of Martin at all, but events happened and Martin was shot and killed. We have some actual facts, such as that Martin was unarmed, and that belongs in. But Martin's history, unknown until well after he is dead and buried, so obviously not related to how the event went down, is utterly irrelevant to this article. Zimmerman's is something else - if he has a history of violent reaction, and if he reacted violently that night, his history could have relevance to the event. "Balance" and NPOV does not mean for every bad thing we put in about one person we have to put in a bad thing about another - we put in things that are specifically relevant to the story and properly sourced. Trying to match negative for negative may be thought of as just trying to be fair, but in fact in this case it attempts to shore up the case of one side which everyone must agree is not what we are supposed to be doing for either side. Tvoz/talk 18:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Well said about balance. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:41, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

That's your own original research as to why you think it's not relevent. But obviously lots of reliable sources thought it was relevent otherwise they wouldn't have reported it. While we all have personal opinions, we should check such opinions at the door. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I think you are confusing the original research with the proper enforcement of wikipedia policies under BLP. No one is arguing for the inclusion of information that was derived through original research. We are arguing that because the information is completely irrelevant to the topic of the article, it should not be included. Remember, the news media is not writing an article called "the Shooting/Death of Martin". They're writing one called "let's get as many readers as possible, regardless of whether the information is relevant to the underlying facts of the incident." No article on wikipedia should include every detail of an event that is reported in the media...we should include the relevant ones. Therefore, every article is an exercise in judging what to include and what not to. It's not original research. It's a fundamental aspect of basic editing. And it's complying with BLP.LedRush (talk) 19:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Not at all, you're using your own personal opinion to override what reliable sources are saying about a topic. That goes against WP:NPOV. Further, you can't just cry "BLP! BLP! BLP!" without explaining exactly what the supposed BLP violation is. Nevermind the fact that Martin isn't a living person. And I have yet to see an argument why a less informative article is more desirable than a more informative article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, now that I see you are uninterested in honest dialog, it is easy to dismiss your unfounded accusations and misrepresentations.LedRush (talk) 20:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I think what happened is that I brought up four valid points, you don't have a rebuttal to any of them, so you resorted to personal attacks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:29, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I can see a valid debate as to if the information is relevant to the article, or overly prejudicial to the article. I cannot see a valid point that BLP/BDP mandates the information not be included. This is extremely well sourced information, that the family has acknowledged. BLP no longer directly applies as Martin is dead. BDP could apply to the family, but I say they are clearly WP:WELLKNOWN people at this point, participating in multiple nationally broadcast interviews, protests, etc. Information which is negative, but reliably sourced, which is a source of a controversy should be added into articles, even if the subject would prefer not. This is the policy used for THOUSANDS of bio articles. There is clearly a controversy/scandal regarding this in the media, and obvious (from this discussion) a controversy within wikipedia. Just saying "it shouldnt be there" or "BLP!!!!" is not enough. Specific clauses of policies need to be cited, and specific refutations of why the clauses in policies such as WP:WELLKNOWN do not apply. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I think we've largely been debating "relevance". If it is not relevant, than BLP kicks this info out. If it is relevant, than it doesn't. Of course, I would still debate WP:Coatrack and WP:Undue, but we're on the BLP board.LedRush (talk) 21:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

"BLP! BLP! BLP!" Sadly, this policy is being used as bogeyman. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

When writing about a person notable only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced... This is of particular importance when dealing with living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. Misplaced Pages editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization.

From WP:BLP; emphasis mine. The question is not simply whether the material appears in print somewhere. We should not be acting as an echo chamber for the effort to posthumously cast Martin as a menace. MastCell  21:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

If this were about some minor detail, I'd agree with you. But with this topic, we have editors arguing to omit key aspects based on their own personal opinions and prejudices which is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. My advice is this: if something is widely covered by lots of reliable sources, it probably belongs in the article. If it's not, then it probably doesn't. Generally speaking, that's good advice no matter what the topic. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:02, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

First of all, I included the BLP quote to clarify that this is policy-based, not a personal prejudice. Secondly, we don't include details just because they've appeared in the press; that's a major theme of WP:BLP, addressed directly by the quote above. And finally, what key aspects are we talking about? I see people arguing over a school suspension. MastCell  22:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Mast, based on that last comment it seems like you may not be aware of what the school suspension under discussion are about. Martin was suspended 3 times. Once for tardiness (clearly not relevant). Once (most recently) for having a baggie that had pot residue in it. Once for being in an unauthorized area of the school. In that suspension, he was observed on a security camera allegedly putting graffiti on school property. When confronted, they searched him, and found a backpack with a bunch of women's jewelry in it. He said it belonged to "a friend", but declined to name a friend. No theft could be proven, and no charges were filed. All three suspensions are well sourced, and acknowledged by the parents. That is the context for my comment below about "history of doing things that if observed would be considered suspicious".

@MastCell & @LedRush Thank you for putting out more reasoned and cited reasons, it makes it much easier to have a discussion. I am in general agreement with you regarding extending victimization, etc. and that the primary issue is relevance. There seems to be general consensus, that Zimmerman's past assault/domestic violence history is relevant to the current situation, as he may have a predisposition to resorting to violence, and this may have had an effect on his actions that day. He has been directly accused of such by the media and Martin's parents. Zimmerman accused Martin of acting suspiciously. Martin has a history of doing things, that if observed, would be suspicious. I am absolutely not accusing Martin of any wrongdoing at the time of observation by Zimmerman, but if Zimmerman is making that accusation, how is a past history of such behavior not relevant in the same way that Zimmerman's history is. Both have been confirmed to have done (in the past) what is being discussed. Neither one was convicted. Both had administrative action taken against them by the relevant officials. Both histories have a plausible relation to hypothetical but unobserved unproven behavior at the time of the incident. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:25, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll try to explain this in a sort of diagram-y way, if it'll help. Zimmerman has a history of violence ... Zimmerman was violent ... relevant and included. Martin has a history of acting suspiciously ... Martin acted suspiciously ... relevant and included? No, because we only have Zimmerman's word here that Martin acted suspiciously, and he's not exactly objective. And again, Zimmerman was not in possession then of the same knowledge that we have now about Martin's history. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:41, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Excellent. Let me make two points. Zimmerman has a history of unjustified violence (since there were legal consequences, we can say unjustified?). He was violent in this case, but it is only an accusation that it was unjustified. Secondly, my logic does not require Zimmerman to have any knowledge of Martin's history. If Martin has a history of suspicious behavior, it is in fact possible he was acting suspiciously and Zimmerman observed that.

I think the relevance of Martin's suspensions (and their causes) can be plausibly argued for or against. I don't see a consensus on whether to include them or exclude them. The question is whether, by default, Misplaced Pages includes reliably sourced information or excludes it. As it is right now, the de-facto policy is to *exclude* information of plausible relevance. Personally, I think well-sourced information that is at least plausibly relevant ought to be *included* by default, and left to the reader to decide. Emeraldflames (talk) 18:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

@MastCell: I know, and I apologize if you thought I was referring to you. I was referring to some of the other editors working on that article.

I'm not saying we should include every detail just because they've appeared in the press. I am saying that if something is widely reported by multiple reliable sources, it probably belongs in the article. If it hasn't, it probably doesn't.

You quoted part of WP:BLP so let me quote the very next paragraph:

I think that's pretty much what I am saying here.

I'd like to take a step back and reflect on what the BLP policy really means. BLP adds little beyond what WP:V, WP:OR and WP:NPOV already state. That is to say, if you're writing an article and you're carefully following V, OR and NPOV, odds are that you're following BLP, too. The few additional restrictions that BLP adds to these three core content policies (such as not using categories regarding sexual orientation unless the subject publicly self-identifies or don't create biographies about people notable for only one event) don't apply to this article (or haven't been violated).

I get the idea that some editors think that BLP radically alters the way we write articles, and that's simply not the case. For the most part, BLP just reiterates what V, OR and NPOV already state. BLP reminds us that since we're dealing with living people, we need to make sure we get it right. If you look at the top of the BLP policy, it says that we should be very careful to make sure that we're following V, OR and NPOV:

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:26, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• Include suspensions stated by family as not media rumors: Although some might wish the suspensions noted with just a few phrases, the family replies which confirm the 3 suspensions did occur, is needed in the article to defuse notions of invented claims. The recent suspension explains why the 17-year-old was in central Florida on a school night, rather than at his home in Miami Gardens (in far south Florida) preparing to attend class the next morning. The prior 2 suspensions explain why the recent suspension was a 10-day suspension. Plus, the mention that other students were involved in the suspension shows that Martin was not "singularly unusual" in being suspended. Hence, there is a lot of text, likely notable, due to coverage in whole reports by both The Miami Herald and The New York Times (27 March 2012, not just a single fringe source). Both reports were complete, so there is not even the need for Wikipedians to combine multiple sources to cite the 3 suspensions, and the confirmation by the parents. Another clear connection to the article is the revelation of school police searching Martin's backpack containing a "large screwdriver" and "12 items of women's jewely" (with "wedding rings") which he said "were not his" in his backpack, then photographed to notify the city police. Such details are not "fringe" or wp:UNDUE as they tie into the incident's themes of drug-use (marijuana) & burglary and police suspicions, as obvious connections for a news story. In general, Misplaced Pages should only censor non-neutral POV conclusions (such as "gansta lifestyle" or "potential drug dealer"), but allow statements of fact, such as detection of marijuana residue or possession of some unnamed person's jewelry and wedding rings, without concluding: "drug dealer paid with stolen jewelry" (which would be a POV-conclusion). Beware users wanting to remove text as "undue" when it is merely "un-positive" toward one side. In general, heed wp:NOTCENSORED and only omit POV-conclusions (either derogatory or peacock), where the vast bulk of text from multiple sources should be allowed in an article, and not blocked by users trying to wp:OWN the contents of an article. Background text must be allowed. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:04, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Without restating the arguments, I believe these facts are relevant and should be included for both Martin and Zimmerman. Intrepid-NY (talk) 21:31, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I see that this farcical 'talk page trial' is still continuing. When are we expected to reach a verdict? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:34, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Here we go again, can we not step back and remember Misplaced Pages:Recentism, Misplaced Pages:UNDUE, and Misplaced Pages:NOTNEWS? Give it a few days, I'm here in France and the recent Toulouse killings have generated a lot of "he did, he didn't, he was disguised as a camel robbing a post office, oh no sorry it was his 5th birthday party" type of coverage, Misplaced Pages *is not* a breaking news website and, as such, neeeds to step back, weigh up the different RSs and let the dust settle before writing definitve things in article space about PEOPLE! CaptainScreebo 15:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with some other people on some points - this is like bringing up a rape victim's sexual history, and Misplaced Pages is not a court of law. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia that should cover what the sources cover. That means including arguments that we feel are irrelevant, illogical, and unethical, provided that the media sources find them to be relevant. We're not here to judge - we're here to provide a navigable path through the thicket of available sources. To exercise NPOV sometimes we need to be dispassionate, and sometimes we need to be outright cold-blooded. Just cover the sourced information. Wnt (talk) 03:28, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Please reread WP:BLP. We do not abdicate relevance to newspapers. Otherwise, the Amanda Knox article would have a list of everyone she's every dated, where she ate lunch yesterday, and when she and Sollecito are going to start making flippy-flop again. The reasons of the suspensions are simply not relevant to the crime or the shooting, and therefore cannot be in the article. It's clear from this talk page that we do not have consensus for inclusion, so the suspensions should remain out until consensus is reached, again, per WP:BLP.LedRush (talk) 15:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Gaijin42, the premise of the encyclopedia is that we approach articles conservatively. The media does not. You claim things are widely reported and notable and there are no BLP issues to worry about. The facts are limited, and that is why the media is having such fun playing with this and swinging back and forth. If there are reasons to exclude something from the article, then prudence dictates we should avoid it. It is true that this has become a national phenomenon, but that is entirely a work of the media, not the work of George Zimmerman, and certainly not the work of Trayvon Martin. Spreading titillating bits of gossip about people might work for the media or a trashy tabloid, but it is beneath the encyclopedia. Stick to a rational and reasonable portrayal, based in solid and honest reporting, not the stuff that mostly fills the airwaves. Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 16:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

@Avanu: "You claim things are widely reported and notable and there are no BLP issues to worry about." Yep, that's pretty much what BLP says:

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

You keep on missing a quite important word in the policy. "Relevant". Seeing as most of the discussions here have been arguing that the information isn't relevant, I think you should start to read the section you've now quoted at least twice.LedRush (talk) 16:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

@LedRush: Not at all. Zimmerman said that Martin was acting strangely as if he was on drugs. It seems to me that Martin's drug history is very much relevent. It's also relevent in that supporters of Martin have attempted to portray him in a positive light while Zimmerman's try to portray Martin in a negative light. It's not our job to take sides. We simply document what these sources say. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Your position on relevancy has been discredited above. So has your vision of a Misplaced Pages in which every bit of minutiae published by any newspaper finds its way into an article.LedRush (talk) 17:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

@LedRush:Diff, please? Anyway, now that I think about, if anything, it's a BLP violation not to include it, both from a NPOV perspective and from Zimmerman's perspective. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

You mean to not violate BLP and NPOV we need to violate it? Sounds quite streching to me.TMCk (talk) 18:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

It's in the this very thread where everyone explains the logical fallacy of the relevance of a past suspension from school for pot possession on whether or not a man was justified in thinking that someone was on drugs when he had no knowledge of such past suspension. So many people have articulated this, it's not worthwhile to show the diffs. The same truth refutes your BLP claim: omitting irrelevant info can never be a BLP violation. And when in doubt, the info is out!LedRush (talk) 17:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

@LedRush: I saw that post. It's based on the straw man that Zimmerman needed to have knowledge of such past suspension in order for it to be relevent. Do you actually have a valid reason to omit key information from the article? It's sounding more and more like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

What's "key" about it? HiLo48 (talk) 19:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing "key" about it. And with no knowledge of the suspension of Martin, it doesn't even inform his actions in any way. If a toxicology report comes back which shows Martin was on drugs at the time of the shooting, that would be relevant and should be mentioned. But until then it remains irrelevant trivia which must not be included.LedRush (talk) 19:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

@LedRush: Yes, that's your personal opinion. We write articles based on what reliable sources are saying, not on our personal opinions. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Really? The pre-9/11 issue comes to mind where you argued the opposite. Change of mind?TMCk (talk) 21:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

As has been explained above, your argument about something being an opinion is a straw man. Editors have a world of information and have to decide what goes in and what doesn't. We use policies like WP:COATRACK, WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP to ensure that not everything written in reliable sources goes into every article. Even beyond that, we use common sense and the fundamental pillars to decide how to weed through the vast sea of information and decide how best to write an article. These processes require opinions. Your personal opinion is that this information is relevant and belongs. My opinion is that your opinion is unfounded, and that the policies linked to above mandate that the information not be included. If you disagree with that analysis, that's fine. We can discuss it here. But your repeated accusations that people who disagree with you are improperly using opinions is completely inaccurate and counter-productive.LedRush (talk) 22:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP are policies we can use, and which certainly argue for keeping this information here, as many sources feature it prominently, indeed, are treating it like it turns the tide of the case (something I don't agree with, but agree with reporting here). WP:COATRACK is an incoherent essay favored by deletionists because they can say that anything you want to keep is "just a bunch of miscellaneous junk", no matter what the sources think. And "common sense" is, well, uncommon - especially so for those who think that people who have just read all the latest developments in the case and then come to Misplaced Pages and see a Pollyanna version are going to leave impressed. Wnt (talk) 22:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Impressed indeed, about WP adhering to BLP and NPOV instead of sensationalism.TMCk (talk) 22:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

@LedRush: You are advocating that we ignore WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:BLP and write articles based on our own personal opinions to protect a non-living person who's family has given press conferences to the public about this very content. Look, editors come to this board to get advice from uninvolved editors. You can ignore such advice, but I'm not giving out bad advice. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that it is helpful to continually and deliberately misrepresent my views. If you cannot engage in honest discussion, there can never be progress on reaching consensus.LedRush (talk) 15:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

@LedRush: You're using your own personal opinion to override what reliable sources are saying about a topic. WP:NPOV specifically says we are not to do that. I don't know how else you expect someone to view such idiosyncratic opinions. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Dishonest discourse is easy. First, ignore whatever the other party says. Next, make up what you wished they would've said, like "You're using your own personal opinion to override what WP:BLP, WP:NPOC, WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK are saying about whether certain information should be included in an article. WP:NPOV specifically says we are not to do that. I don't know how else you expect someone to view such idiosyncratic opinions." Now we're sure never to say anything the other can intelligently respond to!LedRush (talk) 20:26, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

@LedRush: There you go again. You don't have a argument based on policy and you resort to personal attacks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Please see my extensive policy based arguments above, and your repeated personal attacks against me. If you are able, please try and comment on my actual policy based arguments, not the fake arguments that you invent. If you do that, and avoid commenting on me, we might be able to proceed with intelligent discussion. Hope that helps!LedRush (talk) 13:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

@LedRush: You haven't presented any policy based arguments. Indeed, your arguments violate our policies on WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:BLP. Resorting to personal attacks and false accusations of personal attacks just reinforces the fact that you don't have a policy based argument. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

This is exactly what I was talking about. There's a big difference in saying "I understand your reading of WP:BLP but I feel that your analysis of "relevance" in that context is wrong" and saying "you advocate for the use of original research and you are advocating that we ignore BLP, NPOV, etc." You see, I've made my argument that BLP supports my opinion and have specifically addressed your OR claim at least twice. By ignoring that argument and misrepresenting my views to say that I am advocating the very policies I continually reference and analyze, we can't have a conversation. I've done my part by addressing your points honestly. That's all that I can do.LedRush (talk) 14:17, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

@LedRush: If you really want to address concerns about your personal opinion, all you have to do is to present the sources which have made the same conclusion as you have. Not once have you attempted to do so. What's more, even if you could provide sources, we can only document the dispute, not take sides in it. You have presented no argument why WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:BLP should be ignored, and pretending that unsourced opinions which go against Wikpedia policy should be accepted without question does you no service. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

This is exactly what I was talking about. There's a big difference in saying "I understand your reading of WP:BLP but I feel that your analysis of "relevance" in that context is wrong" and saying "you advocate for the use of original research and you are advocating that we ignore BLP, NPOV, etc." You see, I've made my argument that BLP supports my opinion and have specifically addressed your OR claim at least twice. By ignoring that argument and misrepresenting my views to say that I am advocating the very policies I continually reference and analyze, we can't have a conversation. I've done my part by addressing your points honestly. That's all that I can do.LedRush (talk) 15:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

@LedRush: No, you haven't. If your argument isn't original research, then just cite your sources. This is getting tiresome. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Martin Hosking

Martin Hosking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Martin Hosking is a article that has drawn some past controversy - he runs a company that has drawn a lot of criticism in the australian media, much of which has focused on him personally. There have been past BLP problems in the article, which - imo - had been pretty adequately dealt with. The subject of the article has (apparently) showed up on the talk page of the article, upset at some of the content in the article as it had stood in this revision. I may not have time to pay enough attention in the article to figure out what should be in and what should be out today, so additional eyes would be appreciated. Kevin (kgorman-ucb) (talk) 18:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

(earlier comment -- moved here to combine sections -- Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)There continue to be poorly sourced and unbalanced editing of this article. I appreciate that an editor is looking at the article but it would be useful if another eye can be run over it. The section on children's clothing is about a Company and not about Martin Hosking. The article in contrasts makes no reference to the numerous awards won by RedBubble or to the many speaking engagements by Martin Hosking. All of this is well documented. We can submit a re-edit of the article in compliance with Misplaced Pages guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.245.205.26 (talk) 02:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I have made a thorough revision of the article, ferreting out invalid sources and dead links while adding information from existing sources that had been ignored. I've also re-organized his career into chronological order rather than three sections with one or two sentence each that don't help the reader get an overview of the subjects career. I do not see anything in any of the current sources that indicates any kind of criticsm or controversy on the subject of this article. I'll also post on the talk page and keep in on my watchlist.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:08, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Your edits removed every shred of negative information about Hosking's company. Many of your comments that Hosking is not mentioned in the sources are incorrect. I'm not sure what to do about your edits at this point, although I'm tempted to restore the article to its previous state. Hosking and others associated with Hosking have repeatedly complained and inappropriately edited the article. I am generally seriously in favor of protecting BLPs, but the article is now significantly non-neutral. I don't have time today to do much about this, and it may be useful to wait to see if anyone else comments.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think a rollback is appropriate as I've done a lot of good work there and if something was mistakenly deleted it can be added back in. I'll go back and recheck my work, but it would be helpful if you specified a particular source(s). . I'd be curious to know in what way the article is "non-neutral". Are you concerned about hype I removed about his award? Or my removal of the long quote from the company website explaining how great RedBubble is? I think we have the same goals and values for both BLP's and WP, so working this out together shouldn't be a problem but your comments need to be more specific so we can address the issue together. I look forward to working with you on this. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

When I came to the article there were 12 citations. Now there are 9. I removed three cites from two sources (one source was listed twice) They are both RedBubble blogs written by an unidentified person. I don't see how this is relevant to the BLP, how they are relable sources nor do I see any "negative information" in them. So I'm confused. Maybe you can clarify. Thanks.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:37, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

This source is still in the article, but I don't see any mention of the subject, can you point it out to me? Thanks.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:49, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Looking at older versions of the article I see that there were three sources that reported concerns about porn images on baby clothing. But that text and those sources were not present in the article when I began editing it. So I think you may have jumped to the conclusion that I removed those sources and content, which is not the case. However, I'd be happy to look at those sources with you on the article talk page and decide on appropriate neutral content for the article in regard to them.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:49, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I concur that a rollback is not appropriate. If the article is going to include coverage of Redbubble beyond the relatively cursory then it should be complete. And if complete is better in the context of a full article about the Company. Simply picking out one incident and inserting it in a biography is not appropriate and inevitably is unbalanced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.148.117.90 (talk) 01:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

As I noted on my Talk page, I will respond more fully to Keithbob when I have time. Just a passing note that 192.148.117.90 is a shared IP address of an Australian ISP. There is a remarkable campaign by Hosking and his associates to whitewash the article, as well as comments that are perilously close to legal threats (e.g., repeated use of the word defamation).--Bbb23 (talk) 01:36, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I've had a look at the sources and see nothing wrong with them. In light of Keithbob's comment above (that he didn't remove the material whose absence Bbb23 considers unwarranted), I have restored some material. I'm sure this won't be the end of it... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate everyone's comments and participation here. I think the core issue is the offensive images on baby clothing text. So I recommend we discuss it on the talk page and achieve consensus. I have started a thread on the talk page for that purpose. Please join the conversation here. Thank you.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Before I saw this comment, I edited the article and added back in the baby porn material. I'll comment on the article Talk page, but it's well sourced and has comments by Hosking in the sources.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Martin Hosking Here. I am again going to urgently request that the section in my biography related to Hipster Hitler and guidelines around children’s clothing be removed. This is in accord with Misplaced Pages policy - “When in doubt about whether material in a BLP is appropriate, the article should be pared back to a policy-compliant version.” . The inserted material in the biography does not create a biography that is “very neutral in tone and contents, and written with regard to the highest quality of fairness and sourcing, beyond the normal standards” as it includes material that “grossly unbalance(s) the biography's point of view and … is not justified by any encyclopedic need.” This is seen by the simple fact that they account for 132 of the 309 words of the biography. If editors believe I am only notable in connection with this “one incident, topic or matter, and are not notable per se except for your role in that matter, then an article based on that incident or matter will often be more appropriate than one about you specifically” In reverting the article to the policy compliant version I would also request that the talk section be edited as it contains attack material .

In relation to the issues I will say both were complex issues and trying to do them justice in a brief biography is impossible. They are also unconnected except in time. Clearly they also have the potential to be inflammatory and attract people who want to insert the words Nazi, porn and children into the BLP. (That they can cause serious reductionist errors is seen in the quote above which talks about "baby porn material" - when it has nothing to do with any such thing.) If they are considered important they should be handled in an article on REDBUBBLE. In which case I would note in relation to the former, that REDBUBBLE was commended by the Simon Weisenthal Centre, with whom we worked on this range of issues (it went beyond Hipster Hitler) as having “modeled how conscience and commerce can intersect”. . In relation the issue of children’s clothing I note that this was a sensationalist tabloid issue and thus is not worthy of being covered by Misplaced Pages and certainly not in the context of a BLP. The sources cited are not of the standard required for a BLP and are mostly wrong. 220.245.205.26 (talk) 05:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the material for now, further discussion would be useful on the talk page. Kevin (talk) 05:57, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The issues over this BLP have not been resolved. Controversial and poorly sourced material creating IMO a WP:coatrack have been reinserted by original editors. The issues are being discussed in the talk section. 121.219.122.136 (talk) 10:20, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Hosking has co-founded a custom products company Redbubble that has been newsworthy about its Hitler customer products and porn for children custom products - with debate and news. Otherwise Hosking is completely unnotable. Why is there a Wiki entry on Hosking? Maybe Redbubble should have an entry to explore the sides of the Hitler/child porn custom products coverage from Redbubble perspective but if Hosking is completely separate from the custom products company Redbubble why is he own entry when nothing notable? Muwt5 (talk) 10:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Ivana Trump

Ivana Trump (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article says she filed for divorce in 1991, but then says the divorce proceedings were wrapped up after her dad died in 1990, which makes zero sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.161.84.111 (talk) 17:43, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The cited source that purports to say her divorce wrapped up in 1990 does not really say that. It says she and her estranged husband were together at her father's funeral. Ivana's website says her divorce from Donald was final in 1992. You could correct it or if you don't get to it, I will.Coaster92 (talk) 04:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I made the corrections to the article.Coaster92 (talk) 05:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Mike Morgan meteorologist

Mike Morgan (meteorologist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello, I am a high profile professional in the tv broadcast media in OKC.

For months now birddog77 has been posting information about my internship with the national weather service that is false. Simply, I did intern with the nws way back in the 1970's, and says I did not. The edit war is just getting rediculous. Birddog77 likely does not care about whether or not I interned with the nws, but rather is more likely simply wanting to discredit me.

Please do something to stop the endless edit war. Thank you, Mike Morgan Chief meteorologist Kfor tv OKC

Anviltop — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anviltop (talk • contribs) 09:12, 11 April 201 2 (UTC)

Yes, looking at User:Birddog77's edits he does appear to have a single conflicted purpose that is not WP:NPOV on this biography. I left him a note User_talk:Birddog77 - about his editing and a link to this discussion. - Youreallycan 09:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I wonder how many jobs, let alone internships, haven't changed eligibility requirements in 35 years. Dru of Id (talk) 13:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Lacking reliable, independent, third-party sources, that entire article should consist of "Mike Morgan is a television meteorologist". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Thats close to the current reality - al we have to support any content is his empyer bio and thats no longer hosted and only at the wayback. The Bio is crying out for more sources - I did a google but didn't turn anything up - Youreallycan 13:41, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Just to chip in, did a quick check on the users and they are both SPAs (no other edits at all apart from this bio), edit warring over article content in article space and not on the talk page. Was busy this afternoon but wondered "does this guy actually meet WP:GNG?" Misplaced Pages:BEFORE anyone? CaptainScreebo 17:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Being a TV weatherman is a high-profile job in Oklahoma, because of the frequent major storms. Searching for news stories about him is tricky because there's a controversial state senator with the same name, not to mention that The Oklahoman is tightly paywalled. My own sense is that he probably is notable but it may take some effort to establish this clearly. I've added a couple of sources, will try to find more. In the meantime, I think YRC's recent edits are well-judged according to BLP policy, and I hope we can avert the continuing edit war.--Arxiloxos (talk) 01:08, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

A total outsider here just butting in on this discussion. For an example of a similar person in another city obsessed with weather, take a look at David Brown (meteorologist). HiLo48 (talk) 01:38, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• note - The disruptive user on the account, Birddog77 has been blocked indefinitely after returning to his previous pattern of editing. - Youreallycan 10:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Since the contentious claim was sourced to an archived copy of a bio on the subject's employer's website, I removed it from the article, along with a bunch of unsourced stuff. Hopefully, that will solve the edit-warring problem. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Martin Hosking

Asking for input on this text currently in the BLP of Martin Hosking attributed to a single news article at www.news.com.au:

• Current text: In September 2011, RedBubble was criticised for having pornographic images on baby's clothing. In response to the complaints, Hosking said such sales were against RedBubble guidelines: "The fact that an image can be shown on children's clothing does not mean that it has ever been ordered or produced." After being contacted by the press, RedBubble removed many of the items the same day.
• Portion of news article that mentions Hosking: Martin Hosking, CEO of Red Bubble, said the sale of offensive children's clothing was contrary to the site's guidelines, which state that all children's clothing should not be sexually or violently suggestive, demeaning, derogatory or political. "The fact that an image can be shown on children's clothing does not mean that it has ever been ordered or produced," he said.

Is this scandal at RedBubble relevant to the BLP of Martin Hosking? If yes, then does the current BLP text accurately represent the source? Comments welcomed.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:37, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

What is this, a pub quiz? If you think the text is inaccurate somehow, please indicate how. I don't see the problem, myself. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The above comment is a demeaning attack in the form of bullying - the post by Keithbob is clearly in good faith and a detailed request for comment - User:Nomoskedasticity simply makes fun of his request for comment - the user, who claims to be a working intellectual university professor repeats this pattern at any opportunity. Youreallycan 16:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Well the issue is that you have a company that allows users to select a piece of clothing, and its colour, and to then chose an image from a databank and to decorate the clothing. There was no filter to stop people from choosing a porn image to put on clothing appropriate for children. Thought experiement: if the WMF decide to do the same with clothing or licensed someone else, as they do with turning articles into books, to make cafepress style stuff drawing from commons images, then would it be UNDUE to add to Sue Gardiner's page criticism that the WMF allowed people to order children's cloths or school notebooks with a "pre cum" image? John lilburne (talk) 16:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. The article uses Hosking as a spokesman, and does not extend the controversy to him. The material is not appropriate for his biography. Kevin (talk) 22:52, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

(Sorry John had misunderstood your point, have edited my comment now I do 220.245.205.26 (talk) 07:58, 12 April 2012 (UTC)) The use of single tabloid sources in a BLP is a clear contravention of the policy that "Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism." . The headline of the article is out of sync with the article itself which has no reference to pornographic material. There is no factual evidence presented that pornographic material ever appeared on children's clothing and the article makes no reference to it (or provides any images of it). As a single source tabloid story there is no verifiability over whether Hosking did or did not make the quote or what he is was not quoted as saying. And as others have pointed out the inclusion of the reference in a BLP (not in an article on REDBUBBLE where it may belong) clearly creates guilt by association again in contravention of BLP policy. Unless there is a verifiable high quality source for the article and convincing argument it is material to the BLP it should be removed. 220.245.205.26 (talk) 23:20, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you'll find that John is agreeing with you. Kevin (talk) 23:26, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I've pretty much stated my views on the Hosking Talk page (and in earlier discussions here). Hosking is the co-founder and CEO of a small company. That company makes news (negative). He comments in response to the news reports. It's fair for us to report that material. It would be different if he was the head of a very large company and the company had its own article here. In that case, it would be more reasonable to report on the material in the company article. As for the pornographic clothing material specifically, I have already said on the Talk page that I have one issue with inclusion of that material, and that is it is reported by only one source (that I've been able to find). Although we are not required to have multiple sources to include material, because of the negative nature of the material, I could see removing it as kind of an extension of demanding high-quality sourcing for negative BLP material. Finally - and I've noted this before - it troubles me that Hosking has mounted such a concerted campaign (not just him, but his representatives) to control his article. It's not against policy for him to do so, and the people involved have been mostly up front about it (a good thing), but the pressure is a bit much.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I might agree if Redbubble were a one man show, but that does not reflect reality. We have no understanding of the internal workings of that company, and so the actions of the company do not give us any understanding of Hosking as an individual. We should only use material where Hosking has offered a personal opinion, in which case we can report the opinion, or where a publisher has directly connected the company actions to Hosking. In this case, the latter does not apply. Kevin (talk) 02:09, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect to Bb23, who is a good editor and is making good faith efforts to improve Misplaced Pages (as we all are), I ask him, or anyone, to please specify where in the WP:BLP policy it says that information about a company belongs in the BLP of an officer of that company. Whether there is a Wiki article on RedBubble or not is irrelevant IMO. I say that we do not compromise an individual's BLP by using it as a place to store content on a related topic until another Wiki article gets created. Also regarding the statement: "Hosking has mounted such a concerted campaign (not just him, but his representatives) to control his article." I'm new on this article (I came via BLPN) but all I've seen so far, is an IP, who claims to Hosking, making intelligent comments and citing policy. Assuming he is Hosking, I commend him for taking an immense amount of his personal time to learn our Wiki culture and policies and engage in discussion at appropriate forums. This is model behavior compared to the way most disgruntled subjects of BLP's behave. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The insertion of the material on children's clothing and the previous paragraph on Hipster Hitler have created a non-compliant wp:coatrack article and should be removed. The comments by Bbb, however well intended, do not reflect an understanding of the higher order requirement for balance (particularly around BLPs) which means things cannot simply be inserted because there is some (uncertain) connection. The policy around wp;coatrack is designed to prevent just this. The Editors who would have it remain (of whom I see none at this point) have the onus of proof on them as to argue compliance with WP policy. Or the article should be edited to make it compliant. MH 121.219.122.136 (talk) 03:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Summary-- Seven editors participated in this discussion: Keithbob (me), Nomoskedasticity, Youreallycan, John lilburne, Kevin, 220.245.205.26 and Bb23. Out of the seven only Nomoskedasticity, found the text cited above to be acceptable. Bb23 said, while he supports other criticisms in the article, " As for the pornographic clothing material specifically, I have already said on the Talk page that I have one issue with inclusion of that material, and that is it is reported by only one source (that I've been able to find). Although we are not required to have multiple sources to include material, because of the negative nature of the material, I could see removing it as kind of an extension of demanding high-quality sourcing for negative BLP material". Therefore I think there is a clear consensus for the removal of this text. I will move it to the talk page for storage and it can be included in the RedBubble article when one gets created. Thank you to everyone who participated in this discusion-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:16, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

David Bahati

David Bahati (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Could someone take a look at this for me. I'm concerned about information being added that suggests he's homophobic and racist, but with only one reference backing up that claim. I've removed some information today that had been added after a previous delete and pointed the user concerned towards WP:BLP though I'm not entirely sure how to approach this. I generally tend to steer clear of controversial topics like this one, but I think it goes against BLP unless we can find a few reliable sources to support it. Having said that I would think in terms of reliability National Public Radio is comparable with the BBC so if there are a few more then perhaps it would be all right. Any thoughts? Paul MacDermott (talk) 17:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I looked at the article and the references relating to the controversial anti-gay bill Bahati introduced. These sources appear reliable, BBC, MSNBC, and NPR. One other source is Pink News. I am not familiar with this source so I can't say if it's considered reliable. However, the statement in the article attributed to Pink News appears to be available from the other sources as well. The last couple of sentences of the section need a citation. I found a transcript of the interview on line and this information is from the Rachel Maddow interview, which is referenced. I'll fix the reference. The story is consistent in all the referenced sources. The sourcing looks adequate to me. Perhaps you could explain your concerns further. Maybe I am missing something.Coaster92 (talk) 06:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. I was mainly concerned with the stuff I removed which had been added by two similarly named accounts with very few edits (one of who subsequently posted this on my user page). To say someone is racist and homophobic seems quite a controversial statement to me, and I really mentioned it here because of that and as I thought it could be a BLP issue. Maybe I'm being over-cautious. I guesss his homophobic is self-evident, but not sure where the racism fits in. Paul MacDermott (talk) 13:19, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

It seems like those statements, racist and homophobic, would need to be reliably sourced. Otherwise, the statements would be the editors' conclusion/opinion and basically original research. I don't recall seeing those statements when I looked at the article so I guess you cleaned them up.Coaster92 (talk) 05:52, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Apologies, I did remove it, but it looks like I forgot to post the original edit so this was it. A second addition with refs has now been added by an anonymous ip. The online article for The Guardian can be found here and does reference homophobia, but there doesn't appear to be a direct mention of racism. Though Googling "David Bahati racist" produces results they don't seem to be anything we can use. I'm going to revert this again because it does appear to be coming from one individual with a particular opinion. To accuse one of homophobia is a very direct term, and I feel it is something that should have a more widespread support. I'll open a discussion on the article's talk page and if this continues request a third opinion. Paul MacDermott (talk) 13:58, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Richard F. Cebull

Richard F. Cebull (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Richard F. Cebull is the judge who sent out a controversial email. Diff Dozens of news articles refer to the email, or the joke contained in the email, as racist or 'racially-charged'. However, three editors on the talk page User:Youreallycan, User:Jokestress, and an anonymous user, feel that the dozens of newspaper articles and headlines merely constitute a partisan opinion. They have not supplied any sources, reliable or otherwise, which assert an opposing view. User:Youreallycan argues that it doesn't matter how many reliable sources are supplied because "...the press is clearly opinionated and partisan...". Help please. — goethean ॐ 19:38, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

A bit more detail - actually the press is less opinionated and partisan than some wikipedia users. - its not that partisan sources are important but attribution of opinion is important rather than presenting as if fact - User:Geothean's version -

Cebull used his official courthouse email address to forward to seven friends an email containing a racist joke about President Barack Obama

imo presented as if fact in wiki's voice - and my version -

Cebull used his official courthouse email address to forward to seven friends an email containing a joke about President Barack Obama which some commentators asserted was racially charged. - Youreallycan 20:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Setting aside the obvious misunderstanding of "partisan" (none of the afore-mentioned sources are beholden to, or adherants of, a specific party), and assuming the editors instead meant to say they think the sources are "biased" in some way, it should be made clear that this is an invalid argument against the use of those sources to convey an assertion of fact. Having bias does not disqualify someone from editing Misplaced Pages, nor does it disqualify a source from meeting Misplaced Pages's reliability requirements for the assertion of fact. The above cited news sources are not opinion or commentary pieces, and they do meet Misplaced Pages's WP:RS requirements. WP:NPOV instructs us to Avoid presenting uncontested assertions as mere opinion. The "some commentators asserted was racially charged" suggested wording violates this instruction, and misleads the reader by representing the information conveyed by the sources as mere opinion -- something I'm sure the involved Misplaced Pages editors did not intend.

The issue now appears to be moot, unless we are now going to argue Cebull is biased against himself: Cebull acknowledged that the email was racist, but said he is not a racist – and that he sent along the email only because he dislikes Obama politically. And also: “The only reason I can explain it to you is I am not a fan of our president, but this goes beyond not being a fan,” Cebull said. “I didn’t send it as racist, although that’s what it is. I sent it out because it’s anti-Obama.” Goethean's wording properly conveys the content of the reliable sources. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

• The alternate wording is preferable. The joke appears in the article; if you wanna get analytical about it, it's misogynist not racist, no matter how many footnotes are stacked. Fix the wording and loose the multitude of footnotes, which are a dead-tell that something dubious is being asserted as fact. I'll add that I think YRC's protestations about liberal media bias are fringe views without merit, just so you don't feel like I'm piling on here. Carrite (talk) 21:57, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
• I support YouReallyCan's alternate wording that "some commentators asserted was racially charged," and the five bare refs for the word "racist" is textbook Misplaced Pages:Citation overkill which should be stripped out. This is a classic instance of editors trying to coatrack on a BLP of someone they don't like. Jokestress (talk) 22:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
• YRC's made-up wording is not preferable. Preferable is conveying what "reliable sources for assertion of fact" convey, and leaving our own personal analysis as to the nature of the joke out of it. As Misplaced Pages requires of us. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
• Given the above quotes, maybe it would be better than any of the other options to say something like "later acknowledged by Cebull to be racist". BLP is one thing, and it is wrong to give opinions on contentious matters in WPs voice. But it is far worse to be ambivalent in WP's voice about whether a joke placing black people on a continuum between humans and dogs is racist. Formerip (talk) 22:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

This is an excellent solution which I support. Jokestress (talk) 16:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• If prominent sources describe it as racist, then we should say it was racist. If the phrase "racially charged" is the main one sources are using, then use that. If there is parity of use of these terms, then say something like "racist and/or racially charged". This shouldn't be so difficult (though I see there's been another big bustup about it). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:37, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
• I bowed out of this article a while ago after I got tired of the circular discussions about this single event. However, I don't have a conceptual problem with YRC's suggestion - just copy edits (and use the word racist) to: "Cebull used his court email address to forward to seven friends an email containing a joke about President Barack Obama that some commentators asserted was racist." It's a bit of a mouthful for one sentence, but ... --Bbb23 (talk) 00:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• "some commentators asserted" is an astonishingly limp formulation to describe this particular state of affairs. Would you also say that some commentators assert that the world is round, or would you support for something slightly more full-throated on that one? — goethean ॐ

Good points from all who have posted. My view is to use one of the versions suggested by Youreallycan or Formerip. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

There is a little conflation of point a with point b going on, and setting up straw men. There is unanimity that the email COULD be interpreted as racist (though a bit of a stretch, a defensible one), justifying the racist or racially-charged label. That does NOT mean that it can ONLY be considered racist. It also does not mean that Cebull INTENDED of thought of it as racist WHEN HE SENT IT. Quite the contrary, he denies this. Agreement on a, disagreement on b and c. When you say he "sent a racist email" you imply both that the email was intended as racist and can ONLY be regarded as racist. The first is denied by Cebull, and therefore needs a disclaimer to get to NPOV, the second needs something, such as a desciption of the interpretations (which would be long and cumbersome) of the text of the actual joke (so that people can make up their own minds). Probably a better wording is "Cebull used his court email address to forward to seven friends an email containing a vulgar joke about President Obama's mother that commentators later pointed out, could be considered racist".--209.6.69.227 (talk) 18:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't feel very strongly about this issue one way or the other, and have not edited the article. However, I have to say that, to me, "racially charged" sounds very much like a euphemism for "racist". Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 05:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

"Racially Charged" changes the focus from the person to the joke. The term "racist" almost universally applies to a person and their belief's. The joke obviously has a racial element to it. I don't think "racially charged" is disputable. I think using the term "racist" is disputable however and unsupportable in this BLP. As an unrelated example looking from the other side, it would be more acceptable to say in an article about admissions into college that use race as a factor is a "racially charged" isue or policy. But it would be quite the leap to say it was "racist" especially if the article was a BLP of a college administrator that supported the policy. The example that comes to mind is the University of Michigan law school admissions court case. The policy is definitely "racially charged" and I think few would argue that but quite a few people would be offended if any opinion on keeping or abolishing the policy was described as "racist." The reason is that the term "racist" reflects on the person, not the policy. For that reason, it is NPOV to describe it as "racially charged" as there is a strong racial component to the issue but it would be improper to use the term racist. They are not euphemisms for each other. --DHeyward (talk) 10:57, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

On February 20, 2012, Cebull used his official courthouse email address to forward to seven friends an email containing a racially charged joke about President Barack Obama. is the wording I prefer per my above comment. I don't think the term "racially charged" needs a qualification as opinion as it is sourced and a major reaction to the joke was about it's racial aspects. "Racist" however is not a supportable term in this BLP. The content of the joke is included so the reader has a reference. --DHeyward (talk) 11:11, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Dmytro Salamatin

Dmytro Salamatin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An IP-editor earlier today deleted all info (she/he went so far to even deleted references with information about it (I wonder if this falls not under WP:CENSOR)) in the article about Dmytro Salamatin's alleged/reported involvement in all fights in the Ukrainian Parliament since his entry as a deputy back in 2006. I think this alleged involvement falls under Misplaced Pages:Relevance and thus I put the information back in. Was I right? — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 20:38, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Without commenting on the merits of the material as I'm unfamilar with the article, generally, unexplained removals of sourced content are reverted.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

OK; thanks. Latest edits of the same IP make more sense, I already had rewritten the article to a more NPOV style and that seemed to have taken away his will to delete negative information. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 17:15, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Tricia Walsh-Smith

Tricia Walsh-Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Gorge Custers Sabre is repeatedly sabotaging the Tricia Walsh-Smith page. It so happens that I am the subject and sick of ithe inaccurate quotes he keeps inserting while insisting they are accurate, such "although her castmates strongly dislike her." he claims this is from the Daily Mirror. It is not -- I have repeatedly inserted the accurate quote. he removes all updates of my work and insist on a quote that other editors have repeatedly remover "although she was unknown befoe." Everyone who is famous was unknown before and this has been pointed out by other editors. he appears to have a dislike of me and his editing is harmful to my career. I make my living in showbusiness and I am happy to have an honest page, not a page full of bitchy comments intended to make me appear unpopular. I would like to get the page protected or this person blocked from editing it. This evening he has undone at least four revisions in the space of half an hour so seems to have an unhealthy obsession. He is a wiki stalker. Fruitinlondon (talk) 00:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

It's a bit hard to follow you, but the quotes you're talking about are old news (February?), so I'm not sure what the problem is with them now. As for the recent material, you should stop editing your own article. See WP:COI and WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. Not only is it generally a problem for the subject to edit her own article, for you it's even worse because you have no idea how to edit properly. And, contrary to your view, Gorge is being extraordinarily nice and patient with you. You appear uninterested in paying any attention to his advice. I have reverted the material you added. It's absolutely a mess. I suggest that any changes you wish made the article you post to the article Talk page (with reasons and sources backing up the changes).--Bbb23 (talk) 00:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I am happy with the page now as it is neutral and factual with misquotes from tabloids removed. I was forced to edit my page from September last year when GorgeCusterSabre began obsessively editing my page and inserting incredibly negative misquotes from downmarket tabloids. It would be helpful to block him from my page as I feel he has an unhealthy dislike of me.Fruitinlondon (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:12, 14 April 2012 (UTC).

Jennifer Winget/Karan Singh Grover

Jennifer Winget (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Karan Singh Grover (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
While gossip columns predicted this Bollywood couple would marry on Monday, there are, so far as I can tell, exactly zero reliable sources that the wedding took place. (I'm not even sure there are even RS's saying they're a couple.) Nevertheless, IPs and new accounts keep adding claims that the two have married, sourced only to the gossip column predictions if they are sourced at all. RFPP request is caught up in a large backlog. I've reverted this repeatedly, as repeating an unreliably predicted wedding as an established fact seems a clear breach of WP:BLP to me, but some additional eyes would be helpful. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• Now semi protected - Youreallycan 21:19, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Nelly Furtado

I have a post at WP:RS/N#Nelly Furtado citizenship that is meeting with resounding silence. As frequently happens, source discussions and BLP discussions overlap, so I'm posting a pointer here.—Kww(talk) 02:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

NOTE: Several editors have commented there today.  Done-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Daniel Tammet

Daniel Tammet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User 188.29.98.131 is repeatedly inserting unreferenced comments and original research in contravention of Wiki rules for Living Person Bio articles. He has also removed correctly referenced material. Specifically:

- He has been inserting comments from a PDF document http://myreckonings.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/LightningCalculators/lightningcalculators.pdf that was published on the document author's blog: www.myreckonings.com/wordpress. Wiki rules on veriability and original research state: "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." (http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources)

- He has been inserting a comment which he claims is word-for-word from Tammet's memoir. He has not given a page number, and in any case the sentence appears lifted out of context. It seems to be a case of original research, as no third-party published source mentions comment anywhere.

- He has removed a referenced statement made on Tammet's blog. I have attempted a compromise by replacing the statement with one using short direct quotes that appeared in an article on Tammet published in the New York Times.

- I have restored the statement that research on Tammet's mind has appeared 'in several peer-reviewed scientific papers' as it appears in Tammet's second book 'Embracing the Wide Sky' (published by Hodder, Simon & Schuster, and elsewhere in 2009).

- I have removed the original research insertion: 'The Icelandic talk show interviewers spoke with Tammet for a "few minutes"' - I cannot find any third-party reliably published source to support this claim or that gives any specific detail on interview's precise duration.

- I also note that the article's talk page has increasingly become a forum for original research claims. See recent 'Great read' entry (which is comparatively mild in comparison to other comments).

I would be grateful if an editor could review this situation and comment/intervene to prevent another edit war (the article has already been the subject of several in the recent past).

Oughtprice99 (talk) 07:21, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• note - I requested semi protection as this is a repeated pattern from unconfirmed IP addressees, but it was refused by User:Slakr - Youreallycan 11:14, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Ravi Belegare

Ravi Belagere (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Doesn't establish notability and more reliable references needed. recommend for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bharathiya (talk • contribs) 10:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

At first glance and with a quick Google news search the subject appears to not to be notable but its hard to tell as all the sources are in German or Hindi. According to a Google translation of his web site he has written many books and received several awards. . World Cat verifies he has written a number of books. Thoughts? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

ed. of a mjor newspaper in notable , if Hai Bangalore is a major newspaper. But if it doubt, we could simply redirect to the article on the publication. DGG ( talk ) 19:32, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Tamer Şahin

Tamer Şahin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article in the link : http://en.wikipedia.org/Tamer_Şahin contains autobiography. It is created by the user itself and contains bogus stories to advertise himself. Most of the citations from the owners source. Deletion requested.

Case: - Hacking Bill Gates email account: There is no information about that available. The only reference says that Microsoft servers made a mistake by putting their secret documents into a public link. Many people get these sources and obviously it is not a hacking activity nor it is related with any personal mail hack. User claims hacking Bill Gates mails.

Most of the citations from his personal site and clearly shows an advertisement of his activities.

Turkish hacker; he is the first officially judged and sentenced hacker of Turkey, and was accused of hacking several important systems That should not be a material of Misplaced Pages. I suggest removing this article to avoid more personal advertisements with made up stories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daicarus (talk • contribs) 21:09, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Paul Gascoigne

Paul Gascoigne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

All sorts of problems with tabloid sources and undue weight, in particular this section which seems hugely bloated and highly POV in places. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 21:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I fail to see the problem. Paul Gascoigne has admitted all of these incidents/problems, and that he has been to rebab no less than twelve times. There are numerous other non-tabloid sources confirming the information. (TommyAnders (talk) 21:44, 12 April 2012 (UTC))

Dear me, the indef blocked sockpuppeter - of User:HarveyCarter - As for the content complaint - I had a bit of a look and imo according to policy and guidelines - coverage of his illness is undue and primarily cited to redtop titillation and referenced to tabloid publications. You get such claims as arrested and charged and then there is no more press coverage - (usually due to the fact that a warning is given or the charges get dropped ) the tittilators never report such detail - I would trim that section in half, focusing on the main details. - Youreallycan 15:03, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Joyce Banda

Joyce Banda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am sick and freaking tired of User:Mewulwe and his/her baseless assumptions and edit warring of of reliable sources "copying from Misplaced Pages". They have repeatedly removed a year/date of birth from Joyce Banda that has been sourced to RS such as BBC and a published source. Please also note that I have only re-added the YOB, not the full DOB. A quick news search of "Joyce Banda 1950" also turns up many news outlets reporting a 1950 year of birth. However, because these are quite recent, Mewulwe decides to assume that they got the YOB from Misplaced Pages and repeatedly remove it and "require" a pre-Misplaced Pages source to source it. Any thoughts? – Connormah (talk) 23:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

If a reliable source says she was born in 1950 (and there is no conflict with other reliable sources), then the year should be reported in the article. Mewulwe's reasoning is their own and unsupportable without some actual evidence that the source "copied" Misplaced Pages.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:45, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I had a published source in and a BBC article in but they were both dismissed as "copying Misplaced Pages" - Mewulwe has once again reverted... . – Connormah (talk) 01:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I saw an article that was crearly a copy of wikipedia and I have a degree of sympathy with the users claim that the date was copied from wikipedia, There is imo that I have seen so far a reliable source for her date of birth as for the year of birth, there doesn't appear to be anything official - I say wait for a government article to officially publish it. - Youreallycan 07:35, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

- is this the source? Perhaps if you present all your sources here for investigation we can have a good look at them, The user is clearly removing the date in good faith but needs to move to discussion, I have let them know about this report and asked them to comment. Youreallycan 07:41, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I am sick and tired of Connormah stalking me for months and constantly accusing me of "baselessly" removing information. If the earliest source to be found for a given information is Misplaced Pages itself, you need a higher standard than the usual "reliable source" to confirm it. Why would the birth date of a politician who has been active for many years suddenly crop up in various sources just after it was introduced in Misplaced Pages? Coincidence? We know for a fact that BBC and everyone else has copied from Misplaced Pages before (including hoaxes). The Historical Dictionary series routinely uses Misplaced Pages, often openly citing it, so it is also worthless here, since the book was written after the date was already in Misplaced Pages (it was added - by a one-day user - in July 2011, while the book's very article on Banda describes events of September 2011). We had the same phenomenon with Gaddafi, where many obituaries repeated an exact birth date which had been in Misplaced Pages at the time, even though it appears in no pre-Misplaced Pages sources and in fact many sources have explicitly stated that his exact birth date was not known. Mewulwe (talk) 11:01, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

This is textbook WP:OR. The fact that information present in Misplaced Pages might appear in a newspaper at a subsequent point in time does not mean that the newspaper got the information from Misplaced Pages. If the newspaper article says that it got the information from Misplaced Pages, then fine; otherwise, stop speculating. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:35, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

OR doesn't apply to sourcing issues. In fact, source evalution is necessarily OR. What else do you do, take their own word, "We are a reliable source"? If Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source, then no source which itself may use Misplaced Pages can be either, as far as information is concerned which has been in Misplaced Pages before. The burden of proof is not on the one who wants to keep information out (you don't need any source for NOT including something). You would have to prove that the sources did NOT take it from Misplaced Pages, when that is a reasonable possibility. In a similar case recently, someone actually wrote the BBC and they admitted using Misplaced Pages. Mewulwe (talk) 11:45, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

If you have a concern about reliable sourcing, go to RSN. If you want to write to the source to ask whether they used Misplaced Pages, go ahead. Apart from that, your speculations are just that. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:03, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, you go ahead if you want to use it. I don't have to. Nor do I need to go to RSN. Per IAR, I am not bound to overly generalized rules (like "BBC = RS") where they contradict plain common sense in a particular case. Mewulwe (talk) 12:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

This is one citation http://http://www.malawivoice.com/2012/04/07/joyce-banda-sworn-in-and-puts-god-first-i-felt-presence-of-the-holy-spirit-21929/ - that has been added multiple times to cite her dob - the content is a direct copy of a previous version of the en wikipedia article - the user has a good faith concern and if users present their citations we can investigate. Youreallycan 12:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Here is a perfectly valid citation for her year of birth. Why is this so bloody difficult? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:58, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Because it's not "perfectly valid" at all, as the BBC is known to copy such things from Misplaced Pages. Mewulwe (talk) 13:38, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Again, if you have concerns about the BBC, WP:RSN is the place for you. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:41, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

What would I do there? I agree with the prevailing consensus that BBC is among those sources normally considered reliable, but those things are never absolute and you have to argue on substance here, not just say "BBC = RS, end of story." Mewulwe (talk) 14:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Arguing on substance is exactly what you are not doing, at least not sensibly. According to your logic, any source at all that subsequently publishes something containing a claim about her year/date of birth "could have" gotten it from Misplaced Pages and so can't be used. I accept the point about a source that consists of a previous version of the Misplaced Pages article, but I don't accept it about the BBC. I really don't care about whether her birth date/year is included or not; I only care about Misplaced Pages editors pushing stupid arguments. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:09, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

"Any source at all" is not my logic. What we need is either an official Malawian government source or an authentic personal site of Joyce Banda publishing the date, or a birth certificate published in a reliable source, or any source that is beyond suspicion of copying from Misplaced Pages; or else simply any generally reliable source dating from before July 2011. If that can't be found, all occurrences of the date must be presumed to be derived from Misplaced Pages. Why don't you accept it about the BBC when it has copied Misplaced Pages vandalism before? Mewulwe (talk) 17:13, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

That question is exactly what you should raise at RSN. Go ahead, ask them: the BBC copied Misplaced Pages vandalism in the past, does that mean that we should not accept it as a RS anymore? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

The situation is already clear. RS is not black and white. We should accept BBC in general unless we have a good reason not to. Mewulwe (talk) 18:15, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• The "12 April 1950" date of birth appears to have been added by Malawicommentator (talk · contribs) in July 2011 (previously it said "born 1951?"). Taking that date and running a search for "Joyce Banda 1950" through Google News (custom range 1/1/2004 to 1/7/2011) returns no news hits (all hits for "Joyce Banda" in this timeframe do not mention a year of birth). I think in this situation it is correct to leave the date of birth out and to make an assumption that any news source that has had a date since could have taken it from Misplaced Pages. We have to be careful about circular referencing. That said, this does not excuse edit warring on either side. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:59, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

  Yes I agree completely. Its not like the wheels are dropping off. I am sure in the near future there will be an official biography published on the government website that will include a reliable date of birth. - It clearly seems that the primary location for her alleged date of birth has historically been unverified additions to en wikipedia. Youreallycan 13:45, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• Concerning the date info & for that matter the numbering of Malawi Presidents, I've lost patience with Mewulwe's approach & attitude. It appears giving his reverts today on both topics, that nothing will change on those article without his stamp of approval. GoodDay (talk) 23:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I reverted since you stopped discussing and I assumed you conceded. If not, respond to my points without just repeating what you said before and which I already responded to. Mewulwe (talk) 00:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

You reverted because you won't accept anything that goes against your stance. If 20 editors argued to keep the numbering or keep the birthyear & then didn't discuss it for a few hours, you'd merely 'revert' to your prefered version again - with the same annoying edit summary -. Others can decide as to how to deal with your conduct on those articles, I'm done with them articles. GoodDay (talk) 00:20, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

No, I reverted because I don't accept empty handwaving or blockheaded generalization of wikirules to where they don't apply. I also don't revert unless at least some 24 hours have passed without any argument that I haven't refuted already. If only 1 editor actually argues I am happy to engage him. But since you say you are "done" I take it you finally concede the matter. Mewulwe (talk) 09:26, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I concede that your conduct is disruptive. GoodDay (talk) 18:40, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Howabout this CBC source? which states Banda was 61, upon becoming President. GoodDay (talk) 22:54, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

What about it? CBC is no more immune from copying from Misplaced Pages than BBC. Mewulwe (talk) 00:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Your incredibly stubborn attitude is disruptive. And don't cite WP:IAR as a justification for you doing whatever you please.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:13, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

When you're out of arguments, you just call your opponent "stubborn." I don't need to cite any WP:XYZ to begin with. IAR just serves as a response to mindless citations of RSN. Mewulwe (talk) 09:26, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I have added 1950 as the birth year citing the BBC and the CBC. There's no rational basis for keeping out the material based on Mewulwe's personal speculation.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:24, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

What exactly is not rational about my speculation (which is not "personal" either, I haven't seen anyone actually making a case against, e.g. arguing that BBC would almost never copy from Misplaced Pages)? Mewulwe (talk) 09:26, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, how can you even cite the CBC for 1950? It just says she's 61. That only translates to 1950/51. Talk about no rational basis... Mewulwe (talk) 09:36, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Can an admin please step in and block Mewulwe for disruption at this point? --Mollskman (talk) 01:28, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

That won't be necessary, at least not if he now accepts WP:Consensus and WP:RS are against him and stops removing it. I have left him a note pointing this out and requesting him to stop removing it, FWIW I agree with him there has been no official release of her date or year of birth or age either and its highly likely that the year being reported originated from en wikipedia, - Youreallycan 08:48, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Where do you see a consensus? Looks like 4-3 if we're counting "votes" which we're not supposed to. And looking at substantial discussion, it's not even a contest since the other side hasn't begun making any argument beyond "BBC is a reliable source!" Mewulwe (talk) 09:26, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Well Nearly every Malawian national newspaper (as well as the wider African Press) wished her a happy 62nd Birthday on Thursday, some like the Malawi voice give the impression that they've spoken to Moses Kunkuyu about the birthday to receive information on how she was celebrating it.... Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 10:25, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Now there are some proper sources. I'd use this one: she "received full of pride wishes" for her birthday. See, Nomoskedasticity, they couldn't have gotten that from Misplaced Pages. Mewulwe (talk) 11:16, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I suggest taking note of the fact that a number of other editors here perceived that you were editing disruptively. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:15, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I suggest taking note of the fact that I don't care too much about pots calling kettles black. The only disruptive editing was that of those who reinstated potentially circular sources. Mewulwe (talk) 17:23, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

But, as it turned out, they were right! Though I do agree with you that it is quite likely that they BBC got its info from Misplaced Pages and it was the original poster on Misplaced Pages who was right. Guess we will never know. filceolaire (talk) 10:52, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

They were NOT right. The date was right. I never said I believed it was wrong. Had you asked me, I would have estimated it as at least 60% likely to be correct. It was simply not properly sourced. It could have been just made up by the original poster. Mewulwe (talk) 11:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Is it possible to have Mewulwe blocked or something? Despite not having a consensus to remove the numbering from Banda's infobox (or that matter from her 3 predecessors infoboxes), he continues to delete the numbering. He's already promised to continue to do so (at his talkpage). Why does that article need HIS approval, to get anything added or deleted? He continues to stonewall discussions by arguing with editors & when the discussion ends, he goes right back to reverting. Mewulwe's has got ownership issues with that & the other 3 articles. GoodDay (talk) 20:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I suggest anyone interested go to Talk:Joyce Banda for the discussion there. It is not a BLP issue either way. Mewulwe (talk) 22:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Sarah Dreher

I edited to include her April 2, 2012 death (with reference Douglass Funeral Service, 87 No. Pleasant St. Amherst, MA http://www.douglassfuneral.com/) but did not know how to change metadata, including category of "Biographies of living persons". — Preceding unsigned comment added by EdReason (talk • contribs) 00:21, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

 Fixed Article Living People category to 2012 deaths and talk page BLP status . Dru of Id (talk) 01:08, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

List of accolades received by James Deen

Euh really? New page patrolling and I came across this, well sensitive souls stay away, isn't this a bit over the top, are those serious awards/sources etc.? And surely, if it's accolades, shouldn't it just feature the wins? And does this really need a stand-alone article? (And have a good chortle at some of the film titles if you're so inclined). Any input ...er opinions appreciated. CaptainScreebo 01:34, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

OMG. ROFL. OTT. AfD? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:41, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

And Andy gets the award for best 4-way acronym scene.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:42, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your penetrating commentary ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:44, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yes, I am a bit frazzled and my only reaction was WTF and to bring it here for some light relief :=) I'm off for the night, so if any kind soul would care to give it a good seeing to ... Cheers. CaptainScreebo 01:50, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Okey dokey, AfD will be coming shortly ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:58, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I think I'll try giving it a gentle poke prod first, to see what happens... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:00, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Wanks a lot oops! thanks a lot :-) CaptainScreebo 10:16, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• Can an admin speedy this prod? The page creator has merged the offending material into the main article, in a more concise, less in-your-face table, and has indicated that they have no objection to the page being deleted here. CaptainScreebo 17:35, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Shane Dawson

Shane Dawson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Okay so apparently the guy's notable, not a problem there, just that the article has a bazillion YouTube references to his video channels (SPS), I'm sure this is overkill, unreliable references and probably involve claims about third parties as apparently a lot of what he does is parody people like Miley Cyrus and so on. Ok so he gets a NYTimes article from 2010 (which I can no longer access), but anybody feel like whittling this down to a less "geewhizzbang I'm an Internet star" kind of thing? Cheers! CaptainScreebo 16:30, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

It looks like some of the problem is the use of YouTube as a primary source for the inclusion of information that is questionable as far as its enduring biographical significance. Not all information within a biography has to be notable per se, but due weight and noteworthiness of particular events are best demonstrated through some kind of coverage in at least one reliable third-party source. Claims involving third parties must be supported by a reliable source. To me, WP:BLPPRIMARY/WP:BLPSPS and WP:PRIMARY are pretty clear. I'll have a go at editing when I have a bit more time. JFHJr (㊟) 07:09, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok thanks, I am trying to deal with this bio Charli XCX, which was created by User:Beatkickedin (banned for a week for attacks, page blanking, reposting a speedied music bio with no notability), who has a handy list on his user page of stuff he's created or majorly contributed to, Shane Dawson is one. Seeing that he does not seem to understand notions like WP:N or WP:RS, it's probably worth giving the other articles a look through. This last part is adressed to all editors of the BLPN, not just JFHJr. Thanks. CaptainScreebo 11:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Persistent girlfriend

Ted Turner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

One of Turner's girlfriends has added her relationship to the article. Despite my reversions and explanations (on my Talk page) as to why it doesn't belong in the article, she persists. For some history of who she is, see the Robert Olen Butler article. Also, for some fascinating foundation as to what's going on with Turner's romantic life, see this article in The Telegraph.

I've reached my reversion limit, so other editor's eyes and views would be helpful.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:29, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Michael D. Coe

Michael D. Coe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello, Dr. Michael Coe's is MAY 14, not APRIL 14. See email from him below from my b-day wish today:

"Thank you, Donny, but my birthday will be on May 14th, not April 14th! My Misplaced Pages entry has it wrong, but I don't know how to correct it."

Best,

Michael Coe

Sincerely,

Donny Claxton — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archeoastronomy (talk • contribs) 22:05, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the month as unsupported and challenged. Meanwhile, if there is a reliable source published, that could support the addition of "14 May." For this kind of detail, a primary source would be alright, but we can't cite to an e-mail. JFHJr (㊟) 06:35, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I copied this to the articles talk page. Maybe someone will find a reliable source. filceolaire (talk) 10:29, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Oversight?

Not sure what, if anything, needs doing here. I've blanked it for now. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:23, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I sent in an oversight request on it. Probably best to just send one in, and let an oversighter correct you if it isn't a proper candidate for oversighting, so as to avoid drawing any extra attention to what ever the problematic content was. Monty₈₄₅ 06:33, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I just found Misplaced Pages:Requests for oversight. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:44, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Matisse (singer) and Brittany Smith

Brittany Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Matisse (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Some person propose a merger just because they appear to look alike. However, this is yet to be an evidence about connection between them. --George Ho (talk) 07:14, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be a bit more to it than looking alike. They are both child actors named Brittany Smith born in Connecticut in 1985. The merge is a reasonable proposal; it just needs someone interested enough to do a little research and sort the details. In the meantime the merge proposal can stay. filceolaire (talk) 10:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

The Brittany Smith article was basically just a filmography, so I have gone ahead and merged. Formerip (talk) 17:51, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Andrea Lehotská

Andrea Lehotská (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

have many concerns about this article, written by three anonymous users who remove any POV tag. Basedtriedba (talk) 13:29, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

The page isn't POV. --79.22.252.23 (talk) 14:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

well, it shouldn't be you to state whether it is or it is not, since you are the author (with three different IPs) Basedtriedba (talk) 14:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• Basedtriedba, could you please explain how a non-neutral point of view is present in the article? There hardly seems to be any point of view at all, neutral or not -- it's a dry recitation of facts. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 14:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Text does seem to be mostly NPOV, and badly in need of a copyedit. Its the sourcing that is a problem with this one. I'm not a reader of Italian, but I don't need to be to see that the 4 or 5 refs to Lettera43.it are from a topless slideshow. (I know Italian mores re: nudity are a bit more liberal, but still I can't see this as a reliable source) Youtube refs, blogs, primaries, not good for a BLP article. The Interior (Talk) 14:27, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

dear Arglebargle, this is a promotional article (maybe the POV is not the best one I could use, but I feel this is not an encyclopedical article: it is written to promote this model; so I agree with "The Interior"). I am also quite suspicious about the behaviour of the 79... S/he has been contributing on this article only, and removes the POV tag immediately. Shouldn't it be removed after a debate? And why does this user change his/her IP ? S/he ha been using at least three different IPs today for contributing to this article only (how can I say it is the same person? well, poor English, and all of them come from southern Italy ) Basedtriedba (talk) 14:30, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

It's probably best for now to focus on the content. If the editor makes a statement that indicates a conflict of interest, we can approach it that way. The IP's can change depending on the service provider/type of IP address/mobile device - many variables. The Interior (Talk) 14:37, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

The article is poorly written and poorly sourced. It reads like a resume without anything to indicate that the subject is notable because of her accomplishments. As Interior points out, there are too many refs to L43, and all those citations are to a slideshow of her with a blurb on each slide. I have no idea how reliable any of that is. I've reduced much of the material and made a number of copy edits to try to make it at least English-sounding, but as it stands, it isn't much.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:58, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Some watchers needed on pornstar bios!

Jessie Andrews (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

James Deen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Got your attention didn't it? Well, after posting about Mr. Deen's, ahem, acheivements above, I checked on the page creator's contributions and have removed some stuff from Deen's bio, sourced to YouTube videos of himself. On the other article personal info about the woman's weight has been changed twice today with no refs by two editors (the same person?), who also insist on putting back trivial information sourced to blogs. Would really appreciate a couple of other editors watchlisting these as I'm fairly sure this will persist. Cheers! CaptainScreebo 16:59, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Penny Marshall bio

Penny Marshall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Tracy Reiner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

you stated that she married Michael Henry in 1961 and they had a daughter Tracy together and stayed married for 2 years, but on Tracy's bio you say she was born in 1964. Is that math correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.45.96 (talk) 17:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Could be correct. Months aren't given, and some of the sources are books I can't verify easily. However, if Tracy was conceived in late 1963 while Marshall and Henry were still married, she could have been born in 1964.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:52, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Seito Sakakibara

Should his name be included? Von Restorff (talk) 20:58, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

It would help if you could clarify the nature of the dispute, if there is one -- or at least lay out the reasons for exclusion or inclusion. If the point is simply that naming him goes against Japanese law, then in my opinion that's not a sufficient reason to exclude his name from this article, particularly if he is already named in reliable sources in a way that would support inclusion of it here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

The problem is I don't know anything about this. I am unable to read Japanese, I never heard of this person before, and the only information about the dispute I have is what can be found on the article's talkpage. I cannot judge the reliability of the source that includes the name; I can't even confirm the name is actually in the source referenced. Von Restorff (talk) 14:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Might be worth getting a Japanese speaker involved - Japanese-speaking Wikipedian category. The Interior (Talk) 18:30, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Bo Lozoff

Bo Lozoff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Previous BLPN post

• Related ANI discussion

There's been a reversion at this article that poses WP:BLP problems; Youreallycan had fixed them previously. There's also discussion at talk, which is a good sign. But I think input and edits from other BLPN folks on the following would be helpful:

The subject is at most of marginal notability: reliable third party coverage of his accomplishments is scant if it exists at all. Local independent media have provided some coverage, but much of it is reporting on a scandal. The scandal itself apparently contributes to his notability, but continuing coverage in reliable sources appears not to have been forthcoming (cf. WP:BLP1E). Apparently no criminal charges were filed, and never any conviction (cf. WP:BLPCRIME). The accusations are salacious and appear twice in the article (cf. WP:UNDUE). Otherwise, this subject's works are mostly covered in self-publications or publications by related parties (cf. WP:RS, WP:BLPSPS).

I've removed the section dedicated to the allegations, already mentioned in the article. The article could still use whatever eyes and edits anyone can lend. JFHJr (㊟) 22:33, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• I have no idea if the incidents are related (the editors involved in both are the same), but be aware that there is an ANI about this article nearing end of life . Dennis Brown (talk) 23:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

At this point, it looks like Truthcon is just going to repeat claims regardless of what's said. I'll gladly wait for more editors to chime in, but I think that editor's actions are disruptive. JFHJr (㊟) 23:44, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• To chime in, as per WP:BOLD, I made the reversion referred to above, providing my reasons for doing so on the article talk page. A consensus version addressing JFHJr's concerns about WP:WEIGHT is in the works. I do not agree that the article subject is of marginal notability, being an author and prison worker whose books and projects have had documented social impact. I do agree that while User:Truthcon's editing style has definitely improved since a year ago, the edit warring needs to stop. --Floorsheim (talk) 00:06, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

• I have already commented on the Talk page about Floorsheim's suggested wording of the allegations material. I have also stated that I don't think I or anyone else needs to accord Truthcon good faith based on his history. I'll assume without knowing that he has "improved" but I am just looking at his recent edits, and they are disruptive. He reverted three of my edits without explanation even though the bases of my edits were explained. I don't see his edits adding anything to the article or contributing in any constructive way to the project as a whole (after all, he doesn't edit anything else).--Bbb23 (talk) 00:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Nazir Ahmed, Baron Ahmed

Nazir Ahmed, Baron Ahmed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

NOTE: The header and links for this post originally directed editors to an article about a different person with a similar name. oops! sorry, was on my way to bed, way too late to be still on wikipedia, my bad, thanks for fixing. CaptainScreebo 11:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi all, there is a breaking news story on the BBC , I actually went to the wiki article to read about the car crash incident and noticed that there was a huge swathe of text about this accusation, so I took the liberty of removing the whole section as it was WP:UNDUE, poorly sourced and so on. Looking at the history there has been a frenzy of IP activity on the page since early evening, nothing has actually been proved yet and so on, so more eyes over there and maybe some semi-protection for a few days if this continues? Cheers. CaptainScreebo 01:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Campaign_for_"santorum"_neologism

Campaign for "santorum" neologism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 2 editors have removed an Image of Santorum next to his remarks in this article citing BLP. I think this is use of BLP as an excuse for censorship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.148.42 (talk • contribs)

Comment - The image was removed by the first editor citing BLP, again added by the IP above, then removed by me as well. I have asked the IP to develop consensus to add the material and explain how it does not violate BLP on images. "Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light." He has not yet attempted to do either on the article Talkpage. -- Avanu (talk) 02:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Is this "out of context"? There seems to be consensus to include the image. Are you going to delete Obama's picture from Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories? Von Restorff (talk) 02:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Could you help me find where this consensus is at? I don't see any reference to it in your remark. -- Avanu (talk) 03:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

No problem mate! You'll find an old discussion here and a bit more at the bottom of the talkpage. I am still reading through all the archives, hopefully I'll find more stuff. Von Restorff (talk) 03:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

As I previously explained to the IP editor, that is not consensus to ADD this image. It is consensus to not remove ALL images. Please read it carefully, and keep in mind that consensus is not static nor perpetual (read WP:CONSENSUS for more). -- Avanu (talk) 03:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

So, if I disagree with someone in the future, I should not only require that they get consensus before they can include anything I disagree with but also that they get consensus for not removing it? I think I misunderstand you. Von Restorff (talk) 03:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Please see WP:BRD. Editor X included images (a Bold move). User Delicious Carbuncle wrote: "I would have simply removed them, but given the current scrutiny on this article it seems best to discuss first" (Revert). The (proposed) revert has been Discussed. The majority of people not only disagreed with the proposed removal of the images but also expressed their opinions why they should be included "The images are free use, and directly relevant to the article in the subsections in which they are discussed" - "Fair use images of the two key figures discussed in the article is a no-brainer." - "Both Santorum and Savage are directly related to the topic of this article, so it is reasonable that their images would be included as part of the article." - "fair use images relevant to the subject topic". Von Restorff (talk) 03:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Adding the photo is further misuse of Misplaced Pages to attack a politician. Yes, we know some people deserve to be attacked, but that is not the role of Misplaced Pages, and there is zero encyclopedic benefit from associating Santorum's picture with the attack on him. Johnuniq (talk) 04:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Zero encyclopedic benefit from using a relevant picture on an article? Interesting. You would've had a point if the image was in a infobox in the top-right corner but the image is used in a section that describes views expressed by Rick Santorum. Von Restorff (talk) 04:12, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

No sensible ground has been presented for refusing to allow the image in the article. Just saying "WP:BLP" is not a valid basis for removing it, so long as the existence of the article is allowed by that policy. Removing the photo from the article makes about as much sense as removing all mention of his name from the article. Edison (talk) 04:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I believe those who wish to remove this image should reread this sentence (emphasis mine): "Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light". Using an image of the current pope on the article Hitlerjugend is an example of using an image out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light; even though he was a member. Nota bene: membership was required by law for all 14-year-old German boys after December 1939. In this case the image is not used out of context, and the views expressed by Rick Santorum are reliably sourced as far as I can tell (USA Today). Von Restorff (talk) 04:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

That article is not about the views of Santorum. It is about one persons attempt to smear another person. Arzel (talk) 04:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I would use the words "annoy" or "piss off" instead of "smear", but other than that we agree. But that section of that article is about the views expressed by Rick Santorum. Von Restorff (talk) 05:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

From what I can find in the archives via a simple search for the word "image" in the archive search at the talk of the talk page, the most recent discussion appears to be in archive 8 where consensus appeared to be for removal (the above linked discussion to include it was back in archive 2). Granted though, I haven't searched the archives in any detail - this is just a simple word search within the talk archives. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, that concensus only exist if you ignore those who voiced their opinion in archive 2 and on the current talkpage, and that seems kind of unfair. Von Restorff (talk) 04:38, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Lets just ask user Tarc, he has read all 11 archives. Von Restorff (talk) 04:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

If a new consensus discussion exists - then yes, the earlier consensus discussion would be overridden. Consensus can change. That said - I have no idea if later consensus discussions exist where consensus changed back, and my interest in editing Misplaced Pages lies elsewhere so I don't intend to dig any deeper into the archives at this time. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Even if you start a new discussion a couple of minutes after the last one ended? Von Restorff (talk) 04:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Guys, listen; Consensus isn't something that is firm and well defined. It's an agreement, is all. The fact that this discussion exists means that there probably isn't consensus here (which, with both the on-Misplaced Pages and US political ramifications involved with this subject shouldn't really be surprising). Just discuss the issue rationally and don't worry about "consensus". You'll all know it when you see it (and if there's a loan wolf out there who simply will not change his position, then that can be dealt with separately). @Von Restorff, since there was previous discussion and the image was specifically removed, I'd say that it's up to you to justify re-adding it. That's not to say that the image is absolutely not allowed, but read through the past discussions and come up with a logical rational for including the image, which everyone can then discuss. This isn't a competition.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 04:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually its not "there was previous discussion and the image was specifically removed" but more like "there was previous discussion and the consensus was to not remove the images". Consensus can change, but so far the "why not include the images?"-side has the advantage as far as I can tell. But I am still reading. Von Restorff (talk) 05:07, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the initial consensus was to leave the images, and a later consensus was to remove them. A new discussion now can determine if consensus has changed again. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

According to Talk:Campaign_for_"santorum"_neologism/Renaming_summary that is not true. Von Restorff (talk) 05:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Which again points to the older consensus in archive 2 - and was only changed to point to that archive 2 discussion within the past five hours. The newer consensus in archive 8 is the most recent consensus discussion that has been identified thus far. The best way to proceed would be to determine on the article talk page to see if consensus has changed back to including the images. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 06:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit ocnflict) Von Restorff: The two discussions identified so far took place two months apart - so not sure what you mean by a couple minutes. As a general guideline - if a discussion has just been closed, it can be viewed as disruptive to immediately bring up the same issue again - and even if time passes, the same person restarting the same discussion repeatedly after closure of a prior discussion could be viewed as disruptive beating of a dead horse. That said, the discussion from archive 8 is around nine months old, so the concern of "a couple of minutes after the last one ended" wouldn't apply to starting a new consensus discussion now (unless there's a much newer one that my simple search mentioned above didn't turn up). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• Facepalm ...not "santorum" again!
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 04:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

@Ohms - yeah i know :( - @Von Restorff - what you are doing now by re-adding the image after 2 editors have removed it and asked for consensus is called edit warring and potentially tendentious editing. Please revert yourself and remove the image for now. I'm not going to re-add it and get into the edit war as well. This advice goes for the IP editor as well. You are supposed to attempt for consensus first at the article Talk page and that has somewhat been circumvented by coming here. That's called forum shopping. It isn't a good practice. I'd rather this get solved by mutual discussion and agreement than escalation. Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 04:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Please no spamming Avanu. You are supposed to show the consensus you claim to have on your side. Please show me a link. Von Restorff (talk) 04:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

As Barek says above, and I said earlier in this thread, "Consensus can change". An editor added this photo, another editor felt it was inappropriate. The first editor re-added it, and I agreed with the editor who believed it was inappropriate. Since that time, it has gone back and forth several times. Since BLP holds us duty-bound to remove contentious material, the picture should stay out until such time as a consensus develops to include it, OR you provide a rock solid reason how this is not "disparaging" in any way. Keep in mind, consensus can break down at any time. It is CLEAR from the reverts and re-adds that there is NOT consensus at this time to add the photo. I'm not going to edit war, and I've not reported edit warring yet, because I'd prefer we work on the Article Talk page and reach a consensus. Bringing it here was a first step to making it more difficult to reach consensus because there are now two conversations over the same topic at the same time, and as such, comments might need to be repeated for both audiences in order for people to stay on the same page. Please, let's just get back to a focused discussion and move forward. Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 05:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

If no-one reverts this edit we are done here I guess. Von Restorff (talk) 06:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Even after that removal there is still room in the article for the photos of Savage and Santorum, both. I disagree with DHeyward's removal of both. Savage's photo should be replaced and Santorum's photo should be repositioned at the section "Santorum's request for intervention by Google". Binksternet (talk) 08:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Rick Santorum has no direct connection to the neologism - inclusion of his image is against WP:BLP. Dan Savage's pic can be there as he has a direct connection to the neologism campaign. Images not of value to the article do not belong in the article. Collect (talk) 11:52, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

You wrote: "inclusion of his image is against WP:BLP". Which sentence in WP:BLP forbids us to use this image? Please quote it. Von Restorff (talk) 12:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Try:

Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects

This article is about the neologism and the campaign, and is not about Rick Santorum, much as some folks seem to try.

Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased or malicious content

The "neologism" is specifically aimed to be "malicious."

Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light

Connecting a person;s image with a term designed to abase the person fits that description. In short - at least three ways in which the image in a page about a campaign for a neologism violates WP:BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, all three (That's Numberwang!) are incorrect. The first two sentences you quote are highly irrelevant in a discussion about whether to include an image in this article or not, but please keep them in mind while editing the article. Are you claiming the image of the person is used OUT OF CONTEXT? If not you'll need to try to find another policy to support your pov. Von Restorff (talk) 14:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

All Collect's points are excellent policy driven reasons to exclude a picture of R Santorum. Its not his POV , he is a tight interpreter of wiki policy and doesn't edit from any POV - wiki policy is his pov - "neologism" is specifically aimed to be "malicious. - Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light Youreallycan 14:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I can grow wings and fly like a bird. I can grow wings and fly like a bird. Repeating something does not make it true. Are you claiming the image of the person was used out of context? Von Restorff (talk) 14:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC) p.s. Please read WP:NPOV for information about what a POV is.

If you want to grow wings you would then be able to fly away. - I recognize a POV when I see one without rereading any wiki policies. Youreallycan 15:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

LOL. That statement is contradicted by your failure to recognize a POV as a POV above. Are you claiming the image of the person was used out of context? Von Restorff (talk) 15:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

LOL indeed - The article is already a WP:Shame on en wikipedia without partisan opponents of the subject using it to demean him even more.Youreallycan 15:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I think we agree the current article is far from perfect. I spent much of my time on Misplaced Pages undoing the work of partisan opponents and supporters of subjects. The defenders of the truth don't like me. Von Restorff (talk) 15:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not governed by the WP:TRUTH, it relies on WP:V and WP:NPOV. As for "partisanship" a partial list of BLPs I edited is on my userpage. Kndly peruse it. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

LOL, that is my line. A full list of the BLPs you edited is on your contributionpage BTW. Von Restorff (talk) 19:12, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• As I've said on the article talk page, there's no way to get a pic of Santorum into this article without an RfC. Assertions about earlier consensus will do nothing to deter those who are intent on removing it. The only way to avoid an edit war is to do an RfC. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:00, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd argue that it's out of context and undue weight and definite BLP issue to include photos. In fact, the amount of linking to this one campaign from every article seems to be a clear BLP issue. It's out of context in the sense that the picture of Rick Santrum on this page is no more relevant than pictures of anyone else who commented on the neoligism. Nor are Rick Santorum's comments that precipated the NY Times opinion piece particularly relevant in this article as they are covered in broader articles and can be linked to. ONEWAY and BLP should apply here. Jon Stewarts picture doesn't need to be included. The caller from Savage's show doesn't need his picture here. Neither would it be particularly relevant to have Savage's picture or anyone else's. It's an association that doesn't need to be made through pictures or words to a living person since whether intended or not, it's disparaging. This article is not a WP:COATRACK to hang Rick Santorm on. --DHeyward (talk) 19:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Undue weight has nothing to do with it. I do wonder why you believe it to be "out of context" considering the context is an attack on Rick Santorum, please explain. WP:BLP does not say anything against using images in this situation. Von Restorff (talk) 19:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The BLP page concerns itself mostly with the written word, because that is what 99% of Misplaced Pages is. BUT there is an image-related section, I quoted it to you, and you yourself just said the context here is an attack on Rick Santorum. Since you don't think WP:BLP#Images applies, consider WP:BLP#Attack_pages, as well as the WP:NPOV policy. Look, this is a campaign that focuses on attacking Rick Santorum, we don't have to give more attention than we already are to this, and we certainly don't need to put a picture of Rick Santorum in this ESPECIALLY at the top in a prominent position. -- Avanu (talk) 20:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

We have more common ground than you expect. The act of turning someone's name into the name of something disgusting or a dirty word/swearword is obviously annoying to that person, certainly if that person is a politician. The intent was probably to piss Rick Santorum off, and it worked. But TBQH I do not understand why an image is so much worse than his name appearing in the text. He is in the text of the article anyway. Saying the image suddenly makes it personal while the text does not makes no sense to me, because the whole idea is basically a personal attack (in Misplaced Pages jargon). Von Restorff (talk) 22:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not covered as an attack on Rick Santorm in WP as this would violate WP:ATTACK and WP:COATRACK. It's covered as a notable event. As an event, it has very little to do with the political candidate. Adding a picture would turn the coverage of the event into coverage (attack) of a person and that is not acceptable. This article is specifically about the event and it is not a WP:COATRACK to hang the views of Rick Santorm on. --DHeyward (talk) 20:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Masood Khan

Masood Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

 Done I am not sure how this has gone through without being blocked but H.E. Mr. Masood Khan's introduction currently states:

"Masood Khan is a career criminal, robbing students of dignity and selling fake scholarships which are supposed to be free of charge this man belongs in prison along with his co-workers who is the current Pakistan Ambassador to China since September 2008"

Clearly this does not fit the profile of what is okay to be written on Misplaced Pages. Suggest that it is immediately edited to:

"Masood Khan is the current Pakistan Ambassador to China since September 2008"

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.237.253.30 (talk) 04:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

a vandal made an edit that has since been reverted by Avanu. Thanks for helping keep Misplaced Pages articles appropriate! -- The Red Pen of Doom 05:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

William Schnoebelen

William Schnoebelen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Question: If an individual makes claims on their website, and later removes those claims, is it appropriate to use an Internet Archive citation to the old version of the page?

Context: Depending on where you stand, Schnoebelen is either a repentant ex-cultist or a charlatan. According to Schnoebelen's account, he was a member of many different religious groups (including Catholicism, LDS, Wicca, Druidism, and several different Freemasonic rites) - all of them secretly dominated by Satanism - before converting to evangelical Christianity around 1985. His main notability lies in these claims, which have been published in his own books and used by other authors (Jack Chick's "Dark Dungeons" is based on WS's allegations). There seems to be general consensus that his account of this personal history should be represented as a claim, not as fact.

The page also reports some information about his early educational history: "He has a degree in Music and Education from Loras College (1971), a Master of Theology degree from St. Francis School of Pastoral Ministry (1980), an MA in Counselling from Liberty University (1990)". This was sourced from an earlier version of his website, available in archive here, and the article currently presents it as fact.

An editor has questioned the veracity of this material (in particular, it's not clear that a "St. Francis School of Pastoral Ministry" existed at the time). The current version of the site still mentions an 1980 theology degree but doesn't name the institution. I think we're agreed that the St. Francis claim shouldn't be presented as fact, but is it acceptable to present it as a claim cited to the archived bio? Or does the newer version mean that the content should be removed? --GenericBob (talk) 08:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The website is a self-published source regardless of the version. If there is any doubt about the veracity of the degrees this person received, a secondary source is needed. We shouldn't be stating the subject claimed X or Y based on archived versions of his website for WP:OR reasons. If a reputable source discusses the discrepancies, then we may also, but we should leave it to the pros. I think, especially with BLPs, that its important to avoid making assertions about claims based on inaccuracies we find as editors. (Hopefully I interpreted your question correctly!) The Interior (Talk) 17:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not clear on why referring to an archived version would be considered OR, if clearly described as a claim. I agree that these degrees should not be presented as fact without confirmation from some other source. But in Schnoebelen's case, the unconfirmed claims he makes are the main reason for his notability, so I think we have to be willing to report claims here (suitably flagged as claims). Since his claims include 'secret knowledge' about the workings of the Catholic church, a theology degree at a Catholic institution is relevant to that.

I do agree that it'd be OR to add some sort of "but this institution doesn't seem to exist" to the article, but AFAICT nobody's suggesting that. --GenericBob (talk) 22:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I guess what I'm seeing as OR from your summary here is that we're looking at a primary document (a website produced by the subject) and drawing a conclusion (subject claims credentials he may not have). This is too close to investigative journalism for me. We should cite investigative journalism, not perform it. The Interior (Talk) 02:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

That possibility is not being stated on the page; representing something as a claim isn't an assertion that it's untrue, just a hedge against the risk that it might be. (And if we remove the claim altogether, then we're still responding to that same risk.) --GenericBob (talk) 11:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Alan Davies

Alan Davies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

it says he posted a picture of him dressed as 'scouser' actually he meerly tweeted a link to a fancy dress website with a 'scouser' costume on. this is quite a different thing. one flippant and another requiring significantly more effort and needing to be more premeditated. this is misleading.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.169.158.130 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for letting us know. I removed that sentence. If anyone wishes to add it again, please provide a reliable source. Von Restorff (talk) 15:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

LaRouche movement

LaRouche movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article must conform to WP:BLP. I made some modest edits to the article - all on sound bases, and have been reverted leaving the article in a mess, as it was a COATRACK exemplar par excellance. And a place filled with rumour, anonymous allegations etc. Will others please examine the article - and note that I did indeed post on the article talk page as required. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Your "modest edits" were a 32k removal of sourced content. Discussion along the lines of "My whitewash wasn't a whitewash" is unhelpful - provide specific reasons for specific whitewashes, and trying to rally your friends to help you will hopefully backfire as people review your removal of information that is not about identifiable living persons, nor defamatory, nor unsourced. Hipocrite (talk) 15:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Horsefeathers. Removing anonymous allegations and the like is not a whitewash by a few miles. And I consider Larouche to be, in fact, an "identifiable living person." I guess you do not. Your revert changes, for example:

The LaRouche movement has been accused of violence, harassment, and heckling since the 1970s.

To

The LaRouche movement members have had a reputation for engaging in violence, harassment, and heckling since the 1970s. While LaRouche repeatedly repudiated violence, followers were reported in the 1970s and 1980s to have been charged with possession of weapons and explosives along with a number of violent crimes, including kidnapping and assault. However there were few, if any, convictions on these charges.

Note the "no convictions" part of what is there. And the clear inference that he "repeatedly repudiated violence" BUT "followers were charged ..." Blatant BLP violation.

The alleged harassing of individuals and organizations is reportedly systematic and strategic

Note the word "alleged"

In the 1960s and 1970s, LaRouche were accused of fomenting violence at anti-war rallies with a small band of followers\

In the mid-1973 the movement formed a Revolutionary Youth Movement to recruit and politicize members of street gangs in New York City and other eastern cities

Anonymous allegations R Us? You changed

In November 1973, the FBI issued an internal memorandum that was later released under the Freedom of Information Act.

to

November 1973, the FBI allegedly issued an internal memorandum that was later released under the Freedom of Information Act.

Seriously -- don't you think that if a memo was released that it probably had been written? And on and on and on with the muckraking mess. Larouche may be Satan incarnate, but that does not abrogate NPOV and BLP concerns. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

From the top. Violence - who is the identifiable living person? The remainder of the accusations and allegations are sourced. The only source for the memo is the unreliable larouche organization. If you can source the memo, it's existence can go from an allegation to a fact. Hipocrite (talk) 15:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

It is probably a good idea to continue this discussion at the article's talkpage. Von Restorff (talk) 15:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

110K here, 180K on BLP, and more than 300K in other articles - mainly repetitious. Seems a teensy bit obsessive for a minot political figure - more than Lincoln gets I suspect. But heck Hipocrite accused me of "killing" another editor (you killed your opposition) , so this is par for the course <g>. Collect (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Mostly due to the huge number of paid editors that show up to support the article, arrange offsite wikipedia lobbying forums about the article, and sockpuppet to disrupt the article, but hey, blame the ref! Hipocrite (talk) 16:07, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you intimating that any editors recently on that article are "paid" or "lobbying offsite" or "sockpuppets"? Make your claims on the proper boards, but bandying them here seems less than civil. Cheers. I would note that so far you are upset with an edit where I removed "however" and "instead" and "amid claims of vote fraud" where there is no basis for that line in the article (LaRouche was not remotely connected to it AFAICT). Collect (talk) 16:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Define "recently." Hipocrite (talk) 16:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Try last six months? Collect (talk) 16:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Hipocrite. Collect's 'my whitewash isn't really a whitewash' position is unpersuasive in the extreme. The above statement was sourced to reliable sources, and clearly in-line with BLP. Raul654 (talk) 16:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The "alleged" memo which was released? Why do we need "allegedly" there? There are images of it! You can argue with any interpretation, but the memo exists. , And how is that a "whitewash"? And so on. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Images from an unreliable source are unreliable. Find a reliable source. Hipocrite (talk) 17:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The "unreliable image" is already in the article. Do you trust the LA Times? , NY Times? . OTOH, if you feel the Commons image is a fake - ask to have it deleted there on that basis. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't participate much on commons, and I don't know their deletion policies, nor do I care to learn them. The memos in question are different than the memos to which you refer - neither of the images has the phrase "our man here claims Lewis has collected info against LaRouche." You seem highly uncritical when looking at sources that agree with LaRouche and highly critical of sources that disagree with him. Why is that? Hipocrite (talk) 17:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

You appear to dislike the image. Commons has a deletion procedure. If you do not like the image, carping here does not affect Commons. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

No, I just don't think it's reliably genuine. I don't believe that's a reason for deletion at commons. Hipocrite (talk) 18:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

If it helps, David Aaronovitch's Voodoo Histories has a chapter on the movement. 86.** IP (talk) 17:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Setting aside the minutia of each of LaRouche's bizarre claims, it is absurd to remove as much sourced material as you did(1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8), claiming BLP violations. Most especially from a subject that is well known for their extreme, fringe views(a,b). This is definitely not a BLP issue. Take it to the Talk page, and don't keep removing sourced content without consensus. Dave Dial (talk) 18:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Very little was removed which is not also currently covered in multiple Misplaced Pages articles. How many places on Misplaced Pages ought each claim be placed? BTW, contentious claims which impact a "living person" are officially "BLP issues." Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm so confused. Now you say you didn't remove things which were covered elsewhere. Previously, you said you were removing BLP violations (this is where you report BLP violations, after all). Are you saying you believe the BLP vios are repeated elsewhere? Hipocrite (talk) 18:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Such exist - you were unfortunate enough to select as the first edit to be discussed on the article talk page an extraordinarily unremarkable edit. And yes - some BLP vios are repeated elsewhere, but I rely on the adage "sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof" or as others would say "Lo alecha ham'lacha ligmor." It is not up to us to complete the work. Collect (talk) 19:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

"Ligmor" is a pretty foreign concept for Misplaced Pages -- it's pretty much all "alecha". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:38, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Donald Tsang

Donald Tsang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The issue has cropped up again. Please see previous discussions listed below:

• Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive149#Donald Tsang
• Wikipedia_talk:MOSBIO#Exceptions to honorific titles (permalink)
• Talk:Donald Tsang#New discussion: "Sir"
• Talk:Donald Tsang#KBE

Please see the BLPN link above. There was unanimity among those who commented on this page that the honorific "Sir" should not be included before the subject's name because he does not continue to use it as well as the fact that he is no longer a British subject. I am quite disappointed by Jiang's attitude throughout the debate, they have been quite obstinate with their position and have refused to accept consensus that was the result of these discussions. I request further comments on this page, and possible intervention, so that this dispute can be resolved as early as possible. Thank you. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 15:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Marcel Worms‎

Marcel Worms‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I nominated this article for deletion under blpprod, which was removed by User:Nikkimaria on the basis that it has links to the subjects website, specifically images of what are apparently newspaper articles, although they give no indication of what newspapers they are from. I believe that this is not a basis for removing the blpprod per WP:USERG, Nikki believes WP:SELFPUB applies, so since User talk:Nikkimaria#Marcel Worms isn't getting anywhere some other opinions would be nice --Jac16888 21:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Do some WP:BEFORE and then send it to AfD. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

(ec)You misunderstand my position: I argue that the blpprod should never have been added (because the article has sources, even if they're not high-quality ones). Per WP:BLPPROD, "To place a BLPPROD tag, the process requires that the article contain no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc.), which support any statements made about the person in the biography. Please note that this is a different criterion than is used for sources added after the placement of the tag." (my emphasis). Nikkimaria (talk) 21:38, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I question your interpretation of that, "in any form" refers to the way it is set in the article, not the reliablity of said source--Jac16888 21:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I suppose it's a moot point, since the article had references without a reflist that I admit I didn't see, but I still believe your interpretation of blpprod to be incorrect--Jac16888 21:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Check past discussions regarding BLPPROD - there have previously been attempts to limit "sources" to "reliable sources", but those have been rejected. Current consensus is that any source is acceptable. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

If that's the case then it is utterly ludicrous and completely undermines the entire purpose of blpprod - to ensure every blp has at least one reliable source. How would that happen if you're not allowed to blpprod if there are non-reliable sources on the article--Jac16888 22:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

BLP:PROD itself is completely ludicrous, it was a ridiculous solution to a ridiculous problem, thousands of biographies with no references whatsoever. So it is just a purely mechanical test, is there a source or not? It was never designed to address actual quality, either of articles or sources Franamax (talk) 23:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• I tweaked it up a bit - I didn't add the wp:notability template - Subject seems to have some limited note - if anyone is interested to improve please do - if not then AFD is beckoning - Youreallycan 22:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
• User:Nikkimaria, an administrator, has been replacing uncited personal details and promotional content - I offered discussion but they simply replaced the content and I have been forced to give them an edit warring warning - Please replace any personal details and promotional detail but please add a specific reliable source to support it - preferably an independent one - thanks- Youreallycan 23:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• I've done no such thing - I quite clearly included references for the material I replaced. I also responded to your post on my talk page. Kindly retract your false accusation. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The bit about the Catalan composer Mompou gives Worms a total of 3 words in the full article ( Marcel Worms – piano) - I think that reference is insufficient to count for notability, or to justify the full claim made. Collect (talk) 12:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Alisher Usmanov

Alisher Usmanov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please review the history of this article. You will see that a certain section regarding allegations by former ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray, have been repeatedly removed and re-added, despite being reliably sourced. Craig Murray has never been sued for libel in connection with these allegations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clark42 (talk • contribs) 01:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages has little to no interest in whether a third party has or has not been sued in connection with allegations that he may or may not have made about the subject of an article. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Properly sourced material is being repeatedly removed. I've also posted a note on the neutral point of view page. I've mentioned it here as Usmanov is a living person. The fact that Murray hasn't been sued suggests that the removed material is not libellous. Sorry I forgot to sign my post above.Clark42 (talk) 01:36, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a court of law, therefore we cannot help you to determine whether any given material is or is not libellous. Further, it does not follow that establishing that some material is not libellous (if you should choose to do so in a court of law) proves that the material is appropriate for inclusion on Misplaced Pages.

If there are issues with edit-warring, then WP:3RR, or places near there, may be useful. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:47, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Demiurge1000. I should have been more clear. Usmanov's lawyers threatened Murray and his blog-host with libel under UK law. Murray re-hosted his blog outside the UK. As Murray, a UK resident, was never sued for libel, despite directly challenging Usmanov to do so, the threats were presumably an attempt to silence him. Now it appears that someone has been repeatedly removing record of the dispute from Misplaced Pages.

The primary rule of BoLP is that articles must not include libellous content, so it seemed appropriate to post a notice here, where more experienced editors familiar with BoLP and libel issues would see it.Clark42 (talk) 02:32, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I have no problems with your mentioning the dispute here, as (apart from anything else) it may assist in drawing the attention of additional neutral editors to keep an eye on (or deal with problems in) the article.

We should be careful of making any assumptions about Usmanov's intentions, nor about exactly who is editing the article.

I personally would not agree with the statement that the "primary rule" of Misplaced Pages's policy on BLPs is that they must not include libellous content, although others might. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:46, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Bobby Jindal

Bobby Jindal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The subject's legal name is Piyush Jindal, but he is usually known by his self selected nickname Bobby. When the full name was removed from the opening sentence I reverted based on WP:FULLNAME and contributed to the discussion on the talk page. Another editor then reverted back. To my mind this is an uncontroversial MOS issue, but would appreciate some more opinions since I don't want to revert again, but don't want the article to fail to reflect the MOS either. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Was he legally elected with the name "Bobby" on the ballot? Did the ballot say "Piyush"? If so, that is his "legal name." It is sufficient that a "birth name" be in the body of the article - but silly to insist on it as being the name in the lede. Collect (talk) 12:02, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you just make this stuff up? WP:FULLNAME states that his full name should be in the lede. Review Jimmy Carter. Hipocrite (talk) 12:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Further, if your made-up "appears on ballot" criteria holds, you need "scare" quotes around "Bobby," as there were "scare" quotes on the ballots. Hipocrite (talk) 12:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Not on all it appears -- might you link to a ballot with the quotes? I consider my position per to be a rational position. Do you demur? Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

No, I do not. If I link to a ballot with quotes, will you put "scare" quotes in his name? Hipocrite (talk) 12:38, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

If his name was legally changed or it is unclear what the legal status is, I think it would be best to use Jimi Hendrix style with both name and "born as" name in the lede. If his legal name is Piyush, then it should be listed Jimmy Carter style in the lede. The article title and all references to him should be "Bobby Jindal" since that is his commonly used name. I only see Piyush being relevant in the lede and the section where they describe his nickname. This shouldn't be used as a springboard to astroturf WP with Piyush and I don't see that happening. --DHeyward (talk) 12:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

1. "THE LAROUCHE NETWORK " Milton R. Copulos Senior Policy Analyst, Heritage Foundation, July 19, 1984
2. Blum & Montgomery (1979)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution