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

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

Revision as of 07:27, 4 February 2008 editAlison (talk \| contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators47,243 edits →Holy Ayaan: deleted← Previous edit		Revision as of 08:06, 4 February 2008 edit undo76.87.47.110 (talk) →Seemingly gratuitous insults in Ralph Nader's presidential campaigns Next edit →
Line 776:		Line 776:

	:::::Actually, it is ] who is arguing ''for'' the inclusions of the slurs, and has been reverting them back into the article; this is why I brought the issue here). ] (]) 18:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)		:::::Actually, it is ] who is arguing ''for'' the inclusions of the slurs, and has been reverting them back into the article; this is why I brought the issue here). ] (]) 18:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

			:] emerged during the early 2007 edit wars around the use of the ''Atlantic Monthly'' quote in the lead of the ] article and is in agreement with ] on this and related matters. Often emerges during Ralph Nader-related disputes. FYI, ] (]) 08:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

	::::::Thank you for pointing out my name use error. I do recognize what the players are up to, though I copied & pasted the name incorrectly. :) --] <sup>]</sup> 20:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)		::::::Thank you for pointing out my name use error. I do recognize what the players are up to, though I copied & pasted the name incorrectly. :) --] <sup>]</sup> 20:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Line 807:		Line 809:

	I think the quote is quite okay. We're dealing with a presidential candidate here who better have a tough hide. ] (]) 23:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)		I think the quote is quite okay. We're dealing with a presidential candidate here who better have a tough hide. ] (]) 23:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

			:Subjective judgment regarding width or endurance of Ralph Nader's skin aside, the content does not fit with ]. ] (]) 08:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

	== Frank LaGrotta ==		== Frank LaGrotta ==

Revision as of 08:06, 4 February 2008

v t e Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards

Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here. Shortcuts

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.

Search this noticeboard & archives
Sections older than 7 days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

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.

Notes for volunteers

Notes for volunteers
How do I mark an incident as resolved or addressed? You can use `{{Resolved\|Your reason here ~~~~}}` at the top of the section containing the report. At least leave a comment about a BLP report, if doing so might spare other editors the task of needlessly repeating some of what you have done. More ways to help Categorize: Potential BLPs Monitor recent changes to BLPs: BLP watchlist (may be long to load) Remove BLP violations: Unsourced statements, All unreferenced BLPs (recently created), BLPs lacking sources, Negative unsourced content Possible vandalism or libelous edits (as detected by edit filters 39, 339 and 189), Removal of Category:Living people (filter 117) Check if these people could in fact be dead, or if articles about them were removed Manually search BLPs for violations by using advanced search parameters. This link will search for X in the category of BLPs. Change X in the URL to the keyword you are looking for; alternatively, type `X incategory: Living_people` (the underscore is necessary) in the search bar. Request article protection, report edit-warring users or report a specific user (in contentious topics recognized by ArbCom or elsewhere). Today's random unreferenced BLP Chidanand Saraswati (random unreferenced BLP of the day for 23 Dec 2024 - provided by User:AnomieBOT/RandomPage via WP:RANDUNREF)

How do I mark an incident as resolved or addressed?: You can use {{Resolved|Your reason here ~~~~}} at the top of the section containing the report. At least leave a comment about a BLP report, if doing so might spare other editors the task of needlessly repeating some of what you have done.
More ways to help

Categorize: Potential BLPs
Monitor recent changes to BLPs: BLP watchlist (may be long to load)
Remove BLP violations: Unsourced statements, All unreferenced BLPs (recently created), BLPs lacking sources, Negative unsourced content
Possible vandalism or libelous edits (as detected by edit filters 39, 339 and 189), Removal of Category:Living people (filter 117)
Check if these people could in fact be dead, or if articles about them were removed
Manually search BLPs for violations by using advanced search parameters. This link will search for X in the category of BLPs. Change X in the URL to the keyword you are looking for; alternatively, type X incategory: Living_people (the underscore is necessary) in the search bar.
Request article protection, report edit-warring users or report a specific user (in contentious topics recognized by ArbCom or elsewhere).

Today's random unreferenced BLP: Chidanand Saraswati (random unreferenced BLP of the day for 23 Dec 2024 - provided by User:AnomieBOT/RandomPage via WP:RANDUNREF)

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

Centralized discussion

This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference.
Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump.

Please edit the main page of the noticeboard.

This discussion has been archived. Please do not modify it.

The following is an archived debate. Please do not modify it.

Ongoing WP:BLP-related concerns

The following subsections may apply to any or all Biographies of living persons.

Unreferenced BLPs

There are over 8300 articles on living people that have the {{unreferenced}} tag. This is a list of them. (warning: pretty big page) —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 00:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh shit, that's worse than I thought.--Doc 00:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Just looking through a few of them, they have the unreferenced tag at the top but with no indication in the text what the problematic unreferenced material is. It would be good if people could be encouraged not to use the general unreferenced tag, but to add the fact/citation-needed tag to the contentious issues. SlimVirgin 00:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, {{fact}} should NEVER be used on contentious issues on BLPs. Uncited contentious material should simply be removed.--Doc 02:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Aye, and originally the list was going to include {{fact}}-transcluders AND {{unreferenced}}-transcluders but the latter is a bigger priority, so let's do that first. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 11:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

For now, I have completed my search. The result: 17 lists of articles (16 of which contain around 1000 articles) on living people that contain {{unreferenced}}, {{unreferencedsect}}, {{more sources}}, or {{fact}}. Over 16,000 articles on living people that are not completely referenced. Let's get working. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 16:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Unless the policy has morphed again, an {{unreferenced}} BLP that contains no controversial statement is not a violation; many of these probably qualify. {{fact}} is probably more serious. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

This list was updated again recently; as of May 19, 2008, there were 14,679 totally unreferenced biographies and 13,405 biographies with the 'fact' tag. Let's get to work! -- phoebe / (talk to me) 00:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Working mainly in visual arts articles, I come across a lot of unreferenced BLPs. The majority are written by a new user, whose only contributions are to that article and related, i.e. most likely either the subject of the article or an agent for them. It would be interesting to see how many unreferenced BLPs fit this category. Ty 10:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a FYI, BLP's with insufficient sourcing should preferably get the template {{BLPsources}} (Category:BLP articles lacking sources), while completely unsourced BLP's should get {{BLPunsourced}}. The latter is brandnew so the Category:Unreferenced BLPs is nearly empty. I hope these can be of help! Fram (talk) 15:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking of some form of triage to look at harm mimimization given the huge number of unreferenced bits and pieces. Would it be helpful to have two extra templates - one which ran along the lines of "This highly controversial material needs to be referenced" and one for "moderately controversial...". The idea being the unreferenced sections within BLPs are then given some form of rank in terms of urgency? Does this already exist? This may make the list somewhat more manageable as editors can find an easy place to figure out what to prioritize. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, the first ("highly controversial") needs to be removed asap, not templated. The second is debatable. I don't think it can do any harm, but I'll focus for now on tagging the completely unsourced BLP's. Fram (talk) 09:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, good point - I was musing on ones where it is/was common knowledge maybe. I will try to think of/look for some. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

sohh.com

Similar to whutdat.com (see below), I'm seeing an alarming number of hip-hop biographies attributing SOHH.com as a source. It claims to be a magazine, but it really looks like an over-sensationalized blog to me. At the time of this writing, there are 310+ biographical pages linking to this site. Nearly all of the links are either dead or redirect to a blog site which contain highly questionable tabloid-like articles. Example headline: "Courtney Love Needs to Shut Her “Hole”! Junkie Grunge Queen Thinks VMAs Too "Urban”" Community input is requested here. JBsupreme (talk) 08:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

You are indeed looking at an over-sensationalized blog with your example headline. That blog post clearly contains the text . So draw a distinction between blog posts and sohh news articles.

Special:Linksearch/blogs.sohh.com gives a more manageable 24 cites that probably could stand some scrutiny. 86.44.24.76 (talk) 05:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Whutdat.com

Special:Linksearch/*.whutdat.com

I'm witnessing some hip-hop biographies being sourced to a website called "whutdat.com". The site looks like a blog to me but I can't really be too sure these days. Is this a reliable source or should it be thrown out? My senses tell me its the latter but I'd like a second or third opinion. Thanks, JBsupreme (talk) 08:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

NNDB Notable Names Database

Special:Linksearch/*.nndb.com

Is the National Names Database a reliable source? The Talk:NNDB page discussion leans against using it. One editor mentions that Jimbo is very against it, especially as a primary source. It seems to be used quite frequently on biographies. I've challenged it on the Paul Wolfowitz page, but would appreciate more input from others. Notmyrealname 20:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not a reliable source for any sort of controversial or disputed information. FCYTravis 22:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Is this an official policy or just an opinion? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Notmyrealname (talk • contribs) 19:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

From WP:RS: "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." We do not know who the authors of the NNDB are, and thus we have no way of knowing how credible or trustworthy the information is. What we do know is that many of the articles (c.f. the NNDB article on Michael Jackson) are written from a clearly-biased perspective with the intent of generating maximum lulz. Our biographies of living persons policy demands the absolute strictest standards of sourcing and neutrality when we maintain a biography of a living person, and further requires that we use great caution in sourcing any claim which may be controversial, derogatory or disputed. Citing NNDB for something like a birthplace is one thing, citing it for a claim that someone was arrested for <insert scandalous crime here> is entirely another. Even then, it shouldn't be cited unless it's absolutely the last resort - and if it is, we probably shouldn't have an article on the subject anyway. FCYTravis 21:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I ran into one case where the NNDB said a person was born in 1954 but his WP article said he was drafted into the army in 1962. Steve Dufour 00:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's the quote from Jimbo Wales-Why on earth should we consider it a valid source? It seems to me to be riddled with errors, many of which were lifted directly from Misplaced Pages. To my knowledge, it should be regarded like Misplaced Pages: not a valid source for anything in Misplaced Pages. We need to stick to REAL reliable sources, you know, like newspapers, magazines, books. Random websites are a very bad idea.--Jimbo Wales 18:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC) Notmyrealname 02:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

NNDB is definitely an unreliable source, especially when it's about sexual orientation, risk factors and trivia. As for the newspapers, their reliability is often questionable. By principle, the tabloids must be considered most unreliable sources... Bachibz, 04 August 2007

The NNDB contains reams of errors and misclassifications (calling all world leaders "heads of state", for instance, or calling all cardiac deaths "heart failure" - that one's inexcusably stupid). There's no way to correct the errors (most corrections end up thrown out from what I can see) and the database owners seem to care more about sensationalism than fact. For some years they reported the Catherine the Great horse story as if it were gospel truth. If the NNDB said the sun rose in the east, I'd verify first. Entertaining but wholly unreliable. --NellieBly (talk) 09:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Jewish Virtual Library

Special:Linksearch/*.jewishvirtuallibrary.org

There seems to be a similar problem as above with the Jewish Virtual Library, especially as a source for biographical information. Sourcing seems to be very vague and often cites wikipedia itself. A few examples: , , , . As with the NNDB, if a source is determined to be unreliable, shouldn't it be prohibited from being listed in the references section as well? It seems that this might be used as a way to sneak in information that otherwise wouldn't make it into the wiki article. (I've tried to raise this issue on the Talk:Jewish Virtual Library page and the Misplaced Pages talk:Reliable sources pages as well but this seems to be a particular problem for biographical info).Notmyrealname 12:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I would treat it as a convenience source, with great care taken about POV. The sponsorship is by "The AMERICAN-ISRAELI COOPERATIVE ENTERPRISE (AICE) was established in 1993 as a nonprofit 501(c)(3), nonpartisan organization to strengthen the U.S.-Israel relationship by emphasizing the fundamentals of the alliance — the values our nations share." The material posted there is only as authoritative as the source or poster may be authoritative--it always gives the source, but only sometimes the exact link. Looking at their index of biographies, the individual ones link to a variety of useful sources of varying reliability. It obviously cannot be used to prove anything contentious--but since it usually omits negative information, little contentious is likely to be found.DGG 21:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, one concern is that it's a back-door way of implying a person's religion when there isn't a proper way to do it that complies with WP:BLP. It's extremely rare for them to site any of their sources with specificity (I haven't seen any cases of it other than "Republican Jewish Committee" or "Misplaced Pages"), so there's no easy way to fact check them. I don't see how this resolves any of the concerns that Jimmy Wales raises above about the NNDB. Notmyrealname 22:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Notmyrealname on this, we should not be citing the Jewish Virtual Library for any living person biography. JBsupreme (talk) 08:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Can we also agree that for similar and even stronger reasons citing http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-entertainment-folder.html is deprecated? Ϣere Spiel Chequers 17:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Oy, vey. Thanks for introducing me to THAT little slice of heaven. :) I agree, it should not be a source for info in any BLP. David in DC (talk) 18:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I've now searched for Jewwatch and only found Jew Watch, Google bomb, Steven Weinstock and Zionist Occupation Government, all of which makes sense to me. But I don't think that wiki search finds links such as the one on this page or the one I reverted. Anyone know how to search for Websites being quoted in references? Ϣere Spiel Chequers 10:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I raised this at the London meetup and have been given a couple of techniques; googling this way gets reassuringly only 40 hits, one in Hebrew which I doubt needs translating and most of the rest in archives and discussions on user pages about hate sites. But on Special:linksearch jewwatch.com comes up 69 times including some that I think need checking out. Ϣere Spiel Chequers 17:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

f1fanatic

Special:Linksearch/*.f1fanatic.co.uk

This site is being used as a reference on a number of Formula 1 biographies. It appears to be fan-run and self-published site, without the fact-checking and editorial oversight WP:RS requires, and as such may not meet standards outlined in WP:BLP#Sources. Most, if not all, of the links were added by the site's owner(s) and/or author(s), which raises additional WP:COI issues. The site has other problems, for instance displaying images with no copyright info (http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/wallpapers/) and linking to copyvio Youtube clips (http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2006/06/18/100-greatest-f1-videos-part-i/). There has been some prior talk page discussion about the link's appropriateness (f1fanatic.co.uk as a reference, External link - F1F biography). --Muchness 10:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

WhosDatedWho.com

Special:Linksearch/*.whosdatedwho.com

Not a lot of links so far, but watch for this site to be used as a reference supporting celebrity relationships. I've started searching for reliable-source verification for the information (some of it is no doubt accurate) and removing the link and any relationships that can't be reliably verified elsewhere. From the editorial policy of the site:

“

Information contained on the WhosDatedWho.com website listed has not been independently verified by WhosDatedWho.com. WhosDatedWho.com does not and can not review all materials posted to the WhosDatedWho.com Web Site by users, and WhosDatedWho.com is not responsible for any such materials posted by users.

”

--Risker 04:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I am a representative of this site and appreciate that wikipedia needs accurate sources for its information. I acknowledge your concerns and will ensure these are taken into account in our future site update. We are working to improve the accuracy of the information posted on our site and are introducing a verification mechanism in the near future. We recently gave editors the ability to post links to sources for every relationship published on the site. I would also like to state that like wikipedia, all of our content is edited by editors, with our senior editors having ultimate control over what is published.

--Aamair (talk) 07:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

No matter how reliable the information on the WhosDatedWho.com website is supposedly made, it doesn't change the fact that the website is a tertiary source, like Misplaced Pages. This means it definately can't be used to assert notability, and will probably never be reliable enough to cite content either. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 13:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

If we still have a representative of the site watching this, is there any way its domain name can be changed to WhosDatedWhom.com? For the impressionable kids out there? :) MastCell 19:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It's true that WDW can't be used as a source itself, but it might be used to find sources that can be included. —Ashley Y 00:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP#Reliable sources policy section itself

Edit warring, protection, unprotection, non-consensus changes, edit warring, protection by administrator ~~involved in previously editing this project page~~. For contexts of problems affecting the protected current version of this section of the project policy page, please see Misplaced Pages talk:Biographies of living persons (and archives). Thank you. --NYScholar 00:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- As the protecting admin, I'll leave a quick note regarding the part about "protection by administrator involved in previously editing this project page". First, there are probably relatively few admins who haven't edited a policy page, including WP:BLP. Second, although the page is on my watchlist, I have for the last month or so stayed away from the constant disputes that seem to plague it. My last edit, and the only one affected by the dispute which led to this page protection, was made 10 days ago (on August 18). It consisted solely of a minor rewording and did not constitute a change in meaning. As far as the two issues currently under dispute ... I don't feel strongly about either of them. Third, the version I protected, inevitably The Wrong Version, was the one that happened to be there when I noticed the escalating (both in the nature of comments and frequency of reverts) edit-warring. — Black Falcon 00:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  - I appreciate the reply here. The problems do not seem, however, to be the kind that further discussion is going to change. Discussion of the same problems has been ongoing for over three months. I think some degree of non-editorial intervention may be necessary. So many of us commenting on the policy statement have strong views about it that it is hard to reach what Misplaced Pages calls "consensus" and changes to the page have not, in my own and some others' views, improved it, so that the currently-protected version does not state what it used to (pre-August 12) even though there is clear disagreement about some phrases that have been deleted from the current version. Many editors (including several administrators) have expressed the view that the phrases deleted should remain. --NYScholar 00:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
    - Possibly (the length of the "External links" section on the talk page, combined with the absence of any tangible result, is certainly not a reason for optimism). However, continued discussion (even if it leads nowhere) is undoubtedly more productive than edit-warring. Perhaps it may be useful to invite some new participants to the discussion by posting notices to the talk pages of other policy pages? — Black Falcon 00:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
      - Following your suggestion above, I have posted a message about these concerns in Misplaced Pages talk:Verifiability#Re: WP:BLP#Reliable sources (talk page of WP:V); Misplaced Pages talk:No original research#Re: WP:BLP#Reliable sources (talk page of WP:NOR), and Misplaced Pages talk:Neutral point of view#Re: WP:BLP#Reliable sources (talk page of Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view), and in WP:RSN#Re: WP:BLP#Reliable sources (WP:RSN). Thanks for the suggestion. --NYScholar 18:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Porn actors' birth names

This discussion has been collapsed.

The last several days worth of edits at Lukas Ridgeston, Tim Hamilton (porn star), and the March 14 entry for Johan Paulik raise serious BLP issues. Would someone review them please? David in DC (talk) 01:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes I will address them. When an actor's real name is reliably sourced and widely disseminated it may be placed on the article. Addresses and phone numbers should not be placed on the article. Repeated removal of well sourced and widely disseminated names should be regarded, in my opinion, as vandalism. John celona (talk) 13:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

What about the BLP policy of presumption in the favor of privacy, especially when it doesn't help the WP project in any way. BLP policy states that respecting the basic human dignity of the subject is essential, and other editors have noted that "outing" these people's birth names (it's ok to use their public stage name) assists in stalking and potential danger to the subjects. There is no real benefit and there is real potential for harm. This is straight from BLP Policy: "When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated OR HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY CONCEALED **which is the case for these subjects**, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context" --Jkp212 (talk) 14:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

This surely must not be the first time such matters have been discussed on Misplaced Pages. Does anyone have pointers to previous threads? I could imagine making the answer depend on whether a large, mainstream publication had revealed the persons' real name. If the real name has already appeared in the New York Times or Newsweek then keeping it out of the article is probably not worth the effort, and has little privacy value. EdJohnston (talk) 17:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

As you well know the phrase OR HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY CONCEALED which you so helpfully capitalise is immediately followed by AS IN CERTAIN COURT CASES. Since there are no court cases and the actors names are VERY widely disseminated they belong in the article. They are actors which is as much not a "non-public" occupation as can be imagined. John celona (talk) 18:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The names have not been mentioned in any large, mainstream publication and are NOT widely disseminated. Widely is certainly more than 5 obscure gay porn blog sources for Tim Hamilton (the interview in question published twice!) or one source only for Lukas Ridgeston plus about 14 gay porn listings with no real value at all. For Lukas Ridgeston the name has been intentionally disclosed in the review of that gay magazine. This has been done against the expressed wish of the actor and production company Bel Ami. AS IN CERTAIN COURT CASES is NOT a concluding enumeration but an example. Even with English not being my native language I can read the difference. So no need for a court case here either. There is no real benefit in publishing the names and no significant loss of context in not doing so. On the contrary revealing the names in this or in any future case violates the WP principles mentioned by Jkp212. Putting them back in repeatedly should be regarded, in my opinion, as vandalism. Just as John celona said "an actor's real name ... may be placed on the article". But it does not have to be placed, which is in accordance with the BLP policy of presumption in the favor of privacy. (Jamesbeat (talk) 19:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

"As in certain court cases" is one example of where a name has been intentionally concealed. Actors such as these who choose to have stages names are also intentionally concealing their birth name, which they have every right to do. --Jkp212 (talk) 20:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The Brandy Alexandre page is the model. Please look at the code. If you hit "edit this page", the first thing you see at the top is code from Jimmy Wales asking that her birth name not be revealed. Need a better authority than that? David in DC (talk) 21:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I have to say User:EdJohnston makes a good point. Where is the prior discussion on this? I don't see any for Brandy Alexandre, even on the talk page. Was it archived? What about for Hamilton or Ridgeston or any of the others? Viewing the prior consensus on the subject would be most helpful in this discussion. Thanks. --Ebyabe (talk) 23:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

What it actually says is "As a courtesy while we discuss the issues surrounding this article". In other words-temporary. Plus, what wikipedia regulation says Luke Ford is not a reliable source. He is on dozens of other pages. provide the source please. as you have been told on many other issues: this is Wiki-pedia not David-pedia. John celona (talk) 00:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

For everything that needs saying, read the archive here: It sets forth the views of Anon E. Mouse, Jimbo, and SavvyCat (Ms. Alexandre) as fully as necessary. About outing porn actor's names AND about the reliability of Luke Ford as a source. David in DC (talk) 03:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I know that a number of the participants in WP:P* (myself included) routinely pull out uncited names from porn star articles on simple WP:BLP issues... what if the name's wrong? And there are other stars besides Brandy who have had their names pulled from the article at the star's own request... Sasha Grey is one I remember offhand. Beyond that, the principles that John Celona mentions above ("an actor's real name is reliably sourced and widely disseminated") apply, and no, IMDB is not a reliable source for the name! Now if we can only get all the various editions to follow that last point; I know of one porn star complaining about a foreign language Wiki that has their real name on it with IMDB as a "source", and her parents were getting hassled on it as a result of it (it's Katja Kassin & the German version)... unfortunately the Wiki in question doesn't seem to be responding to her complaints. Tabercil (talk) 06:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Some insight into User:John celona's attitude towards privacy and harm reduction may be gleaned from a Deletion Review a year ago, specifically this comment, this comment and this comment. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 14:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Outing people is bad. I dealt with porn star names (e.g. Tawnee Stone, Jordan Capri) way back in the dark ages before BLP even existed and even then we all agreed that Misplaced Pages should not be the primary venue for locating information such as this. If the mainstream media has published someone's identity, then okay, but we shall not rely on the blog of the guy who claims to have gone to high school with the actress. Nor shall we rely on the name that appears on the obscure trademark filing for the "character" (yes, this seriously came up). If you are going to publish information that may have real world consequences for someone then you ought to have sources that are at least as reliable and as visible as Misplaced Pages itself before doing so. Dragons flight (talk) 15:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

If we change this policy we need to change it universally, or not at all, and have admin deletes of history of reference to birth names. --BenBurch (talk) 17:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

This is going to come up repeatedly in the future. In the Brandy Alexandre case, some editors seemed to think that we were just applying the reliable source policy to birth names, and only including those that were reliably attested. But the above discussion tells me that some editors *still* don't want real names included even when published in sources that would be accepted as reliable for other purposes. If this is the case, we should know. EdJohnston (talk) 18:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

This is really disturbing to me. Someone really needs to explain to User:John celona that Misplaced Pages isn't just a place that reports every lurid detail about sexually related articles. He's strongly argued for the inclusion of all material related to underage sex crime victims multiple times (as evidenced by CalendarWatcher) and now he's trying to disseminate private details about porn actors because marginally reliable sources (and frankly some unreliable sources) report them. Ugh. No. If he wants to start a wiki of his own that exploits these people he is welcome to do so, but I don't think that kind of attitude is appropriate here. Ani Mate 18:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that a name attested by a reliable source should still be suppressed at the request of the subject? We need to know if you are asking for a policy change or not. EdJohnston (talk) 18:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I would say a policy change is in order. If someone's lone claim to fame is pornography and they want to reclaim some of their privacy, then absolutely we should remove their real name. In fact, I would argue that more often than not, real names shouldn't be used unless they are widely used by the mainstream media. For that to happen, I'm thinking most porn stars would have to have some other claim to fame besides having sex on film. Ani Mate 18:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I am in agreement with a policy change. There is no gain to "outing" people like this. --Jkp212 (talk) 19:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

So let's throw an hypothetical example out to see how this proposed change works... say Savanna Samson comes to us and says "I don't want my real name used in the article". If you look at the article, there is a reference for it which points directly to an article in the New York Times, which is probably one of the more reliable sources out there and also one of the more visible ones (the third highest circulation according to List of newspapers in the United States by circulation). So... do we pull the name or not? Tabercil (talk) 20:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

In that case I would say probably not, though that would ultimately depend on why she wanted her name removed. The argument for removal of real names is that these people use pseudonyms to obscure their identities. While she will always be better known as Savanna Samson, I think it's clear with that interview and her other projects that she has no intention of obfuscating her identity anymore. Ani Mate 21:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I lean toward yes. We take her birth name out, but use the NYT article as a source for some other fact, if it backs one. NYT has it's editorial discretion and we have ours. Ours protects the privacy (and safety) of living persons more than theirs does. That's not censorship, it's editing.

I can imagine a case where the answer is no. If Savanna ever kills someone on a porn set, the names are gonna be linked. Or if she testifies before Congress, under her birth name, in support of branding strippers and porn stars' with a Scarlet X. But we ought to set the bar pretty high in favor of omitting birth names. David in DC (talk) 21:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

My own personal thinking is probably not to remove the name in this instance. Why? Because of the visibility and reliability of the source of the name, unless it can be shown to be in error, removing the name would be akin to closing the barn door long after the horse has disappeared over the horizon. However, if the source was much thinner, then I can the name being removed. However, we should clearly have a requirement that the real name must be sourced; I know the the guidelines for WP:P* (which perhaps is the work group closest to the subject) are clear as seen here. Tabercil (talk) 21:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Just because something is verifiable and well sourced, doesn't mean we include it in articles. WP:BLP often trumps reliable sources and verifiability. Ani Mate 21:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

If that's a policy change, what is the limitation on it? Any subject of a biography can ask for their real name to be excluded, no matter how well known it is? EdJohnston (talk) 21:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Is it specifically laid out in policy? No, but there is a presumption in favor of the privacy of marginally notable people. Exact birth dates are routinely removed for the marginally notable (and that is policy), and (generally speaking) porn stars real names aren't very well known. Looking through the links supplied by CalendarWatcher above, you'll see a case where two minors who were victims of sex crimes had the majority of personal information about them removed from the encyclopedia. All of the information about them was ridiculously well sourced to major and undeniably reliable news agencies. Still, the information was removed and the articles redirected (if I'm not mistaken). I think the removal of real names is definitely up for interpretation, but in the case of a porn star with very few or no other accomplishments... I think we should remove without prejudice unless a valid argument can be made to include them. Ani Mate 22:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm agreeing that we could follow a rule where such names are sometimes omitted. I just need someone to give the scope of the rule so that we don't need a lengthy discussion every time the subject comes up again. If the existing policy is too vague in this area we could ask for the policy to be made specific. You could even ask for a change in policy that is limited to porn stars, to avoid widening the debate too much. (Comparing to the example given by AniMate, porn stars don't seem to have much in common with minors who are the victims of sex crimes). EdJohnston (talk) 01:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

You're right that there is nothing in common between the two, and I hope I didn't imply that there was. I'm not sure that there is a clear cut line that can be determined other than saying "err on the side of privacy". Savanna Samson, for instance, has clearly made an attempt to market herself to a more mainstream audience outside of porn. The same goes for Jenna Jameson and Jeff Stryker. Tim Hamilton, Johan Paulik, and Lukas Ridgeston don't seem to have any encyclopedic accomplishments outside of pornography. There is no benefit to revealing their real names, and there could in fact be great harm to them in doing so. Ani Mate 02:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing it back to Paulik, Ridgeston and Hamiliton. It's poor judgment to out any of these three. We need the opposite kind of rule than the one EdJohnston suggests above. We need a rule for when a porn actor's birth name should be included. The presumption should be against inserting these birth names, except in the most extraordinary of circumstance. People act in porn under assumed names for reasons of privacy and safety. We should honor the request for safety and privacy that acting under a stage name clearly requests. David in DC (talk) 02:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that David in DC's idea would leave us with a clear rule to follow. I like AniMate's last comment because I can deduce a rule from it. How about:

Give the real names of porn stars only when the names are reliably sourced, and only when the stars are noted for some activities outside of pornography.

This would cause us to include the real names of Jenna Jameson and Jeff Stryker, and omit the names of Lukas Ridgeston, Tim Hamilton (porn star) and Johan Paulik. EdJohnston (talk) 02:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Well the first clause I have no problems with, and the second one shouldn't be a problem because anything that'll cause them to be mentioned by a reliable source will most likely be for outside of porn. Tabercil (talk) 03:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I like both clauses too, and I personally feel it's essential to include the second part so that there is clarity on that point. --Jkp212 (talk) 05:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Section break

Give the real names of porn stars only when the names are reliably sourced, and only when the stars are noted for some activities outside of pornography.

This seems to be a popular and rational choice. Are there any objections? If there are, how would they be beneficial to building an encyclopedia? Ani Mate 07:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The "objection" is very simple. If an actor's name is widely disseminated and reliably sourced it should be in the article. If one can google the actor's stage name along with the words "real name", "birth name", etc. and come up with a reliable source on the first page than the proverbial cat has escaped the bag. John celona (talk) 13:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Your "objection" is of course not as simple as you try to tell again and again. It makes a BIG difference if you read a WP article about people in the porn business, which includes the real name, or if you read the same article without the real name and having to do an additional Google search on your own, which most people have no interest in at all except they have some ill intentions. As said above regarding Lukas Ridgeston and Tim Hamilton widely disseminated and reliably sourced are different from what Google is coming up with for both cases. To avoid any future discussions about this IMO the second part of the statement above in italic is very crucial. (Jamesbeat (talk) 15:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC))

It's important for WP to take a stand that, as many of the other editors, have mentioned above, WP should not be the primary vehicle for the spreading of this information unless there is a special reason (like activities outside of porn).. In Celona's example, he mentioned a situation where someone is actively seeking out a birth name of the actor's name (like a stalker); however, most people will come to the WP article not actively seeking out the actor's birth name, and therefore WP becomes the primary vehicle for the spread of this information. In other words, it's more complicated than just being reliably sourced, as Animate points out above. Secondly, without taking a firm stand you open up the door for irresponsible edits, such as this one by Celona ] where the "reliable source" he cited was a porn site. --Jkp212 (talk) 16:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Widely disseminated? Here is a google search for Tim Hamilton with the "real" name you added to his article. John, you need to understand that we have to edit responsibly. It is something you seem to fight every time someone tells you that information isn't appropriate for the encyclopedia. You fought bitterly for all possible information to be written about two minors who were victims of sex crimes. You really have to start understanding WP:BLP and that when it is applied is not censorship but editors acting responsibly. Ani Mate 16:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Both clauses make sense to me. Responsible editorial discretion is not censorship. WP:BLP is a more restrictive policy than many other institutions follow. It's one we should be rightly proud of. We should enforce it against indiscriminate, ill-advised, mean-spirited or careless editors. David in DC (talk) 20:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Per this discussion, I've deleted Ridgeston's birth name.David in DC (talk) 20:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Surely no one can argue Ridgeston's real name is not widely disseminated. I think it is more than absurd to say people with interest in celerities real names are "stalkers" John celona (talk) 22:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's a google search with the real name you provided for Ridgeston showing that it is also not widely known. Again, you really need to read WP:BLP because you really don't seem to understand it... or at least you don't want to. Ani Mate 22:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

It is on almost every google hit! John celona (talk) 22:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

21 google hits is a joke when you compare the 78,000 google hits returned for his stage name. If there are only twenty or so places on the web that report his name, then it is not a widely known fact. From WP:BLP When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed... This name is not widely known and it has been intentionally concealed. Let it go. Ani Mate 22:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I am disengaging from this issue-for now. It is sad that a handfull of pro-censorship editors can twist Misplaced Pages rules that compel boldness and inclusiveness and make them look like they compel a rather infantile, self-righteous censorship. For the record, for anyone reading this as an archive: There is NO regulation on Misplaced Pages distinguishing porn stars from any other actor or celebrity. If any actor's real name is reputably sourced and widely disseminated it SHOULD be in the article notwithstanding an actor's or a studio's wishes or alleged wishes. If a google search instantly reveals the actors real name through a reputable source the name belongs in the article. Don't be tricked by some sophist making the completely absurd argument that "20 sources isn't enough". Be bold and put the real name in. This is an encyclopedia not a game of "who can censor who" --many editors don't realize that John celona (talk) 00:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Blah, blah, blah....Celona, I am glad you reach out to those who are "reading this as an archive" -- clearly you will be remembered and looked back as the noble sole who fought hard for the right to "out" the private names of porn stars. --Jkp212 (talk) 00:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I intend to catalog and revert all attempts to remove real names from porn star articles as the removal is blatant violation of WP:POINT. Sorry, but when you decide to be a porn star, you are relinquishing your right to hide your name. This is not a matter of opinion, since it is necessary to comply with the COPPA law. Anyway, as with any actor or author, when a pseudonym is used it is conventional to give the legal name as well. There is no consensus to change this policy and no rationale other then more hysterical WP:BLP hand-wringing. I will take a stand on this issue because I'm sick and tired of the extremists decimating our biographies. Fix obvious BLP errors, but do not remove verifiable information because you have some personal beliefs on privacy. WP:NOT here to be your privacy battleground, so take it to discussion boards if you want to gripe about it. Again, their choice to become a porn star invalidates their right to keep their real name secret. Accuracy and NPOV always trump WP:BLP; we are here to write informative articles for our readers, not play PR Firm for the subjects of biographies. No harm is done by listing the legal name other then fringe concerns invented by concern trolls. --Dragon695 (talk) 22:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. And a lot of what you've typed is put pretty incivilly. "hen you decide to be a porn star, you are relinquishing your right to hide your name" is irrelevant. Getting the real name from a COPPA filing is the archetype of the behavior WP:NOR bans. And, as noted above, WP:BLP gives us pretty clear instructions on what to do if someone has purposely obsured their name, porn star or not. I think we're wise to be guided by the folks from the WP porn project, who have stated a pretty convincing case above, in my opinion, for removing porn actors' birth names unless they are known for something outside of porn.David in DC (talk) 22:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was rude, but my frustration is borne from seeing well intentioned fans of WP:BLP go to extremes to reduce our biographies to crappy stubs. Somebody has to stop this nonsense. WP:BLP is not a be all and end all to this project. The point of this project is write accurate, verifiable articles. Including the legal name is part of the accurate part and poses very minimal privacy concerns for those who have chosen to become actors. What industry they act in is irrelevant. --Dragon695 (talk) 23:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

"I intend to catalog" is very different from "I am unilaterally reverting". The recent edits to Tim Hamilton's page are a disruption. Please stop. David in DC (talk) 22:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Dragon says "fix obvious BLP errors"...One such obvious BLP error is including a poorly sourced name, the way Celona did above (source was a porn site)....You have encouraged him to engage in this type of behavior, which is not according to WP policy. --Jkp212 (talk) 22:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Fine, I will locate more reliable sources, including COPPA filings, and then re-insert the name. I will refrain from reverting any removals where the source was not reliable. But I reject this absurd notion that we must remove all legal names of actors because of privacy concerns. --Dragon695 (talk) 23:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I am WP:IAR because 3 or 4 biased editors do not get to reinterpret policy. Citing reliable sources, such as a COPPA filing, is not WP:OR. This is SOP for all actors, we list the pseudonym and the legal name. We do not make exceptions for pornographic actors. Again, WP:BLP is not part of the WP:FIVE and it does not trump reporting accurate, verifiable information where there are no REASONABLE privacy concerns. A legal name is not a valid privacy concern for an actor; their decision to be an actor disqualifies them from this right. --Dragon695 (talk) 22:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

BRAVO to you! As General Macarthur said-"I have returned!" John celona (talk) 23:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

1. You are not correct in stating that WP:BLP does not trump verifiable research -- it does. 2. You are, in fact, the one reinterpreting policy, which is pretty clear in terms of editing conservatively and trying to maintain privacy of semi-notable subjects. Especially when there is no clear benefit to the project to do otherwise. --Jkp212 (talk) 23:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Jkp12 is correct. WP:BLP does trump verifiability. It's there because not all available information is appropriate for Misplaced Pages. If you disagree, then I think you should go about trying to have WP:BLP rejected by the community, Dragon695. Ani Mate 00:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree on this. WP:BLP is fully respected here and violation of WP:POINT is utter nonsense. In his statement Dragon695 has clearly expressed that his real intentions are everything but neutral. But that is how articles should be written on any encyclopedia and on WP and not in a biased, ill-minded and ill-intentioned way. I apologize if I sound rude, but I am really upset about people like John celona and now Dragon695 spinning words and rules that are agreed upon by the community just to appear as victims of censorship when in fact they are the 'culprits' vandalizing established rules. (Jamesbeat (talk) 12:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC))

Care to make a point that is actually valid? WP:BLP is not universally accepted and there are still very contentious issues that still exist. The debates that happen on its talk page are rancorous and often very divisive. So I reject the notion that it has universal support, but that is besides the point. The bottom line is that actors in films, whether they be pornographic or not, do not get the same level of privacy that an average person does. It is their choice to become a notable subject. All of our biographies of actors who use pseudonyms list the real name. WP:NPOV does trump WP:BLP in that one class of actor will not be favored over another. Since you will not be successful in eliminating the real names in actors like Marilyn Manson, you can not justify eliminating it a pornographic actor's biography. --Dragon695 (talk) 22:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. And irregardless of BLP, I fail to see how adding the real names of people who are notable for their work in pornography under another name helps create a good article based on notable information about (their work in pornography under another name). If someone was notable for acting in pornography in the past and had now become an activist under another name and was engaging in activities that might become notable, then perhaps that other name would be suitable for inclusion to add research. But for the majority of these articles? Hell no. John Nevard (talk) 15:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry John, but we have plenty of pointless information. All actors using pseudonyms also have their real names listed. This is the default for just about every biography. The reason you and others want it removed is why? Why should porn actors get special treatment? WP:NPOV is very clear, we do not play favorites. There are no privacy concerns, if the information is reliably sourced, in it goes. It's a matter of consistency and accuracy. I'm sorry if the person is ashamed of being a porn actor, but perhaps they should have thought of that before they willingly chose to enter that profession. In light of that, I have already been busy making requests for COPPA documentation where only non-reliable sources document the real name. As these are official, government mandated documents, their accuracy cannot be disputed. Lastly, if you want to see just one of hundreds of biographies where the real name of actors with stage names are listed, please see Marilyn Manson. Note, nobody calls him by his real name in the media, but it is still a very factually relevent part of a biography. --Dragon695 (talk) 21:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you inform the rest of us what a COPPA filing is and how does one go about requesting this information? I mean is it a government document or database that's publicly available? Can you also explain to me how and why pornographic actors must disclose their real names to the public under COPPA when the law is aimed to protect the privacy of children when they surf the internet? I'm asking these questions because I believe you are advocating a point based on a misunderstanding of the law. Perhaps you're thinking of another law? Vinh1313 (talk) 17:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

No BLP says:

“

Caution should be applied when naming individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed (such as in certain court cases), it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context.

”

— WP:BLP, Privacy of Names

I reinterpret nothing. It clearly leaves it open for discussion and the intent of preserving name privacy, as noted by the example court cases, is mainly to deal with people who are victims or otherwise in positions of great danger. Porn actors are not inherently victims and thus should be treated like any other actor with a stage name -- we should list the real name. WP:NPOV demands that these class of actors get no different treatment than those who are non-pornographic actors. If you can argue why non-pornographic actors should have their real names listed and why pornographic actors should not, without violating WP:NPOV, I am willing to listen. However, the discretion is clearly on a case by case basis and is left to the editor. I am willing to compromise in that I will endorse a temporary removal if there is documented evidence that an actor's live is in direct danger. What I will not accept is a blanket policy to omit all real names of actors with stage names. --Dragon695 (talk) 22:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Consensus?

Does this represent a consensus now?:

Give the real names of porn stars only when the names are reliably sourced, and only when the stars are noted for some activities outside of pornography.

It looks to me like it does. David in DC (talk) 17:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I need clarification on the "notable activities" outside of pornography. Like say a family law dispute that makes the papers like the Racquel Darrian example . It's clear even from the newspaper article that she is trying to protect her privacy. What if the actor willingly discloses his/her name in a porn publication like Dana DeArmond? Vinh1313 (talk) 16:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I can't see the Dana DeArmond example as being an issue as her actions make it clear she is voluntarily forgoing her privacy by deliberately and publicly using her real name. It's when the porn star is not acting to reveal their real name that's the crux of the issue here, such as the Raquel Darrian example, and I honestly can't imagine a messier situtation to use to try and figure out how the new policy works than the Darrian example. Tabercil (talk) 21:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

No David you do not have a consensus. My own guideline would be to merely look and see if Answers.com gives there real name. You may have had a consensus a day ago but now you don't. I reserve the right to proceed without the consent of some extremely small group on some Wiki noticeboard. Please take note that Answers.com does not give out Brandy Alexandres real name. All of these cases must be taken on a case by case basis. You do not have consensus here. Sorry David but your interpretation of Blp and wiki is redolent of that of someone who has an agenda. These cases must be decided on a case by case basis or not at all. Albion moonlight (talk) 20:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid answers.com is a Misplaced Pages content mirror. They take our content for many of the articles there. Best to not discriminate and just do like we do for all biographies of actors with pseudonyms. --Dragon695 (talk) 22:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Strong Oppose. Like I said above, WP:NPOV demands that we give no favoritism to certain classes of biographies. Actors are actors, they choose to be in the spotlight even if they use a stage name. Being a porn actor is not a crime nor is it done unwillingly. The sense I get here is concern trolls who feel that porn actors are under some sort of extraordinary threat. I would argue that they are no more threatened than Marilyn Manson. We must have reliable, factual biographies so, like in the case of Marilyn Manson, we will list the real name once in the lead section once a very reliable source for the name is found. This is standard biography writing 101 people. Again, WP:NPOV demands that we treat them no differently then any other actor with a pseudonym. --Dragon695 (talk) 22:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if there is a consensus or not, but I think everyone can agree that these names need to be impeccably sourced. So far the names that were being fought over had awful sources. Most likely if really reliable sources have their names, they are notable for something outside of porn. It's not hard to find Marilyn Manson's real name in a reliable source, or Tom Cruise. If we're talking about hunting down COPPA filings for Eastern European porn stars, then yes, that is a BLP violation. Ani Mate 22:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources are in the eye of the beholder. No one gets too arbitrarily declare a source as unreliable, not even an admin can do that. Content disputes can and sometimes do go on forever. :Albion moonlight (talk) 23:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Fortunately, in this case the majority of the sources were blogs and lukeford.com which aren't considered reliable sources. There's nothing arbitrary about this, and if you'd investigated the background of this you'd see they're not reliable just like you'd see answers.com is a mirror of wikipedia. Ani Mate 23:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I think (LOL) Washington Post is a pretty good source. That hasn't stopped the pro-censorship trolls. see ]. John celona (talk) 00:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Strong Oppose To censor well-sourced (NY Times, washington Post, etc), widely disseminated names of actors is a rule only in David-pedia, not Misplaced Pages. Somebody needs to block this guy from manufacturing his own pro-censorship rules, falsely claiming "consensus" and then censoring all over Misplaced Pages with that spurious "consensus". An encyclopedia is about INCLUDING facts not censoring them. Save that for David-pedia. John celona (talk) 00:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's an idea. Stop focusing on other editors and start focusing on the issues. "Pro-censorship trolls" and "David-pedia" don't help your argument at all. Ani Mate 00:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The case that I referenced above is here : Albion moonlight (talk) 23:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Actualy AniMate I have seen many examples of the opposite wherein Answers.com does not mirror Misplaced Pages. But even if I am wrong about that, reliable sources are in fact in the eye of the beholder. You can wikilawyer until you are blue in the face and quote wiki rules adinfinitum but the fact of the matter is that the arbitration committee does not decide content issues. and mediation is not binding. The only rules that are enforced by admin are ones pursuant to behavior. You have heard of the ignore all rules rule on wiki have you not.? It all comes down to consensus and civility. Excuse me now while I go and collect examples pursuant to the mirror theory. Albion moonlight (talk) 04:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

It does mirror Misplaced Pages, but unlike Misplaced Pages, it's not a Wiki that evolves in real time. That will allow for variations between the two platforms; however, each time this happens, answers.com catches up, and mirrors a more current Misplaced Pages version. --Jkp212 (talk) 05:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually arguing against Jkp212 about letting a porn star's name being allowed in an article. Ty Fox has had extensive coverage in reliable sources like the Washington Post, sourcing birth names to blogs is just sloppy. Ani Mate 05:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

In general I agree with AniMate that sourcing birth names to blogs is sloppy, I do however think that there could very well be exceptions to any rule of thumb. Here, is an example of what I have been trying to say. It is one of the Pillars of wikpedia. I prefer it when we all agree to adhere to it. :Albion moonlight (talk) 08:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Related case Talk:Calpernia_Addams#Calpernia.27s_wishes and the fact that should the subject of an article express concerns about their birth name being included in their article the edits can be deleted and oversighted. Birth names of performers are encyclopedic information and if they can be reliably sourced then they should be included, unless there is demonstrable harm on a case-by-case basis. The notion that this particular type of performer requires some extra notability beyond that of their chosen profession is untenable. I am aware of no other class of articles, biographical or otherwise, that are required to meet this burden either for inclusion in the encyclopedia or for the inclusion a particular piece of encyclopedic information. Otto4711 (talk) 18:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Not including in articles the real name of porn actors is in full compliance with WP:BLP and the other cited rules. It is utter nonsense to argue it is censorship. Censorship would be to delete those articles. It definitely makes a difference if people are acting in mainstream movies or in the porn business. Adding the real name of porn actors does not make a better article but is doing stalker's business like the Johan Paulik case has proofen. An encyclopedia has to be responsible and not to be like a tabloid. Therefore it should respect the privacy of people and not serve ill minded people like John celona, who use unreliable and bad sources to add real names. As the consensus above shows there is no arguing about publishing the names when the criteria are met. Again it is just spinning words and rules that have been agreed upon by the community to make editors appear as victims of censorship when in fact these editors are trying to 'vandalizing' established rules. (Jamesbeat (talk) 22:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC))

Washington Post or a mainstream US Tv station are "unreliable and bad sources" only for self-appointed censors like you. John celona (talk) 11:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear John, you neither gave Washington Post nor a mainstream TV station as source in the two cases that led to this discussion. Both I certainly would not have questioned as unreliable and bad sources and we would have argued about ethics and not about sources. What made the difference was that your sources then were a gay guide and a gay porn blog.

Well James, you seem to misunderstand what wiki means by consensus I will assume good faith and remind you that consensus does not exist until everyone either agrees or agrees to disagree. That is clearly not the case here. Second of all you should really avoid making personal attacks by calling people ill minded or vandals. That kind of behavior can get you blocked from editing wikipedia. I am not an ill minded person James nor am I a vandal. So please take it easy on the insults. OK ?? They are not helpful. :Albion moonlight (talk) 05:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe I used the word "censorship" in discussing this situation, but as long as you bring up that politically charged buzzword, I would point out the Misplaced Pages is not censored. There is a process in place on a case-by-case basis for dealing with the real name of anyone, porn performer or not, appearing in the article and that is to delete the edits and oversight them. I have not followed the alleged Johan Paulik "stalking" case but since Misplaced Pages requires reliable secondary sources the notion that his name not having been included in a Misplaced Pages article would have prevented a stalker or anyone else from finding his name is ludicrous, since to be in a Misplaced Pages article it needs to be available elsewhere already. There is no consensus that I see here that including real names of porn stars (or anyone else) is acceptable only if they are notable for something other than being a porn star. The requirement of reliable sourcing proposed here is redundant to existing policies and the proposed requirement that they be notable for something outside of pornography is stupid and I cannot support any suggestion that there is consensus for this requirement. Otto4711 (talk) 21:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

It would not have prevented a stalker from finding the name. But it makes a BIG difference if you have to search the net on your own or you just go to Misplaced Pages as your primary source. Again. This is straight from BLP Policy: "When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed as in certain court cases, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context". The real names of porn actors have intentionally been concealed AND omitting them does not result in a significant loss of context. Both these WP criterias are met when dealing with this issue. But to avoid significant loss of context it was proposed that when these persons are notable for something outside of pornography the name couild be added if properly sourced, of course. So this requirement is anything but stupid. (Jamesbeat (talk) 22:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC))

By the way, is there a single reliable source that Johan was stalked by someone because his real name was on Misplaced Pages? How can you stalk someone without their address or phone number neither of which appear (or should appear) on Misplaced Pages?John celona (talk) 23:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering that myself. I did some looking around and couldn't find any indication that Johan has ever been stalked, either based on his Misplaced Pages article or otherwise. Even if he had been, the notion that Misplaced Pages is responsible for protecting people against stalkers is ludicrous. Anyone could decide to stalk any living person; should we remove all biographical information from all living people out of the fear that someone somewhere might stalk them? I completely support the notion that on a case-by-case basis, where the person (regardless of his or her occupation) can demonstrate that having their birth name in a Misplaced Pages article is causing them actual harm, then Misplaced Pages should restrict the inclusion of their birth name. "Someone might do something mean to me" is not a legitimate excuse for omitting encyclopedic and verifiable information. The notion that Misplaced Pages is responsible for the consequences of being a one-click stop for biographical information as opposed to forcing a hypothetical stalker to do a little extra work is silly. Otto4711 (talk) 23:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Amen to that. I think IDMB is a good enough source for birth names but perhaps not for gossip. But that does not mean I think any of us have the right to try and vilfy those who disagree with us. Wikilawyering can be very disruptive. All Blp cases need to be regarded on a case by case basis. It is not up to us to declare IDMB or any other source as unreliable for the whole of wikipedia. Jimbo and a few others have that right but we don't. :Albion moonlight (talk) 00:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

For sourcing BLPs, all sources in an article must be proven to be reliable for the information they represent. If there's doubt, leave it out. That's what our policy says. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 17:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Misplaced Pages and do have fun while you are learning about how things really work here. Albion moonlight (talk) 00:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome. As a longstanding Wikipedian who has contributed significantly to most areas of Misplaced Pages policy, I'm surprised to find that I'm still considered a newcomer. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 01:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Well to be fair, unless someone knows to look for the link to your previous username, then you do appear to be relatively new. Still, the idea of using shoddy sources for controversial BLp issues is appalling. A ni Mate 01:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Above, a couple of folks questioned whether Johan Paulik has, in fact been stalked. One has called trying to make sure WP doesn't become The Stalker's Handbook a silly endeavor.

But there is a Slovak ice hockey player with the same name that is alleged to be Johan Paulik's birth name. He plays on an Irish ice hockey team and is listed here on WP. I can find no online source that indicates this ice hockey player has been stalked on the assumption that he is Johan Paulik. But it's not hard to believe. And Jamesbeat has reported to us that Johan Paulik HAS been stalked. There's no good reason to think JB made this up.

First, do no harm. Not Silly. Err on the side of caution. Not Silly. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Very Not Silly.

Irish soccer hooligans can be pretty vicious. It's hard to imagine that Irish ice hockey fans would be less so.David in DC (talk) 03:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying David but I don't think wiki is responsible for the actions of soccer fans or hockey fans. I do not believe that JB made it up I just think his or her rationale is not all that compelling. Albion moonlight (talk) 05:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC) Albion moonlight (talk) 05:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. We can agree to disagree. On another note, thank you for the chuckle. Your greeting to the new editor above made me laugh out loud when I followed the link to his talk page and understood your joke. David in DC (talk) 15:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason not to assume the "stalking" was made up. When asked for a RS the user dissapeared from the discussion. John celona (talk) 00:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, no reason except for WP:AGF anyway. But assuming JB's good faith is pretty important.David in DC (talk) 11:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for having 'disappeared'. But sometimes unexpected things happen and WP becomes the least important concern. The Johan Paulik stalking happened about ten years ago. It was reported over here at the time in a TV feature about the Prague gay scene. During a short interview Johan Paulik mentioned having been victim to a stalker because his real name had been published. The incident was also shortly discussed on a forum. The forum went offline around 2000. So there is no trace to be found any more, which leaves me of course with no real evidence to proof this story. But it was not made up.

What I was trying to say about "to make sure WP doesn't become The Stalker's Handbook" is that contrary to the IMDb the real names are available on WP to everyone sometimes even accompanied by a picture for easy identification whereas the IMDb has no head shots. The IMDb even requires additional steps to view adult content. The name is also not on the first page. Call it nit-picking but it makes a big difference. For the reliability of the IMDb and the use of real names you should give this a try ]. Although adding data to the IMDb is monitored and has some restrictions for contributing a fair amount of unreliable and unsourced data gets published.

Regarding COPPA filings. These are confidential documents mandated by the government but not intended to be published. So using them is a violation of BLP. (Jamesbeat (talk) 10:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC))

Re COPPA filings. Using them as a source is pretty much the archetype of what WP:NOR prohibits.David in DC (talk) 12:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

It does not really matter what any of us think about IDMB or any other source unless we have a consensus. And even then consensus can change at the drop of a hat. The link provided by Jamesbeat that declares that IDMB is is unreliable for real names provides no proof of its allegations and still would not be binding even if it did provide such proof. But now that I know that thus may be the case I would be more inclined to look for additional internet sources that provide the same name that IDMB does. Arguing about the reliability of sources is all too often used as a way to promote ones agenda. Each Blp must be taken on a case by case basis. It is as simple as that. The Ignore all rules pillar is a very powerful rule. :Albion moonlight (talk) 22:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Unless a source is known to be reliable, we don't use it for biographical information. imdb is far from being known to be reliable, and we should never use it for biographical information that is at all sensitive. For such purposes we must demand unimpeachable sources. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 23:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

IMDb is not a reliable source for one reason: It uses user-submitted, unverified content. That is the definition of a non-reliable source. End of story. FCYTravis (talk) 00:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The story ends when a consensus says it ends. If someone wants to contest a sources reliabity they are allowed to do so by making a complaint to the Blp noticeboard. There is also a mediation committee but neither they or the arbitration committee decides content disputes. So here we are stuck in conundrum. There is no sense in Wikilawyering. Wiklawyering is disruptive. 00:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC): Albion moonlight (talk) 00:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no "consensus" about it - IMDb is not a reliable source for the purposes of sensitive and personal information. FCYTravis (talk) 01:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

FCYTravis is an administrator. What I now reccomend is that anyone who wants to use IDMB as a source should first check with another administrator before they do so. I just reread the section on Blps and realized that admins are given too much power in dealing with sources. So in cases where admins insist that a source can not be used one would be foolish to use it without checking with another admin first. Albion moonlight (talk)

It's not about whether I'm an admin or not :) It's about the simple fact that IMDb is composed of user-submitted content which is not necessarily verified or fact-checked. That means the information it contains is not necessarily accurate and there is no system of editing and supervision that works to ensure only truthful information is published. It would be like using Misplaced Pages as a source for a Misplaced Pages article. For biographies in particular, we need to take our information only from reliable sources, such as newspapers, reputable magazines and television programs, edited and fact-checked Web sites, etc. FCYTravis (talk) 08:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you please tell us where you get your information about IDMB ?

One way to get the birth name information in without ultimately needing the permission of admin('s) is to simply say something like,it is widely believed that such and such's real name is, and use several references to back it up. I have seen this done when referring to hate groups as hate groups. The fact that a member of the arbitration committee was actively involved in that case, suggests to me that it it is OK to do that. : Albion moonlight (talk) 23:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The case that I referenced above can be found here : Albion moonlight (talk) 23:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

What is acceptable for an organization, is not necessarily acceptable for a living person. It is not acceptable to use such unverified speculation in biographies. FCYTravis (talk) 01:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

This is awful. You're actively trying to figure out ways to skirt policy. Policy isn't in place to hamper editors, it's here to help editors and protect the encyclopedia. I think you should re-read BLP and attempt to explain your understanding of it, since you and John celona both seem to have any idea why the policy is there and what it actually means. A ni Mate 02:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I am pointing out ways to get around what I and others view as a too narrow an interpretation of Blp policy. If Jimbo or one of those people in the upper most echelons want to keep the real names of pornstars a secret they have the power and the right to do so. The rest of us are stuck with business as usual. :Albion moonlight (talk) 05:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

If BLP disallows something, the solution isn't to try and find a back door way to sneak around the policy - it's to leave the material out. Trying to Wikilawyer BLP is not a smart idea. FCYTravis (talk) 05:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

It's definitely not a good idea to try to circumvent our policies. Although I've no doubt you don't intend anything underhanded, it's difficult for an administrator viewing your edits to work out whether or not you are engaging in a disruptive form of editing known as Gaming the system. Even if an administrator doesn't take action, other editors may begin to lose trust in you and, ultimately, in Misplaced Pages. Readers will see the weasel words in an article and lose faith. It's better to search for solid, unimpeachable information, if it exists, and cite it when you find it, being prepared to change your mind if your judgement is overruled. We all submit to this standard, nobody is asking you to do something that isn't expected of all of us. --Jenny 05:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

NB: Until recently I edited Misplaced Pages using the account "Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The" --Jenny 05:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Section break, again

I must agree with Jenny (at least that's the current signature). Why you think this is such necessary information, I don't know, but you do. Again, WP:BLP is here to protect not only the subjects of articles, but it's also here to protect us. When it comes to real people, we have to be careful, thoughftul, and patient. It's really all summed up by this:

I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons.

–Jimmy Wales

Pseudo information includes spurious claims from questionable websites. Clear enough? A ni Mate 06:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

So go ahead and delete them where you find them and lets see what the rest of wiki has to say about it. I can live with a wiki that disallows all mention of a pornstars real names. But for some reason some of you seem unwilling to live with a wikipedia that does allow it. Anyway I am through with this discussion because it only seems to be going in circles. I assure you that I will not edit war with you or encourage others to do so. If one of those articles goes to an Rfc or to mediation or even arbitration I may join in. But as for this discussion if I am the only one blocking consensus (and I am one of 3 or 4], I hereby withdraw my dissent and agree to disagree. Best wishes to everyone.: Albion moonlight (talk) 07:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't particularly like the idea of censoring real names of actors commonly known by their stage names based on what type of film they perform in. That doesn't follow me as particularly logical, and it seems to me like a gross violation of the principle of a neutral point of view toward which we are supposed to be striving toward.

Naturally, if there's only sketchy information available (like citations on blogs), then it should be removed, just like any information that can't be reliably sourced should be; but the idea of removing information that can be reliably sourced simply because someone doesn't like it and tried to hide it really rubs me the wrong way. This isn't a case like Genie (where I also argued for the inclusion of the real name), where the subject at least didn't have a choice about the things that made her notable; this is a case where someone has intentionally sought notability and has had to suffer the consequences of living life that way. Having your identity known widely can be one of the prices of that, and it isn't our place to be unnecessarily sympathetic towards peoples' problems at the expense of the usefulness of the project. Celarnor 06:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

You're right people make choices and have to live with the consequences. If someone chooses a career and tries to hide their name but it comes out in multiple reliable secondary sources, then so be it. But the question is, should we at wikipedia be spreading information that isn't already widely available? The answer IMHO is no. And actually I for one don't care whether they are porn actors, scientists or internet celebrities. It is not our job to dig out information from primary sources and tell the world because information wants to be free (or whatever). It does get a little more complicated when we have a person who has been widely covered but who's name is only sourced to one albeit reliable secondary source and I won't discuss this sort of case for now. And definitely if the information is widely covered in secondary sources, then I would have no problem with the information being included, whatever the wishes of the subject. But using primary sources to uncover information not already cited in secondary sources reaks of OR and a privacy violation to me. P.S. I agree the Genie case, which I argued against inclusion of the real name is different in character and doesn't add much to this discussion Nil Einne (talk) 16:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

How then to square that with the part of WP:BLP that says this, and especially this:

"Caution should be applied when naming individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed (such as in certain court cases), it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context."?

And how to square it with this, and most especially this:

"Misplaced Pages articles that present material about living people can affect their subjects' lives. Misplaced Pages editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm". It is not Misplaced Pages's purpose to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. BLPs must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy."? David in DC (talk) 17:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd much rather see something referenced by primary sources than something by secondary sources, especially with regards to things that may be controversial; using a primary source allows us to look just at the facts; not at the biases, the prose of people another layer disconnected from the facts, but just the relevant facts. Primary sources are fine for simple, descriptive claims; i.e, some presidents have made their tax returns publicly available, "This person claimed this on their taxes"; there is absolutely nothing wrong with citing a publicly-available tax return for that; I think it would be preferable to do that than to cite a secondary report on it, since we're closer to the information that way and less open to re-reporting bias, which should always be avoided. It's only a problem when you have to use synthesis to get an article out of it.

If something is available in a database and it straight-out tells you what someone's name is with zero or near-zero doubt, then it shouldn't matter whether it's a trademark application or an article in the New York Times; they both serve the same function. Celarnor 22:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

But then the database has to be reliably sourced, hasn't it? The IMDb for instance is anything but a reliable database when it comes to adult films. Wrong data and stage names on movie pages, actors incorrectly listed in films they don't appear in, wrong ID connections as well as no source given where the biographical data originates from. So why should this information be accepted when it is in fact based on the same sketchy information that is not regarded as a reliable source by Misplaced Pages standards? (Jamesbeat (talk) 09:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC))

I don't think that using Imdb is what Celanor is talking about but I do know that there are ways of covering wiki's butt and still using IMDb and or other such sources. The question then becomes should we do so? I think that each case should be taken on its own merits. But there are others here that strongly disagree. Albion moonlight (talk) 11:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

That's not what I was referring to. First, the IMDB isn't a reliable source; it accepts user-generated content. Second, it isn't a primary source. With regards to film, a primary source would be the film itself (i.e, using the film's ending credits as a source for who was in the film or something else that is very, very obvious restatement of fact). I was talking about public (read: government-maintained) databases of public information, like lists of non-profit charities, trademark applications, and the like. Celarnor 16:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes thats what I thought you were saying. I think your idea is a good one. Albion moonlight (talk) 00:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Dragon 695 is right in one way. We should not have a special policy for porn stars. WP should not reveal the real names of any persons who use pseudonyms to conceal their identity. The pornstar case should be cited merely as an particular example of this policy.

My proposed wording: Where a person uses a pseudonym to conceal their identity (e.g. whistleblowers, political bloggers, pornstars) then Misplaced Pages should respect their privacy and not reveal their real name. This policy even applies where the pseudonym is used to conceal criminal activity (revealing a real name in such a case is accusing that person of being a criminal - possibly slanderous). Where the real name has not been concealed or is widely known (this is a more onerous requirement than being merely verifiable) then it can be included.

Note that most actors do not use pseudonyms to conceal their real names but for other reasons such as another actor already using that name or chosing a name that sounds more macho, more American or whatever.Filceolaire (talk) 14:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

==Talk: John Michell (writer) 91.84.204.125|91.84.204.125 was warned by 4 editors of vandalism and flame warring a month before my edit of his non-neural words like "fascist" "follower of fascistr", "admirer of Hitler", "Forty Years of Involvement with Fascism" plus collusion with a distateful editor and author. All untrue terms which I attempted to neutralize in accordance with POV and civility Wiki policies. 91.84.204.125|91.84.204.125 has called the editors of the talk page idiots. My gripe is that his facts are untrue and distorted. This user has a personal grudge against this well-regarded, highly respected living author. 91.84.204.125|91.84.204.125 has also posted threats as if he was an administrator on my User pager (see History). He blanks out his own User Talk and often refuses to sign his anonomous posts in an attempt to thwart undo. My first course of action to him was a polite note and a copy of the Wiki notice about living authors on the top of the talk page which only served to encourage his loaded terms. Thanks for your time. SageMab (talk) 00:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Section break, one more

Once a performer gives up a pseudonym in an interview, or even writes something like an autobiography to sell in mass media ads, one could argue that there is no point in concealing the birth name on Misplaced Pages. However that is the sole exception. How many "Jenna Jamesons" with pop star status are there in porn valley? I think AIM health care tests more than 1,200 actors monthly. Sure not everyone reaches the notability to be included on Misplaced Pages (although with 300 AVN advert nominations a year many will find their article stub pop up here sooner or later) Anyway, how many of them do you think will want to get another job maybe two years later on? The long careers are pretty much a thing of the past as many rush through the biz in months. With XXX web content on the rise most production companies don't build up stars anymore. So does it have any real world consequences to have your name revealed on Misplaced Pages by some asshole best boy or webmaster who makes a copy of your passport and later adds cast lists at imdb? You bet!

"that most actors do not use pseudonyms to conceal their real names but for other reasons" as stated by Filceolaire couldn’t be farther from reality.

(Sorry. I wasn't clear.This sentence refers to non-porn actors, many of whom have pseudonyms. I added this sentence to my post to show that the policy I proposed would not stop us revealing that John Wayne's real name was Marion Morrison.Filceolaire (talk) 19:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC))

There's a usually respected codex not under any circumstances to reveal the civil identity of another performer even if you are friends with. The story of a fan "who just tries to help" out Misplaced Pages by adding some alleged birth name found somewhere on the net, on any kind of blog, online forum, social network where people sign up with stolen identities etc. or even completely unsourced is just too hard to believe. In my opinion you can entirely forget about the assume good faith policy in such cases.

Pseudonyms are used to partly escape the social stigmata any sex worker will experience, unless s/hes already a trademark in pop culture. That's just one side to this story there's another. Misplaced Pages lists many performers from European countries, and what Jkp212 said about "Actors such as these who choose to have stages names are also intentionally concealing their birth name, which they have every right to do." pretty much hits the nail in the coffin.

Take for example France or Germany. In these countries you not only do you have a right of informational self-determination, you can even sue people over it. While every foreign language version of Misplaced Pages may have it's own set of rules the Misplaced Pages editors living in these countries can't escape their law system pointing to some "that's how we do it on Misplaced Pages" babble.

So with the purposed policy change you not only protect Misplaced Pages but also editors in these foreign countries who won't believe they will be traced and fined until it's too late.

The analogy with some politicians(!) public charity or tax returns used as primary sources for birth names just doesn't cut it. Limitations to this informational self-determination are allowed only in case of overriding public interest. This would be a given in case you run for major in some town, however with some regular porn star performer an European court would always let the right to conceal your identity outweigh public interest. It's pretty much a no brainer even some one without legal education should get just based on ethical values alone. This holds true for the majority of performers in the adult biz! Of course in such discussions people often cherry pick the few(!) super stars, some of which even released autobiographies featuring their real name.

Then this notion about how Misplaced Pages does not contain telephone numbers and addresses, hence no risk for a performer to be stalked. Heck, if an anonymous editor posts something like "today Madam Kristyna Zmrznlina lives in..." some random American village" . Now how many Zrmzlinas might live there? This is not Bel Air. I think you get the idea.

There seems to be a terrible bias among some admins in foreign wikis that it has to rain OTRS tickets before a performer gets what is basically a fundamental right.

How about whoever adds a real name to porn stars biography gets banned immediately? No I'm serious, I mean such a zero tolerance policy would be way simpler than trying to explain most porn fans how to balance private interests versus public interests. To handle such thing on a case-by-case basis binds unnecessary human resources and frankly most editors don't have what it takes to make such decisions on a level a real world judge would do it in a court.

and even in the few(!) cases where the birth name has been sourced with consent by the talent in question (e.g. autobiograhpy, interview) it wouldn't affect the article quality in my eyes.

"My own guideline would be to merely look and see if Answers.com gives there real name" Albion moonlight

As stated above answers.com is just one of many commercialized mirrors of Misplaced Pages. They just seem to have some time delay on the updates, and sometimes articles are editorially edited, most often not. Before making your own guideline try to think about where your freedom to make any such guideline ends. It sounds easy but it ain't, since we're not just talking sources here but personality rights. You might be able to generate thousands of Google hits for some source and it's worth nothing if you infringe the personality rights of a performer. In worst case scenario they might engage a lawyer and rightfully shred you to pieces.

" I would argue that they are no more threatened than Marilyn Manson" Dragon695

Marilyn Manson is a world famous rock star, he doesn't need to work anymore, it's nothing like the plain Jane 30 year old ex performer who just ended her valley career in favor for a little family. The word pornSTAR is pretty much misleading, they don't play in the same league, it's not even the same sport dude ;)

Who pays for the kids to visit a private school just because some clown thought it was a good idea to publicly spread real names of their parents via Misplaced Pages?

NEVER reveal any real names of adult actors unless they have disclosed these names themselves in autobiographies, interviews or other activities outside porn they became notable for.

So once again:

Everyone has a right of informational self-determination, in many European countries this is written law.

Limitations to this informational self-determination are allowed only in case of overriding public interest. For example a porn actor becoming a politician (think Ilona Staller) or some mega success outside the biz (like pulling a Hilton, as you can't have it both ways) or releasing an autobiography and cruising through talk shows in mass media, or becoming a mainstream actor using your real name.

The majority of porn actors uses stage names for the sole reason to conceal their civil identity, this should be reflected by the policy change. Further all references to birth names have to be wiped from the article history as well as all entry fields in the adult actors info box. Consistently all links to databases using unverified user submitted information which might infringe personality rights of the articles subject have to be removed too.

It makes no sense to remove a name from the article and then backlink to it later on. Just as an aside there have been cases where even mainstream Hollywood actors have fought with imdb, however it goes without saying that most people in porn just can not afford such legal battles. My advices for adult actors is to enter a wrong name at imdb yourself. Sooner or later some creepy fan will import such names to Misplaced Pages anyway. Pretty much the same goes for birth dates...

One of the worst arguments brought up is "they" can't stop anyone from finding whatever questionable source was used to put in a birth name first place. It just doesn't matter, since Misplaced Pages is one primary source of information for many people and it's content is copied in hundreds of smaller special interest databases all over the internet. So there definitely is a reason for some one who wants to conceal an identity to remove any such data from Misplaced Pages.

In borderline cases, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm", so now act accordingly and act consequent. A little note for European performers: You should get that you don't live at the mercy of some honorable OTRS helpers, in many European countries it's entirely possible to take Misplaced Pages down with a preliminary injunction, until Misplaced Pages starts to protect personality rights with some special peer group of members (a legal education background would be great) that can react to such edits in time.

If such a thing can not be organized Misplaced Pages will have to adapt, like freezing all biographies and let every edit by an anyonymous editor be watched over by some other experienced editor BEFORE becoming visible in the article or the article history, by treating biographies on living persons like that, such articles would loose the possibility to be updated in real time in favor for protecting the personality rights of the subject.

For this idea to become reality it would only need a small change to the review system which gets currently tested on the German language Misplaced Pages. Those of you regulary patrolling porn star bios for vandalism might even agree with me that such a thing could save them huge amounts of time. Mean-spirited people would loose interest in adding crap to biographies real quick with such a system in place.

In the overwhelming majority of cases you will not be able to source that a name has been released with consent of the subject in question. Why is this consent important at all? You can derive that from the right of informational self-determination which preempts and limits the rights of any public interest group. As to why a porn star has to be treated much differently from some mainstream actor living a sheltered, bodyguarded Hollywood media life should be obvious. Such persons get listed in the credits of blockbusters with their real name. Whenever Hollywood stars would decline to get credited with their real name and sign the contracts accordingly from the very start of their professional career, they had to be treated in the same way as porn stars on Misplaced Pages.

That holds also true in the Savanna Samson case brought up by Tabercil, where there was an article in the NYT featuring her birth name. There is no "the cat is out of the bag thing", if the NYT would publish a name without consent they would be liable. Get a decent lawyer and you could be looking at big $$$.

Conclusion: Although I much favor a zero tolerance policy I could live with what was purposed above. But you absolutely need to change this "other activities outside porn" sentence to something like "other activities outside porn they became notable with" to make any sense at all. Otherwise you might get adds in the likes of Madam X ranked second in the ice skating finals in junior high, her real name is blah blah and she entered porn in...

"There is no real benefit in publishing the names and no significant loss of context in not doing so" Jamesbeat Exactly. Of course there is a real benefit in NOT publishing the birth names of adult performers, apart from the fact that such a decision should be left to the performer first place and this fundamental right of informational self-determination is protected in many countries ;)

"Responsible editorial discretion is not censorship. WP:BLP is a more restrictive policy than many other institutions follow. It's one we should be rightly" proud of. We should enforce it against indiscriminate, ill-advised, mean-spirited or careless editors."

David in DC

Now this is something I can truly rally behind. xoxo 3vil-Lyn (talk) 18:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Whoo-boy, this is the most cogent and thorough treatment of this topic I have seen and it warms my heart. I hope it becomes the basis for real, consistently enforced, definitive policy on this topic. (Except that quote from that David in DC guy. He sometimes comes across as awfully self-righteous.) David in DC (talk) 15:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Aww, *blush* thank you so much for starting my morning off with a laugh! :)

I'm no native English speaker, but I do hope I could give those of you who struggle to find some arguments to bring what common sense should tell you in line with the Misplaced Pages policies a helping hand - either legally or ethically. I think it can't hurt the wiki-community to take a look at those European countries with some of the more advanced privacy and publicity right laws. We can learn something from it by trying to understand their intention and looking at the long history of OTRS tickets on porn star bios.

I am convinced that ultimately the pornography portal would gain from such a strict enforcement on porn stars biographies when it comes to birth names and vandalism. Once news about such a policy change goes out, some actors might even be less hesitant to supply pictures of themselves ;)

C'mon every talent really interested in having their picture on Misplaced Pages could supply one, it doesn't come as a surprise almost no one wants to do it when anonymous posters are allowed to use their namespace as a piece of jotting paper for their mental blackouts and you can be almost sure some so-called fan adds a birth name every month to update the article history no matter the endless efforts of the guys currently trying to enforce WP:BLP. Let's put an end to this. Give names only with sourced consent of the actor unless the real name was used with notable activities outside porn, just like we do it for copyright stuff on Commons.

We should also establish a flagged revision editing system on biographies of living persons just like it's done on the German Misplaced Pages, maybe with a twist that is no publication without oversight of an experienced editor (registered user with an X amount of edits, who's account is then responsible for the approval, that should put an end to anonymous WP:BLP violations). As for a nicer wording I'd humbly like to request the help of a native English speaker. ;) 3vil-Lyn (talk) 00:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for a vote

There appear to be two views here. One that porn stars' real names can and should be added to all articles, the other that they should not be added except in specific circumstances.

I am of the second opinion, however I believe this is a particular case of a more general issue and I believe we should draft a policy for the general issue of when to reveal the real name of a person notable under a pseudonym.

My proposal is to add the following section to the BLP page, after the Well known public figure section and before the People who are relatively unknown section.

It should read as follows:

Pseudonyms

Where a person uses a pseudonym to conceal his or her identity (e.g. whistleblowers, political bloggers, pornstars) then Misplaced Pages should respect privacy and not reveal the real name. This policy even applies where the pseudonym is used to conceal criminal activity (revealing a real name in such a case is accusing that person of being a criminal — possibly libellous). Where the real name has not been concealed or is widely known (this is a more onerous requirement than being merely verifiable) then it can be included where it will add to an article.Filceolaire (talk) 19:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I support this idea. People should not have to worry about being "outed" by Misplaced Pages. That's not our job. Kaldari (talk) 04:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose on the grounds that all WP material must be wp:verifiable, so the person's real name is actually on the public record already. If the WP editor could find it, then so could anybody else. Also, generally, it is unwise to stifle information. As an aside, the definition could be edited to be more accurate — e.g., his or her identity, not their identity, and libelous, not slanderous. Yours in rather spirited defense of freely available information, GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Edited to incorporate these changes. Thanks. Filceolaire (talk) 09:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment This provision is already covered by verifiability and BLP, since any "outing" would have to be sourced to strong reliable sources, in which case the person has been outed anyway. I don't think it hurts to emphasize that compromising BLP information must be extremely well sourced, but I can see some being concerned about instruction creep. --Gimme danger (talk) 06:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The issue arose where WP editors were getting real names from minor blogs and from legal documents (such as age declarations and trademark registrations) to out pornstars real names. This change to BLP would make it clear that even if the person has been outed before on some obscure source that does not make it appropriate to out them on WP.Filceolaire (talk) 09:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)\

Those editors were blatantly violating reliable source standards for BLPs and conducting original research then. The issue of using legal documents is a good point. Perhaps a statement indicating that compromising information, such as true identity, may not be tied to original sources, but instead must appear in a reliable, synthetic source like a magazine or newspaper. Misplaced Pages editors should leave the investigative journalism to the professionals. Gimme danger (talk) 14:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose... respecting their privacy should not be our concern. The only thing that should concern us is that it has been reported in a reliable, verifiable source. Perhaps the wording in WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:BLP needs to be strengthened in that respect, however the fundamental problem is inevitable. People think "ZOMG1!1 I can edit this, guess what I just heard... everyone needs to hear this." What needs to happen, in my opinion, is more of a strict application of current policy in excising information that cannot be reliably sourced. Maybe add a section to WP:BLP stating that a person's connection to their pseudonym needs an inline reliable source, and it should be removed without one (as opposed to adding {{fact}} to it). --Storkk (talk) 10:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - If their real name can be verified by strong independent sources (not forums and blogs) and is already publicly known then it should be added. However, if they are only notable under their pseudonym and their real name cannot be verified then it should not be added. Ғїяеѕкатея 12:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Extremely strong oppose - If information can be verified, it should be included. Misplaced Pages is not a PR agency. We need to drop this self-important sense of being mighty gate-keepers of knowledge and only letting the little people know what it is appropriate for the little people to know. If it can be verified, it can be included! We're certainly not "outing" anyone if the information has already appeared in something we consider a reliable source. How is it even possible to make that argument? We are an encyclopedia, not a private security service. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 01:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment Misplaced Pages:Polling is not a substitute for discussion

Hello Filceolaire :) Let me say, first, that I do like your idea of a more general approach, however I'm afraid your wording in the second part ("Where the real name has not been concealed or is widely known then it can be included where it will add to an article") doesn't help much, it might make things even worse. Look, you at no point have the right to make such a decision for a perfomer.

Not you, not Jimmy Wales ;), not even a hundred Misplaced Pages editors who might vote here can decide about whether or not a certain adult actors privacy rights should be abrogated.

Just look at Katja Kassin's case, some German admin made a Google search and said voilà a thousand hits for her birth name, so it's widely known and the name should be restored. What this particular editor overlooked was that he never was in the position to decide such matters according to the law of his country. Apart from the fact that neither IMDb nor any of the other fan databases are reputable sources and a birth name often adds nothing to a porn stars biography at all, since they are usually not known by their birth names.

What some people try to do here is transfer the privacy right of an individual to the community, that won't fly with me ;)

It doesn't matter whether a name has been concealed somewhere nor if it's widely known according to Google or similar search engines (anyone can spread such a thing all over the internet in no time - in hours even) given that Misplaced Pages is one primary source of information for many people.

The one thing that does matter is whether or not a birth name has been spread with the permission of the adult actor and that's about it. (as long as the birth name wasn't used in other notable activities outside the porn industry, as you can't have it both ways, see, e.g. Sibel Kekilli).

So even if the New York Times or any other paper or online zine for that matter would publish such a name without permission and the case goes to court, Misplaced Pages would not be allowed to cite the source as soon as it becomes clear that the name wasn't cleared. To prevent any such scenario right from the start it would be best to have a zero tolerance policy on porn star bios and work on the proposed changes to the Misplaced Pages editing system. Such a special treatment to biographies of living persons would make sense anyway, whenever dealing with articles at high risk of vandalism (porn stars, politicians during a campaign,...).

I do get a feeling though that article histories and back links to birth names are deliberately neglected all across the Misplaced Pages project (no matter the language), as if some people would think the actors are somewhat not technical savvy enough to realize how they are taken for a fool.

So to push this policy change, ALL article histories (including discussion sites) which contained birth names at some point of their revision history that got removed due to WP:BLP or OTRS tickets, should be flagged and then wiped by a bot. Same goes for the birth name field in the adult actors template. The links to filmographies should be checked on a case-by-case basis, sometimes people try to include birth names as pseudonyms. You could even organize a team in the pornography portal that flags articles. 3vil-Lyn (talk) 13:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not. There has been enough creep in BLP. BLP is intended to prevent unverifiable or poorly sourced information from going into BLPs. This is a good goal. This should be its only goal. It should not, ever, be used to suppress information which is verifiable from reliable sources. That's an editorial decision to be made on an article-by-article basis. BLP is a powerful tool. It needs to be strictly limited in scope and under no circumstances allowed to expand. Considerations of "privacy" and the like, when information can be verified through reliable sources, should be considered article-by-article. Legal concerns should be addressed by this guy here, not by armchair lawyers. And BLP should stay within scope. Period. It may not be our job to "out", but it is similarly not our job to "preserve privacy" of information already available in reliable sources. The very concept is almost laughable, how could one preserve the privacy of information already available to the public? And if unsourced or poorly sourced, BLP already covers immediate removal. Seraphimblade 05:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Real names that are reliably sourced should be included in every BLP, period. Jclemens (talk) 19:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment - why vote for something that doesn't reflect anything from the discussion above? - first read up on the discussion before posting a one liner in here

Comment That was a rather rude comment. I read enough of it to know that I completely reject the notion of "consent" when it comes to the publication of people's real names. The fact that Misplaced Pages fails to publish real names in certain cases (a la Star Wars Kid) in the name of sensitivity undermines its credibility. Admittedly, there are bigger fish to fry first, but that's a separate matter. Jclemens (talk) 00:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't meant to be rude, in fact this sentence was there before I even read your post. ;) I thought a moment about moving your post under mine, but decided against it because I was too lazy. I'm still not really fond of polling before there is at least some kind of stub with the input of as many as possible editors that joined the discussion. Voting like I've seen it on Misplaced Pages often attracts people with blanket statements and discourages consensus between those who value arguments. -- 3vil-Lyn (talk) 04:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Guys! You can still cite reliable sources to include a birth name where consent is implied. A published autobiography? A publication in the NYT and no one complaining -> consent implied. No biggy.

But a TV reportage coverage immediately followed up by a verified OTRS ticket? -> NO consent, name has to be removed by LAW in many European countries and (at least) by ethics in the States on the grounds of Misplaced Pages's own "do no harm" policy. Responsibility is a keyword here for any OTRS helper, as Misplaced Pages demands little or no responsibility from those who are given the power of publishing information on perhaps the world's largest reference source. To dismiss any calls for responsibility and restraint as censorship or solely focus on a publication though there is a justified objection from the subject in question doesn't do biographies of living people justice. Most large publications (just don't count private TV stations in here) are restrained by journalistic codes of ethics in addition to legal advisers. I fail to see how this one guy has any influence on some anonymous editor messing up article histories of porn stars with unsourced stuff. We should work on a policy that doesn't rely on complaints (by the way the complaint email address is really well hidden from a casual Misplaced Pages visitor who has no starting point).

"The very concept is almost laughable, how could one preserve the privacy of information already available to the public?" Seraphimblade

As stated above Misplaced Pages content is automatically spread all over the internet, therefore it's perfectly reasonable (but not nice! should be the last resort) to enjoin Misplaced Pages from including personal data that infringes personal rights of an actor.

To give you an (rather simplified) example. Say an European newspaper publishes a birth name without consent and some judge issues an injunction to prohibt the newspaper to publish the name on their online websites or print media because it might infringe personal rights of the complainant.(there is also a possibility for monetary compensations in some countries but such things are usually taken care of later on due to exigent circumstances)

Let's say a fellow Wikipedian has cited the accused newspaper as source for the birth name of the actor in question, so that e.g. the German language Misplaced Pages also gets a notice of distringas. Would the involved Misplaced Pages editors now say "we don't care - yadda yadda" and not comply with the request, then the German language Misplaced Pages servers in Europe would be cut off with an injunction. Such things already happened in the past. You can read about it here. Misplaced Pages.de access gone for a whole country just because of one "possible" privacy right violation. So you can see how they take these rights serious and this poor guy was already dead. A postmortem personality right. Nifty :) While it still might be possible to visit Misplaced Pages under a different domain, this wouldn't help someone who uses the leaked name in some other publication in this country nor would it help the persons who added or restored the private data as they would be legally liable.

Seraphimblade, in my previous posts I've tried to address a lot more than just BLP issues, but of course it's entirely up to you how much time you spent to read up on the discussion.

Nevertheless, according to your own logic, you might want to explain us on which grounds birth names that have been identified as unsourced BLP violations should be kept in the article's history rather then being flagged for a bot?

As for creep? in BLP, one could summarize my proposal regarding porn stars in one or two sentences (just not not the argumentation). However this might not be the best place to propose the introduction of flagged revisions, as we're still on the BLP noticeboard, and such a change would be quite substantial. I do admit, though, that I have no idea where to go with the later proposal.

By the way, one thing you learn pretty early at law school :P is that even if for example a "right of public interest" is argued, every right is limited when it infringes upon the rights of others, as there are no absolute rights. At Misplaced Pages we have no "laws" but we use policies. However we do follow the same principle, as every policy established by consent might find it's limits in other policies that we then weigh against each other. Of course every foreign language Wiki tries to not act against the law of it's country though some editors fall for the trap of privileging wiki-norms over real-norms. Don't.

Here we often find a conflict between personality rights versus public interest, and aside from WP:BLP also WP:HARM. In my humble opinion the complications an adult actor or their families might experience with stalkers or even finding a future job outside porn, clearly outweigh any information gain a real name has to an adult actors article. Luckily in most European countries we don't need this discussion at all as people have a right of informational self-determination and it is enforced. Thanks to the insight and intellectual rigor of many OTRS helpers in most cases NOT by order of a court. ;)

With my proposed (need work!) changes no one would have fun adding WP:BLP violations anymore as they either never appear (editorially-reviewed articles) or get wiped from the articles history anyway (preferably by a bot once an article gets flagged, just like we do it with pictures). -- 3vil-Lyn (talk) 00:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

So you think Misplaced Pages should favor the possible future reputation of porn stars ahead of telling reliably-sourced truth? You might want to go reread WP:5 and go find a project which has core values more in line with your goals. Jclemens (talk) 00:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose We don't need to set a precedent of imposing 'consent' determination steps on BLPs. It isn't our job to out anyone, but it isn't our job to protect people from the internet, either. BLP means keep defamatory material off and nn-bios OUT. It does not mean roll back the clock to a point where pseudoynms obscured identity from all but the most determined searchers. The information will be concatenated somewhere. We can't stop that. We should not author a policy that makes us act as though that transparency doesn't exist. (Oh, and for the eventual comment that A: votes don't substitute for discussion or B: I'm just doing a drive by I have two things to say. Enough discussion has occured that it won't hurt to get a straw poll and just because I haven't opened my mouth above doesn't mean I haven't read it). Protonk (talk) 00:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Fortunately consensus will never be reached on this matter and Misplaced Pages will remain an experimental encyclopedia that anyone can edit.

Albion moonlight (talk) 12:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Huh? It take then that this prior post is no longer operative:

So go ahead and delete them where you find them and lets see what the rest of wiki has to say about it. I can live with a wiki that disallows all mention of a pornstars real names. But for some reason some of you seem unwilling to live with a wikipedia that does allow it. Anyway I am through with this discussion because it only seems to be going in circles. I assure you that I will not edit war with you or encourage others to do so. If one of those articles goes to an Rfc or to mediation or even arbitration I may join in. But as for this discussion if I am the only one blocking consensus (and I am one of 3 or 4], I hereby withdraw my dissent and agree to disagree. Best wishes to everyone.: Albion moonlight (talk) 07:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

David in DC (talk) 17:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Reply. No David my offer still stands. If I am the only one blocking consensus then I will agree to disagree and thus allow the vast majority to have there way. This offer was and is a rhetorical gesture in the sense that such a consensus is highly unlikely. I do intend to participate in the discussion from time to time and vote in these proposals but I do not value my opinions enough to block consensus over them. Be well. Albion moonlight (talk) 10:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Personality rights as granted in Europe protect the personal life of an adut model better

than even this first proposal as worded by Filceolaire

Since these are basically privacy rights mandated by law, they are not up to discussion for Misplaced Pages editors living in Europe.

We can and should assume consent in cases where we have publications in reliable sources

(questionable or vanity press sources do not qualify (->IMDb, fan databases)),

consent is usually implied when citing sources like autobiograhpies, big name newspapers or verifiable interviews

(unverifiable podcasts on low profile fan sites migt be problematic though, also material from third-party primary sources should not be used

unless it has first been published by a reliable secondary source).

Should a subject wish to have a birth name removed and a complaint is received, we will comply following the "do no harm" policy

(see, e.g. -> Katja Kassin, Katsuni, Brandy Alexandre, even Star Wars kid)

as long as it can't be sourced that the subject in question voluntarily used a birth name in other notable projects outside porn.

(-> Sibel Kekilli, Ilona Staller, Michaela Schaffrath) -- 3vil-Lyn (talk) 13:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. Whether or not the legal names of pseudonymous actors should be included in their biographies has to be based on a better standard than whether their work is "pornographic" or not. That's obviously a matter of moral and artistic judgment that no editors should be making. To set up these special rules for pornstars gives them privacy protection that isn't being automatically offered to others. What about writers, for instance? Some authors may publish under pen-names because they don't want to be mistaken for someone else or because they want a sexier-sounding name, but most do it solely to conceal their identity. Their reasons for not wanting to be identified as the author of a particular work may be very real and every bit as personally important as those of any pornstar. The same could be true of artists (e.g. Banksy), political activists, musicians or anyone else who chooses to assume an alternate public identity. We can't make assumptions about the person's reasons for using a pseudonym, how much money they make, nor what the consequences might be of including their birth name or not. Editors' squeamishness about the porn business has already already led to a lot of what Jenny rightly calls "weasel words". For example, Ryan Idol has Idol describes himself as "the creation of Marc Anthony Donais." Apart from being embarrassingly coy, this is a smokescreen that wouldn't be offered to a non-porn celebrity like Kid Rock. The policy has to be consistent for all BLPs, and obviously never identifying a pseudonymous person under any circumstances isn't going to make the encyclopedia more useful to its readers. The only policy that can be consistently applied as a guide here is WP:RS– if a person has been identified by a reliable source, then that name is public information about them which shouldn't be denied from Misplaced Pages on the basis of an editor's moral judgment. --Proptology (talk) 03:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment I think you're missing the point of the Ryan Idol wording. Comparing it to Kid Rock is fairly pointless. In Marc Anthony Donais's opinion, Ryan Idol is a character he created and plays. Ryan Idol is therefore not a pseudonym but the name of a character. I see no reason to presume this is because Marc is somehow embarassed by his creation or wishes to distance himself from the character, it's simply the way he has chosen to potray Ryan Idol. One excellent example of this is Dame Edna Everage. I don't think anyone is going to resonably suggest Barry Humphries is embarassed by Dame Edna Everage. However Edna is clearly intended to be a character rather then a pseudonym of Barry and confusing the two makes absolutely no sense. It's as silly as calling Lord British in the Ultima universe a pseudonym of Richard Garriot. Or heck evem Princess Leia Organa as a pseudonym of Carrie Fisher Nil Einne (talk) 06:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't think I'm missing the point of the Ryan Idol wording, and trying to argue that black is white doesn't change anything. We all understand the difference between an on-screen character (eg. Brenda Walsh), an actor's pseudonym (eg. Woody Allen and a stage persona (eg. Larry "Bud" Melman). But it doesn't matter because all of their WP bios list their birth names anyway, while Idol's does not. --Proptology (talk) 02:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Than you for proving my point. Ryan Idol is considered an, as you say, on-screen character or persona. Therefore the article is worded appropriately. And his article also mentions the name of the person who plays that character/persona "Marc Anthony Donais. So really, I have no idea what your complaining about Nil Einne (talk) 08:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose The birth name of a notable public figure is considered encyclopedic information and is included in traditional encyclopedias' biographies, and it is equally encyclopedic in Misplaced Pages. Someone who launches a career as a movie actor is inherently seeking to be a public figure, and their life story (where and when born, birth name, education, life experiences) are as relevant to their story as those of Marilyn Monroe being born as "Norma Jean" was when she was alive. But any information about a living person must be verifiable via reliable sources. A blog generally does not qualify and IMDB does not qualify. Misplaced Pages is not an "outing" site to make public that which is not easily obtainable public knowledge. If the actor's birth name is published in Newsweek or the New York Times, it is readily available public knowledge, and no one can undo the ringing of the bell. It should be added to the article, unless there are unusual and compelling reasons not to. I can't think of any, except legal process. If someone claims to have found it from an adoption record, an obscure court document, a baptism record in a church. a real estate transaction, a property tax record, or similar records which are not widely available, and which are original research, it should not be included. We should not act as amateur private detectives, rooting out obscure information and publishing it, and we should not mirror little known blogs which do the same thing. Many such associations have been found to be incorrect, and are as dubious as much genealogical research. This falls under the "do no harm" notion, while adding a New York Times reference in fact does no harm beyond any done when the name was published there. There is no general policy of allowing the subject of an article to edit it, so as to leave in text which increases video sales or pay for appearing in films, but leave out text which includes reliably referenced biographical details in what purports to be a biography. That sounds more like a vanity biography site where people pay to have the desired biographical details published. I have questioned the notability of porn actors in several AFDs, and see many of the "bio" articles as unjustified efforts by the actors or the video producers to use Misplaced Pages as a promotional medium. If someone leaves the porn actor trade and requests deletion of their article, I would in some cases favor the deletion in AFD, unless they are truly notable as is Harry Reems. Their notability in some field outside their porn actor career seems totally irrelevant as a deciding factor for whether their birth name should be included. Edison (talk) 03:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
oppose as written Among other issues it isn't at all clear to me that all porn stars use pseudonyms to keep their real names hidden. I imagine a name like Bertha Bergensteinshwaltz just wouldn't go over well in porn (I just made that name up, I really hope no one has that name). Moreover, when a name is given in many easily accessible reliable sources there's no good reason for us to cover it up. There may be occasional situations where there is some obscure reliable source for the real name. Those cases can be dealt with in a case by case basis. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Can we refocus the discussion?

Comment I don't believe a 'vote' is helpful here and in any case the issue seems to be distracting from the original point. This discussion original arose (I believe) and definitely it was resurrected for a second time because several edits, including me, are against the use of primary sources, particularly stuff like trademark documents & unreliable secondary sources like blogs, to identify the real name of someone (for me at least, I don't care whether they are pornographic actors or politicians or whoever) when that real name has not already been published in reliable secondary sources. To me, this reeks of OR and is likely a privacy violation and therefore a violation of BLP. While I think we have consensus on the blog part, several people in particular Celarnor and Albion moonlight feel that there is nothing wrong with using primary sources of this sort ("public (read: government-maintained) databases of public information") to identify the real names of people who's real name has not yet been published in a reliable secondary source. While I appreciate what Filceolaire & 3vil-Lyn are trying to do and in fact I'm mildly supportive of the idea I've never advocated it since I've suspected and this discussion confirms that there is unlikely to be much support of the idea (in any case, I"m not sure if this is the best place to discuss a BLP policy change). I suggest we get back to the original point. Nil Einne (talk) 06:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to lead the way. I'm just here for the popcorn. and the occasional chat Albion moonlight (talk) 09:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Nil and Albion. I saw this discussion link at the community portal. This says that "any material challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source". So it seems you just need to challenge the material to cause the need for a reliable source. This talks about reliable sources and says they are "third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". The section does not list trademark documents or blogs. I think you need only (1) challenge the real name to cause a requirement for a reliable source and (2) if the source provided does not fall into this, then you should be able to keep the name out. Suntag (talk) 01:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

This discussion bears directly on recent edits at Clyda Rosen and Suzy Mandel. In both cases, I deleted birth names whose only source was IMDB. My edits were reverted, with no edit summary. (At Mary Millington the same editor called my editing pointless and possible vandalism, so he/she may not have felt compelled to elaborate.) What do y'all think? David in DC (talk) 15:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I’ve answered your query regarding Millington at her talk page, but to summarize in her case there are several sources beyond the IMDB that verify both her birth and married names, there is also no sigma attached to these names being revealed in public and therefore no reason why wikipedia should be denied this information. The same is also true of Clyda and Suzy, and I can also elaborate on their cases if need be. --Gavcrimson (talk) 05:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Well David considering the fact that Jimbo wrote you a note your talk page to laudit your good sense and patience pursuant to this discussion. I quite honestly do not know what to think. I know that you definitely are not a vandal. Your edits are also not pointless but merely at variance with the view of many other wikipedians. Perhaps mediation is the answer. There are many wikipedians who agree with you. Albion moonlight (talk) 07:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo's note to me was reassuring. But more compelling still is his comment on his own talk page, archived here. The most significant quote, it seems to me, is this:

...In this particular case, I think it quite clear that the names in question should not be in Misplaced Pages. I wonder what agenda is being pushed by the desire to include them, because it's a hell of an obscure thing to fight for, for no reason..--Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

David in DC (talk) 22:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo.s opinion holds a lot of weight with me, but his opinion does not outweigh consensus or lack of consensus until he explicitly says it does. That is to say that I will continue to vote as I choose to vote unless I am the only one blocking consensus. At that point I would remind people to go ahead and have their consensus. Consensus is very unlikely at this point but perhaps Jimbo's opinion will cause others to rethink their position . Albion moonlight (talk) 06:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Clyda-Rosen A reliable source ?

It looks like one to me, but let us hear from some of the others before I add it to the article Albion moonlight (talk) 02:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC) It has recieved laudits from The NY Times. Albion moonlight (talk) 03:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that a Misplaced Pages mirror? A ni Mate 03:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, yes it is. From approximately this verson. Dragons flight (talk) 03:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I will take your word for it. If there is a version of it that is not a wiki mirror then perhaps it could be used. I am not going to get my hopes up on that one. I was doing a google search when I found it. Thanks for the info. Albion moonlight (talk) 06:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

IMDB and Luke Ford's blog

Suzy Mandel's article has two sources for her birth name: Luke Ford's blog and IMDb. Neither is a WP:RS. I've reverted her birth name on that basis. Even if we can't agree that intentionally obscured birth names should not be posted, surely we can agree that, if they are to be posted, they must be reliably sourced. David in DC (talk) 23:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed (unsurprisingly). Any controversial claim, and revealing a birth name that has intentionally obscured is controversial, must have an excellent reliable source. A ni Mate 23:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

And then again, what if this claim is true. It will be interesting to see how Jimbo and on the other elites handle that one. Perhaps Ms Mandell will know of a source that will satisfy eveyone. Albion moonlight (talk) 07:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Primary sources, such as trademark documents and COPPA filings, are WP:RS

We are not here to protect the potential future of adult actors nor are we here to take a position of whether one should be ashamed of being one. They, like any other live performer, will have their real names in addition to pseudonyms if WP:RS are available. That includes official legal documentation. Period, end of discussion. As to Jimbo's question, well it is a matter of consistency and a matter of correctness. This whole thing smacks of some attempt by the forces of chastity and prudery to somehow insert their contention that it is wrong and bad to be a pornographic actor. We are not here to make such determinations, therefore we will publish the facts as best can be determined through proper sourcing. --Dragon695 (talk) 22:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Read WP:PRIMARY please. A ni Mate 22:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Please re-read WP:PRIMARY; especially the second set of bulleted points. There's absolutely nothing wrong wrong with taking primary sources at face value. Using a primary source as a source for the existence of itself (i.e, citing a primary source as evidence of the existence of said primary source) is a perfectly acceptable thing to do, as is using a primary source to make descriptive claims of the information found therein (i.e, "So and so filed whatever document whenever"). This isn't a sourcing issue; we can and do use this practice elsewhere for other purposes. This is a morality and privacy issue. Celarnor 23:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

We are not here to reveal information that people have taken pains to conceal. This is not a judgment about someone's line of work. WP:BLP includes a presumption in favor of personal privacy when dealing with obscure facts, regardless of the reason that it has been obscured. If the only source for a personal detail, such as a person's true name, is a poorly known primary source then it should be omitted. We are writing an encyclopedia, not engaging in investigative journalism. Dragons flight (talk) 23:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Is this really an issue? Is Dragon695 really going to find the COPPA filings and enter them into an article? Likely, he will not, as he almost never actually edits articles, and tends to focus on the drama of the day according to his edit history. Secondly, if someone is actually able to obtain the COPPA filings, how can we verify that they are accurate? If the information hasn't been published in a reliable secondary source we have to take the word of a contributor that the document they have is legitimate and that isn't enough to satisfy WP:BLP. A ni Mate 00:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Investigative journalism is a very good description of filing FOIA's to get birth names out of COPPA filings. It is original research and it is prohibited. If you want to do that, go work for a newspaper, not as a voluteer trying to build an encyclopedia. Other, secondary and teritiary reliable sources are a necessary, but not sufficient, condition to putting something in a Misplaced Pages article. After you've gotten over the hurdles of reliability of sources and notability, you're still faced with all of the editorial judgment that must attend decisions about what details to include. That's editorial judgment, gang, not censorship. Things like WP:NOT, WP:BLP, WP:HARM, and WP:WEIGHT, to name a few.

This whole thing smacks of some attempt by the forces of chastity and prudery to somehow insert their contention that it is wrong and bad to be a pornographic actor....--Dragon695 (talk) 22:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Way to assume good faith big guy! For the record, I'm not aligned with any forces of chastity or prudery. I am aligned, I hope, with forces of editorial discretion. Forces for adult judgment. Forces of perspective. In the face of Misplaced Pages's uncomplicated-to-understand presumption of privacy where personal data has been purposely obscured, especially in the case of biographies of living people, it must take a near-infinite personal reservoir of what Steely Dan used to call Pretzel Logic to sustain fervant crusading to out living porn actors' birth names. This next is not an original observation, but still: it's one hell of an obscure cause. What agenda fuels it? David in DC (talk) 01:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

For the agenda maybe this statement might help:

Sorry, but when you decide to be a porn star, you are relinquishing your right to hide your name. --Dragon695 (talk) 22:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Although written out of frustration this does not need further comment. But of course I still do assume good faith.

And just for the record. A few weeks ago the German wikipedia has resolved the „Katja Kassin“ case mentioned above. The real name has been removed from the article as a blatant violation of WP:BLP. The name has even been deleted from the history in this particular case and the page has now been semi-protected because of repeated tries to insert the name again. (Jamesbeat (talk) 09:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC))

It's good to hear about how this has been dealt with by our German cousins. It sounds to me like the right result. David in DC (talk) 15:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Not only is using their employment records to find birth names Original Research, it's incredibly unethical. I'm pretty sure fraudulently obtaining their 2257 for publication is also a good way to enjoy a stay at Club Fed. I don't like the idea of requiring OPRS action to resolve birth name disclosure, because wikipedia is used to fill in background by reporters. Usually without attribution it seems, but mistakes in articles do seem to show up elsewhere and we do put ourselves in the position of outing people by not mandating the higher standard. So far we've had driver's licenses, high school yearbooks, and falsified references used by cyberstalkers to get people's birth names into articles. Most were quickly removed but the falsified reference managed to stay in for about 8 months because nobody ever read the entire reference to find out the name wasn't there. Once we're used for background by a WP:RS, it's really hard to resolve the damage we've caused. I don't see what we lose by bumping the standard up to "widely reported" before violating people's pseudonymous privacy attempts. Horrorshowj (talk) 11:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Dragon I think your completely missing the point. I don't care whether someone is a porn star, a normal actor who plays in family films, a carpenter, a scientist, a politician or a whatever. If they are known by a pseudonym and their real name is not published in a reliable secondary sources then you should not be using primary sources to disclose that real name. Period. This has nothing to do with prudity or whatever you want to come up with but wikipedia policy and respect for LPs. Nil Einne (talk) 09:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Saying that living people are former terrorists

A question under WP:BLP arises in Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC regarding whether it is okay to repost in the biographies of William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, election-related articles pertaining to Barack Obama and the Obama-Ayers controversy, and in the Weathermen article itself, characterizations made by some that the 1960s and 1970s actions of the Weather Underground Organization constitute terrorism. This affects a number of people who are productive members of society today but who participated in radical US youth movements in the 1960s and 70s. Some feel that calling living people former terorists is a pejorative epithet that is inherently subjective (absent being on any official list) and a BLP violation; others that these people are well known and the accusations of being terrorists are well sourced (i.e. they fit the BLP exception). At the RfC there has been some question (e.g. here as to what BLP really means, so any guidance there would be helpful. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 18:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

We wouldn't want to recklessly toss epithets as if they were mere bombs used to make a political point, would we? Edison (talk) 19:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Using the word fraudulent, and third party sources

At Grand Orient of the United States of America there is a persistent wish to insert the word "fraudulent" about claims made by the founders about the membership of the group. It is sourced from another, personal, web page. The claim, that they have fewer members than they claim, is common and perhaps should be reported, but the way in which the word "fraudulent" is used - particularly when used about identifiable individuals - disturbs me. Could we have an opinion on this? JASpencer (talk) 16:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

To give you more info, here is the situation: a noted and respected masonic appologist website (masonicinfo.com) has stated that the website of a particular breakaway Masonic group contains statements that "are extraordinarily misleading and, we believe, fraudulent". As this accusation goes directly to the notability of the breakaway group, I wish to report this opinion in the article on the group, using those same words (clearly and neutraly attributed as being the opinion of the author, in quotes and fully cited). JASpencer seems to want to remove the word "fraudulent", saying that to quote the author is a BLP violation. Please note that the article does not say that the group has committed fraud as a statement of fact... it simply quotes the author's opinion. The author has stated that he believes that the group's website contains statements that are "extraordinarily misleading" and "fraudulent". Is it wrong to quote him? Blueboar (talk) 16:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The word fraudulent is only mentioned in the original source once, and there is no explicit link with the founders. This is not the case in the original Misplaced Pages wording which did single out the founders, did mention the word fraudulent twice, including in the heading. It has toned down, by why is there such an insistence on using this term? I have no link with either side of this fight, but I find the use of this word ugly and needing a very high level of sourcing which is simply lacking. JASpencer (talk) 19:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The insistance is due to a desire to accurately quote the source. Blueboar (talk) 20:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Why has the quote changed so much from then and now? Is this bit really the most important part of the piece rather than the claim that there are very few active members? JASpencer (talk) 20:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm unsure if this is the right board and section for this dispute, as generally this section is for broader and more complex ongoing issues relating to several articles rather than a specific case. It's also fairly hard to get outside opinions, when disputants continue arguing rather than stating their opinions and waiting for responses. That being said... my opinion, you should file an RfC to get some more outside opinions or go to WP:3O to get a new perspective. Even better, find some reliable sources to back up the claim or refute it, as I'm frankly not sure the website necessarily holds up as reliable or notable. A ni Mate 20:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

JAS, my most recent wording was posted to the page about 8 minutes before you took the issue to this noticeboard, here is the diff ... after that you reverted saying it had BLP issues here. Perhaps you did not notice that I changed the tone and removed any reference to the people and focused on the webpage... So let's be sure that we are discussing my most recent wording. Do you think that my most recent wording is a violation of BLP or not? Blueboar (talk) 21:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I still think that the word is insufficiently supported connsidering the implications and I am disturbed by the persistence in reinserting it. JASpencer (talk) 21:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

If this is not the correct place to ask whether an article has BLP issues, would someone please point us in the correct direction? This has to be resolved. Blueboar (talk) 21:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you want more people to look at it, generally a report of this nature would go at the bottom of the noticeboard since this isn't an ongoing persistent problem. Have you filed an RfC? Have you asked for a third opinion? Have you tried finding other sources to support your claim? All steps yous should take and try to be patient. A ni Mate 21:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

AniMate, thanks for your time and patience on this... I see from your comments at the article talk page that you cut through the issue of BLP, and address a more fundamental issue... that (masonicinfo.com) is not a reliable secondary source. This should settle the issue, if the source is not reliable then it would be improper to quote the source, and thus there is no BLP question. Blueboar (talk) 22:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Disappeared versus dead

Harold Holt is categorised as in the mutually exclusive Category:1967 deaths (which doesn't get BLP protection) and in Category:Disappeared people (which does get BLP protection). At what point of certainty (apart from waiting until 1908 + 123 = 2031) do we consign someone from disappeared to dead? Was there another article a few months ago that faced this dilemma? Andjam (talk) 10:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

templates for new editors?

Forgive me (and point me in the right direction) if someone has done this before, have we given thought to a nicely worded welcome template for newish users who are editing BLP articles, explaining why reliable sourcing is important, and if they have any can they please add, or otherwise not add the material, with sorta nice wording like "imagine this was wirtten about you/your sister/brother etc" and highlighting the imporantce of referencing? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Individual articles

Primal Therapy

Primal therapy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Since my recent edit of the article (), which removed a link to a website, the presence of which represents a BLP violation, in my opinion, an edit war has been raging. A key page on that website which would make any link to it a breach of BLP is here .

It was the removal of the last remaining link to this website by me (after I read that recently added page) that seems to have triggered what appears to be a coordinated counter assault notably by an unregistered user, 76.90.103.220, and others including Randroide who was involved in an earlier BLP issue in the same article. I have not yet had time to see who appears to be defending the article, if anyone, other than Twerges. A few of the edits appear to be valid neutralisation of language which may be worth retaining but the majority appear to be either the adding of links and text to the Criticisms section or, most importantly, restoring of the links to the website in question, even to related articles I had removed them from months ago. There are many paragraphs of external links added to the Criticisms section many of which would never measure up to Misplaced Pages's standards even without invoking BLP policy.

I now believe that the links to the website and the links to Tom Werges' web pages have no place in the article or the related articles because they don't meet Misplaced Pages's standards especially the more stringent requirements of BLP that apply here. Without these links being removed and the people who deliberately engaged in destructive editing being blocked from the article and all the related articles, about Arthur Janov and his therapy, I can't see how any constructive work on it can happen from this point on. // GrahameKing (talk) 07:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

In actuality Grahame King has consistently been removing criticisms of primal therapy and adding advertising material. His attempt to label a critical website as libellous or of violating BLP rules are merely attempts to give him power to remove criticisms from the page. The said links to criticisms are sourced and often more reliable than official primal therapy books or websites. The claim that grahame king makes that there have been destructive edits are in fact reversals of attempts to remove criticisms. the real vandalism is by those trying to erase criticisms or links to critical information. Not only has grahamking vandalised criticism, but so has twerges, always for bogus , but impressive sounding, reasons.

Zonbalance —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zonbalance (talk • contribs) 05:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:Randroide

I present edits removing sources and sourced information made by User:GrahameKing in Primal Therapy:

I challenge User:GrahameKing to present a similar list of (IMO) destructive edits performed by us, those other users User:GrahameKing is asking to be blocked to edit Primal Therapy. Such list does NOT exist.

User:GrahameKing even blanked a whole Talk Page , by far the (IMO) weirdest move I have seen at Misplaced Pages. GrahameKing insisted in blanking discussions and sourced chunks of data from the talk page, over and over again .

Please note that User:GrahameKing express allegedly WP:BLP-related worries only in case of criticism against Arthur Janov. On the other hand User:GrahameKing is extremely liberal inserting lines of criticism made by Janov against other living persons, calling them "charlatans", "would-be practioners", "inexpert", "abusive therapists" and "lacking the empathy and technical knowledge necessary" .

I -UserRandroide- think that both sourced sides (pro and anti Janovian) should be present in the article. Therefore, I think that the edit by User:GrahameKing linked above is a very good edit.
OTOH, User:GrahameKing seems to think that criticisms against Janov should be erradicated from the article, and those Users who add those criticisms (like me) blocked. I disagree vehemently on this point.

Unlike him/her, I am not advocating the block from the article of User:GrahameKing (he/she made very good contributions to the article, despite some destructive edits). I am only providing the whole picture about User:GrahameKing, whose statements -IMHO- should be taken cum grano salis.

See also that User:GrahameKing is not shy of adding unsourced blocks of text , flagrant POV "appropiation" of the term "Primal Therapy" , his/her own speculations about the future and lines that sound in my ears like unsourced Janovian sales pitchs Randroide (talk) 10:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

This is obviously a complex, long-running dispute. Whatever the history of the participants, I am inclined to agree with GrahameKing that linking to debunking primal therapy is problematic. The site does nto meet reliable sourcing requirements, which would not necessarily eliminate it as an external link, but the subpage mentioned specifically (here) certainly contains unverified negative allegations about a living person. That said, I tend to think that more constructive work on the articles might happen with more open-minded, cooperative conversation about them on the talk page. The issues here go beyond BLP into content dispute, and, if the warnings about edit warring issued to the two primary editors of the article do not take effect, I would be inclined to recommend seeking page protection until the dispute can be ironed out properly at the article's talk page. --Moonriddengirl 13:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Please correct me I did not get you right: "DebunkingPrimalTherapy.com" can be linked as long as we abstain to link (much less quote) the contentious "_former_trainee_interview " page.

Did I get you right?. If not, could you please be more specific?. Thank you.Randroide (talk) 00:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Linking to the site at all is problematic per WP:BLP, which specifies that "External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and in full compliance with Misplaced Pages official policies and external links guidelines." WP:EL specifies that with regards to biographical material about living persons, "material available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all, either as sources or via external links". The website may provide links to reliable sources with editorial oversight, but it does not boast the same for itself, and it contains a subpage that is derogatory and unverifiable. I think it would be far better to mine the website as a source of usable material—by which I mean looking for links to published journal articles or tips to books—and leave it out of the article altogether. --Moonriddengirl 02:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Moonriddengirl, for your time and your careful consideration of what may appear on the surface, as I presented it above, to be a complex problem. I have explored the page protection option you recommended and regret that I can not follow it just on principle, at this time, as it would make me an accomplice to locking in clear BLP violations of the worst kind (inadequately sourced, potentially libellous claims) - and I do use my actual name. I noticed someone has already given page protection to the main article but not to the related articles. I reported on this noticeboard as it appears to offer adminstrative intervention where my efforts to uphold BLP policies had been to no avail. The only intervention that I can see that would be consistent with BLP policy would be to immediately and unconditionally remove all links to the two websites which contain references to the potentially libellous claims (,) and to block those who added these links (76.90.103.220, Twerges, Zonbalance) from editing the relevant articles (Primal Therapy, Arthur Janov, Scream therapy, The Primal Scream, and also Debunker vandalised by Zonbalance) because they are not properly registered users (who would only be subject to formal warnings if they were). It was I who added the link at the end of Types of patients treated to his website long before Twerges himself made me aware of the problematic interview which he was preparing to rebut - so ironically it is thanks to him that we discovered this problem. Once this report is history, any links to it such as the link to it placed on Talk:Primal_therapy by Randroide (and any others that may be found) should also be removed of course, preferably by an admin, not me (I've sworn off edit wars) - though maybe such links would just get broken by archiving. I do think page protection is a good idea. Someone should make a bot to seek out and remove links to sites that have been identified as BLP-unfriendly etc. Thanks for all your help. Let me know if you need anything from me. GrahameKing (talk) 11:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl asked me for my opinion. I partly agree with her. I think the site is usable in some manner for the purpose of the article on the theory. We do not avoid a site because some small portion of it is unsuitable. We shouldn't link specifically to an unsuitable part, but using it as an external link as a whole is indirect enough. the safest way is an external link. As she says, there is no shortage of unimpeachable materials to use at references for criticizing the theory. DGG (talk) 22:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't be taken in by the attempts of editors to remove criticism on primal therapy by labelling criticism as libel. For criticism to become libel it actually has to be false. The destructive vandalism was actually the removal of criticisms, NOT the reversal of those deletions. We may be dealing with editors who have a financial stake in primal therapy, so don't get taken in. I also second theidea to have grahameking banned due to the destructive edits. Although twerges and moongirl also seem to want to suppress any criticism too, and are equally destructive and clever at explaining their deletions.

Zonbalance Zonbalance

I'd like to bring to the attention my comments in the arthur janov section further down this page, which belongs here too. There I detail some reasons why the link discussed above should stay. I agree with Randriode in that the history of the editing of wiki primal therapy involved the invoking of the BLP rules in order to try and remove criticism of primal therapy and janov's theory. Criticizing Janov's theory or even pointig out inconsistencies or contradictions is not personally derogatory to a living person, and is an expected consequence of inventing a theory and submitting it to the scientific community or by calling it science. The discussed website (debunking primal therapy) link is not derogatory realy, and the violation of BLP is stretching the interpretation too far and is subjective. I'm glad there is some consensus that the link should not be deleted, however I don't agree that a small proportion of the site is unsuitable (as an external link). It seems relevant and if you think deeply enough about it, everything on there comments on primal therapy efficacy or primal theory, and is not meant to personally atack any person or persons. I submit that one of the main reasons why the initial request for removal (it was grahameking who removed it) was really due to the websites comprehensive criticism of primal therapy, and the biography of living persons argument was the vehicle used (incorrectly in my view) to affect that deletion of criticism. Aussiewikilady (talk) 21:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Robbi McMillen deletion

On various occasions has the management of artist Robbi McMillen contacted Misplaced Pages in order to have all metion of him removed from this website. As of yet, no such changes have been made. McMillen and his management demand that such pages be deleted, and that any pages about him must be removed until he is 18 years of age - we would not like this site, under reputation to cause any legal or moral damage, or damage to the artist's personal life. If confirmation is required, please email dan.casey'AT'robbimcmillen.com

All articles in all languages or containing mention of Robbi McMillen must be deleted. This is a request from his management and from his family. All pages, including those in Gaelic and his discography must be removed or a legal representative will contact Misplaced Pages. If you are in any doubt, please contact his management through his website.

Also, please note that Robbi's management are his family and a member of the family's legal team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.166.73 (talk • contribs) 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Can somebody confirm this? After all it is an IP. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN} 19:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

For confirmation, please feel free to email his management. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.120.246 (talk) 23:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Arthur Janov and others

Primal therapy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Arthur Janov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Scream therapy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Primal Scream (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Debunker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A question was raised above at Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Primal_Therapy regarding the appropriateness of this external link under BLP policy. This subpage includes unverifiable contentious claims regarding living persons. I have opined above in response to the question that I feel its inclusion is inappropriate, as BLP requires that ELs be fully compliant with WP:EL, which states that "material available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all, either as sources or via external links". The link is offered as a source or an EL in each of the above articles. I would appreciate feedback from others as to whether it presents a significant enough issue as regards BLP to warrant immediate removal, particularly as one of those articles is protected against edit warring. Pretty please and thanks. :) --Moonriddengirl 14:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Still hoping for feedback on this. I'm considering asking at the help desk. :) --Moonriddengirl 16:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

on the narrow question of including the subpage, or maybe even the main debunkingprimaltherapy.com page, I'll say no it shouldn't be included because it is not a well-known reliable source. However it does seem to have a wealth of reliable source linked to.

There is a question on a talk page about whether Discover Magazine is a reliable source. While it certainly is not a scientific journal, for purposes here it should be considered a reliable source. Being a scientific journal is not a requirement for being a reliable source - even for scientific topics.

My main comment is that this is probably best handled under WP:fringe. There is a question of whether Primal therapy is psuedoscience. It looks like some editors are SPEs. I've listed Primal Therapy at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Rational Skepticism, but not sure that this is the best place. The main issue should be in deciding whether Primal therapy is psuedoscience. From there, the rest should take care of itself. Smallbones (talk) 17:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your response and for listing the Primal therapy article in a good place for further review. :) --Moonriddengirl 18:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Bear in mind that this is an attempt by moonriddengirl to remove criticisms of primal therapy or arthur janov from wiki, by using bogus arguments and labelling sourced criticism as libel, even when it is far from it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zonbalance (talk • contribs) 05:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I remind you again to be civil and assume good faith. Given your contribution history, it's obvious that you have strong feelings about Janov and primal therapy. Conversely, my contribution history rather suggests I don't. Not everyone who disagrees with you about the appropriateness of this source is part of a conspiracy. --Moonriddengirl 14:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It was not a personal attack. I was trying to alert people to the fact that it appears that in the past the editing of primal therapy has been compromized by editors with an obvious stake in primal therapy. If you look back in detail at grahame kings edits, you will see a pattern. Not only has grahame king done that, but he/she also started the ridiculous argument that debunkingprimaltherapy wa libelous or didn't mean BLP, which is a bogus argument but one that influenced a few people who didn't take the time to look up 'libel'. In fact it is a sourced critical website that grahame king wanted an excuse to remove. It would be a tragedy if it was removed, and due to idependence, it may well be a more accurate assessment of primal therapy than Janov's himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zonbalance (talk • contribs) 21:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

<reset indent>The requirements of WP:BLP are a bit more stringent than the requirements of libel. As I mentioned above, I believe the source is inappropriate because it does not meet the requirements of sourcing at the verifiability policy. BLP requires that all ELs comply with WP:EL, which states that "material available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all, either as sources or via external links". (For Misplaced Pages's definition of questionable sources, see here.) This website in particular is self-published, and as WP:V notes, "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable". (There is a footnote at that policy setting out the exceptions; this is not one of them). This website clearly does not meet the requirements of WP:V; however, User:DGG did not feel that the specific subpage represented a serious enough concern to warrant immediate removal under WP:BLP. Lacking clear consensus that it violates BLP, its removal is no longer imperative. I stand by the suggestion offered above (where you called me "destructive", though I suppose there's some consolation in being also "clever") that the editors who want this material included should seek sources that do qualify. It seems like, if the material in it is accurate, that there should be plenty. --Moonriddengirl 00:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I don't want to get involved in the personal arguments of the previous contributors. What I do want to comment upon is that the mentioned site debunking primal therapy seems to crticize the therapy and theory, and is not derogatory to any living persons. Although some of the content of the website in question would not be appropriate to quote in great length directly on the wiki page (although some of it could), it does not actually violate wiki BLP rules for external links. The argument that it violates BLP rules is very subjective and open to interpretation. I think the links should be allowed to stay. Compare with the scientology wiki entry (where criticisms are also found) and compare with other pseudosciences wiki entries. Primal Therapy is a widely criticized mode of treatment that is seen as invalid in the field of psychological science, and in fact is rarely mentioned in the field except for examples of pseudoscience (in the same way scientology auditing is rarely mentioned in said literature). the website mentioned does not go into Arthur Janov's biography and focuses on criticizing the treatment which sometimes involves discussing outcomes that directly shine light on contradictions to the theory, it also discusses some contradictions that are essential to the argument but that may seem contentious to those uneducated in the subject but is actually important evidence. Whatever is mentioned on the site seems to be relevant to primal therapies efficacy, and is never just mentioned to personally attack anybody. I'll go into more detail if somebody disagrees with this and they still think the link should be removed. Aussiewikilady (talk) 21:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Sir Edmund Hillary

Sir Edmund Hillary, more affectionately known as Sir Ed has passed away this morning at 9 AM at Auckland City Hospital, his wikipedia page has been changed to announce his death in New Zealand Time but people have been changing the dates and times from what its supposed to be (11th January 2008 9:00AM) to Hawaii time or even other time zones, ppl have been warned in the article discussion not to do so but i think it happened a couple of times. In respect to this great man i wish for his article to be semi protected or protected against changes made to any details of his death. Thank you.

203.109.215.123 (talk) 06:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Probably will settle down when January 11th arrives for more of the timezone unaware. -- SEWilco (talk) 06:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

After Everest "Hillary climbed ten other peaks in the Himalayas on further visits in 1956, 1960–61 and 1963–65. He also reached the South Pole..." would be more correct to say: "Hillary climbed ten other peaks in the Himalayas on visits in 1956, 1960–61 and 1963–65. He also reached the South Pole..." He was an adventurer and as such understood the distinction between distance (as in further) and time (as in later)! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdowd108 (talk • contribs) 15:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I was mistaken about further.

These two words are commonly used interchangeably, but there is a difference between them.

"Farther" refers to physical or geographic distance.

Example: The apartment I want is farther from my office.

"Further" is more abstract. It refers to time or degree or quantity. It's another way of saying "additional."

Examples:

I have to look further into the question of moving farther from my office.

There was no further discussion.

ladyjane | Sep-28-05 10:24AM

Use farther when you're talking about physical distances.

Farther down the road.

They're further along in their plans than I expected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdowd108 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Lyor Cohen

Resolved

Lyor Cohen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Negative information keeps on getting reinserted, and the "sources" are gossip columns, blogs, and what not.// brew crewer (yada, yada) 06:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm taking a look at it. As a first step, footnoting seems a valuable way of quickly determining if the sources are up to par. --Moonriddengirl 15:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I've done what I can for it. :) The controversy is properly sourced. I've also watchlisted the article for a while, and if improperly sourced material reappears will attempt to deal with it or return it here for further input. --Moonriddengirl 18:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

T._U._Kuruvila

This article appears to be referenced, but contains allegations that may be defamatory, therefore it probably needs to be inspected more closely by someone who's familiar with the subject matter (Indian Politics). It didn't have a Living tag on it until a few minutes ago, so it's been escaping living person patrol until now. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 12:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Examining it. I'm familiar with the situation. Relata refero (talk) 12:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Marcel Schlutt

Template:Http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Marcel Schlutt&diff=prev&oldid=184593509 – The user Aussie2 changed the content of the Wiki article three times without featuring any new facts and sources! Repeatedly Aussie2 writes that Marcel had won several prizes at equestrian sports at an early age of four but he never shows any references to proof it. In an interview for a tiny privately-operated homepage in Berlin, Marcel just claims to have won those awards but he was unable to proof it. In addition, Aussie2 erased the known facts about Marcel’s various jobs! Marcel is very well known in Germany’s gay scene because over many years he loved to appear in public jobs. He worked successfully for a Pay-TV’s gay sex show, several porn companies and escort websites. But Aussie2 repeatedly erases the proven job descriptions ‚escort’ and ‚porn actor’ because he only likes to mention the more accepted jobs, like i.e. ‚fashion model’, ‚author’ and ‚photographer’. In reality, Marcel never wrote a book, he only wrote several short articles (columns) for a gay magazine. Marcel never made a living as a photographer but a few of his snapshots were printed a compilation book about skaters. Since 2004, Marcel announced twice to end his porn/escort career but even though he appears in new adult videos; the last one so far in 2007. Therefore Berlin’s biggest gay city rag Siegessaeule and Europe’s gay sex rag Erexxion already made fun of this bizarre farewell/ comeback/ farewell/ comeback career. Aussie2 obviously tries to eliminate Marcel’s real profitable money-making professions by emphasizing the little part-time jobs. It looks like Aussie2 is trying to smoothen Marcel’s biography. Wiki better should stick to the facts! Thank you very much.// Germany2799 (talk) 18:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. This may not yet require intervention, and, if it proves that it does, this may not be the best board to seek it. This sounds like a content issue (although lack of sourcing is problematic). The dispute resolution policy recommends that you civilly discuss the issues on the talk page with the other editor to see if you can form consensus on what material to include. That policy lists several different avenues for seeking wider involvement if the two of you cannot come to an agreement. If only the two of you are involved, you might seek a third opinion. If there are more, you might wish to file a Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Biographies or ask for feedback at the talk page of a related article or WikiProject. Many of the volunteers at this board (me included) are more used to resolving issues where the subject of the article is having controversial information added without sourcing rather than the other way around. :) --Moonriddengirl 19:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Bobby Fischer

Icelandic media is reporting that Bobby Fischer has died. Could we have some experienced eyes on that article for the next few days? Haukur (talk) 11:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this an attempt at black humour? BLP noticeboard might not be the place to raise this. Lobojo (talk) 23:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe that BLP policy can still apply to the recently deceased and therefore Haukur was entirely correct?Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems reasonable that it might since it would be unseemly if all the information that could not previously go on due to BLP was dragged up while the body was still warm. But where does policy say this? Lobojo (talk) 14:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It appears the BLP policy doesn't explicitly mention it at the moment. Apparantly there isn't consensus although, as you say, it seems reasonable. Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we need a WP:BDP. —Ashley Y 00:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Frank Howson Autobiography?

User:MichaelBergman when uploading Image:Website_shots_036.jpg on 00:32, 6 January 2008 stated "I, Frank Howson, own this image of myself as it was a self-portrait." thereby claiming to be Frank Howson! Since User:MichaelBergman has been a major contributor to this article (and an editor to numerous other Biographies of living people associated with Frank Howson) this may present significant problems: Autobiographies tend not to have a Neutral Point of View (NPOV) and contain Conflict of Interest (COI) issues. Since 09:41, 12 August 2007 I have also contributed significantly to this article wikifying it and providing references. I have also edited other articles visited by User:MichaelBergman and so do not feel sufficiently unbiased to resolve issues involved. I request intervention by a suitable Administrator. I suggest also considering contributions by User:124.190.242.6 and User: 124.190.244.2 as possibly by same author. I have placed this same notice on User talk:MichaelBergman page and Talk: Frank Howson but believe that User:MichaelBergman may not read these pages (numerous notices seem to have gone by without any response).Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 15:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I have tagged the article with {{COI2}} and left template {{Uw-coi}} at the talk page of the editor. I am unfamiliar with the subject, but as a regular contributor trust that you will be keeping an eye on it. :) If you feel the problem persists, you may have better luck addressing it at Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard where volunteers are more accustomed to dealing specifically with this issue. I know it recommends at the top bringing BLP issues here, but I do see other autobiographies addressed on that page. I suspect (though I'm not sure) that they mean a COI where an editor is deliberately defaming the subject of the article rather than promoting him. :) --Moonriddengirl 19:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama media controversy

Resolved

I have no involvement with this article and not a great deal of knowledge of the subject, but I feel that it could do with some oversight from BLP regulars. It's essentially about those "Obama is a Muslim" smears that seem to have been going around lately. Some editors plainly want to use the article as a coatrack to propagate the smears - see e.g. from a user who's now banned. To be honest, I'm uneasy about whether we should have an article of this sort at all - is it really encyclopedic to document smear campaigns, given that WP:IINFO#Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information? -- ChrisO (talk) 00:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I~~'ll take~~ took a look. The article needs a much better lead to present the fact that these rumors have been thoroughly debunked, as well as to make the article rather than a piece that repeats the innuendo and rumors, concentrate in the media controversy around these rumors. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Please note that this article has now been nominated for deletion (not by myself) - see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Barack Obama media controversy. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Matt Sanchez

Resolved

This article needs a good hard look at it, due to possible non-neutral point of view sources, undue weight, and BLP violations. The result of a recent AfD on this article was that the subject had satisfied the notability criteria for membership, but there were numerous expressed concerns about the article and possible BLP violations. Could everyone give this the proverbial once-over (if not three or four times over) to determine what needs to be in the article, what is superfluous to the article, and what needs to be relentlessly scourged from the article? ArbCom member FT2 stated that this board would be able to effect any changes needed to comply with BLP, even though the article is part of a case currently before ArbCom. Link to diff. Thanks. SirFozzie (talk) 06:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you clarify your perception that each individual source must itself be neutral or rather, is our mission that *our* complete articles remain neutral? That is, can we not cite two contradictory sources to show that a conflict of opinion of fact exists. Or is your point that no conflicts can appear within a living biography? Thanks. Wjhonson (talk) 00:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Many editors now closely monitoring the article and Arbcom case as yet in process. Benjiboi 10:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Andrew Marr

A Blog recently posted a story about his private life. I don't think that it counts as a reliable source so I have been removing it from the article whilst others put it back. Could we have a few more eyes on the article for a couple of days? --RicDod (talk) 23:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I have put it on my watchlist.--Slp1 (talk) 23:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I resent not being considered a reliable source and suspect you will have to eat your words very shortly. Guido —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.211.141 (talk) 23:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Apologies, my comment was badly phrased. Please have a look at the Verifiability policy which explains it better, especially the bit about self-published sources. Basically any negative information about a living person needs to be very well sourced in order to be included. --RicDod (talk) 11:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Now semi-protected. --Slp1 (talk) 15:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Amy Macdonald - false info

Someone is repeatedly trying to add a section to Amy Macdonald(singer) wikipedia page. The section 'controversy' has been removed by many various times as the information is poorly sourced and reflects badly on Amy Macdonald.

Could you ensure that this section is never added again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.134.65 (talk) 16:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The information is solidly cited by a national newspaper article. So is neither false or poorly sourced. The only possible problem I can see with it would be its notability and the slight exaggeration in heading it "Controversy". --Escape Orbit 21:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

John McCain

User:Wasted Time R (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is preventing me from making edits removing impertinent information. The article is infringing on a few rules and all my edits are being undone by him.

Rule: Biographies of living persons should not have trivia sections. Instead, relevant sourced claims should be woven into the article.

The current article has information such as "He had his share of run-ins with the faculty and leadership; each year he was given over 100 demerits (for unshined shoes, formation faults, talking out of place, and the like)". Information about John McCain's demerits in school is not very important. John McCain's life is not defined for having unpolished shoes. This extra information is not important and should not be in an encyclopedia article.

Another example of trivia, "McCain has a history, beginning with his military career, of lucky charms and superstitions to gain fortune. While serving in Vietnam, he demanded that his parachute rigger clean his visor before each flight. On the 2000 campaign, he carried a lucky compass, feather, shoes, pen, penny and, at times, a rock. An incident when McCain misplaced his feather caused a brief panic in the campaign. The night before the 2008 New Hampshire primary he slept on the same side of the bed in the same hotel room he had stayed in before his win there in 2000, and after winning carried some of his talismans forward into the following Michigan primary while adding others. His superstitions are extended to others; to those afraid of flying or experiencing a bumpy flight, he says, "You don't need to worry. I've crashed four fighter jets, and I'm not going to die in a plane crash. You're safe with me." Here, the reader learns about his various superstitions which are not necessary facts that need to be told. Although there are various citations, all this information adds nothing to who they are for an encyclopedia.

A third example is the amount of information on his grandparents and family. The end of the article has an entire paragraph on his sons and grandsons. The beggining of the article explains his parents and grandparents and their role in the Navy. All this information is not about Senator McCain but just extra trivia. One comparison to another article is George W. Bush's article. There are few mentions of his father who was also a president and did not go into detail with who George H. W. Bush did as a person.Yialanliu (talk) 20:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Rule:NPOV

The current article is also not written in a neutral point of view. The goal of this article is trying to portray someone as a maverick. Every thing about McCain is his actions that differ from the norm. This characterizes McCain as someone who is not normal and leads to an impression that he is deranged which is against NPOV. All the trivia makes him look unique and is not pertinent to his fame. In the cultural and political image section, there are numberous reports about his missteps. The criticisms are blown out of proportion. Everyone makes mistakes but I believe there are over representations in this articles leading to bias. // Yialanliu (talk) 20:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Rule: Brevity

This article is less like an encyclopedia article than like a biography. Misplaced Pages has a goal of maintaining articles to under 50kbs, preferably around 32kbs. However, currently, it's 150 kbs. The reason for this is the excessive details from various books. Although there are many books written about John McCain, it is not necessary to quote from all the books. If you look at George W. Bush's page, there are few quotes from books if at all. That is not to say no books have been written about Bush, but brevity is key to an encyclopedia. Misplaced Pages is not a compilation of books but just a summary of who a person is.

Regarding the claims of trivia, nothing I have included in this article is trivial. Every piece of material and every piece of detail goes towards describing the full character of the biographical subject. His family's naval heritage is a key aspect of his life, as a read of Faith of My Fathers and outside biographies readily reveals, and was of operational significance in terms of his educational struggles and his time as a POW. His Academy demerits are part and whole of a personality that continues to affect his political stances and behaviors today. His superstitions are frequently noted in the press and are part of depicting his full character. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the claims of POV, the 'missteps' in the article are all conceded by McCain himself, as the article makes clear. The "maverick" persona is one that is described by all biographies and newspapers profiles; you can hardly escape it. I don't know how Yialanliu gets a "deranged" depiction out of all this; most people reading this article would probably consider McCain heroic. If anything, I've short-changed criticisms of him. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the length, yes, the article's long. But he's had a long career; he's been a nationally visible figure since 1967. In writing this article, I haven't paid any attention to the George W. Bush article, so I can't comment on that, but this article does touch on the same elements and key episodes of his career that several biographies do as well as the multi-part Arizona Republic series that's frequently cited. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Having a career that spans 40 years is a major accomplishment. However, in comparison to Joseph Stalin, who's career have also been that length of time. But more importantly, even more globally visible, the leader of the Soviet Union for 30 years. One look would see that the page is around 50 kbs and stick to main facts about ther person's accomplishment. Stalin is not insignificant yet the reason for this is because the article keeps to major fact. It is well written but more importantly sticks to the point. Yialanliu (talk) 17:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Joseph Stalin is currently 140Kb. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't even know how I got the 50kbs. And I checked on chinese wikipedia and not even that is 50. So my bad. But my point remains the same. There are people that have had a greater impact in the world and have a more concise article. Yialanliu (talk) 20:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Patriarch Alexius II

Patriarch Alexius II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). This article had reach an equilibrium, in which accusations about Patriarch Alexei's past involvement were documented in a manner that was in mostly in keeping with NPOV and WP:BLP, although an administrator had noted that too much of the article was focused on accusations against Patriarch Alexei, and that it needed to be more balance, however, Biophys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) decided to expand the article by expanding the accusations into the rest of the Biography, and asserting them as biographical facts. I attempted to deal with it via edits and the talk page, but am taking it here as the only alternative to an edit war on the matter. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 20:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed at WP:COI noticeboard here. Biophys (talk) 22:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

No it has not. That thread has been in regards to an accusation of a conflict of interest against me. This thread is in regards to the violations of the WP:BLP policy, and more specifically to your edits.Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 00:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Biophys has inserted yet more negative rumours/controversial information, this time into the 'Career' section rather than the 'Controversies' section, certainly a violation of WP:BLP IMO. The article is indeed a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:BLP as about 90-95% of this article is devoted to negative rumours.--Miyokan (talk) 02:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I did not inserted anything yet since the posting of this message by Frjohnwhiteford. Perhaps the article is one-sided. Frjohnwhiteford and Miyokan are welcome to add more sourced and presumably positive content about the person to improve the article. I only object deletion of well sourced (supported by multiple reliable sources) materials they do not like, which would be against WP:NPOV.Biophys (talk) 04:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC) Information about career must be in section "Career". Let's use article talk page for discussion.Biophys (talk) 04:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

"..yet more" referred to your latest additions to the article, I did not say since the posting of Frjohn's message here.--Miyokan (talk) 06:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that you assert things as fact that are in dispute, and which were already covered in the controversy section. If you take a look at the Encyclopedia Britannica, you will find that these accusations are not even noted... much less asserted as biographical facts. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 14:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the information Biophys added to the 'Career' section has already been covered in the 'Controversies' section. It is totally unnecessary to repeat it in the 'Career' section. Even if you say it is "supported by multiple reliable sources" (the reliability of these sources is dubious), it is still fringe theories and rumours that are heavily controversial. By doing this, it is an attempt to assert it as biographical fact.--Miyokan (talk) 06:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

At this point, I am not sure whether the view that he was a KGB agent is fringe. controversial yes, butnot fringe.DGG (talk) 17:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I would not argue that this is a fringe view. But it certainly is, as you say, controversial, and should not be asserted as biographical facts when they are disputed facts. This controversy should not permeate the entire article... particularly when, as I said, respected encyclopedic sources not even find such accusations worthy of note. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 20:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The remedy from the Admins I would request here is this: Roll back this article to this edit. And ask Biophys to engage in constructive edits that do not violate WP:BLP and which provide a fair and balanced treatment of the subject. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 16:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

BTW, while we are waiting for some outside intervention, the article is only becoming less balanced, as more slanted and biased. Is there an Admin in the house? Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 00:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I am going to review the article at this time. Jeepday (talk) 01:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 03:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

BTW, here is another example of Biophys engaging in POV pushing and clearly violating the WP:BLP policy from an article I have had nothing to do with:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Yevgenia_Albats#Edward_Kennedy_as_a_KGB_collaborator

Interestingly, once again painting people with the KGB broad brush is the subject. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 04:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

John Yoo

John Yoo is an individual associated with the US government who is accused of being responsible for government wrongdoing. There is a section of two paragraphs (War crimes accusations) that is being re-inserted that only cites a court-related document at the Center for Constitutional Rights web site (which is currently an invalid page) and (indirectly) a book called The Terror Presidency. One of the editors used a minor edit summary to re-insert the paragraphs, and one of the paragraphs was written by a user whose edit history consists of two edits: one to John Yoo, and one to Talk:John Yoo. As a side note, is there a Times v Sullivan style exception for BLP? Thanks, Andjam (talk) 00:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

We may not like it but WP:V allows us to add information even if it is uncomfortable to certain individuals. Nomen Nescio 11:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

At the time that the issue was raised, there was no citation for the "uncomfortable" information. Andjam (talk) 04:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Andjam what is your specific question for us? That John Yoo was sued should probably be more properly cited *first* to a newspaper account (of which a quick Google shows there are several mentions) and then further illuminated by citing the Federal court case number. This allows a secondary source to introduce the issue, and a primary one to add specification. Perhaps you have a different question. Citing a court case is fine, but shouldn't be the main source of information on the paragraph.Wjhonson (talk) 02:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

American Jewish Congress

Heath Ledger

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Done. Fixed and corresponding template protected. --slakr 22:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Since he reportedly just died, tons of vandalism has occurred. It'd probably be best to either lock it or limit the editting. 24.211.23.77 (talk)

Indeed - the current entry says high levels of heroin were found in his bloodstream, which is impossible to determine considering his body was only found 1 1/2 hours ago. A toxicology report can usually take weeks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.64.143.2 (talk) 22:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

And now there's a penis. Fun times.143.246.7.155 (talk) 22:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

offensive

please can you remove the offensive comment following heath ledgers death "WHO CARES HE PLAYED A GAY GUY" cheers, Rhee

NEW VANDALISM- huge penis!

Vandalism removed. PouponOnToast (talk) 22:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

PLEASE LOCK THAT THREAD, THERE ARE ALL SORTS OF RUDE AND TYPICAL SOCIOLOGICAL DISTORTIONS BEING USED. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.44.37.167 (talk) 22:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

heath ledger

Someone has posted a rather large picture of their penis on the heath ledger page!!!

Heath Ledger

Someone has put a picture of erect male genitalia on this page that pops up when you enter it.

Erect Penis Image on Heath Ledger page

Ah the joys of the internet. Just wanted to make people aware that the page has been vandalized with an image that covers the entire page.

Someone has edited the Heath Ledger wikipedia page so a large-size photograph of a penis scrolls with the screen. Please remove this, it is extremely inappropriate, especially for any young females who may be looking at the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.230.120.179 (talk) 22:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mary-Kate Olsen

Resolved – It's been protected. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 07:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Due to Heath Ledger's death, this page is undergoing frequent vandalism and the frequent addition of unverified rumors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahecht (talk • contribs) 23:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Don Black

Minor vandalism adding dubious claims with unverifiable refs. Likely a sock or troll of some sort. If other could watchlist, please do. Benjiboi 04:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I imagine you mean Don Black (white nationalist). The other Don Blacks seem quite peaceful at the moment. :) --Moonriddengirl 19:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Correct. sorry about that. Benjiboi 23:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Viktor Kozeny

There is never a dull moment with this article. See previous reports at: at COIN, and on this noticeboard back on 17 October. The subject of the article, Viktor Kozeny, has been chased by various courts and governments due to financial misdeeds that were widely covered in reliable sources. Last time around, someone promoting the interests of the subject insisted on reverting to his preferred (innocuous) version. That editor was eventually blocked. This time, an IP editor who wants to gild the lily insists on adding nasty and defamatory wording to what is already there, without adding any new sources. I have reverted his latest change, but would appreciate if others can keep an eye on it. If he reverts back, I suggest that semi-protection or a block might be considered. (Naturally, you should take a look at my change to ensure that I didn't overdo it). EdJohnston (talk) 04:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Jay-Jay Johanson

there is a controversy in the article about j.j. johanson. it says that "there is a change in his music with the album relased in 2002". on the contrary the same album is shown as been relased in 2003 at the bottom of the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.243.222.24 (talk) 14:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I've tagged the problem at the article so that the editors who maintain it can straighten it out. --Moonriddengirl 20:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Monica Bellucci

There's conflicting evidence regarding Monica Bellucci's age and date of birth. It's being discussed on Talk:Monica Bellucci#Age, sort-of, but anon IPs keep reverting and there is no agreement from sources on the accurate age. Note this statement at the NNDB, which I don't think is incredibly reliable, but it's the only explicit discussion of this I've seen. Help! WLU (talk) 15:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

If the changes to the page reach the status of edit warring, you may wish to request page protection until consensus of how to handle it is reached. --Moonriddengirl 20:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately it's not, every couple days someone changes it, then someone else (usually the same IP address) changes it back. I'd really just like to know what can be said, based on the sources we have and the limitations imposed by BLP. WLU (talk) 20:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

If it's a small group of IP addresses, you can drop a friendly note on their talk pages alerting them to the conversation at the discussion page and inviting them to join. You might also consider addressing the date discrepancy within the article itself, perhaps in a footnote, with the more reliable date in the parenthetical introduction with a "c" as recommended for uncertain birth dates at the MOS and the note indicating something along the lines of "Year of birth is given as 1964 by blah and blah, while blah and blah assert 1968". If no agreement can be reached at all on which year of birth to use, you can indicate a range, c. 1964-1968. It may forestall the constant reversion (which may constitute edit warring even if quite slow :)) if rather than choosing one of two (or more) uncertain options, the article simply notes that the uncertainty exists. This seems more a matter of content dispute than a BLP issue, since there are sources for multiple sides. :) --Moonriddengirl 21:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the only source I have for this is the NNDB, which I don't believe is reliable. Still, I'll have a gander and try your ideas on the talk page. Thanks for your suggestions, it's very appreciated! WLU (talk) 00:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Crime family primary research in userspace

User:Little Joe Shots

Onorem asked me about this. That took me to Special:Contributions/Little Joe Shots, which in turn took me to all of these (Special:Prefixindex/User:Alexbonaro/):

There's nothing wrong with using userspace as a platform for article development. Indeed, that's one of the things that userspace is there for. But the way that this development is being done, by the users themselves and by editors without accounts, is somewhat troubling. This appears to be less article development and more a collection of primary source materials, being written and collected by Misplaced Pages editors directly and hosted in Misplaced Pages userspace as a supposedly "reliable resource" for people to consult.

The pages appear to be collections of accusations that specifically named people are criminals, or dead, sourced solely to discussion forum postings by people known only by pseudonyms such as "Pogo", or obtained directly by primary research. Particularly troubling are things such as the notice at the top of User:Alexbonaro/Bonanno crime family circa 1991, the I-got-this-information-from-a-guy-named-Jiggy statement on User talk:Alexbonaro/LA chart circa 1954, and the responses to accusations of inaccuracy at User talk:Alexbonaro/Timeline of Detroit mob murders and User talk:Alexbonaro/present day Milwaukee crime family.

Alexbonaro (talk · contribs) hasn't edited since September 2007. Little Joe Shots (talk · contribs) hasn't edited since November 2007. Various modifications to the pages, including some that dispute the pages' contents (example), have been reverted as vandalism since. My first inclination is to just blank all of the pages. Please discuss and take appropriate action. Uncle G (talk) 15:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

All of these pages should be deleted. If the user or users in question want to continue their research outside of Misplaced Pages, then an administrator should email them the page contents on request. *** Crotalus *** 15:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Please place this list of articles in Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion so that these pages can be deleted. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Done - FYI these were nominated on 24 January 2008 at WP:MFD#Userspace original research on organized crime and have now been deleted. --Doug. 04:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Irvine22

Can someone please talk to Irvine22 (talk · contribs) regarding his BLP-violating and counterfactual edits to the Misplaced Pages article about me, David Eppstein? Thanks. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I've left him an {{Uw-npov2}} and have watchlisted the article in case escalation is required. --Moonriddengirl 20:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Kevin Alfred Strom

Kevin Alfred Strom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Numerous BLP-ish issues, I've removed a few items but would appreciate others taking a swipe at it. Also some of the refs seem dodgy. // Benjiboi 01:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Claudio Teehankee, Jr.

This looks like a clear case of WP:BLP1E. There doesn't seem to be anything else notable about this person other than being a relative of a famous person. If this had been any other crime, there wouldn't be an article here. Opinions? Corvus cornix_talk 03:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Marcos_Baghdatis

Would somebody take a look at Marcos_Baghdatis#2008_Australian_Open_controversy? It needs a POV-ectomy. Corvus cornix_talk 03:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

As of its current reading it seems balanced and sourced. Is there anything specifically that still needs addressing? Benjiboi 01:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Andrew Laming

Users have removed outdated media speculation however other users insist on keeping the speculation current in an attempt to further damage Laming's reputation... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.94.140.114 (talk) 03:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Not a BLP issue - all claims are factually referenced, and nothing on there disparages the subject (it's been carefully rewritten in the last 2 days to ensure Laming's own side of the story is given due attention). The matter was of considerable news value throughout 2007, and Misplaced Pages is not censored. Orderinchaos 02:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama

Page has blatant untrue information throughout it. Please fix ASAP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hornet2934 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I will look at it, but, if you know what is wrong with the article, be bold and start fixing it yourself. Jons63 (talk) 18:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I have read through it and do not see any blantantly untrue information, maybe you could point out some of the problems with the article Jons63 (talk) 18:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Organized crime articles

As a result of the userspace issue mentioned above, I looked over a few of the Misplaced Pages articles on organized crime. These articles are terrible, an absolute hotbed of blatant BLP violations. In less than 5 minutes I found the following: Colombo crime family — unsourced allegations that specific named individuals are "capos," "leaders," "soldiers" and so forth; Genovese crime family which includes a long list of names sourced to a Geocities page; Chicago Outfit with 50 to 100 unreferenced names. Frankly, some of these articles are so bad that they should probably be deleted entirely and started over. At the least, I think they should be stubbed and all BLP-infringing content removed. *** Crotalus *** 23:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Phil Ford

This edit is sourced to a mainstream sports columnist, which might satisfy reliability but might still be of concern per WP:NPF. I'd appreciate it if someone would take a look. alanyst 04:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Agrred. I've re-removed and added a note of explanation to talk thread. Benjiboi 02:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Material has been re-added, could someone look to see if it seems problematic? It sure doesn't seem relevant to me. Benjiboi 23:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm requesting another look at this. I've had past conflict with the editor who is re-adding the material so I think he might take it the wrong way if I were directly involved in fixing the BLP issues. Is there anyone who can help with this? alanyst 17:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Samantha Bee

Several edits like this Diff have been made by different editors tonight I removed it twice suggesting that a written references was required for BLP. Please give me a reality check. Jeepday (talk) 04:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what the policy is on the Daily Show as a news source, but would we cite something like NBC's Nightly News as a source on something? If so, then the specific episode (airdate, etc) could be cited as a source. I can find one blog that confirms that she did announce it on the show, but that's a blog. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 19:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

If the person herself uttered the statement then I would consider writing "on January 30, 2008 Bee announced _____ on The Daily Show." Benjiboi 23:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Applications for the Dead or Recently Deceased

Resolved

I tried this on the BLP talk page but not a lot of activity occurs there so I will try here.

It looks like people are trying to use this for people that have died or recently died as seen in Talk:Heath Ledger. Since this specifically about the living some feedback on this would be appreciated. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 20:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the {{BLP}} template from the talk, It looks like many editors are watching over it now. If there is something else please reply with details. Benjiboi 02:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I also got some replies on the main BLP talk page and created {{Blpo}} to help articles in this situation. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 20:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Bill Rancic

Resolved

An I.P. is insisting on inserting the adjective "struggling" into this article to describe the show that Rancic hosts. Initially, the I.P. was doing so without references; and I reverted it as a blatant WP:BLP violation. References have since been inserted, and I'm at my 3RR limit anyway. My opinion is that, even sourced, this information violated WP:BLP, but I told the I.P. that if she/he provided references, I'd try to solicit some other editors' opinions (and, like I said, I'm at my 3RR limit anyway). Eyes would be appreciated - the conversation between the I.P. and me is centralized here. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Oops - he/she just cleared her/his talk page. Here's the last pre-blanking version, which includes our entire conversation. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The IP editor did finally provide multiple references that supported, what would appear to be a true description of the show. But on review only one reference is close to meeting WP:RS and that being www.nydailynews which was from 2006. I made a couple changes and am leaving a note at User talk:70.108.122.10. Jeepday (talk) 12:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Steve Clemons - Porn site link

Link #4 goes to an internet porn site where a copy of an article on Clemons from the Bartlesville, Oklahoma Examiner Enterprise has been placed.

The link to the original article: http://www.examiner-enterprise.com/articles/2006/01/25/news/2578.txt

I'd change it myself but assume those responsible for the article would rather do the deed.

207.68.209.19 (talk) 20:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Done, but another time do feel free to be bold yourself!!--Slp1 (talk) 00:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Jimmy Page

Pistolpierre (talk · contribs) who has numerous blocks for trolling/soapboxing and edit warring has been re-adding WP:BLP vio accusations on the article for Jimmy Page. He keeps labelling Page as a pedophile because he dated a fourteen year old girl. His relationship with the girl is already mentioned in the article. It's a well documented fact. But another well documented fact is that Page has never ever been charged... or so much as questioned about his relationship with Maddox. Pistolpierre is persistently re-adding his POV skewed content(he is up to 6 or 7 reverts by now) and labelling a living person with a crime that the living person was never charged for. He is also trying to add original research that Page wearing a Nazi General's hat during a single performance in Chicago has some sort of derogatory hidden meaning or implication about the artist. He wore a hat. He was pictured wearing the hat. But the fact is... beyond that simple fact... 'he wore a hat'... there is no verifiable evil misdoing that Pistolpierre keeps trying to imply. 142.167.87.205 (talk) 21:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I have protected the Jimmy Page (it expires 00:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)) to prevent further edits by either party. I have left a message on Pistolpierre's talk page noting the previous blocks, asking him to read over Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons and consider if he is being genuinely Neutral.--Alf 22:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Eddie Ho and Air France Flight 358

User:Eddiehosa removed a paragraph discussing Eddie Ho's photography of the AF358 evacuation and the controversy surrounding taking photographs during an evacuation. See: Talk:Air_France_Flight_358#Eddie_Ho_and_the_picture_taking_controversy WhisperToMe (talk) 01:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I have suggested a compromise on the article talk page where we put the section back in but do not name the photographer. --RicDod (talk) 14:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

George Galloway

21stCenturyBuoy, who has only ever edited this article, is continually adding material suggesting that Galloway deliberately misled Parliament. The evidence he cites does not appear to establish this defamatory, and apparently libellous claim. RolandR (talk) 14:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I have written a note to 21stCenturyBuoy directing the editor to various policy pages. The offending material was not in the article last time I checked. --Slp1 (talk) 14:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Elizabeth Loftus

An edit war is ongoing at Elizabeth Loftus. The dispute is over what details concerning academic articles published by Loftus should be included in the article. My position is that the articles are not pertinent to her biography, but I'm trying not to enter into the edit warring myself. -- Donald Albury 21:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Not quite as dry as that report sounds. Albury above is an OTRS volunteer, and his attention was drawn to this bio. Loftus is a major figure in psychology, one of the eminences of that field. She investigates memory and suggestibility, and one of her most famous papers is a study of the lost in the mall technique. This is relatively central to her notability, as she is frequently therefore considered an expert from a legal point of view on the implantation of memories, or the unlikelihood of repressed memories. (And may or may not have called herself "the Oskar Schindler of the falsely accused".)

The section Donald Albury removed discussed a paper that appeared in a peer-reviewed psych journal attacking the structure of the experiment and the presentation of the results. By the standards of academic journals, I must say the language was startling. The critique was notable enough that Loftus felt the need to reply in a later article in the same journal.

I do suggest some input in that talkpage. It is far from a clear-cut situation. Relata refero (talk) 10:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, while Albury's removal may turn out correct, I don't know how he could possibly defend the statement that an academic's published articles are not pertinent to her biography. Relata refero (talk) 10:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I was trying to avoid putting a slant on this notice. Anyway, the problem in my view is that an editor is quoting abstracts of her articles without any evidence of having actually read the articles in question. This editor made it clear early that his intention is to discredit her work. He reintroduce the text of the abstract for "Memories of Childhood Sexual Abuse: Remembering and Repressing" after I removed links to a couple of blogs using the the text of that abstract to attack Loftus. And I will repeat, I do not think it is appropriate to quote from abstracts of her articles in the way that is being done. Discussion of her work and the significance of her work should come from third-party reliable sources. Trying to illustrate the significance of her work by selectively quoting from abstracts of her articles strikes me as being original research. -- Donald Albury 12:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

If that's what you meant, then I am not sure I disagree with you completely. I would much rather third party RSes discuss work. However, I think abstracts are by and large less OR-y than quoting large parts of text, as abstracts are clearly set up as a summation of the main thrust of a paper. Sometime soon I will ask people at RS/N what they think.

I hadn't seen the version with blog links. That is, of course unacceptable. I don't see why the editor can't read the paper, its archived outside a subscriber wall and its very accessible in its language.

I hope you don't think I was in any way accusing you of a slant or even doing something incorrect. I don't think so at all, though I do think that there are good reasons that a major, if negative critique of a significant part of her work should perhaps be in the bio. Relata refero (talk) 12:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

A critique from a reliable source would be very appropriate. It is the mostly selective quoting from abstracts to try to create a novel evaluation of her work that I object to. -- Donald Albury 23:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Mark Steyn and Niall Ferguson

An IP editor has been persistently inserting mounds of negative information into the biographies of Mark Steyn and Niall Ferguson, and edit-warring it in against a number of other editors. A quick read shows that at least some of it is sourced to blogs and personal websites. Based on the editing style and the continual promotion of Johann Hari I'm guessing it's David r from meth productions (talk · contribs). I've removed the material and semi-protected first and protected the second for now; if it is David r from meth productions and he logs in and continues to insert this material, I might have to full protect the first too. Alternatively, I could start blocking the editor, but I'm hoping that protection will calm things down for now. Jayjg 00:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Not that it justifies allegations sourced to blogs and the like, but man, that Steyn article pretty much is a total hagiography. I'll see if I can put together something more balanced, properly sources, and less reliant on paragraph after paragraph of Steyn quotes. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Other than quickly looking through the material that raised BLP concerns from various editors, I haven't really read either article. My only concern here is BLP; if you think the articles can be improved in other ways, please do so. Jayjg 01:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You didn't read it very well, did you? Try a slightly slower look next time. A bad decision in the Ferguson case. I've commented on the talkpage. There were three critics mentioned - a tiny number, really, let me tell you, given how controversial this chap is among academics and popular commentators alike - and all criticism was sourced to major papers/reviews, and all of it was notable enough for Ferguson to respond personally. There was an over-reliance on quotes, but hardly the sort of giant BLP violation you seem to think it was.

I haven't looked at the other article, and I don't intend to, because I don't know much about the Canadian. I do know something about Ferguson. Relata refero (talk) 08:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Relata refero, I must again warn you to observe WP:CIVIL. I didn't read beyond the initial insult in your statement, perhaps you'd like to try again without the personal comments. Jayjg 01:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

If you think that pointing out that you didn't read it very well is incivil, that is a problem. You did not read it very well, you have yourself admitted it, and its not incivil to point out that you shouldn't be conducting administrative actions without due diligence. Now that I have explained that the only one violating WP:CIVIL is the one who gets his back up at no provocation at all, let me repeat what I said: " A bad decision in the Ferguson case. I've commented on the talkpage. There were three critics mentioned - a tiny number, really, let me tell you, given how controversial this chap is among academics and popular commentators alike - and all criticism was sourced to major papers/reviews, and all of it was notable enough for Ferguson to respond personally. There was an over-reliance on quotes, but hardly the sort of giant BLP violation you seem to think it was. " In other words, you made an error. (Is pointing that out a similar violation of WP:CIVIL now?) Relata refero (talk) 07:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Ramadan and Banu Qurayza

I don't know where to ask this, so I'm asking it here. On Talk:Banu Qurayza, Tariq Ramadan has been alleged of various things, e.g. "bigotry, antisemitism, and glorification of mass murder". While I'm grateful that this has stopped, there are still allegations that he is an "Islamist". This is quite a controversial allegation.

My question is: is it alright to make such statements about a living person on a talk page, especially if they are a bit off topic?

Misplaced Pages:Avoiding harm seems to suggest that the answer is no.Bless sins (talk) 04:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The exact quote is "The Islamist is your Muslim brotherhood friend Tariq Ramadan and you know that." That also seems to be a bit of a personal attack to me, unless Bless Sins has self-identified as an Islamist/member of the Muslim Brotherhood. I don't think Ramadan is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood himself. I don't think he would consider it an insult though, as his grandfather founded it and his father was a prominent member. So, perhaps not a major BLP vio, though perhaps a personal attack. Relata refero (talk) 08:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I interpret that as saying that TR is in some sense BS's friend, not that BS is a member. DGG (talk) 17:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Katja Shchekina

There is no reliable biographical evidence available to substantiate the claim that she is in fact of Somali heritage. The only information widely reported is her home country(Russia)and city of birth (Perm). This wikipedia entry seems to be the only evidence people are able to refer to as evidence of any Somali heritage. The claim of Somali heritage has no verifiable basis, aside from claims based on a mystery interview that has never been provided.

Maybe its in Russian. Remove it if there are no references provided. If one is provided in Russian, bring it here and someone will translate it. If none is provided, remove her from the list of Somalis as well. Relata refero (talk) 09:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I added a {{unreferenced}} tag, as the articles has zero references, and removed all referernces to somlia as unreferenced Jons63 (talk) 13:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Good call. She definitely does not look half-Somali, as is claimed on some blogs. This Russian source (actually, the text about her is in English, search for "somali"), claims that she once said her father, who left her when she was three, was half-Yemeni and half-Somali. Now that would be easier to believe (note that it is not a reputable source, by the way, that it does not mention an "interview" and that I found only two blogs in Russian claiming Somali heritage, none about a mystery interview), if not for the fact that many inhabitants of the former Soviet Union and Eastern block (like Ricardo Franchini, who is actually Ryszard Kozina) have in the recent past claimed that their unknown or absent father was a foreigner, usually Spanish, Italian, Greek or if nothing else works, Turkish or Arab. In fact, most of these fathers were probably from the Asian republics (Kirgizia, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan): Soviet gastarbeiter brought in for some important construction work - needed because of the male shortage in Eastern Europe. If Katya Shchokina (yes, that is how her name should be Romanized) was really fathered by a non-Soviet foreigner, why do none of the Russian news articles about her, mention that? (for instance). These models are a nuisance for a serious encyclopaedia. Most of what our articles mention is taken from "their personal web pages", usually in the hands of a fan and therefore based on hearsay. The birth place of Élise Crombez should obviously be quoted as Moeskroen (since she is Flemish, quoted "Moeskroen" herself as her birth place and Mouscron is a "commune à facilités"), but neither French speakers nor Flemish nationalists can leave that alone. This Shchokina's birth place is not certain either. I found one source from Perm claiming she was born in Kudymkar, a place where the immense majority of the population are Russified Finns! Shall we call her Yemeni-Somali-Russo-Finnish? I think we had better remove that thingy about her heritage... (and change the Cyrillic version of her name too!).--Paul Pieniezny (talk) 08:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Primary source, or secondary source?

There are some articles that were deleted recently, were many of {{afd}} participants justified delete opinions based on their perception those articles violated BLP.

In particular they characterized "Summary of Evidence" memos that contained the allegations against these individuals as "primary sources" -- and thus noncompliant with BLP.

Since the {{afd}}s were closed as delete I took a closer look at our definition of the difference between a primary and a secondary source.

These "Summary of Evidence" memos, are, as the name says, summaries. The authors compiled information from multiple documents, produced by multiple agencies.

To my way of thinking they constitute a canonical example of "secondary sources". I am considering requesting an undeletion review. First I thought I would ask for some opinions.

I already asked, over on primary source, or secondary source?

If you have thoughts on this, and time to offer them, it probably makes sense to offer them there. Thanks!

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 17:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

What constitutes an "independent third party source"?

Related to the question above, I have also asked a related question, over on WP:RS/Noticeboard -- under the heading What constitutes an "independent third party source"?

Some of those who had a concern that those "Summary of Evidence" memos were "primary sources" also voiced a concern that they weren't from an "independent, third party source".

As with the question whether these memos are "primaary sources", or "secondary sources", I think it would be best if anyone here who has an opinion puts it over on WP:RS/Noticeboard, where it was first raised. So, briefly, it seems to me that the arguments to suppress the use of these sources, because they weren't "independent" are based on unsubstantiated "gut feelings". It seems to me these arguments aren't based on anything that complies with WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:VER.

My thanks, in advance, to anyone who cares to offer their thoughts on these two questions!

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 17:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

British National Party

There is an insistence on including the term Fascism in the info box. This is a term frequently used against the party by critics and it is sourced. However, the term is not discussed in the main text (where it certainly should be), and there is no statement that the Party promotes itself under this term, so there would be divergence of viewpoints by different analysts as to its applicability. Used in the infobox without any wider context, it stands as a definitive editorial statement which reflects on any individuals in the Party and particularly those mentioned by name in the article. I believe this contravenes the need for caution mandated by WP:BLP, and have pointed that out on the talk page to no avail. The sources provided are authors, not an official body. The BNP are not a prescribed party, but hold local government office. This should not be taken in any way as a reflection of my own views on the Party. Tyrenius (talk) 02:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The term "critics" is inherently misleading. A scholar who upon analysis of the BNP's policies and suchlike should not instantly be labelled a "critic" if he draws the conclusion that the party have a fascist ideology. Regardless of subject, that would mean any scholar who attributes a supposedly positive label would be a "supporter" or similar, whereas any scholar who attirubes a supposedly negative label would be a "critic", which is ridiculous. I (and others) have previously asked for discussion on the term in the main body of the article, see here. How the BNP views and promotes itself is an extreme minority fringe view. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 03:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Your comment that you link to is an endorsement of the point that this term should be examined in the article, but not stated in the infobox. Tyrenius (talk) 04:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

How exactly do you work that out? Where does it say that? And regardless, that's simply to prove that it's been agreed it needs to be addressed in the article, and if you read the rest of the talk page you'll see the clear consensus. Admin says..... One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 04:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

That edit by User:The Anome shows that NPOV is not served by the recent state of the info box. Why was that changed? Tyrenius (talk) 05:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Update. Recent edit, which may do the trick. Tyrenius (talk) 05:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Not that recent, just seems like the disclaimer got lost over the last couple of days. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 05:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't think BLP applies to political organisation by dint of not being biography of living persons - it only intersects where living persons are mentioned in the political party's write-up. As far as it goes, I supprot "Fascism" being in the info box and in the article, and I am prepared to go along with "Denied by BNP", but would ask for a BNP citation to that end.--Red Deathy (talk) 08:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Of course BLP doesn't apply to political organisations. The problem with this article all along has been that certain editors (and it must be said, many of them admitted members or supporters of the BNP) have refused to allow any mention that the BNP is fascist. They have used all sorts of spurious arguments, including that it used to be but isn't now. (Variously, since 2000, or 2002, or 2003 or some other year.) No reliable evidence has been adduced to support this claim, though funnily enough they do not address the point that by implication they are saying the BNP was fascist, even though others deny that as well! I do not need academic references to know that the BNP is fascist, but nevertheless found citations to add to the infobox. Anyone who says that the article does not properly address the fact that the BNP is fascist is absolutely right, BUT it took considerable effort merely to have the citations included - hence the ridiculous qualifier "denied by the BNP". To get coverage in the article itself is going to be a big task and I am an editor, not a writer. Somewhere in there it should say that the BNP denies it's fascist (just as in an article on a murder we would say that the convicted offender pleaded not guilty) or even that some reliable sources do not concur (though none have been produced, and I have searched fruitlessly for them myself). However, being a fascist or a member of a fascist group is not a criminal offence. The BNP is not illegal. BLP serves to protect named individuals from malicious slander; calling someone a murderer with no reliable evidence is such; calling an organisation fascist with reliable evidence is not. Incidentally, with another editor I have been working on a replacement for the introduction following discussion on the BNP talk page - see User:Emeraude/temp for various drafts. Emeraude (talk) 12:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Gossip magazines as reliable sources

An anonymous IP editing Huma Abedin insists that Woman's Day is a reliable source. I do not believe is sufficiently reliable per BLP standards as it is a sensationalist gossip magazine of the same time as OK!. The important claim - Abedin's alleged romantic relationship with presidential candidate Hillary Clinton - is already supported by the reputable broadsheet The Times. As I have reverted several times to enforce WP:BLP in spite of WP:3RR, I would like expert attention to be directed at the sourcing of this article. Thanks in advance, Skomorokh 09:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Woman's Day is not a gossip magazine. You make it sound like the National Enquirer. The majority of the magazine is recipes, crafting tips, fashion, food, homemaking things, etc.Wjhonson (talk) 09:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a paragon of journalistic integrity whose repeated rumours we should trust implicitly and repeat with abandon throughout the encyclopedia. Skomorokh 09:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore I believe that fact Clinton agree to be interviewed for the piece adds to it's credibility.

I would also add that it makes no statement either way as to it fact or fiction it states the allegation was made Clintons response and a third parties (Renta) statement.

It adds no weight to either side but advises the reader that the story was published.

I would also state that wikipedia has many other articles which contain such information including Bill Clintons sexual misconduct allegations for example

Woman´s Day has almost 2.5 million readers, mostly women, who are of all ages and socio-economic groups. They live in cities, suburbs and regions. They are interested in their homes, families, careers and leisure time. They want to be healthy, fashionable, entertained and informed, to have fun, to know what´s going on in the world, what celebrities are up to and what´s new in health, nutrition, beauty, fashion, fitness and food. They want budget-conscious fashion, five-minute beauty routines, nutritious meals in 15 minutes, easy fitness ideas and helpful advice on life´s little problems. They enter contests in their thousands, write, fax and e-mail hundreds of letters every week, share secrets, advice, worries and joys. Woman´s Day gives its readers what they want.from ACP—Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.6.59 (talk) 10:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The two of you are arguing about different magazines. Woman's Day in the US is a Good Housekeeping clone. In Oz it's an OK magazine clone. One is an RS the other isn't.

The Abedin article already mentions the rumour through a Times article. There's no need for anything else. Relata refero (talk) 10:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Q.
Was Clinton intervied in the times article ? Was Renta interviewed in the times article ?
There are millions of exapmle though out wikipedia were more then one source is nothed and i beleave they ofer different information! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.6.59 (talk) 10:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I fancy they weren't interviewed for this one either, merely quoted. De la Renta was quoted in the Vogue article on Abedin, and Clinton said this at a newsconference, I think. Again, Women's Day (Australia) is not a reliable source. Relata refero (talk) 16:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Fancy has little to do with fact! In the Vouge article did Clinton speak of her warm and memories Of the time she and Bill spent in australia ? I fail to see all the fuss why are you so determined to remove what is simply information that there was such a story printed in woman's day ? What is you motivation ? Why do you seek repress a mater of fact ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.6.59 (talk) 07:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

'Fancy' is a figure of speech. Articles, especially in non-RSes, pick quotes from elsewhere and frequently do not assign the specific source. Clinton could have been talking about Australia at any point. Please cease your reverts, you now have 5 in a 24 hour period. This article is not a reliable source, and is thus inadmissible, period. Relata refero (talk) 09:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

for goodness sakes, if you're going to assert that a major presidential candidate is having a gay relatinoship with a staffer, you need a better source than that. Misplaced Pages!Not!Gossip column. Wikidemo (talk) 10:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

As I have stated I am not asserting anything the information I have contributed is a fact which is on December 10 2007 there was an article which stated the following ! Such information is contained extensively throughout wikipedia. I think you have Woman’s Day confused with New Weekly and FYI Australia has its own version of OK magazine

Australian weekly magazine Woman's Day subsequently ran a story titled "Hillary Clintons Gay Scandal" which stated "Hillary Clinton has been accused of having an affair with Huma Abedin". Clinton replied "It's not true, but it's something I have no control over" So close are the two women they even holiday together. "They are lucky to have found each other" Fashion designer Oscar de la Renta is quoted as saying in the piece after hosting the two on holiday at his Dominican Republic home

In regards to the revert you continue to change it how many reverts do you have ? The mater was put here to be decided upon. A presidential candidate has no right to special treatment! Article states Hillary Clinton speaks to our own Angela Mollard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.6.59 (talk) 11:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The IP's reverted someone else now. Thats 6/7 reverts in the past 36 hours. Can someone with the tools block him please? Relata refero (talk) 12:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The Times reported in November 2007 that a dirty tricks campaign was underway intimating that Abedin and Clinton were engaged in a lesbian affair. Australian weekly magazine Woman's Day subsequently ran a story titled "Hillary Clintons Gay Scandal" which stated "Hillary Clinton has been accused of having an affair with Huma Abedin". Clinton replied "It's not true, but it's something I have no control over" So close are the two women they even holiday together. "They are lucky to have found each other" Fashion designer Oscar de la Renta is quoted as saying in the piece after hosting the two on holiday at his Dominican Republic home.

While the mater is being delt with you and your friends continue to change it ! Look at how the article is now and always was structured. I fail to she your point ? you do not make a case and just change it ! why ? please note i fixed spelling due to your reverts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.6.59 (talk) 12:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

IP blocked for 3RR. Eventually. I had to go on IRC and whine a bit first. Relata refero (talk) 13:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

When you can't make an argument to back up you opinion you try to block people ? Thats very sad! Why dont you leave the page alone until a decision is made ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.6.59 (talk) 13:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is how I would approach the situation. We already have an article on Woman's Day, the US Magazine. That's confusing as we've seen if there are multiple publications of this name. We need someone to add the {{otheruses}} template which will redirect to a disamg page. Then we need someone to write up an article, even a stub on this other Woman's Day and link it up to the disamg page. Then and only then we should have a discussion on the article for that publication to form a consensus for whether or not it is a reliable source. And if consensus cannot be reached, the publication should then be relisted at the reliable sources noticeboard for further community input. As it stands, those of us not living in Australia, really have no way to give input. Wjhonson (talk) 17:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

What, we can't determine a magazine's a tad unreliable unless we have an article on it?

As a kicker, I see the front page of Women's Day Aus today is "Kissing Dad Just Feels So Right: Julie Is Madly In Love With Her Own Father". The site's online. Its a supermarket checkout rag, and I don't see why we need an article on it to determine that. Relata refero (talk) 19:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Michael Coren

Can someone take a look at the article. I just got this message. I will email him to see if he has a specific complaint. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 15:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I never heard of Coren before, but these 9 edits by User:LagunaBeachCA look like a further trash-job on top of the trash-job the article already is. --CliffC (talk) 17:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It also appears that an Verizon IP is interested in the article here. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 22:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

In general the article is badly written. I removed one bit of OR but don't feel like doing more right now. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 01:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Nadia Abu El Haj

Hi, I'm concerned about the repeated insertion of unsubstantiated claims that Abu El Haj slandered an archaeologist on both this page and the page for facts on the ground. This text is inserted in a separate section on both pages, but the source of the claim seems to be a separate writer and whose accusations are not supported by the person supposedly being slandered by Abu El Haj. The inclusion on Misplaced Pages of potentially false claims that Abu El Haj slandered another academic could ITSELF be considered as slander, and so it is potentially libelous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.68.32 (talk) 00:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Looked at the talkpage. A long description of the controversy and the tenure decision, and then this particular accusation, which neither fits in with the rest of the discussion nor seems to be really very notable. Removed it and asked for justification on the talkpage for its notability. Relata refero (talk) 08:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Michael Medved

On the Medved page, he is listed as a "self identifying homosexual". This is false and slanderous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.23.224.17 (talk) 01:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Reverted: thanks for your help.--Slp1 (talk) 01:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Michele Sinclair

Michelesinclair (talk · contribs) created the page Michele Sinclair several days ago. I ran across it when it was slapped with a copyvio tag, as the text was a direct copy of what was on romancewiki, and also of text that appeared on various other websites. I cleaned up the article to rely only on the one source I could find about the subject and deleted the information on future works, and left a message on the talk page of the user to explain why I did that along with a link to WP:COI. Said user reverted my changes, so I reverted them back, and then today a random IP 67.34.42.168 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) added back in the same romancewiki/copyrighted nonsense, deleting what was there. I suspect the IP and the user are the same, but I also am pretty sure it is the subject of the article, so I am not sure what to do about this. Even if she owns the copyright to the text, the information she keeps adding to the articleis not encyclopedic. I could have a checkuser run and get her blocked for repeatedly adding copyrighted text, but I'm not sure that's the best way to go with the subject of the article. For now, I've got the page watchlisted and will revert the copyvio when I see it. Advice on what else (if anything) to do would be very welcome!! Karanacs (talk) 03:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. That's a tricky one. Many wikis release material under GFDL, just as Misplaced Pages does, in which case the only thing that needs to be done to satisfy copyright is provide a direct link to the source. I couldn't find any information on copyright anywhere on RomanceWiki, so I logged in and edited a page to see what kind of copyright advisement they offer. It's pretty skimpy; definitely no mention of GFDL. I have left messages at the talk page of the IP and the editor backing up your copyright advisement with specific steps to follow if they want to copy from this source. These two (this one?) have been explicitly warned, and if they persist without following outlined procedures, blocking may be the only option. Meanwhile, if the IP and/or the creator add questionable content, you might want to consider filing a notice at WP:COIN. I see other autobiographies there from time to time, and they ought to be able to help follow up on that one. (Also of potential use in that situation, {{COI2}}.) --Moonriddengirl 18:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Bill Dawes

Resolved

Bill Dawes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) seems unworthy of inclusion. Article could be planted by the subject, his agent, management/PR rep, colleague, friend or "fan." Delete the article? // Lfo01 (talk) 06:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the place to make that determination. If reliable independent sources can't be found about him, you can take this to WP:AFD and let community consensus decide if the article should be deleted. Karanacs (talk) 15:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Taking a quick look I doubt it would be deleted, they seem to have a number of film credits, even if minor those tend to add up. Ben jiboi 16:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hollyoaks actresses articles

Jennifer Metcalfe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Roxanne McKee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sinead Moynihan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ashley Slanina-Davies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hollie-Jay Bowes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Claire Cooper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

All are {{blpdispute}}d, please look into this. Thanks, Solumeiras (talk) 14:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Err, you added them. With no details as to what is disputed. Two of them are short of sources, but there's no other dispute that I can see. Relata refero (talk) 14:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It does need investigation, since I'm not really much of a BLP editor... --Solumeiras (talk) 14:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

What do you think is disputed, deragotory info in those article? Jons63 (talk) 14:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The articles need cleanup, I'm no expert in this field, so am trying to see if anyone else is able to fix it. --Solumeiras (talk) 15:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I've had a look at the articles and can only see one article that has anything contentious in it, which I have removed. I've removed the BLPdispute templates and added cleanup tags to the articles that need them. In future if you see anything controversial that is not sourced, remove it straight away, as stated in the WP:BLP. --RicDod (talk) 19:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Susan Polk

Resolved

Susan Polk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I received an e-mail from an editor concerned about BLP violations in this article and went to investigate, finding it does seem to have a history of biased contribution without adequate citation. I spent some time sourcing everything inline and attempting to neutralize the language, but it was immediately again altered to include unsourced negative allegations about the individual. I've left a warning at the IP of the most recent changer (whose edits in the past have included unsourced references to speculation of incest between the subject and her son), but this behavior has involved multiple editors (seems to be mainly IP). I'd be grateful for extra eyes to watch for unreferenced or poorly referenced controversial material. --Moonriddengirl 17:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks like you did a good job cleaning it up and sourcing most of it. I'll watchlist it, but if there are continued problems with IP's reintroducing BLP violations, you could semiprotect it or ask me to do so. MastCell 19:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. :) --Moonriddengirl 19:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Matt Gonzalez

Resolved

I removed both a "criticism" section that contained one unsourced criticism, as well as vague complaints that were not sourced to any actual critics but was basically original research. As well, I removed a seriously gratuitous red-baiting section under the heading "Ideology" which does not discuss Gonzalez' ideology at all, but simply was put in for sensationalism and well-poisoning. User Griot has been serially reverting attempted fixes on this a number of other Green Party related pages, offering false claims I've reliable sourcing and equally and demonstrably false claims of consensus in previous discussions. He often reverts contra numerous editors and admits a long standing personal grudge against Ralph Nader. I'd appreciate a look at the Matt Gonzalez page and its talk page. I am resisting being provoked by this editor.Boodlesthecat (talk) 17:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I've removed some problem items and added context to address some of the other concerns, formatted refs and cleaned up the talk page. There does seem to be strong POV-pushing. If it persists re-post here for support. Ben jiboi 16:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Natalee Holloway disappearance

Resolved

I'd like to request some extra eyeballs at Natalee Holloway disappearance, a page I just moved from Natalee Holloway. Thanks. Mira Gambolputty (talk) 03:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Reverted. Please do not move pages without first discussing the move. It is especially inappropriate to move a page, then ask for help here. Numerous prior discussions have occurred, and never has a consensus to move the page developed. - auburnpilot talk 03:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

This simply reinforces my request for more eyeballs. This is not a biography and violates WP:BLP as indicated in my edity summary: (moved Talk:Natalee Holloway to Talk:Natalee Holloway disappearance -- This is definitely not a biography. If you don't agree, please ask at WP:BLPN or discuss at WT:BLP. Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper. The bare fact) Diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Natalee_Holloway&diff=prev&oldid=188303744

If anything is inappropriate, it is reverting without discussion at BLPN. Mira Gambolputty (talk) 03:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Try the article talk page, and do not move pages without discussion. - auburnpilot talk 03:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Please try the policy talk page, and do not violate WP:BLP. Mira Gambolputty (talk) 03:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

A policy page is not the appropriate place to discuss a page move. We have article talk pages and things such as Misplaced Pages:Requested moves for that. Again, feel free to comment on the talk page. - auburnpilot talk 03:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

How is this a biography? What are your arguments that trump WP:BLP#Articles_about_people_notable_only_for_one_event? Mira Gambolputty (talk) 03:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Natalee Holloway. - auburnpilot talk 03:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to request some extra eyeballs at Natalee Holloway disappearance, a page I just moved from Natalee Holloway. It is not a biography, and it has been returned to Natalee Holloway in violation of WP:BLP#Articles_about_people_notable_only_for_one_event. AuburnPilot, please let this request stay at the bottom of this section so that others will check it instead of suspecting the usual drama. This is core WP:BLP. What do you have to lose? If I'm wrong, others will inform me. You have not provided me with a single argument in a whole string of edits. Thank you. Mira Gambolputty (talk) 03:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Since for some unknown reason, you refuse to comment on the article's talk page, I'll make one comment here. Your arguement is contradictory, as the section of BLP that you reference states we should not have biographies on people who are notable for one event. You even state, the article is not a biography. 1+1=2, and if it is not a biography, it is not in violation of that section. That section never mentions article titles anywhere within its text. The name of the article is not a BLP violation, but is a topic for discussion that is appropriate for the article talk page. - auburnpilot talk 03:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

And for examples of what I'm talking about, see Category:Murdered American children. There are dozens of articles within that category and all over Misplaced Pages, where the article resides at the name of the person who is the subject of whatever action the article discusses (whether it be a murder, kidnapping, or disappearance). - auburnpilot talk 03:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

There's two different considerations here (at least until and unless they're merged): WP:ONEEVENT and WP:BIO1E. The differences between the two are subtle, but substantial. In terms of BLP intervention, WP:ONEEVENT is the one that would seem to matter. It does not say that articles cannot be created about people noted for one event, but only that a separate article is unlikely to be warranted. I interpret the BLP guideline to indicate that where a person is not low profile, an article about him or her is not problematic with regards to BLP; sometimes a person's connection with a single event itself raises his or her profile. Take, for example, Sirhan Sirhan, Fusako Sano & Erica Roe. This is in contrast with individuals who remain low profile in spite of their connection with an incident, such as the various victims (including survivors) of serial rapist murderers John Duffy and David Mulcahy. An article about their first survivor, mentioned by name in the parent article, would be inappropriate. I don't believe Natalee Holloway is low profile, and hence I don't believe that the article about her is problematic with regards to BLP, which is intended to protect individuals from invasions of privacy and Misplaced Pages from allegations of defamation. I am inclined to agree with you that per notability guidelines the page should be moved, but I also agree with User:AuburnPilot that the first place to discuss that is the talk page of the article. I don't believe this is a BLP concern. --Moonriddengirl 13:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. WP:ONEEVENT and WP:BIO1E are reasons why articles such as Joran van der Sloot, Deepak Kalpoe, and Satish Kalpoe have all been merged with and/or redirected to Natalee Holloway. They are notable only due to their connection to this one case, and do not warrant biographies of their own. Hopefully Mira Gambolputty will take the discussion regarding the article title to the article's talk page. - auburnpilot talk 15:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no time for this, that's why I asked others to have a look. Casting Natalee as "well known" in WP:BLP terms contradicts the very "Well known public figures" policy language, qv. Whatever happened to the likes of Uncle G? This is exactly why these rules exist. And this is exactly the type of problem handled by this board very often in the past. If Natalee is well-known for other reasons than the disappearance, it should be easy to write a real biography. This isn't it. As a newbie I studied the rules and precedents on this board before filing a request myself and I suspect that I'm not being taken seriously because I'm a newbie. By the way, this was not the only BLP problem with the article why I requested some more eyeballs. Someone might want to remove the rumor supposedly leaked from De Vries' website which has been reinserted into the article after I had removed it. VKMAG is not a reliable source at all and the accusation regarding Joran (however much everybody seems to think he did it) is currently another BLP violation.

I think the existence of WP (its content) may well change the course of history. However, if this is how WP is being built, please don't count on me to help. I'm a professional editor and have others things I can do more efficiently than defending the encyclopedia's rules against other editors. Bye. Mira Gambolputty (talk) 15:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is disregarding your comments because you are a "newbie". I have no idea how long you've been editing, as I haven't checked your contribs. The mistake you've made is ignoring the article's talk page, and again bringing up an issue best addressed on the article's talk page. There are several editors who have extensive knowledge of the case and its article. If you have concerns, they are best addressed (surprisingly) on the article's talk page. - auburnpilot talk 16:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Mira Gambolputty and a few other accounts controlled by the same person(s) seem to have retired. Ben jiboi 16:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Peter Tatchell

Peter Tatchell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Peter Tatchell is a longtime LGBT campaigner whose bio is now being compromised in regards to apparently to his human rights efforts in Africa. Dubious statements and sources both in lede and text suggest POV pushing but I would prefer someone else take a look as I have previous contributed and would like a fresh set of eyes to help ensure objectivity. // Benjiboi 03:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Long quote in lead removed. If it is reinstated, please revert and then start a conversation on the talkpage, where there has been no discussion at all. Relata refero (talk) 13:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Scott Atkins

Resolved.

Scott Atkins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Partial explanation posted at the AfD. Appears to be a real person (although there's a scant amount of reliable sources identifying him). Page is highly negative, identifying him as a con man and describing various frauds and scams he supposedly ran. User has communicated with me by email, verified his lack of third-party sources, and just said he's got "physical evidence" that he's taking to newspapers. Article raises many significant BLP concerns; I want a few extra eyeballs on it. // Gromlakh (talk) 05:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Janet Reno

Trojancowboy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - adding defamatory material to BLP, not supported by source cited.// Anastrophe (talk) 19:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Raoul Lowery

Trojancowboy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - adding unsourced, defamatory content to article. Anastrophe (talk) 19:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep Austin Weird

Keep Austin Weird (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - User insisted on including what appeared to be a section of poorly sourced original research about "Famous Austin eccentrics", former section title of "Austin Weirdos". After I removed the section as not being sourced well enough per WP:BLP, it was replaced with an edit summary stating that it's all found in an old Chronicle story in the Austin History Center stacks . I doubt this, but have no way to verify myself. Onorem♠Dil 21:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the entire section and left a note on the editor's talk page. Disparaging remarks about non-notable people will require consensus for notability and inclusion as well as exceptional sourcing. Ben jiboi 03:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

James McConvill

James McConvill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) IP users (or one user with variable IPs) have repeatedly removed well-sourced material about a controversy in which McConvill was involved (see Drew Fraser). I've been reverting it, but don't want to violate WP:3RR or WP:BLP. Could someone take a look at this, please?JQ (talk) 11:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

This seems to be covered by WP:ONEEVENT and the article should therefore be deleted. A separate article on the controversy may be necessary but from what I can see it would not be notable enough. --RicDod (talk) 12:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Natalee Holloway

I have suggested per the category living persons that she be removed from that category since she is listed under the disappeared persons category. There was BLP concerns about monitoring this article that was discussed. I was told to take it up with the "BLP patrolers" who ever they might be. Can this category please be removed. There seems to be plenty of eyes watching this article to help avoid any BLP issues as well as all other policy and guideline disputes. Thank you. --24.250.59.250 (talk) 19:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that just because someone is missing, that means that they are not living. I believe she is dead, but until she is declared dead by a reliable source, we need to continue to assume she is alive for the purposes of her article. Now, since she is alive, the category living persons is appropriate along with the category missing persons. Jons63 (talk) 22:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

But that category, disappeared persons, syas not to include those people in the living category? How do you reconcile that?--24.250.59.250 (talk) 00:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I was wrong, you are correct. I removed the article from the Living person Category with a very descriptive edit summary. I will watch and see what happens. Jons63 (talk) 01:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Brian Crozier (guitarist)

This article has been the frequent target of a lot of nonsense editing. I reverted the trash to a mini-stub, but none of what's there is sourced, and the nonsense editing continues. The article needs a lot of eyes due to the repeated vandalism. If there were still a BJAODN, the crap that was in the article would fit, though it would obviously fail BLP. Corvus cornix_talk 22:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I've watchlisted it and also dropped a modified {{uw-unsor1}} at the talk page of the last IP to edit to supplement your note by explaining sourcing requirements. :) --Moonriddengirl 13:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Seemingly gratuitous insults in Ralph Nader's presidential campaigns

One of the numerous compilations of criticisms of Nader's campaigns in this article, in a paragraph listing criticisms by Eric Alterman, concludes with this sentence

He has called Nader "Bush's Useful Idiot," myopic, and a deluded megalomaniac.

Does this article need every byte of hostile verbiage ever tossed at Nader, or can we draw a line at gratuitous and malicious insults like the above that don't seem to add much to the subject or Misplaced Pages, other than a peek into Alterman's mindset.Boodlesthecat (talk) 23:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I would remind this editor that first, this article is not biographical. It's about Ralph Nader's role in different presidential campaigns from 1972 to 2004. Second, these quotes come from very reputable third-party sources. They are strident. They are not gratuitous (since journalist Eric Alterman made them in a thoughtful manner) and they are not malicious (I'm certain The Nation and MSNBC, where they appear, would not tolerate malisciousness on their pages). Moreover, the quotes appear in this article in context. Feedler (talk) 23:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to remind everyone of this quote from WP:BLP

Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm".

This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons in other articles. The burden of evidence for any edit on Misplaced Pages, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material.

I am not saying that the material does not belong. We do though, need to be just as careful on this article as we are on Ralph Nader's biographical article about ensuring the material is properly sourced and weighted. Jons63 (talk) 23:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with ~~Feedler~~ Boodlesthecat that the material reflects undue weight. Reporting that critics felt his candidacy unbalanced the election seems appropriate; slurs against the candidate's character ("a deluded megalomaniac"?) are neither necessary nor helpful in representing that controversy and seem problematic to the article with regards to Misplaced Pages:BLP#Criticism. --Moonriddengirl 13:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it is Feedler who is arguing for the inclusions of the slurs, and has been reverting them back into the article; this is why I brought the issue here). Boodlesthecat (talk) 18:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Feedler emerged during the early 2007 edit wars around the use of the Atlantic Monthly quote in the lead of the Ralph Nader article and is in agreement with User:Griot on this and related matters. Often emerges during Ralph Nader-related disputes. FYI, 76.87.47.110 (talk) 08:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out my name use error. I do recognize what the players are up to, though I copied & pasted the name incorrectly. :) --Moonriddengirl 20:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

For context, here is the full quote:

On 26 October 2000, Eric Alterman wrote in The Nation, "Nader has been campaigning aggressively in Florida, Minnesota, Michigan, Oregon, Washington and Wisconsin. If Gore loses even a few of those states, then Hello, President Bush. And if Bush does win, then Goodbye to so much of what Nader and his followers profess to cherish. After the election, Alterman said Nader was partially to blame for the election of George W. Bush because of vote splitting. He has called Nader "Bush's Useful Idiot," myopic, and a deluded megalomaniac.

I include the full quote here because the short snippet quoted above needs to be viewed in context. Alterman criticized Nader prior to the election; the other quotes are followup to his analyses of Nader's campaigns. Feedler (talk) 15:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that it's put succinctly enough without the entire last sentence. This is not a matter of softening criticism, but presenting information neutrally. Alterman's opinion of Nader's influence of the outcome of the election seems very important. His opinion of Nader's character and/or intelligence doesn't, really, and, again, seems quite weighty. --Moonriddengirl 20:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the quote is quite okay. We're dealing with a presidential candidate here who better have a tough hide. Griot (talk) 23:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Subjective judgment regarding width or endurance of Ralph Nader's skin aside, the content does not fit with WP:BLP. 76.87.47.110 (talk) 08:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Frank LaGrotta

A while back an editor was reading a news story about Frank LaGrotta and decided to create a BLP page to report the news of Mr. Lagrotta's legal troubles, apparently the editor had political motivations for doing so.

Another editor had already cited "Misplaced Pages is not news", to no avail.

The editor who created the article subsequently acknowledged that his reading the newspaper account of LaGrotta was the reason (s)he created the page, and created it on the very same day the newspaper story hit. Despite my removal of the potentially harmful material from the article, it was restored. I added and cited balancing material to indicate that Mr. LaGrotta's legal troubles were the result of a politically motivated procecution. These were removed.

I posted extensively to inform the editor who created the article about Misplaced Pages's policies for BLPs, to no avail.

A look at the edit history and the contributor histories indicates this "Wiki-expose" is politically motivated.

I am "courtesy" blanking the article and talk page per WP:BLP, and awaiting review.

See

article history

I will post other diffs shortly riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 23:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any justification for blanking the article. The motivation of the original editor is irrelevant so long as the end product is NPOV and verifiable. The material is well-sourced. If there are sources that say the prosecution is politically motivated then those should be added. The impeachment of Bill Clinton may have been politically motivated too but it still happened. While poorly-sourced material, if any, should be removed the article itself should not be blanked. WP:NOT#NEWS doesn't to apply to incidents that have lasting notability beyond a brief flurry of coverage. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

(1) Bill Clinton was notable before he was impeached. (2) Evidence for lack of notablilty here is the fact that PA legislators generally do not have Misplaced Pages articles. (3) are you suggesting that Wikipedians should, as a general rule, create Misplaced Pages BLPs immediately upon the appearance of a name in a newspaper, or from police blotters? Especially as the report of an arraignment, not a conviction. I think this article, and the timing and motivation for it's creation clearly "does harm", by spreading nationally/globally what is merely "local news" in Pennsylvania. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wndl42 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm reading the policies differently, specifically with respect to (1) creation of an article specifically to report news about an arraignment of a person who was not formerly notable. (2) pleae read my post, the "balancing info" was removed. (3) in a BLP, the burden of proof for "lasting notability" is on the person adding the potentially damaging material. Additional background here riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 00:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

More diffs to follow, please be patient.riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 00:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who created the article or why. All the matters is the current state of the article. What specific, unsolvable problem requires that the article be blanked? If you think the subject is not notable then bring it to AfD. In regards to a person's life story, being indicted for criminal charges is a notable event. I fail to see what harm is done to the subject by mentioning he indictment in his biography. He's a public figure who has been indicted for actions he took while a public servant. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

As an admin, if you are ready to make the call, make it. Whether you wait for the diffs, or investigate further is up to you. I blanked it and posted here because this is where the experts are...and I'm not going to waste another two hours researching balancing material and seeing it tendentiously deleted for political reasons. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 00:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The page appears fair and balanced to me, including references to the political side motivations. If the politician is not notable enough for inclusion in Misplaced Pages, then the article should be suggested for deletion. --h2g2bob (talk) 00:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Why do you continue to impugn my motives, despite my denials of any political motivation? I have said multiple times that I had no political motivations in creating it — I simply believe that we have too few articles on state legislators, and when I find a bit of information about one, I'm apt to create an article on one (see Bob Lyon for another example). Who made the last edit to the page before it was blanked? I did — restoring a cited comment (originally added by Wndl42) that supports LaGrotta. Anyway, this article has been debated back and forth (the talk page is over 28KB), and we've worked hard to ensure that the article is balanced. As was stated before: blanking is not the solution, especially since a lot of the article is altogether unrelated to the indictment. Finally, regarding the notability question: Misplaced Pages:Notability (people) lists politicians as inherently notable — unless it can be proven that he wasn't really a state legislator (something I believe that would be quite difficult!), there cannot be any notability question. Nyttend (talk) 00:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

E/C If the issue is the deletion of "balancing material" then let's focus on that. Blanking the entire article isn't the right solution for an edit dispute. Regarding your points above, 1) Many people become notable for doing bad things. Creating an article in response to reports of bad activities is not, by itself, a problem. If that were the case we would not have an article about Seung-Hui Cho. 2) If you don't think he's notable then the correct action is to nominate the article for AfD. In fact, that was done three weeks ago and the community decided that he was sufficiently notable for an article. This is the second time you've blanked the article. Continued blanking of sourced, NPOV material in the absence of a consensus becomes disruptive. 3) It's the job of Misplaced Pages editors to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view in order to create an encyclopedia of articles on notable topics. This article appears to meet the description. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Will, or other BLP admin, please comment on people notable for only one event

Although I'm not a BLP admin, please note my opinion that as a state legislator he's not notable for just this one event. Nyttend (talk) 00:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Further, the allegation is that he engaged in a longterm criminal endeavor by hiring his relatives as ghost employees. The court case has already been going on for months and probably won't be finished for many more months. So the criminal charge, which is only one element of his notability, is much more than a "single event". Lastly, that section specifically refers to a "relatively unimportant crime". Felony corruption charges against a career politician are not relatively unimportant. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The issue is that the article was created specifically to report news of LaGrotta's indictment. I said the motivation "appeared" political, as the following discussions on the talk page and your following comments seeemed to indicate. I find it difficult to believe that I'd be sitting around one day reading the local Beaver County Times, read about a local politician's indictment, and think "Misplaced Pages needs an article" in the absence of a political motivation. Also, please note that "politicians are inherently notable" at the statewide level and above, and LaGrotta is not a statewide representative.

I really don't have a "horse" in this race, I just can't believe that Misplaced Pages should be used as a million watt national bullhorn for spreading the news of a politically-motivated prosecutor's charges, innocent until proven guilty.

Will, make the call if you don't see a problem with using Misplaced Pages as a "news amplifier" in the context of WP:BLP, I'm outta time.riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 01:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow, we really need to unindent! You are correct that he wasn't a "statewide representative", but the listing includes "Politicians who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislature," and he is a former member of a state legislature. And yes, occasionally I do read something and think "Misplaced Pages could use an article on that". Nyttend (talk) 01:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Google news analysis: For all this time, Lagrotta did not merit enough notability for an article on Misplaced Pages (yellow timeline bars indicate hits for "Frank LaGrotta" from Google's News Archive through 2006). Then, a politically motivated prosecutor files politically motivated charges for stuff that (as I understand it) has been commonplace in PA for years in both parties. Now, Misplaced Pages was used in November to "bullhorn" Corbett's charges nationwide. Could "wiki-bullhorning" Corbett's allegations have damaged LaGrotta's case, or weakened his ability to negotiate? THAT is how using Misplaced Pages to report/amplify the NEWS specifically "does harm". LaGrotta could make case against Misplaced Pages on this basis, and that is why this noticeboard is here, and THAT is why BLP is so strict.

Will, if you have a horse in this race, you should probably recuse, and let an uninvolved admin have a look. I will do one more revert and suggest that only an uninvolved ADMIN weigh in with a definitive opinion. If that admin wants my opinion, please leave a message on my talk page.riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 01:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I have absolutely no "horse in this race". You've repeatedly asked me to "make the call" and I've repeatedly told you that blanking the article is inappropriate. The community has already given a strong response to to your assertion that the subject is not notable. Ignoring the consensus and blanking the article is disruptive. I've protected the article to prevent disruption. When it expires please do not make wholesale blanking of neutral, sourced material against the community consensus. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

If there are any specific sections of text that you think must be removed to comply with BLP, please give the exact text and justification here or on the article talk page so an admin can make the edit. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll not make any such edits while it's protected: not as a matter of spite, but because as an involved party, I don't think I should be making any edits of any sort to the page while it's protected, even though as an admin I can. Nyttend (talk) 03:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I was involved in some editing of this article. Mr. LaGrotta is a Pennsylvania State Represenate (that makes him prima facie notable), and is currently under indictment by the Pennsylvania Attorney General for corruption. A while back, certain editors tried to have mention of this indictment scrubbed from the article, citing WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE, even going to the point of an , which was overwhelmingly KEEP.

Frankly, I am annoyed at the failure to assume good faith here by User:Wndl42. Just because someone created an article on the day he was indicted does not prove that it was solely to be mean to him. There are 203 State Representatives, and very few of them have article. This guy was in the news, so why wouldn't he get an article before some 1 term backbencher?

I even went so far as to add a bunch about his bio and prior electoral history to balance against the WP:UNDUE concerns. If someone is indicted by the Attorney General, why wouldn't we mention it in his article? --RedShiftPA (talk) 06:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Is the editor's argument that the subject is entirely non-notable and therefore the article constitutes news rather than encyclopedic content? Or is the argument that while the subject is notable, the ongoing investigation makes inclusion of the article completely invalid? Those would seem to be the only logical arguments.

One would think that if the argument was the former, then efforts to delete or blank pages of virtually all PA State legislators should be underway. That would certainly be an interesting undertaking.

If the argument is the latter, then at what point does the "news" become history and therefore encyclopedic? I can only assume the conclusion of the case. So maybe the discussion should be put on hold until 9:00 AM EST when LaGrotta appears in court to plead guilty. Or does conclusion of the case occur after his sentencing or completion of the sentence?Montco (talk) 07:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Let's just wait until he pleads. Either way, "not guilty" or "guilty" it should be in this article. For those editors that still think that the article should not mention this episode: Do you really think that a wikipedia should have a higher reporting standard than the grand jury, the magistrate who gave the original warrants, the state Attorney General, and the trial judge who has refused to dismiss the charges? Come-on!

Maybe we should also blank Michael Jackson's article, since he was never actually convicted of anything. Is that the standard we should have?--RedShiftPA (talk) 23:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Article by obituary

I'm sure this isn't the proper noticeboard, but I'm also not sure which one would be. There is an editor who is on an article creation spree using obituaries as the starting point. Recent examples include Jennifer Davidson, Beto Carrero, Lovie Yancey, Shell Kepler, Bernie Boston, Andrey Kurennoy and so forth. Many other examples can be found here. Some of these articles have nothing more than the obit as a source (and some of his other articles don't have any sources at all). This seems to be contrary to the spirit of Misplaced Pages is not a memorial if not it's absolute letter. Any thoughts? Pairadox (talk) 00:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

My first thought. They are dead. This noticeboard is for the living ;) Ok ok I'm being snarky. Perhaps one thing would be to the great Google check to see if these people are actually... anybodies? If they are, then I'd suggest other editors will be along to expand the articles, maybe even yourself! Probably you want to go to the Talk page of Notability to seek input. Have a great day. Wjhonson (talk) 00:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I aknowledged this wasn't the correct board; give me some credit for that, at least. :P Thanks for the pointer to a better location. Pairadox (talk) 01:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

On the general point, I think an obituary from a good newspaper can be the best source for biographies on people about whom we should have articles. Every week I read obits about notable people with interesting lives. Being lazy I've rarely done anything about it (or have been glad to see an article already existed). I think the distinction should be made between obits written by the editorial staff (the NY Times is famous for theirs) and paid obits submitted by survivors ("He was a loving husband..."). In small newspapers this distinction may not be clear, or the fact-checking may be inadequate or nonexistent. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes Will but you wouldn't even need to elicit V policy, N would be enough to scuttle articles on non-entities.Wjhonson (talk) 01:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

N? NPOV? Notability? WP:BIO says that a single significant profile may be sufficient to establish notability. An obit may be that profile. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, this shows me that I'm probably just being too sensitive to the "morbid" factor of combing obits to create articles. Thanks for the feedback. Pairadox (talk) 02:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

James Loney (peace activist)

He is a pacifist who was kidnapped in Iraq, and supposedly rescued by a commando operation (although in all probability, ransom was paid.) He stated that he would rather have died than been rescued by violence. Rightwing commentators made a lot of noise about how ungrateful he was for that, and how awful he was to refuse to co-operate with the Iraqi investigation because he believed it was corrupt and anyway he wouldn't co-operate with a death penalty case, etc. That POV keeps creeping in as objective fact to his biography. And just in general there are a lot of uncited statements including controversial quotes. For some reason the other 3 kidnap victims don't attract the same vitriol. Anyway, keep an eye out. <eleland/talkedits> 11:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Myrna Williams (politician)

Two days before the 2006 general election, Chris Giunchigliani her opponent who won the election, accused Myrna of being part of Operation G-Sting.
Williams was the only commissioner in office in 2006 who served alongside Erin Kenny, Dario Herrera, Mary Kincaid-Chauncey and Lance Malone who were charged and convicted in the case.
All four were indicted in 2003 of accepting cash bribes from then strip club owner Michael Galardi in what was called in some quarters Operation G-Sting. This relationship may have been one of the reasons she was not reelected in 2006 outside of the fact that she had been ineffectual and unresponsive to her constituants' needs.

The second statement seems to have a reliable source and is not too controversial. However the first and third statements seem controversial and have the source of americanmafia.com which does not seem a sufficiently reliable source to back up these allegations. I do not want to change this myself as I have being involved in removing a PROD tag and commenting on an AFD for a related article. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 23:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Holy Ayaan

Holy Ayaan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - This is a new article on a documentary about Ayaan Hirsi Ali. I'm concerned that the article drifts from a discussion of the documentary to commentary on the subject's life. Because I've never dealt with BLP issues before, and because she is a controversial figure, outside views would be appreciated. // Dchall1 (talk) 23:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment Also, as much of this information appears to be recounted in the main article, this might qualify as a POV fork. Dchall1 (talk) 23:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment following this line of reasoning, the article Infidel (book) (a book by Ayaan Hirsi Ali) is a POV fork too. Andries (talk) 23:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

This article has now been deleted, as it had been created by a banned editor - Alison 07:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Pablo Bertorello

Pablo Bertorello (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Pmrbertorello (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
See also Estangle (talk · contribs) and Bertorello (talk · contribs)

Relatively new users appear to be writing an autobiography. Was cleaned up once, but is now full of citations to blogs. This seems to be the last version without blogs. Some of the refs added after that may be good, but it's going to take a bit for someone to sort out. Gimmetrow 00:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Gimmetrow was nice enough to inform me of this post after I had started an AfD nomination.. I'm not sure of how to proceed now. Suggest a speedy keep or see the nomination through? Rehevkor (talk) 04:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Eric Alterman (September 16, 2004). "Bush's Useful Idiot". Retrieved 2007-02-26. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
Eric Alterman (March 22, 2001). "Tweedledee, Indeed". Retrieved 2007-02-26. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
Eric Alterman (June 6, 2004). "Phew". Retrieved 2007-02-26. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
Alterman, Eric (October 26, 2000 ) Note One Vote! The Nation.
Eric Alterman (February 8, 2006). "Dancing days are here again". Retrieved 2007-02-26. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
Eric Alterman (September 16, 2004). "Bush's Useful Idiot". Retrieved 2007-02-26. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
Eric Alterman (March 22, 2001). "Tweedledee, Indeed". Retrieved 2007-02-26. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
Eric Alterman (June 6, 2004). "Phew". Retrieved 2007-02-26. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Categories: