The article is in violation of many points of BLP, as I've stated on the talk. Most of the article is based upon speculation and unverifiable rumors reported in very few sources. Editors who have attempted to correct these issues and bring the article in line with BLP are immediately reverted, as I was for simply tagged the article for NPOV: [1]. Due to issues at Grant Cardone where I was warned about the ArbCom decision on Scientology-related articles and not including material that is potentially in violation of BLP, I'd like it to be noted that this particular article is almost entirely in violation of BLP to the letter and yet it is virtually impossible to correct such errors as any attempt to do so is quickly reverted, as I was simply for tagging the article. We can't be having double standards here. If we're going to hold up articles to the guidelines of BLP, it must be universal. As it stands, the article on Michele Miscavige is based on speculation and hearsay being presented as fact, potentially libelous and defamatory material, and nothing has been done about it. The fact that I've been reverted for simply addressing the issue and attempting to initiate a dialogue on the talk is indicative of the level of the problem. Laval (talk) 00:46, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
The allegations seem to be well sourced from reliable sources, and the subjects in question easily pass WP:WELLKNOWN. Are there specific allegations you believe are not sufficiently sourced? Gaijin42 (talk) 01:03, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Poorly written and needed tightening - the bot about a gift of gloves suggesting she is in a cold place is not worthy of an encyclopedia article, etc. Also a "lack of appearing" != "disappearance" with its macabre connotations. Collect (talk) 01:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Poorly written is being nice. Crap article, par for the subject matter. I removed the category missing but then readded it. Don't feel like wrestling the pig in the mud on this one. I love all the back slapping on the talk page, classic.--Malerooster (talk) 04:05, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
well if you guy's think you can tighten it up please be my guest, there evidently is a fair bit of backslapping going on here too. Now as I stated on the talk page, and as Gaijin42 has already stated, there doesn't appear to be any BLP concerns in that everything is sourced to reliable sources, and is representative of the sources. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 04:22, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
The article is still violating many points of BLP. Considering how it's often almost impossible to include the basic fact that someone is a Scientologist (even when reliable sources prove this) in many other articles (that effectively have remained clear of any mentions of these things), that BLP violations continue on Michele Miscavige is quite sad. Laval (talk) 13:02, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
which points? The burden of proof is on you to tell us how it is violating BLP. Right now I would say all you are doing is shotgunning saying a vague "it's violating BLP" and hoping that someone finds anything, at which point you will proudly declare "that was exactly what I was talking about!" So, for the forth time by my count, exactly how is it violating BLP? Coffeepusher (talk) 14:01, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Dear Wikipedia, Thank you so much for all your awesome work! I became interested in the actress, Mae Wynn, from the movie "The Caine Mutiny" (1954). I see that you list her birth year as 1930. However, the site imdb.com lists her birth year as 1928. Both of your sites list her birthday as January 8. Could you please find another source and attempt to verify which is correct. I would very much appreciate it. Sincerely, Jody Nagel, 8/8/2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.186.96.140 (talk) 06:14, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia is composed of volunteer editors who each have their own interests. I think the fastest solution is for you to look for reliable sources that can confirm either year and you can edit the article appropriately. Another option is to repost this request at WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers and maybe another fan of her films would pursue this. You should also post this question on the Mae Wynn Talk Page in case another movie fan comes across her article. But it would probably be quicker if you did the research yourself since she isn't a well-known actress. Newjerseyliz (talk) 13:56, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
You get 1928,1930, 1931 mostly. In a 1955 American Magazine (vol.159) profile of her, her age is given as 24, which would exclude 1928. John Willis, Barry Monush,Screen World: 2006 Film Annual,p.385 like many movie sources gives 1930. Bo Goldman,'Copacabana Queen: Houseparty Dream,'inThe Daily Princetonian, Vol. 74, No. 86 (12 May, 1950) says she was 21 years old at the time of the interview. However there the source says she was a one year veteren of the Copacobana Club, while other sources say she joined the Copa Girls aged 17(a 3 years gap). The same article puts her birth year as 1929. Since this is an interview, it has more value than other sources, and though it would suggest she was born Jan 8, 1929, otherwise unattested, has to be noted. The way out of this is to edit the article with all three dates (I've provided two sources for 1930,1929), as you get in the 'early life' section of the Haj Amin al-Husseini article (note 11).Nishidani (talk) 15:45, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
I think it would be more accurate to say they "denounced" her; however justified their list is (IMO quite justified), it's an editorial. But it's certainly not a BLP problem to say they list her. Mangoe (talk) 15:01, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
I have serious doubts about the SPLC in this area. Wiki’s article on the SPLC shows their history fighting self-avowed white racists who commit violent criminal acts. I don’t see their expertise in Islam and anti-Muslim bigotry, a sentiment, not a criminal act. To argue that she is a bigot they have to (a) know what Islam is (b) show that she is wrong about Islam and (c) argue that it isn’t a mere mistake. I see nothing on the SPLC that shows they have special expertise in this area nor anyone who claims they do. They cite Geller for “her broad-brush denunciations of Islam.” This is far from documenting an act or event. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:26, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
We should be careful with accusations like “racist” “bigot” “communist” “terrorist” when dealing with BLPs. To put this in the lead is like adding a banner across her face with “bigot” written on it. What has Wikipedia become? I have no objections to their opinion in the body of the article along with Geller’s response in defense, as opinions are notable as just that--opinions. A careful examination of their Geller write-up shows they are editorializing and there is no evidence that they have read her published articles or books. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:26, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Since Geller states she is not anti-Muslim but anti-Islamism, it is a matter of opinion whether you believe her or not. Some notable people take her at her word and some believe she harbors hostility towards a people. The SPLC isn't finding concrete facts like events or acts that are against the law. It is trying to read between the lines, which is everyone's right. We, however, should be careful with biographies of living people when we pass opinion for "certifiable fact." Jason from nyc (talk) 15:26, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Jason, the point is that Wikipedia isnt making the claim, it is reporting who has. So long as the who is reliable for the topic it isnt a BLP violation. The removed material is very clearly not passing an opinion for "certifiable fact", it is passing an opinion as an opinion. nableezy - 15:55, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
As long as it's properly attributed, it's highly appropriate. Heaven knows there are lots of reliable sources which attest to her role in anti-Muslim activism; and the SPLC's opinion, whether Geller likes it or not, is valued by many Americans. --Orange Mike | Talk16:05, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
You are arguing against the use of what all would acknowledge as an eminently reliable source. You may not like it (WP:IDONTLIKEIT), but citing it on this mild statement, given her wacky flourishes of hyperbole in overdrive*, is okay for wikipedia.
'This is a woman who once called me a "Jewicidal Jihadi" for advocating for peace and compromise in the Middle East.'
If that hilarious yet bilious spin ain't in the article (I have it bookmarked, but rarely follow the page edits - the subject is too predictable) it should be. Nishidani (talk) 16:08, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
No one is arguing that the opinions of the SPLC shouldn’t be in the article. They have long been in the article. The contention is whether they should be given special prominence because of their history in fighting anti-black racist crime or whether their opinion on this matter should have equal weight with the others we cite within the body of the article. Jason from nyc (talk) 16:17, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Should it be in the lede? Probably not. Should it be in the article? Absolutely. However, as stated above, it seems that your concern here is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. GiantSnowman16:33, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
It is proper for the lead because it is not a lone judgement but synthesizes what similar organizations say. The ADL can hardly be questioned on her important role in purveying a paranoid anti-Muslim agenda. It is even harsher, and repeats the judgement in terms of civil rights in the United State 'Stop Islamization of America (SIOA),' September 19, 2012 and in more detail here That makes for two major civil rights organizations.Nishidani (talk) 16:48, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
It is improper for the lead becuase it is vague and attacking. The term itself is meaningless. Do we list all supposed Top Ten of the "Inner Circle" (more on that later)? What about #11. Is she the current #8 or #9? The list is purely designed to attack and serves no encyclopedic value. As a result it is a clear BLP violation. Additionally, what exactly is an "Inner Circle"? Is there an "Outer Circle" of people? Without knowing what "Inner Circle" means, the ranking itself is meaningless. However, because of the way it is listed, the clear implication is that it is VERY bad and thus a clear BLP violation. Arzel (talk) 17:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm glad you raised that concern. User:Oncenawhile has systematically put the same statement in the lead of all or most of the other 10 on the black list. Again, no one is saying this opinion shouldn't be in the body of the article. I question the special role of putting this in the lead as a summary judgment by an alleged authoritative body. Let me ask: if this were 1951 and wiki existed would we put in the lead of 57 biographies "Condemned as a communist by Senator Joseph McCarthy." He was widely respected back then. Jason from nyc (talk) 17:34, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Again, it appears you both have not read the documentation. The Southern Poverty Law Center is run by a trained legal scholars and its research hews to known methodologies. The method for the determination of the 10 is set forth quite explicitly in Robert Steinback's paper, the outer circle is, implicitly there, the huge world of bloggers and blabbers feeding off the major players. Again you write 'allegedly authoritative body', which means you think the SPLC, despite its reputation, is not particularly good at what it does. Both of you are protesting the way the RS obtained its classification. What you guys need is some quality RS that challenge the SPLC's classification. It's no use trying to outmanoeuer the source by complaints of their methodology and terminology.Nishidani (talk) 18:09, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Could you provide the details of Robert Steinback's qualifications ? I could not find them. As far as his methodology, all it says is that " Most were selected for profiling primarily because of their association with activist organizations." - which seems pretty vague and subjective (most? who was and who wasn't selected based on this? What is the criteria for defining an organization as "activist"? what level of association with an activist organization is required to be included in the "top 10"?); Far from "hew[ing] to known methodologies" - this appears to be absolutely capricious. In short, I agree with Arzel – this possibly merits a brief mention in the body, but certainly not in the lead. Red Stone Arsenal (talk) 18:46, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
The Anti Defamation League's article has a similar if shorter list of core islamophobic stirrers (Key domestic allies,Robert Spencer,David Yerushalmi, Frank Gaffney, David Horowitz,James Lafferty: Foreign allies:Geert Wilders,Anders Gravers,René Stadtkewitz,etc.), but I see no one is raised queries about that source. It is interesting that first the use of the Southern Poverty Law Center paper was questioned for BLP violations, then questioned as a RS, now the author of the SPLC paper's qualifications are under scrutiny. Barrel-scrapping, when each argument falls. The academic criteria are quite simple. Citations in the respectable and relevant, reliably published literature. Thus Steinback's recently published (2011) paper has within two years obtained three citations, which is remarkably good for such a short period:
As to the Southern Poverty Law Center's reliability for scholars, in regard to its Intelligence Report, this gets 8.780 hits on google books and 321,000 on google scholar. There are a lot of things wrong with the Geller article, but putting the fact that both the Anti Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center concur on this point in the lead is not one of them. They have very strong reputations in their respective fields, and the agreement is not coincidental, nor trivial. The article has extensive mentions of outrageous statements, but 'brief' mentions of the extensive intelligent dismissal of the ranter. The removal is a step in this curious reading of both WP:NPOV and WP:BLP.Nishidani (talk) 19:32, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
you were the one who introduced the argument that SLPC's researchers are "trained legal scholars ", so it's is quite reasonable to ask that you produce evidence of that, WRT to Steinback. That you failed to do so tells me you don't actually have evidence of that, as I suspect. Red Stone Arsenal (talk) 23:06, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Suggestion: Meet somewhere in the middle between the weaksauce "Her critics have described her viewpoints as Islamophobic" and the specific mention of this particular list. Perhaps something like "Critics, including the SPLC and the ADL, have identified her as a leading exponent of Islamophobia" or somesuch. Gamaliel (talk) 19:41, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
@Gamaliel - That seems fairly reasonable; however, given the fact that fairly mainstream RS like the NYT and Washington Post have described her as "Islamophobic", one sorta wonders how many people have to label her with the term before WP can do the same in an unqualified manner. NickCT (talk) 19:49, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
The consensus here accepts having extensive comments on Islamophobia in the body. The editors of the article have long had this in the body. We are basically discussing the lead and the WP:LEAD should summarize what is in the body of the article. I have no problem expanding the current sentence perhaps with “including civil rights groups.” Let the body spell out the details. My objection is in singling out SPLC in the lead as if they were special critics that are authoritative in this area. As NickCT notes there are many others and that includes some academics. I’m sure they’ll be more. Jason from nyc (talk) 22:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Nishidani has addressed my concerns; thank you. Let me reply. His/her argument is that the SPLC “synthesizes what similar organizations say” and Steinback is cited. (a) On the first point you’re right: the Geller article [2] appears to be a google of other critics without citations. It is written without any comment on her 200 articles of several books. It’s tertiary research. (b) The Steinback article is cited in your references for the politicalization of anti-Islamic sentiment by the Congressional investigation held by Rep. Peter King, not his analysis of anti-Islamic literature and activists. Steinback does explain at the end of his article his criteria for Islamophobia: (1) those holding that “radical Muslims ... are properly interpreting the Koran” and (2) falsely “paint” moderate Muslims as “secret operatives.” This is a respectable argument and he gives his examples. It should certainly be in the body of the article, perhaps even more than it is now, although it isn’t specifically about Geller. It’s similar to other writers. I don’t see any special study or effort by the SPLC that warrants them unique billing as arbiters of Islamophobia in this or the other articles. That’s my only point. Jason from nyc (talk) 22:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Not quite. This article is grossly underresearched despite the high profile of its fringe subject.
This is a bad article because there is no narrative integration. It consists of a systematic isolation of criticisms, following by regular Geller defence statements. It is framed not in terms of encyclopedic notions of NPOV but in terms of the US television debate format, where a fringer and a moderate are given equal time, only here the fringer is given more time. So we have to ask ourselves why has WP:BLP been used to keep the page the way it is?.
The page reads more or less like an spokespage for Pamela Geller. It has no balance, and looks (perhaps the outcome is inadvertent) carefully structured to give an extensive documentation of her fringe extremist rants while carefully lowprofiling centrist, moderate criticism. How this is done, not very cleverly, can be shown by an examinating of what occurs down to the point where the Anti-Defamation and SPLC are briefly mentioned.
Bradley Burstonsays (nothing about his description of her as the ‘P.T. Barnum of American hate-mongering or ’no Jewish organization that calls itself responsible should ever invite her to speak’, Geller is then given her reply
Rabbi Michael White (not quoted:’ “We teach that you stand up to hate speech, and what she writes and what she says is absolutely hate speech,”) and, Jerome Davidson state something, and Caroline Glick (not wikilinked to show where she's coming from) is cited to reply in Geller’s defence. As does Charles Jacobs, (not wikilinked to show where he's coming from). Cathy Young (not wikilinked, idem) takes the middle path.
The Career section is a travesty of neutrality. While she has attacked personally many Jews and Jewish organizations, we then get a series of statements of her pro-Israel stance, cited at length This stands alone, with no mention in that context of the many Jewish writers who find her rhetoric and extremism repellent.(Jeffrey Goldberg, Rabbi Rachel Kahn-Troster (Rabbis for Human Rights), Rabbi Eric Yoffie (‘Pamela Geller has no place in an American synagogue. She is a bigot and purveyor of hate."’), the controversies over her appearances as various synogogues or ZOA venues (Thorn Hill, Toronto; ZOA Los Angeles, Long Island etc ). Her defamatory statements defining Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein, and George Soros as ‘killers’ stand there. Geller’s right to have her page cleansed by BLP considerations does not apply to the people she describes as murderers.
Technically, one needs a section listen the dozen major statements of Jewish critics, from rabbis to scholars, followed by her defense, and that should be in a section on its own. We don't have it.
Stop Islamization of America and Park 51. Again a long exposition in three paras of her fringe views, with a large quote. Balance? This is what we get
Ibrahim Hooper is given his quote, and then Eric Boehlert cited in support, but the statement from the same source (Media Matters) is spliced with a ‘balancing’ disruption by Andrew C.McCarthy’s criticism of Hooper. At this point a very brief note is made of the ADL and SPLC’s papers, capped by Geller’s dismissal of the latter as ‘’uber left’’.
Bradley Burston cited both these organizations for classifying her organization as an ‘active hate group’ and ‘extremist’, and therefore the ADL/SPLC statement, as did CBSwhich cites both together in the following way
The Anti-Defamation League accused the group of “consistently vilifying the Islamic faith.” The SPLC called Geller “the anti-Muslim movement’s most visible and flamboyant figurehead,”
Conclusion. The article is highlighting Geller's statements, virulent, extremist and abusive, and then carefully tidying and restricting the criticisms they elicit. Specifically, the desire to repress what happens to be a synthetic judgements by: two major US organizations specializing in hate speech analysis by confining it to a virtual note in midtext fits this pattern. WP:BLP is being improperly used to keep the page weighed towards Geller's fringe views while 'neutralizing' major sources, appropriate to the lead, which show what the mainstream think of them. Nishidani (talk) 14:05, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
I see your WP:IDONTLIKEIT but that’s not the subject of this review. I brought up the issue of whether SPLC is more than another critic in this area. An area that is clearly outside their traditional expertise, which is fighting self-describe white supremacists who commit violent crimes? Who has Geller violently attacked? We then examined their writings in the area of anti-Muslim bigotry and see that they are (a) a tertiary summation of secondary sources (b) similar to journalistic analysis without contributing anything new. They should be treated like any other source. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:16, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Now you have issues with the totality of the article with respect to topics and sources. That’s a broader topic. However, your insinuation that SPLC is being suppressed to achieve a POV is an unwarranted attack on the good faith of the editors. I’ll stick to the examination of the sources. The other issues should be taken up in the talk within the article so that all the editors can discuss how best to reach a consensus that maintains due weight. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:16, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Furthermore, most of the news sources you list mention the SPLC as labeling her groups as "hate groups." We have that in the article just as it is across the media. We have long had that in the article. And we've had an "external link" to Geller's page on the SPLC site. There's no suppression here. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:33, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Please write comprehensible English.('I brought up the issue of whether SPLC is more than another critic in this area' is garbled. A person is a 'critic' an institution or research may be 'critical' but not a critic). I might have the impression you're in there to see Geller is protected (WP:ILIKEIT), but making that point is no more relevant than your saying you see my WP:IDONTLIKEIT. What I don't like is clumsy editing, which is all over that page. My analysis also suggests the editing there, wittingly or not, guards the article's subject in a non-neutral manner by systematically using policy to underplay criticism, and showcase the subject's beliefs.
'Hate' and race-baiting is not outside the interest of SPLC. Notably, no objector ever replies here to my point that the Anti Defamation League which has an identical interest in 'Hate' and 'race-baiting' makes the same call as SPLC. One specializes in antisemitism, the other in American race-hatred, both both share an institutional interest in the broad subject of ethnic or cultural stereotyping and baiting. You are waving your judgement about the SPLC's ostensible incompetence, while journalists all over the planet use it together with the ADL's work in discussing Geller. I.e. you are arrogating a role as judge of competence that is beyond our remit as editors. Our judgements on relevance, weight, reliability are dictated by what sources (here journalists and scholars) say, not what we might think.
Your argument has invented a counter-factual premise, in order to draw an inference so you can 'domesticate' a problem.
SPLC's traditional competence is 'fighting self-describe white supremacists who commit violent crimes?'
SPLC deals with Geller but 'Who has Geller violently attacked?'
Frankly, that's jejune undergraduate point-scoring by priming an argument with erroneous assumptions. The wiki article state, and many sources confirm that:
The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is an American nonprofit civil rights organization noted for its legal victories against white supremacist groups, its legal representation for victims of hate groups, its monitoring of alleged hate groups, militias and extremist organizations, and its educational programs that promote tolerance.
I now see WP:AGF is being added. Well, people can edit in good faith and be incompetent. The article is grossly incompetent, protective of its subject, sweeping major issues under the carpet, and you're there. I've documented the deeply problematical slanting, and you ignore it except to waive it away with some vague 'we' think otherwise. What happens on most articles like this is that folks move in to a POV-battle site, and sit on it, umming and ahhing over the p's and q's of policy according to each's private view of the subject matter. Fix it to GA level, and I'll drop the incompetent suggestion. In the meantime, nothing you have said re SPLC sticks. You downgrade it on wrong policy grounds and flawed assumptions, by misrepresenting its status and competence. Nishidani (talk) 16:27, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
WP is fiercly protective of ALL living people. If you don't like her and want to bitch about it, go start a blog and do so. But don't use WP to air your personal grievences against her. Arzel (talk)
There seems to a be a fairly clear consensus that SPLC is a perfectly fine source for this material and it is not a BLP violation to include. That being the case I'll be restoring the material, and Nish please dont get bogged down in this nonsense. nableezy - 19:09, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
There appears to be a generally agreed upon compromise suggested by Gamaliel and discussed by NickCT. Let me change the current statement: "Their organizations have been censured by private civil rights groups." to "They and their organizations have been censured by the SPLC and ADL." in the lead per WP:LEAD and we'll talk about the body of the article back on the Geller talk page. Jason from nyc (talk) 19:53, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Almost fair enough for the lead, but 'censure' basically means 'strong disapproval', though it does carry the nuance of a peer organization disapproving of the behaviour of one or more of its members for a lapse in expected standards. I don't think the word is adequate to describe what is effectively a classification established, independently but with almost identical results, by two major hate-tracking organizations, the SPLC and ADL. Groups like the latter that list, research and document movements are not 'praise and blame' organizations: they are involved in analysis and classification which, though it may have reprobative implications, is not the point of their work. It's like saying the FBI censures lynching or hate crimes, or the sheriff of a country disapproves of wife-bashing.Nishidani (talk) 20:13, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
That does seem odd, but it is pretty much the crux/point of the notability of the case. the victim publicized herself as part of her protest, which (her protest) has been very well covered, and she has become a spokesperson for rape victim advocacy, but the perps are protected by gag orders, and their names have not been widely reprinted by reliable sources (minors, gag order, possible liability, etc). Gaijin42 (talk) 21:37, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
She was 16 at the time of the assault, and is 18 now. She is not notable. Neither is the event (unfortunately....it would be great if such events were rare or notable in their own right, but sexual assault is common). Rather, what is notable is some of the legal aspects. As such, the notable information belongs in an article on rape law or sexual assault in US culture. There is no good reason to have an article naming the victim--who is still a teenager--and identifying her worldwide with nothing but her sexual assault (does she have interests, a sense of humor, personality, uniqueness....?) Newsweek is not Wikipedia. We have higher, or at least more encyclopedic, standards. Strangesad (talk) 01:59, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Aha. So, she bravely came out to talk about her rape to the world. And you want to delete the article about that to ... protect her? Doesn't that strike you as at all ironic? It seems to be the exact opposite of what she wants. --GRuban (talk) 03:52, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Bravely talking to the world is not a Wikipedia criterion for deserving an article. I am concerned that it involves a minor, and that although she is still talking about while not a minor, she is still only 18. For this subject, erring on the side of caution seems best. In addition, the event and the person simply aren't notable enough to deserve their own article. Some of the legal aspecst may deserve mention in an article of rape law. That's all. Strangesad (talk) 14:40, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Your concerns are not a BLP violation. If you think the article should be deleted, nominate it for AFD, but you might want to review what WP:N actually means first, since this clearly passes the bar. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:43, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Seems to me, though, that what she wanted even more was to talk about the guys that did it to her. Right now we're protecting them. Looking at the talk page, it's not as if we don't know who they are. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:18, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
The law, and wiki policy lead to a somewhat perverse result in this case I think. Dietrich has put herself into the limelight by repeatedly talking to media outlets about herself and the event. (Which clearly passes WP:GNG in spite of strangesad's assertion). She is now WP:WELLKNOWN Imo. The perpatrators are/were minors, protected by a gag order, and even as convicted perps do have some WP:BLPNAME privacy. In particular our policy says "Caution should be applied when identifying 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 or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories. These guys did something horrible, but permanently google branding them based on a single news story seems to fall into the "two wrongs" category imo. Of course, consensus will rule, and if the consensus is the names should be included, I won't fight it - but the current situation is certainly not a blp violation of anyone, and there are at least plausible policy based decisions that brought us to the current situation - not anything malicious. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:41, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
The first link in your list is exactly what I mean regarding notability. She doesn't have her own chapter in that book. The case is mentioned in two paragraphs, in that chapter, and then the chapter moves on to a more general discussion. Strangesad (talk) 18:16, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Support. This article is orphaned, showing it can't really support itself as a separate article. It is only notable for some of the legal aspects and attitudes (e.g. prosecutor telling her to "get over it"). Unfortunately, such misogynist attitudes are not, actually, sufficiently rare to be notable. Propose shortening and merging into the more general article. Strangesad (talk) 18:23, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Comment I think the better option here is to take it to AFD, with the clarification that you're looking for a possible consensus to merge. It depends on how notable the event is to merit a standalone article. Honestly I don't think that's a good merge target though. §FreeRangeFrogcroak19:26, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Given this recent story and today's arraignment regarding allegations of domestic violence it would be helpful to have a few extra eyes on the article to ensure BLP compliance with if and how the information is presented. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots16:40, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Watching. Removed the story since there's nothing more than allegations there for now. We'll see if it gets beyond just news and there's something more substantive, if any. §FreeRangeFrogcroak17:14, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
The article says that Ron Bozman received an academy Award for the movie Silence of the Lambs. But he was only the producer and the film got awards for director, actor etc. So I changed it to say the film got an award and he was just the producer. Is this correct? Or is Rozman considered to be an award winner? Thank you for your advice on this matter. Sincerely, --LarEvee (talk) 18:59, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Unless the Oscar was awarded specifically to him, I don't see how he could claim to have won an Oscar. Unless that can be sourced unambiguously, I'd say the best way to word it is something like "producer of the Oscar-winning film..." or something like that. Although I am honestly not sure if there is some convention where the producer of a winning film is considered a de facto Oscar winner. §FreeRangeFrogcroak19:23, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
I copy edited it, crudely as always, so feel free to tweek. Is there some disagreement over how this bio is worded? I didn't look into the history, ect. Cheers, --Malerooster (talk) 19:58, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
SotL won best picture as well. I didn't change to info box which says he won academy award. Thoughts about the info box? --Malerooster (talk) 20:02, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Wow, great research everyone. So it appears the Academy Award for Best Picture is credited to the producers and the director is eligible for his own specific award. Good digging! — Preceding unsigned comment added by LarEvee (talk • contribs) 19:27, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article for David Stoupakis was clearly written BY David Stoupakis, as it's written in the most self-aggrandizing language, is full of irrelevant data, and is turning Wikipedia into his proxy-publicist. He does not need nor deserve to have an article written about him. [ BLP redacted ] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.197.191.71 (talk) 12:40, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
I have removed the unreferenced & promotional material - thanks for bringing it to our attention. You are more than welcome to edit articles yourself! GiantSnowman12:46, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
"Denise Richards filed a restraining order against her husband Charlie Sheen because, according to her court papers statements, he did not deny involvement in Jones' death. In May 2006, American tabloid The Globe published an alleged interview with Jones' mother, claiming that she was considering a wrongful death suit against Sheen, because her daughter said she had received death threats. Donna Jones Noeller subsequently filed suit against The Globe, claiming she never gave the interview and the tabloid manufactured her statements."
There's no article for the former yet, but it looks to me as though User:Sardaka is preparing to make one. At any rate the latter article now has a biographical section on this controversial informant. This bombing itself was a mess, between accusations of police bungling of the investigation and the supposed involvement of the controversial Ananda Marga organization. Seary played a central role in the case, and apparently in the past year has self-published an autobiography. Even if he has died, the lack of citation for a biographical section which impinges upon his credibility as a witness is troublesome; I'd also be suspicious of a deathbed tell-all as the only, very primary source. Discrediting him is obviously to the benefit of Ananda Marga and its sympathizers, to which I must add that we've had terrible trouble with proponents editing articles relating to the latter and its founder. I'm neutral about the event myself; it's just that every time we step up to this stuff there are major problems with citations and bias. Likewise I wouldn't oppose a Seary article (assuming there's more to him than just this one controversy) but there needs to be decent secondary material. Mangoe (talk) 13:08, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Another source is "Spies, Bombs and the Path of Bliss" by Tom Molomby (Potoroo Press) 1986. I was considering an article on RS, but only after I have read the above book and his autobiography. It would be just an expansion of the abovementioned section. Sardaka (talk) 07:01, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
It occurs to me that we shouldn't have an article about Mr. Iksil, per BLP1E. He's not a public figure, for the moment he's not been convicted of any criminal or civil wrongdoing, and while his activities (and those of his colleagues) certainly should be covered in 2012 JPMorgan Chase trading loss, a standalone bio we don't need. I'd zap it myself, frankly, but I am not feeling so IAR today. Plus it's time to go home for dinner. So I bring it here instead, for some more input from y'all. -- Ynot?22:43, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
I tend to agree. Iksil is not notable outside of the trading loss. The article is reaching to be a biography, but the coverage is too thin to warrant a BLP and definitely fails BLP1E. If others agree, an AfD may be in order. Factchecker25 (talk) 12:12, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
I recently added an approximate year of birth to Brian K. Vaughan, from a newspaper article stating his age at at certain date. Using the "Birth based on age as of date", the year of birth is automatically approximated. However, User:Nightscream does not seem to agree and has reverted them on a basis of WP:CRYSTAL. [4] From what I know, this is a perfectly acceptable method of approximating a year of birth on biographical articles we have here. Since we have a reliable source, The New York Times, stating the age at the given time, does anyone else see why this should not stand? – Connormah (talk) 01:06, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
For one thing, I don't think giving "1976/1977" as the date of birth in an encyclopedia comes across as good writing or scholarship.
For another, speculating as to someone's date of birth would seem to go against WP:CRYSTAL, WP:V, etc. I just don't think it looks good. I tried looking for reliable sources giving his date of birth, but couldn't find any. I think we should leave that parameter blank until we find one. Nightscream (talk) 01:09, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
All of the comments that cite a blog from a blogger named Chris Dixon a BDN blogger are inaccurate and misleading about my position as State Party chair. they are written by someone who at the time was spreading as much hate and discontent about my position as possible. they are not accurate depictions of actual events and are there simply to defame my good name. I would like them removed immediately. They are citations from a blog and are totally unfounded. the comments from A Michelle Anderson are from another unfounded hate group called corruptmainegop also not based on any facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.183.174.78 (talk) 13:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Eviatar Banai's birth year is listed in Wikipedia as 1972 under "Background Information", but as 1973 in the first paragraph of the article. Could someone reconcile this discrepancy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.181.112.69 (talk) 10:49, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Looks like the 1972 was a typo in this edit. Unfortunately I can't find any good sources for confirming the other date; there are sources, but none better than Wikipedia itself. So I'll correct the typo, but I won't be able to defend the 1973 date if it's removed. --GRuban (talk) 14:09, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Hugo Schwyzer
Hugo Schwyzer is an instructor at Pasadena City College who is mostly famous at this point for having really poor judgment. There is some severely negative material in his article sourced to rags like the daily mail. I (along with another editor) have been removing the material until it can be discussed on the talk page and consensus can be established as to its appropriateness, but the material keeps getting restored. More eyes on the article would be appreciated. Kevin Gorman (talk) 16:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
I would like to request unbiased third-party editors to check and review this article (David Miscavige) for any potential violations of BLP as well as check to make sure all listed sources are in accordance with policy, and identify any problem areas and suggestions for improvement that would help push this article towards a "good article" status and eventually have it as a featured main page article. Thanks. Laval (talk) 00:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Er, no, that's not how it works. If there is a specific passage or citation that you feel is running afoul of WP:BLP policy, then you should provide that example here for other editors to weigh in on. Not just point to an article and say "check it out and see if there's anything wrong". The Wikipedia is not a valet service. Tarc (talk) 01:08, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
I would agree. This request can be made at the article's talk page. This board is for reporting BLP "violations" that need immediate attention, or some such business. --Malerooster (talk) 01:13, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the clarifications. It's been a few years since dealing with the various bureaucratic aspects of Wikipedia, and there's a lot I still need to catch up with. The problem is most of the content in the article is not verifiable, for example the claim that Miscavige imprisoned Sea Org executives in an illegal prison labor camp, the "Musical Chairs" story, the allegation that Miscavige imprisoned his wife in a top secret mountain compound, the allegation that Miscavige physically assaulted his staff, the allegation that Miscavige lives a life of luxury and is using Church funds as his own personal bank account, the allegation that he routinely tortures his subordinates, the allegation that Miscavige is cheating on his wife with his personal assistant Laurisse Stuckenbrook, the allegation that Miscavige treated Leah Remini horribly and made her persona non grata ... I could go on. The point is most of the article is based on absolute hearsay and gossip, and if hearsay and gossip are not acceptable per BLP, and if the Village Voice is not considered a reliable source under BLP (see Talk:Grant Cardone), then most of this article is flagrantly in violation of BLP, as well as RS, V, NPOV, and who knows what else. So it's not just one specific element, it's the whole article. Very little in the article is based on actual verifiable content. If none of you believe the article on David Miscavige is in violation of BLP, and if it legitimately is not in violation of BLP, and if you accept that the Village Voice is an acceptable source per BLP as used in David Miscavige and myriad other Scientology-related articles, then by this standard of acceptance, the Village Voice should be considered an acceptable source under BLP re Grant Cardone, correct? Laval (talk) 20:30, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
actually all of those allegations are well sourced with multiple WP:RS, the village voice isn't represented anywhere inside the article. It follows WP:V, WP:RS, and is given approprate weight based on Miscavige's coverage in reliable sources (in fact the article may actually violate weight in that the positive stuff about Miscavidge outweighs the controversy while the inverse is true in reliable sources)). Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 14:25, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
The link added by the IP is invalid [5], so I can't evaluate what's supposed to be there. I can hypothesize that it isn't actually going to directly support the assertion made by the IP, but I really don't want to jump to that conclusion, just like the IP shouldn't be jumping to conculsions. So I warned the IP and reminded them to source material properly in BLPs. —C.Fred (talk) 17:41, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
I found the source [6] which not suprisingly shows the US DEA doesn't comment on excessive sentences. In fact, other then being pure WP:Syn (and probably silly Syn as it sounds like the complaint is with the law which legislators not the judge wrote), the statement in our article wasn't even correct; the amount was 'over 50g' which I guess relates to what the law specifices, the actual amount was ~198g according to the source (and more was found at the defendents residence). Nil Einne (talk) 13:13, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
An IP user has pointed out that the Notable Victims section of this article is mostly unsourced and possibly problematic. Another editor attempted to remove it but was reverted. I'm not sure what the protocol is with sections such as these, and would appreciate any advice. It strikes me that although these people don't satisfy the L part of BLP, it still seems a bit dubious to have an unreferenced "important victims" list on an article about a plane crash. If I've brought this to the wrong place, please do let me know. Thanks. Horatio Snickers (talk) 18:19, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
This is not a BLP issue, as all of these people are dead, and have been for 30 years. The proper venue would be reliable sources or original research noticeboards probably, or just an RFC in the article. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Tom Riall
The Tom Riall article is out of date - Tom Riall is now the Chief Executive Officer of Priory_Group, the UK’s leading independent provider of mental health, learning disability and specialist education services. He joined the Group in April 2013. Please see relevant links to corroborate this:
Inthis diff, from over a week ago, User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz added a link to a somewhat opinionated blog piece by Wikipediocracy trustee User:Dan Murphy. The article concerned Oliver Keyes, a WMF liason who goes by the username User:Ironholds on Wikipedia. Kiefer and Ironholds are parties in an arbitration case in the process of wrapping up. The blog article mentions Keyes by name and accuses him of violent misogynist rhetoric based off several conversations on IRC. The blog article in question, is being used to support the statement that WO is a Wikipedia criticism site, a fact that can be supported by many other citations. I tried to remove the link since another citation was being used to support the statement, but it was restored. WO is only mentioned in the blog article in two instances, when noting that WO member Andreas Kolbe had written about the vandalism of Sarkeesian's BLP and Dan disclosing his ties to WO. Dan's article remains the only source discussing the situation. Editors have cited the fact Dan's blog is attached to The Christian Science Monitor, where Murphy works as a journalist, to argue that it is a reliable source and should be included. There was a discussion initiated on the talk page, but it has received very little attention, while the link is still there. Given the context, both of who wrote the article and who added it, and the statement being easily supported by more independent and reliable sources, it is my opinion that this is a gratuitous BLP violation and should be removed.--The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb.21:02, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
The use you identify appears trivial, but that blog would be useful, in that article, for RS statement identifying at least one trustee of that website -- since an organizations management should be mentioned in their encyclopedia article, and that article is missing all that information. The author's opinion of a User here is not in the article and should not be, and it's an opinion, which maybe either unsupported or not but would we have to vet every source on the Pedia for what we consider BLP (or unflattering opinion), and remove all those sources? Seems there has to be some limit to BLP, and your argument is reaching beyond. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:59, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
What matters is the context. The individual who authored the piece is not sufficiently independent of the dispute, the editor who added it to the article is the party on the other side of the dispute, and it is being added without compelling need. One can only interpret this as an attempt to draw attention to the claims made about his opposing disputant. Note that Kiefer also added the link to the WMF article talk page and other places so clearly he just wanted to spread the article's claims about Ironholds.--The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb.22:41, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
No. For BLP what matters is whether an editor is including "information about a living person" on a Wikipedia page. There is no personal information on that Wikipedia article page that is sourced to that blog. Whether the blog is an RS appears answered in the affirmative by WP:NEWSBLOG. Here, it's being used to source a fact about a thing, not a person, and it's not even fact, which you dispute. If you have a better source, you may replace it, if you get consensus. If it were to be used as a source about the author of the blog (as I suggested), it would be reliable as WP:ABOUTSELF. If you have complaints about editor behaivior, you may try DR or AN/I but that won't change the issue of whether the use of the source is BLP compliant. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:46, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
The question is of intent. Continuing to ignore that is missing the most important part of the issue. No compelling need exists for keeping the source in the article and its inclusion is clearly aimed at spreading negative opinions about a non-notable living person. Even if the letter of the policy doesn't explicitly forbid it, though I would say it does, I have a hard time seeing how that is not a violation of its spirit.--The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb.03:24, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Blogs are generally not a RS. Regardless of whether it's "true" or "news." The fact that the citation even remotely violates BLP is the reason why 1) blogs aren't RS and 2) why we have the BLP policy. The blog reference is unnecessary to support the claim in the article and should kept out of the article. I didn't even have to read the blog know this. If the content of the blog would not meet the requirements for citing in a BLP, it does not pass WP:NEWSBLOG requirements. This is plainly obvious. --DHeyward (talk)
What? You do not even look at the source to see if it is a NEWSBLOG? That is patently false. (see, WP:BLPSPS) There is no "information about a living person" in the Wikipedia article cited to this blog. That is plainly obvious. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:18, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
No, it is simply not a reliable source if it's content cannot stand up to scrutiny for policies. The blog could be cited for saying "It's Tuesday" and then go on a BLP violating rant. Regardless of whether it is accurate about Tuesday and regardless of whether it's only cited for the "It's Tuesday" claim in the WP article, it is not a reliable source because of the rest of its content. Every blog has a nugget of truth. We don't need to feed them by mining into the nonsense. There are better sources and I'd argue the only reason to use that source would be to attract attention to what would be a BLP violation on-wiki if the rest of it is cited. That is the difference between a reliable source (i.e. reliably accurate vs. marginally accurate). The blind squirrel occasionally gets a nut and a stopped clock is right twice a day. Please don't cite them as reliable. The remaining content in that blog is not citable therefore, it's not reliable. --DHeyward (talk) 05:19, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Absurd. It is not surprising your comments cite no policy wording. Your proposed analysis is nothing but a call to stupdity and prejudice in evaluating sources, for uncited claims some editor does not like. Which is propoably one of the reasons why it is contrary to actual policy wording (see, WP:BLPSPS) . WP:Reliable sources are not evaluated for what they are not used for. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:09, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
What's absurd is wikilawyering policy to the point of stupidity. Here is the policy. The content of the source needs to be evaluated in the whole, not the narrow, especially related related to BLP issues. A source that says "It's Wednesday and your a moron" is not an appropriate source for the "Wednesday" claim. --DHeyward (talk) 07:53, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
It absolutely is a BLP issue as WP:EL points out. Using an external link to source something that is easily sourced elsewhere AND that link has serious BLP issues is a no-brainer BLP issue. The only intent of using it for sourcing that particular material is to send the reader to that site because it would never pass the "See Also" criteria. Regardless, if it can't pass the external link criteria for BLP, it certainly isn't reliable as an in-line reference. --DHeyward (talk) 12:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
No it does not have to do with BLP. WP:BLPSPS. Moreover, you misrerepresent EL: WP:EL does "not apply to citations to sources supporting article content", so it does not apply to this use. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Regardless of the patent bad faith of the edit, I don't see it as a reasonable source for the claim, and I agree it is quite unnecessary. --cyclopiaspeak!11:53, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
That's called an editing dispute and it is settled by consensus, but it is not settled by stretching policy beyond its stated bounds, or new policy could be articulated and adopted, and then edit in conformance with new policy. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Agree with Alanscottwalker. (I'm a Wikipediocracy mod.) The "Backchannels" part of the CS Monitor site is written by a staff writer, and cited in dozens of other WP articles. The source is not used to verify any BLP material in the article. Frankly, a non-issue. The only BLP information that could reasonably be cited from that piece in the Wikipediocracy article is that the author is a trustee of the site. AndreasJN46618:58, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
It is for sure not a BLP concern, this I agree. Setting everything else aside, it seems just a kinda weak primary source about the nature of the site. --cyclopiaspeak!19:15, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Since the list was deleted, attention has transferred to the article on the group (Mayors Against Illegal Guns), and the most problematic portions of the deleted list have been copied to the article on the group.
Since 7 August 2013, a series of edits have introduced four sublists that provide an opportunity for editors to highlight mayoral problems (and, for balance, awards!). A secondary source would be needed to show whether the mayors in favor of gun control have committed more crime than those mayors who oppose gun control, and I believe that the current situation of maintaining editor-compiled sublists is a SYNTH and BLP violation. Thoughts? Johnuniq (talk) 02:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Ugh. It is completely irrelevant to state that certain members of this organization have been convicted of crimes unrelated to gun violence, such as corruption. The awards business is also problematic. It is absolutely synthesis, and terrible reasoning: implying that because certain members of the organization have gone to jail, the organization itself is problematic. Nuke it. GabrielF (talk) 02:27, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
"Members convicted of illegal activity"? Disgusting. Crude propaganda that has no place whatsoever on Wikipedia. This is a gross violation of WP:NPOV policy, and those responsible should be sanctioned accordingly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:37, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
It also turns out that many of those included on the list were 'cited' to Wikipedia articles - itself a clear violation of WP:BLP policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:06, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
On Ledecky's talk page, IP user 66.87.67.73 attempted to make this edit, which was promptly reverted. However, it appears the individual logged into an account and made this similiar, equally libelous comment and has engaged in a edit war to keep the comment posted. The second comment is an obvious attempt to defame her, masked to looked like a serious inquiry. I believe the comment should be deleted, the user should be warned, and the edits should be deleted from the pages history. Thank you. 108.227.25.130 (talk) 03:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
A bigger concern is this edit to the article by the same user on "allegations of doping", based on what the sources themselves describe as rumours. January (talk) 08:31, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
PZ Myers
Some BLP issues on the article about blogger PZ Myers, and his blog - he posted a potentially libellous accusation on his blog last week, which (so far as I can see) no press source has yet reported. The original, explicit "Myers accused X of Y" statement itself was WP:OVERSIGHTed for drawing only from a self-published blog - the current versions are toned down to "Myers accuses some people" and "Myers hints at legal action", which name no names, but provide clear reference footnotes for the curious. Is this sufficiently detached to meet BLP, or should it be cut as a self-published source? --McGeddon (talk) 18:02, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, this is a minefield that we should keep out of this article and the other guy's article for the time being. Wait for the press to sort it out. Gamaliel (talk) 18:26, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
There is a lot of vandalism that goes on at this article, and I have no idea why. After Googling "Richie Whitt" under the name Richie Young Whitt and then under the name Richie Whitt (using additional words sports and sports columnist), and coming up with enough consistent images, I deduced that this image that was uploaded is not of him (not to mention that the image looks like one of the actor's from The Secret Life of the American Teenager). Flyer22 (talk) 23:23, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Following a misunderstanding on Design the Skyline, an edit war broke out around the spelling of this band's singer's stage name. He goes by the name 'Dani Doom', but the question is whether it's 'doom' or 'd00m'.
The record label spells it 'doom', and his own twitter has it 'd00m' (@dani_d00m). The IP involved in the dispute claims that the twitter doesn't count simply because @dani_doom already existed (which it does). There's probably many sources out there on each side.
So essentially, which source is 'better'? Or should we try to find a compromise by putting both in, for example? This has been raised on the talk page, but with no response, and I don't think a productive discussion is likely considering the situation. Thanks. GedUK13:54, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
As I've now remarked on the talk page in response to this, we need actual reliable sources. In the absence of anything else, the record label is probably acceptable as a primary source for something simple like the nickname spelling so simply listing doom is fine for now. While a twitter post from a verified account would be an okay primary source for evidence of personal preference of the nickname spelling where that preference is clearly indicated, the twitter account name only tells us what the twitter account name is. It doesn't tell us what the personal preference is for the nickname since there are many different reasons an account name may be chosen including as the other editor indicated, because the personal preference was already used. I had a look at the talk page and all I saw was an assurance that 'internet searches' would find evidence, which even if true (I tried a search or 2 but without success so gave up since others apparently already know what to search for) doesn't tell me whether this 'evidence' is actually from reliable sources and you can't cite internet searches in an article. Nil Einne (talk) 15:03, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
The name isn't the issue here, and I really don't see why this less-than-secondary issue was brought up. The problem is with the IP user's IP hopping, penchant for personal attacks on talk pages and in edit summaries, and more importantly, his edit warring and battleground mentality. Look closely at what he edits and you will see that he's been around a while. Could very well be a block evader. -- Winkelvi ● ✉✓16:35, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
'Been around for a while' and 'IP hopping' aren't necessarily evidence of wrong doing unless the IP is either pretending to be new or purposely changing their IP since we don't require editors to register and IPs can change for a variety of reason. The other issues sound like problems which should be dealt with but I don't get what they have to do with BLP unless it's claimed the IP is harming BLPs in the process. Whatever other problems the IP may have, the IP seems to be in the right in their changes even if perhaps not in the way they handled it since 'doom' is supported by an RS yet none have been presented for d00m. If there are non BLP issues or if you need someone to be blocked or something to be protected, I suggest you take them to a better location. Nil Einne (talk) 17:34, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Who the IP is, or isn't, is not relevant to this talk page; SPI can deal with that. All I want to establish here is what we should call the singer. Nil Einne (talk·contribs) raises a very important point re the twitter name, exactly the point in bringing this here. GedUK19:10, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Guys, I'm trying to tell you that this never should have been brought here to begin with. It's been a moot point since before the BLP/naming thing was even brought here. Stick a fork in it and call it done, yes? -- Winkelvi ● ✉✓19:24, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
This artist's page lists as references 7 of 9 instances that are from her own websites.
The quality of the sourcing certainly does ring alarm bells about general notability/promotional tone. Definitely second someone going through and casting a close eye over it. Daniel (talk) 23:02, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
New BLP about someone with opinions about vaccines. My main concern is that most of the sources appear to be primary and most of the notability appears to rest on not being featured in a documentary, comments on a blog, tongue-in-cheek comments, etc. PROD (by another editor) already declined. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:33, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Article about a leading Norwegian politician (currently minister of health). Apart from some basic facts, like 2/3 of the article is negative. This inludes the two last paragraphs of the Career in politics, public administration and organizations plus the whole Conflict of interest accusations section which has three sub-sections, including a very long and detailed one on "2012 Parliamentary hearing." I removed the latter some days ago, in an attempt to clean-up the article, but it has been reinserted several times by a brand new user Ship owner symposium who also has added new negative material to the article. I find the article to go against the BLP policy that says an BLP must be fair to the subject at all times. I have voiced my concern at the talk page (where I had a discussion with Ship Owner Symposium), as has also other users. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 10:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Will someone please look at this. There is a slow-moving edit war going on between me and Ship owner symposium. He has recently reinsterted a lot of negative material with this little gem of an edit summary: "Introducing positives about him helping his billionaire buddy and later beating parliament's charges about partiality". He also thinks the following sentence is appropriate for the short lede: "In 2013 Grete Knudsen (a former minister of commerce) said that Støre "can hardly be counted as a part of the worker's movement after having applied for a job in the Conservative Party, and because he does not fly the flag on the 1st of May"." Regards, Iselilja (talk) 15:41, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
This page is almost entirely lifter from the Trio's own website. It may be posted by their own publicity person, or it may be plagiarised. In either case it is incomplete, as the ... at the end show. It is not an original article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.111.149 (talk) 09:28, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
I checked, and dealt with it. Next time you see something like that, feel free to tag it with {{subst:copyvio|http://plagiarizedpage.com}} - which will get it dealt with fairly quickly. Adam Cuerden(talk)09:36, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
If you mean the vandalism added at 15:04 it was removed within a few minutes by a bot, it may be you are viewing a cached version of the page, try to force a page refresh it will probably dissapear. MilborneOne (talk) 16:34, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm in way over my head on this one. User BabaRampuri (talk·contribs) has recently posted a comment ([9]) in the talk for Baba Rampuri that makes some serious accusations. He points out that a link recently added to the talk page by 195.188.112.2 (talk) appeared to be fraudulent and full of copyvios. He is also saying that the entire article may have been created as part of a blackmail and extortion scheme. I think he's right about the links, and I removed the them, but I don't think this was necessarily a malicious act by IP. Anyway, I'm not sure where to begin, but this needs more eyes. Grayfell (talk) 20:53, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
No, the links were taken off the main page which is justifiable. They were added to the talk page for reference only, not to be used in the main article until anything can be backed up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.188.112.2 (talk) 00:50, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Richard L Adam, Jr. - UUNET
1. Mr.Adams did not leave UUNET when Mr Sidgmore became the President.
2. Mr Adams left at some point after the purchase of UUNET by MFS( Kiewit subsidiary) closed which was the same day MFS was sold to Worldcom.
3. Mr Sidgmore decided to stay on with Worldcom and Mr Adams chose to leave.
4. Both Mr Adams and Mr. Sidgmore, truly fast friends, were first class leaders who took great interest in the welfare of UUNET employees and shareholders.
5. The world owes a real debt to Mr. Adams for, among other things, bringing the internet to all of us; of course, Mr. Adams would not agree that any debt is owed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.236.227.64 (talk) 00:39, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Hey, all,
I posted about this on the Joyce Maynard Talk Page but the last comment posted there is dated January 2010 so I doubt I'll get a response. My question is about this line in her article:
"She had numerous affairs; one of her former boyfriends called her "the most self-obsessed person I've ever met. She gives narcissism a bad name.""
Even though this anonymous quote is sourced (NYMag), it seems like it is a violation of BLP policy. Maynard writes about her family so, in one sense, her personal life is relevant to her article. But this just sounds like gossip and is impugning her character from a source that isn't even identified. What do you think? NewJerseyLizLet's Talk18:40, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
No. Sub-Tabloid gossip website -as it actually states in the webpage tab: "Celebrity Gossip, News & Photos..." No reason to see at as RS for anything remotely contentious. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:42, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Carly Rose Sonenclar reference to non-authoritative source.
Tadelstein9 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Reference to the subject is not authoritative and lacks relevance. The reference is to "She is of Jewish Origin". Dispute with editor is relevance.
I support what you say on the content issue. I would say though that edit summaries like this are red herrings and do not contribute to the debate. --John (talk) 19:08, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Here is her own website, where she talks about her bat mitzvah where she did a service project for the Starlight Foundation[11] as well as this interview where she mentions her bat mitzvah again. [12]. That should take care of the reliable sourcing and WP:BLPCAT issues I would think. Since she is the one making this part of her identity (in her interviews, and website) the relevance seems pretty obvious to me, but certainly consensus could swing the other way. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:22, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Are there proper non-copyvio secondary sources for this? Is her ethnicity relevant to her notability? I would say unless both bars can be passed, we do not include this material. --John (talk) 19:25, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
For the purpose of WP:BLPCAT secondary sources are actually a hinderance. We need her saying it herself. She has done so twice. One of the times was specifically in the context of her social outreach where she is doing charity work for ill children, and such work is generally part of a celebrity's notability. Here is another interview/performance with her singing in the opening ceremony for the Maccabiah Games (A Jewish sporting event held in Israel). [13] jerusalem post. Jewish Chronicle [14] Jewish Telegraph Agency [15] European Jewish Press [16]
One persistent user at (124.148.53.85) keeps trying to post workplace contact information for the subjects of the article. I think this is probably a violation of WP:BLPPRIVACY, and is certainly discourteous at best to two private citizens and their co-workers, who need to be allowed to do their jobs without having to fend off unwanted contacts from readers of the article. It's also concerning me that that contact information will still appear in edit history for the article, even if it's removed from the actual text. What, if anything, can be done about this? Seanette (talk) 02:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the info (still at novice level around here). I hope I understood correctly what you meant by "paste a diff". Seanette (talk) 04:06, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
You don't really have to do that but it is easier for them. Just the article name is fine and mention the private information. Pasting a diff is when you go into the history of the article. Select two dots and compare versions. Then copy the url from your browser address area for that difference. It will be linkable from the IRC. !admin at the beginning of you post will get attention faster.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks again. Got the info into the hands of someone who could and did zap the problem material and ban the IP. I do appreciate your help. Seanette (talk) 04:16, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I have never edited this article but came across issues about undue, POV, etc. I don't intend to do get involved in it but others may wish to take a look. It is a political issue with a BLP as a main player.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:24, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
2002 Gujarat violence
Isthis edit a BLP violation? It strongly implies that Joseph R. Pitts was taking money from Pakistan's Inter=Services Intelligence, I had removed it before but it has been restored. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
the opening line of Cher Lloyd 's biography is "Cher Lloyd (born 28 July 1993) is a dirty wee bint of an English singer-songwriter, rapper and model. Lloyd rose to fame when she finished fourth in the seventh series of The X Factor." Please change the "dirty wee bint" portion. I believe a number of her fans would disagree with that statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.42.152.234 (talk) 19:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I went to look up information about David B. Shear and found a long, rambling rant about his personal character and failure to perform his duties as Ambassador to Vietnam by an unnamed source referring to a woman known only as "Patty." The report is certainly libelous in its current form. The libelous portion was only added 2 days ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.230.17.244 (talk) 00:14, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Per a request at WP:ANRFC, this discussion is closed with no consensus being reached. The claim that the material violates WP:BLP has been satisfactorily refuted in my opinion, but should be referred to exerts at WP:BLPN. In the absence of BLP issues, and because the content can be sourced to reliable sources, the decision as to whether or not this particular case is included in this article is a matter of editorial discretion.
In my opinion, every single inclusion of a living person mentioned in that list must be supported by a reliable source that unambiguously uses the word "sockpuppet". The warriors fighting to include people there should stick to that, and everything would be fine. Even if the person's actions can be interpreted as sockpuppetry (and in this case I'd agree they do), it's not for us to categorize people because we think they fit somewhere. It's a simple guideline, not rocket science, and quite frankly it requires no consensus whatsoever since it falls under WP:BLPCAT. §FreeRangeFrogcroak23:41, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
How on earth does it fall under WP:BLPCAT? We're talking about including a section in the article, not about applying a category to Figes's page. As for the substance of the argument: Figes's actions are manifestly an instance of sockpuppetry, and only a failure to appreciate the richness of the English language would lead us to conclude otherwise. There's certainly no BLP problem here in the sense that the word would be falsely applied to Figes. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 01:20, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't see the coherence of the implied reasoning. The spirit of BLPCAT rests on the notion that categories don't carry "disclaimers or modifiers"; there's no way to convey any complexity. It's entirely possible to convey any needed complexity in a textual section indicating how Figes used sockpuppets. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 02:00, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
If you need to "indicate how Figues used sockpuppets" then you're into OR and synthesis territory, which is the whole point - categorizing a living person (which is what this is in the end) requires an unambiguous citation to a reliable secondary source. The same source you could use to add a category to the person's bio. If you don't have that then you can't do either. §FreeRangeFrogcroak02:58, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
The dispute was not about reliable sourcing. The dispute was if this incident should be included in the article as representing an important and clear-cut example of "sockpuppetry". No, it does not. A minority of sources claims that simply opening an anonymous account to review work by other historians (that is what Figes did) was sockpuppetry. However, making an anonymous peer review is not regarded as sockpuppetry, especially in scientific community. People do this all the time. My very best wishes (talk) 19:29, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
The question by the closing admin was if this matter can be viewed as a BLP violation. Yes, it can, simply because this is a negative information about three notable living British historians. Since the request was officially closed as "no consensus", I think the following passage from WP:BLP should apply: "When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first". It tells: consensus must be obtained first. That's the policy. My very best wishes (talk)
Being negative information about living people doesn't automatically make a BLP violation; we've got plenty of negative information about living people, it's unavoidable unless all the living have suddenly become angels. The point of WP:BLP is that it "must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research". Which standard, given the sourcing, seems to have been met. --GRuban (talk) 19:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Sourced negative information about living people should not appear in articles where it does not belong, and I believe this is the problem here. This is all happening because word "sockpuppet" was defined differently in different sources, and frequently used simply as a condemnation. For example, one can easily source a claim that Stalin was a "fascist" or Soviet Union was a "fascist state" (something said by Nobelist Lev Landau, for example), however, this is basically only a condemnation and should not appear in article fascism. Same is here. My very best wishes (talk) 22:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
I recently added a line saying: "In 2004, Coogan entered rehab for alcohol and substance issues." It was sourced from an interview with Coogan himself, where he states this. It can be read here http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1207915/Rehab-drinking-Courtney-Love-Owen-Wilsons-overdose-Steve-Coogan-confesses-all.html. It isn't written in a biased, insensitive way or problomatic way. Yet it was removed by another user, who sited [[17]]. As far as I can tell, it isn't breaking any of these rules, and this sort of info is often quoted on wikipedia for many biographies of individuals, so I don't understand what is wrong here. The user hasn't even given any other reason apart from the BLP, and has also sent me a warning saying I will bloacked if I edit this again, without clearly stating his reasons. I was wondering if I am in the wrong or if someone just doesn't people to read this. I would appreciate the help on the matter. Thanks - Jak Fisher (talk) 15:59, 20 August, 2013 (UTC)
See the earlier thread on Coogan above, and note that the warning clearly also refers to the material you added sourced to entertainmentwise.com - a gossip website of no obvious reliability. WP:BLP policy states that "Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives..." AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:44, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
It has to be said that now it is sourced to the Daily Mail, not a sub-gossip website. Now,normally I'd refuse such Daily Mail stuff on a BLP anyway, but given that it's the subject himself speaking loud and clear on a major newspaper (even if far from the best 'paper around), I think there are little BLP concerns. --cyclopiaspeak!17:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm regarding the Mail as a tabloid for the purposes of this addition, and I wouldn't regard it as much more of a source than the gossip site. --John (talk) 19:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Hm. Still it's an interview: it's the subject acknowledging and speaking at large about this, on press. The claim is not made by the DM, it is made by the subject himself. Protecting subjects from tabloid's wild conjectures is more than OK, but protecting them from their own words about a life experience seems dubious. --cyclopiaspeak!19:46, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
That's the point I'm trying to make. It is himself saying this, not speculation or a claim from the press. - Jak Fisher (talk)
There are limits to the reliability of the Daily Mail, but it is reliable for the words of a comedian in an interview. Formerip (talk) 23:12, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
These matters are often included on wikipedia biographies, and are quoted to such interviews. I understand when it is sourced to a gossip tabloid, but in an interview where the individual had no problem being frank and openly provides and discusses such information? That I do not understand at all. It isn't being intrusive or spreading a claim, it is reporting a fact. Isn't recording the facts of the individuals life what wikipedia is meant for, as the sentence is reliable and unbiased. And isn't it well documented of the individual discloses this info himself? - Jak Fisher (talk) 01:02, 21 August, 2013 (UTC)
Er - what? The interview was with the Daily Mail - how do you expect any other source to be able to verify what was said? Interviews aren't held in large conference rooms with hundreds of different newspaper reps present, interviews are held between the reps of one newspaper and the subject. --GRuban (talk) 13:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Good point - and while the DM is largely unreliable and should be steered clear of, an intervew with the subject should be admissable. GiantSnowman13:27, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
There we go, that is a solution. We could use these better sources to verify this material if there is consensus on the article talk page that it merits inclusion in the article. BLPSOURCES is very clear that we cannot use tabloid material on BLPs; there is no exception for material that purports to be from an interview. Tabloids can and do make up material all the time and there is no reason to think that calling it an interview would make any difference to this. --John (talk) 13:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Actually, what WP:BLP says is, "Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources." So under that policy, material from tabloids that has also been reported by "more reliable sources" may be included. A valid question is whether any source can be considered "more reliable" on the subject of an interview given exclusively to one source than that source itself. Logic would indicate that the answer is no (unless one of the parties of the interview disputes the published account). In this case it would seem that including information about rehab is permissible, citing the various other sources; and if there is specific information from the Daily Mail interview that is very important for the article, then that should probably also be permitted. Dezastru (talk) 20:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Ram Revilla was an actor who was murdered in late 2011. His article very dangerously teeters on the line of being a pretty serious BLP violation.
Here's some brief backstory. A while ago, somebody started an article called Ram Revilla Murder Case. It was deleted for being an unnecessary fork of the main Ram Revilla article. He began rebuilding the article as a sandbox before it was deleted again, this time as a BLP violation.
So then, he starts adding it to the main Revilla page. The article is now utterly bloated, full of uncited phrases and trivial detail, and appears to be written by someone who does not speak or understand English very well. It also contains names of several people who were involved in the crime. Would WP:TNT be appropriate here? Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits17:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Blimey, that one's a real dog's breakfast. TNT looks like the correct approach or at least stub it way back for the moment.--ukexpat (talk) 18:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
THat is horrendous. I have reverted back to before the massive amount of detail on the murder case was added, much of this content is based on various court transcripts which I this probably violates wp:blpprimary, wp:primary. Please note the three scans/pics of a police officers report that have been uploaded at commons, I'm sure that they are problematic copyright violations...could somebody report them over there? Note also that the two accounts that created this monstrosity, Fearjesus & MrAchilles, have been blocked as socks of each other on Commons. Somebody should raise an SPI here. 78.105.23.195 (talk) 01:19, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
This content has recently been created on en-wiki, translated compiled from other language wikis which apparently take BLP less seriously, despite WMF policy. I've removed a completely unsourced claim associating the porn performer with a medical professional of the same name (hopefully before mirroring spreads the claim beyond control), but I suspect that some form of suppression is appropriate. I'm also concerned that this is a virtually unsourced BLP (so far as actual biographical content goes), and worry that the BLP issues are likely do be downplayed in light of the ongoing disputes over porn-related contrent. Other eyes would be helpful. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 11:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
I have no way of knowing whether the subject of the BLP is the same as the medical professional, but in the absence of a reliable source the removal of the line in question is absolutely appropriate. Dezastru (talk) 20:13, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
STEVIE J
i WAS READING THE STEVIE J ARTICLE AND NOTICED SOME INFORMATION THAT WAS INACCURATE. FIRSTLY MICHELLE MIMI FAUST IS INCORRECT HER NAME IS OLUREMI FAUST SHE AND STEVIE BEGAN A COURTSHIP IN 1997 NOT 2008 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.203.177.177 (talk) 16:33, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
This writer doesn't seem to meet notability. Looking through the myriad of references, I found many revert to non-verfiable sources (his own website, Amazon, etc.). Seems to miss the hurtles of WP:BLP Particularly when this constitutes [18] a major reference in his article. Moreover, his books have been published, yes, but with very small presses, and there's little in the way of third-party coverage. Any insights? Thanks!Jimsteele9999 (talk) 00:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Shooting of Trayvon Martin
Trayvon Martin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Several editors have been alleging that there is evidence that Trayvon Martin was a user of an illicit drug concoction called Lean, with the implication that Martin was out buying ingredients to make Lean when he was killed. (A more subtle implication is that Martin was under the influence of drugs the night of his death, which could have made his behavior abnormal and led him to act extremely aggressively.) Several contributors have started talk page threads discussing these accusations at least twice in the past few weeks, most recently at Talk:Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin#Tea_and_Skittles, without any references to reliable sources whatsoever. Links have been posted to highly partisan blogs, however. One of the most recent posts on the Talk page says that there was evidence from the autopsy that Martin had been using Lean, which is completely false.
Martin was killed in February 2012, but the circumstances surrounding the death remain a matter of ongoing discussion and controversy, and possible legal action, so I believe Martin still falls under WP:BLP policy as a recently deceased person. Dezastru (talk) 22:01, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't think this has substantial implications for Martin's living relatives and friends. The judge in the case already allowed evidence that he had marijuana in his system.[19] So, I'm not seeing that this "Lean" stuff has any further substantial effects on Martin's survivors. Maybe the "Lean" stuff should be kept out of the BDP, but not because of BLP concerns about the living.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:35, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Actually, the judge in the trial ruled out mention of information that had nothing to do with Martin's death. The finding of marijuana in his system was allowed as evidence in the trial because it was obtained from postmortem toxicology; it was also widely reported by reliable sources. All of the speculation on lean, by contrast, is coming from partisan blogs and discussion boards. And even if you do not believe that information about Martin's death falls under WP:BDP, it still falls under WP:BLP because it may have bearing on further legal proceedings against Martin's killer, who is still living. Dezastru (talk) 15:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Yup, poorly sourced positive material about Zimmerman comes under WP:BLP, and if poorly sourced info about Martin is being used to make Zimmerman look good, then it needs to be removed from Wikipedia.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I am concerned that this is a potentially a biography of a living person that stands without references. However, I am also extremely reliably informed by GiantSnowman (talk·contribs) that my editing privileges must be removed if I try to add the appropriate PROD tag. This is ridiculous but I have no intention of getting into an argument with a troll. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
You added a BLPPROD tag (twice!) to an article on somebody who has been dead since 1987 - you clearly did not bother check the article history and you certainly did not follow WP:BEFORE. The only one who has been naughty here is you, and my warning that I will consider removing your 'autopatrolled' status if you cannot use it properly remains as valid as ever. FYI, calling me "GiantSnowmball" and describing me as a "troll" shows you have the wrong attitude to edit here and is not helping your cause in the slightest. GiantSnowman19:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
The creator of the article on Andrew Meikleham appears to be a newly registered contributor, with a user page started only a day or two ago, so he may not be familiar with Wikipedia practices. Rather than jumping straight to proposing deletion of the stub(s), it might be worth trying to educate him on Wikipedia policies and giving him a chance to provide references and to show why the article(s) warrant inclusion in the encyclopedia. Dezastru (talk) 19:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
When you BLPPROD an article, it stays that way for a week before it's considered for deletion, and includes instructions on what to do to remove the PROD. While it may not be the friendliest way to go about things, it more than gives the author a fair chance to provide references. Sperril (talk) 06:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
10 days actually; a normal PROD, which I added before it was removed by Barney the barney barney, is 7 days. An AFD is also at least 7 days. Plenty of time to add references / verify notability. GiantSnowman11:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I had added a "BLP sources" and a "POV" tag to this article, as its tone seems inappropriate and some statements appear to be badly sourced or not sourced at all. Another editor keeps insisting that there are no problems (admonishing me "don't think, just read") and who knows, perhaps he's even right. However, this is not really the focus of my interest and I don't want to spend a lot of time on it. Perhaps someone here would care to take a look. Some of the issues are quite obvious, I think. The lead starts with "Alice Crimmins is an American murderess suspected in the 1960s double murder trial of her two children". Apart from the poor grammar, if she's "suspected", we shouldn't call her a "murderess", I think. Anyway, some extra eyes and attention would be appreciated. Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 15:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Please keep an eye on this article, an article subject to heightened emotions at present. The issue is the naming of arrested and accused suspects. WP:BLPCRIME applies FiddleFaddle21:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I have my doubts about these events meeting Wikipedia notability guidelines, and have left a comment to that effect on the talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
There is a discussion about the inclusion of details on the subject's former institutions' performance after he left a controlling position in them, as well as the use of statements made by a state official to several newspapers that indicated the individual was not able to operate an educational institution there. Since the veracity of the official's statements are not corroborated elsewhere and are in dispute, I believe that the BLP policy indicates they should be removed.
I also don't think the discussion of the performance post-involvement of the institutions the individual created or helped create is incredibly germane to the subject; it appears to be included only to discredit the individual. LFaraone16:34, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Seems like WP:BLP is clear on this matter: "must be written
conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy". If there's
only one source quoting one person who damages the reputation of
someone who was never processed or convicted in the way that is
claimed, that is the very definition of "contentious material" that is
"poorly sourced". Remove it. - Cmlloyd1969 (talk) 14:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
This is a really fascinating problem. I agree that WP:BLP guides us that controversial information that is insufficiently cited should be removed. Here, it appears that we have one state official (Judy Hendrickson) who commented on Victor Berlin's status in her state, when the evidence shows that she couldn't have made such a statement in her official capacity, because the state records don't jive with what she claimed. Just because the Washington Post published what Hendrickson said, doesn't make it true; and we should be concerned that the Washington Post owns Kaplan University, which would make it a competitor with Berlin's old institution. The more one looks at the source article, the more it looks like a hit piece, and one that is so dated vis-a-vis the current Victor Berlin, Wikipedia shouldn't be propping it up as a sole support of this harmful claim against Berlin. I agree with LFaraone -- this pesky claim that is supported by only one news story ever, making reference to one government employee's opinion, should be removed. WestinDodger21:38, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Joshua Wander
The article about Joshua Wander (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is biased and some of the comments are either taken out of context or have no relevance to the person. Doesn't list age, current occupation, religion, voting registration, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.161.192.15 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 23 August 2013
If there are no sources for age, current occupation, religion, etc. then we don't want them in the article at all. If you feel this article does not meet the notability guidelines, raise the issue here, or nominate it for deletion yourself. I don't see any blatant BLP issues. §FreeRangeFrogcroak20:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
There is nothing in the article to suggest that it meets our notability guidelines, and on that basis it should be deleted, unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary. What content there is seems to be sourced, and though I can see the balance problem, it isn't egregious - and Wander seems to have sought public attention. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:54, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
The material has been deleted without talk page discussion by an administrator,[20] whose comment was this: "not sure passing comment from a fox news talking head is notable here; seems like undue weight; do we mention ALL cable-news reaction, or just this one?" I disagree, and would appreciate some input. All of the coverage on this subject in the article is now very negative, whereas the deleted information is not negative. This was not a passing comment, as the entire news segment was devoted to this subject. I am not aware that the "talking heads" of Fox News have (yet) been listed as unreliable sources at Wikipedia. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:43, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
I would take this to the article talk page since this seems like a content disagreement. I would NOT include this material because talking heads mention "stuff" all the time about different things and people. Has this "material" risen to the level worthy of inclusion on Carson's bio? I would say definitely NOT. If the level of inclusion was based on some video clip of talking heads, every bio would be worth crap. Again, if multiple RS have covered this "material" or discusiom, or whatever it is, then maybe consider it for inclusion. A one off type comment question, no way. Can somebody explain this better, I suck at this :)--Malerooster (talk) 13:20, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, if you prefer Fox News "writing heads" to "talking heads", then there's this. I express no view myself about the matter that Carson was talking about, but it seems very lopsided --- POV --- to only include condemnation in the Wikipedia article (by a professor and eight students), without reflecting other facts reported in prominent reliable sources. Is there some BLP distinction between talking and writing?Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:10, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
That's a serious question, Rooster. You mentioned "talking heads", and I would like to know whether BLP applies differently to spoken news reporting as opposed to written news reporting. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:27, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
The language you drafted states that Sonya Sotomayor discussed some controversial things in open court, but provides no context or interpretation of those comments. That's a BLP problem right there. Then, it goes on to say that Megyn Kelly asked a question. Did she draw a conclusion, or was it just a dangling unanswered question? Another BLP problem. Ben Carson, the physician who is the subject of the BLP apologized for the remarks, and withdrew them. Why is it necessary to stretch to find some weak statement implying defense of the statement, like "Sonya Sotomayor said something remotely similar, so there!" Cullen328Let's discuss it04:26, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
(Outdent) I'm certainly open to better phrasing of the material, if anyone thinks I did a weak job. I have referred to a spoken news report and a written one. The written one says:
Carson has since clarified the comments, telling a newspaper, “I certainly believe gay people should have all the rights anyone else has. I was trying to say that as far as marriage was concerned, it has traditionally been between a man and a woman and no one should be able to change that"....Megyn Kelly pointed out that in Supreme Court hearings this week, Justice Sotomayor asked if gay marriage would open the door to polygamy and incest being allowed.
As best I can tell, Carson supports equal rights for gays, except for the word "marriage". The Wikipedia article excludes Carson's clarification, and excludes mention of Sotomayor. If this non-negative material weakly counteracts the negative material already in the Wikipedia article ("nasty, petty, and ill-informed"), then it's probably best to let the Wikipedia reader decide rather than us deciding that the reliable source erred. The Wikipedia article says he gave a weak apology for poor choice of words, but gives no clue that he favors equal rights to a considerable degree, and no clue that his comments were comparable to those of a famous Democratic judge. I could rephrase like this:
Carson has clarified that outside of "marriage" he believes "gay people should have all the rights anyone else has". Meanwhile, Megyn KellyofFox News compared Carson's controversial remark to a recent concern expressed by Justice Sonya Sotomayor.
Eugenia Manolidou, the wife of a New Democracy (former L.A.O.S - nationalist Popular Orthodox Rally party) politician and current Minister of Health, Adonis Georgiades, is referred here as an internationally known, Greek classical composer and conductor. However, citations are completely missing from the relevant section of the article: "Music career".
I think that this article does not refer to a notable person in particular regarding her career as a classical composer/conductor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eliot1966 (talk • contribs) 13:35, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
The word "heterosexual" is superfluous if her relationships were with men. Further it implies a knowledge of other types of relationship at other times. Where is the evidence for this ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.251.222.40 (talk) 12:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I started to copy edit the article and then slammed on the breaks. I would remove most if not all the material about her being named this or listed here, ect. Is it really that notable or encyclopediatic? Especially since she commented that she wasn't going to comment. Thoughts? --Malerooster (talk) 20:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I think a personal life section is warranted, as long as the stuff can be referenced. Like you I'm not really a fan of these annual chart rundowns of gay people - although they are published in national newspapers so in that sense they are notable. I wouldn't read too much into Hope's "no comment" as the FA seems to operate a fairly strict don't ask, don't tell policy in these matters. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 21:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I would say that just because something is printed in a newspaper, does NOT in itself make it notable or automatically worthy of inclusion. I posted on the article talk page, maybe others will comment here or there. --Malerooster (talk) 22:50, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Her footballing career is what makes her notable. She just is a lesbian. If she was only a lesbian she would not be notable. Her lesbian views are of little more value than her type of car or her favourite meal. The modern trend to care about what folk do in private with their genitalia is worrying.Egghead06 (talk) 23:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree that the line that started this discussion was poorly worded and really did not seem to be appropriate for the article. On the broader question of what if anything should be said about her sexual orientation, though, I disagree with Egghead's argument that "She just is a lesbian. If she was only a lesbian she would not be notable. Her lesbian views are of little more value than her type of car or her favourite meal." There are almost no professional athletes or prominent coaches who have publicly acknowledged being gay. The number of openly lesbian professional athletes or coaches is even smaller. The few athletes who have come out have stated that the main reason there have been so few is that there has been such a high degree of homophobia in the sportsworld and among the public. So if a highly successful athlete or coach is openly gay, and the fact that they are openly gay has been noted by reliable sources, that in itself is notable and may warrant inclusion in a BLP about the athlete or coach. I think that generally this kind of information is noted by reliable sources when the person does something related to their sexual orientation that is reported on: gets married, makes a reference to their significant other, comes out in an interview or an autobiographical book, serves as grand marshal in a gay pride parade, etc. In other words, a reason to include a mention would be to make note of whatever it was that the athlete was doing that was noted by reliable sources. Wikipedia policy is to respect a BLP subject's preferences in discussing sexual orientation (unless a dispute about their alleged sexual orientation has become a major focus of their notability - as in the case of former US Senator Larry Craig). I'm not familiar enough with Powell to know what her current preferences are. She has been reported by some sources to be openly lesbian, such as here and here, but if she has made other comments reported by reliable sources that would indicate that she would not want information about her sexual orientation in her BLP, then it should not be included in the article.
Dezastru (talk) 21:33, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
I would say that the few athletes that have come out can say whatever they want, but it doesn't make it true or factual as far as the degree of homophobia. Maybe things are worse in Britan than in the US, I don't know. Also, just because a source reports someone to be LGBT, that really isn't enough for inclusion I believe. The subject, in this case, has also talked about her relationships with men, so it would be hard to label her a certain way it seems. I just dabble in this stuff, and I know others are a lot more knowledgeable and passionate about how we handle BLPs. Was it user Bearcat that helped out before in an other similar situation? I know this gets covered and discussed a lot, and that care must be given to categorization. I will defer to others. --Malerooster (talk) 21:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
There are almost no professional athletes or prominent coaches who have publicly acknowledged being gay. The number of openly lesbian professional athletes or coaches is even smaller. - I'm sorry but this statement simply isn't true in the case of women's football, where lesbians proliferate. For example Sweden (a much better team than England) have a coach and several top players who are out without any problems at all. The prominent American player Megan Rapinoe commented publicly so her bio includes the info, whereas Abby Wambach prefers to play her cards close to her chest, so her bio doesn't mention it at all. I think it's about balance and we need to decide where Powell sits on the Rapinoe-Wambach scale. I see now that the original wording was poor - as the culprit I can only apologise. I must stress it was simply down to bad writing/redundancy rather anything more sinister, anyway, it's nice to see the article getting a bit of attention and improving over the last couple of days. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 22:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
If there are more gay women than men who are out, then I stand corrected. The mainstream media never pay as much attention to women's sports as they do to men's. Dezastru (talk) 03:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, the thing about sexuality is that we have to be very, very careful, and ensure that we're relying on top-notch sources. I'm all in favour of describing and categorizing people as LGBT if and when they can be properly sourced as such, but merely being included in a "List of LGBT people" by a third-party source doesn't necessarily satisfy that in and of itself — I can, for instance, directly point to at least a couple of examples where people were wrongly described as gay in a list of that type. So for a living person, we need to be able to provide properly sourced evidence that she's actually come out on the public record in her own words — which doesn't necessarily mean that you have to be able to dig out her coming-out statement itself, although that's always the best course of action whenever possible, but you do need to be able to properly source that she has made an unambiguous public coming-out statement. So in this particular case, I have to agree that the cited sources are not, in and of themselves, sufficient to warrant describing and categorizing her as lesbian. Maybe there are better sources available out there, maybe there aren't, I don't know — but these sources aren't good enough.
And, for the record, describing and categorizing people as LGBT has nothing to do with focusing on what people do with their genitals — it's a matter of social, cultural and political affiliation with an identity community. I'm an out gay man, for instance, but the fact that I've told you that does not mean I've given you a backstage pass into my bedroom to see what I'm doing or not doing with my sexual organs on my own time — being open about my identity does not mean that I've told you anything at all about my behaviour. I could be having casual sex with hundreds of different partners a year, I could be occasionally having casual sex with just a few different partners a year, I could be dating, I could be married and monogamous, I could be entirely celibate, I could be a virgin, I could be a top or a bottom or versatile — my behaviour is none of your beeswax. All you know, and all you're going to get to know if you're not directly involved in my personal life, is that I identify as gay. Bearcat (talk) 19:00, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Mr. Cascone's article does not adhere to the policy regarding biographies of living persons. It contains not a single citation from a reliable news source. It appears to be a vanity article, as it contains a plethora of unverified information about the subject's personal life, with no sourcing whatsoever. The only external references are interviews on websites, discographies on music archiving sites like Discogs, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.16.3.12 (talk) 03:25, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
This article consists of material previously included in two articles on individuals (see AfD discussions [21][22]), together with brief coverage of four other incidents. As the previous AfDs (closed by overwhelming consensus as 'delete') made clear, this 'naming and shaming' of non-notable individuals has no place in Wikipedia, on multiple grounds - most significantly WP:BLP policy (e.g. WP:BLP1E). An AfD has been started on the article, but meanwhile, I'd like input from WP:BLPN regulars on whether the article (or sections of it) should be blanked per BLP policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but when material clearly seen as violating WP:BLP policy is recreated, it is entirely appropriate to raise the matter at this noticeboard. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:17, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Saying "here is an AFD discussion the BLPN regulars might be interested in" is fine; saying "this articles needs deleting, it fails X and Y policies, here is the AFD" is not. GiantSnowman14:24, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
To the contrary, if I'd mentioned the AfD without explaining the apparent violations of WP:BLP policy involved, that would be canvassing. Policy is (in both my opinion, and clearly in the opinion of many participants in the previous AfDs) being violated now, and I am asking whether action needs to be taken now. It is entirely normal to mention AfDs at noticeboards when discussing policy violations. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:32, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
There is no real policy violation - calls to BLP1E applied to the previous individual articles (which have been deleted), not to a list (BLP1E is very clear on this point). I trimmed a few sentences from the article that were clearly problematic, but that was it. However I think User:AndyTheGrump has all rights to make an heads up here - it might technically border on canvass, but was well meant, even if we disagree on this specific article. --cyclopiaspeak!15:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
My thought this is poorly sourced and does not belong in the lead. We simply don't add the "in the news" nicknames of politicians to their bios. --NeilNtalk to me20:20, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
From a source just added,『The caustic remarks of BJP’s cyber warriors on Congress Vice President Rahul Gandhi—dubbing him “Pappu”—during his address to industrialists at a CII event in April, had gone viral on the internet.』So basically, more political games. --NeilNtalk to me20:28, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
MeThinks, if a nick name finds a place in multiple news reports over a period of time, its a valid entry in bio to give a complete view of the subject, without any bias. --Cowboy forth worth (talk) 20:31, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Two months old not a valid source??? apparently it is a valid source, if there is no dispute in terms of source, we can take all objections one by one --Cowboy forth worth (talk) 20:41, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
It's not a valid source to determine if the nickname will have any historical significance, never mind be deserving of appearing in the lede. --NeilNtalk to me20:45, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
here is a source which dates back to 2009[1] it is historical enough? It states:-
Such recentism absolutely doesn't belong in the lede of the article, and I've removed it. Coincidentally, I blocked a user recently whose only edits were to Pappu and this article, trying to insert one into the other and vice versa, and now this account, inactive for 2 years, pops up to do the same... Black Kite (talk) 21:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
It is doubtful if the nick name pappu is recentism i have provided a source which dates back to 2009 [2], is it violation of any policy to contribute to wikipedia after 2 yrs?--Cowboy forth worth (talk) 21:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
As I said, just a coincidence, perhaps. Now, if this information is to be in the article, first of all it needs to be explained to a non-Indoan audience who will probably be completely unaware of what "Pappu" actually means, and it needs to be in the main body of the article. It also needs to say who is calling him that - i.e. his political opponents, and it needs to be in context. Black Kite (talk) 21:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
As the references clearly indicates that RG is nick named as pappu by Congress activists, journalists and Netizens, therefore there is no need to explicitly mention who as it is taken care of by the reference. We have a valid source, historical context is also present. Now if we agree that Pappu reference does make it to the article, we can discuss where to place it.--Cowboy forth worth (talk) 21:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
The previous version just said "Netizens", which is meaningless. If something is unclear it needs to be explained in the text, not in the references. So as I say, those two issues need to be addressed. As for the location in the article, if it is relevant (and I'm still not convinced it is) I suppose it would be somewhere in his recent political career. Black Kite (talk) 21:41, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Since the Nick name has been mentioned in numerous highly viewed/circulated newspapers, and has been referred again and again at-least for a period not less that 4 years now, hence reference Pappu defiantly belongs in an encyclopedia article, We can add the text that he is been referred as pappu by "Congress activists, journalists and Netizens" (concur that). Since he is not called pappu in political context but nick name defines his public view, therefore it belongs in lede.--Cowboy forth worth (talk) 21:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
No. A number of his political opponents calling him a demeaning nickname definitely does not belong in the lede. You have two editors here pointing that out to you. If you wish to insert a "Criticism" section into the article, that can be discussed. I'd suggest waiting for more editors to express their opinions here. Black Kite (talk) 22:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Having a discussion and coming to a consensus is the objective here, more inputs are welcomed. He is NOT called pappu by his political opponents (only) but also by Congress activists and journalists as well [3] Who are by no means his opponents. please refer to the reference provided and make a note of following in the article 'The political buzz so far indicated that Rahul, who is referred to as 'Pappu' by both Congress activists and journalists, was detached and disinterested in the Congress' affairs'. Therefore i would submit again that his popular nick name (we have a historical data and numerous valid WP:SOURCE ) must be included in an encyclopedia article, otherwise article will not be complete.--Cowboy forth worth (talk) 22:16, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't think it belongs in the BLP at all without strong indication it's going to last. Others who want this in right now can help you. One piece of advice I will give is to look at Bill Clinton#Public_image to see how nicknames are sourced and integrated within articles. --NeilNtalk to me23:58, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the pointer, I am game for adding a section on public image in the article, it will be more factual and will be able to incorporate all possible connotations of the nick-name, would strongly recommend you to add that section. --Cowboy forth worth (talk) 00:05, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Pls put forth your views and suggest the changes instead of simply saying no consensus. This is what i propose based on your suggestion in public image section, we can build that section together.
Seriously?? What part of context, explanation, and WP:UNDUE did you not understand? All you did was move the sentence to the body and give it a header of Public Image which is equally as bad. If you're going to do that then you need to write out the entire section giving different viewpoints and discussing other aspects of his public image to avoid giving undue balance to this. I strongly suggest you stop making further edits to the article unless you get approval from experienced editors for your changes first since you don't seem to understand our BLP policy. --NeilNtalk to me06:41, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Well thanks for your statements of facts, however in absence of any constructive alternatives and simply making a claim that nick-name will not be accommodated without providing any suggestions at all is not what any discussion is all about. I would very strongly suggest that you do not revert these edits as it appears you have a strong WP:POV about the subject, I concur that section on public image should be elaborated and that's where i guess you could chip in. will wait for some more inputs before proceeding further.--Cowboy forth worth (talk) 10:46, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
I and Black Kitehave given you suggestions on how the nickname could be accommodated - explanation, context, etc. It's up to you (or others who want to include the nickname) to do the work if you want it in. As for, the accusations of POV I suggest you look at my edit history - over 40K edits to over 23K disparate articles. This article is just one of 20K pages on my watchlist. You, however, have showed up after a two year absence with a single goal in mind. I am glad you will refrain further from editing the article without getting more feedback. If you had reinserted the section, I was contemplating reporting to WP:ANI that a single editor was attempting to add a "Public image" section to a bio of a highly-visible politician consisting of a single sentence stating his nickname was a translation of naive or dumb kid. --NeilNtalk to me16:44, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Nope, you got it exactly right. And we shouldn't really be reporting on arrests. At the very minimum, a charge should be laid. --NeilNtalk to me00:54, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
I wish we would consider establishing such minor but embarrassing incidents absent some impact on the subject's career or link to the substance of their notability. We've got too mnay performer articles already paying more attention to their driving history than to critical commentary on their work. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:59, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Jeffrey Eppstein
This edit removes a passage from the lead section on "BLP" grounds. I think it's not a BLP violation to note the criminal conviction of a convicted criminal (particularly when the section is a substantial part of the article, with a wide range of sources), and I think the edit is contrary to the provisions of WP:LEAD. I'd be grateful for additional input. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:44, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Since there is a large section in the article devoted to his convictions, per WP:LEAD, that must be summarized in the lead, as Nomoskedasticity notes, and therefore restored. The only problem is the phrasing: 'He was convicted in 2008 of solicitation of prostitution, after incidents in his house with underage girls'. The standard legal idiom is 'soliciting for prostitution.' One 'solicits' a prostitute, but one 'solicits' someone whose professional identity is unknown, as in this case, in order that they prostitute themselves, prostitute or not.The second phrase is also clumsy: not 'after incidents with' but 'after convictions for'. etc. In fact the whole article needs copyediting, e.g.'A search of Epstein's home found numerous photos of girls throughout the house, some of whom had been interviewed earlier by the police', can imply that the photos had been interveiewed by the police.Nishidani (talk) 09:12, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Accordingly, it is highly desirable that strict policies apply to articles in general, and BLP articles in particular. If someone wrote a blog about person X and started by saying that X had been convicted in 2008 after incidents in his house with underage girls, it could be fairly assumed that the purpose of the blog was to spread as much muck on X as possible. That's fine in a signed opinion piece where everyone understands that the author has picked what features of the subject they think should be emphasized. However, it's different here. If X is notable for having sex with underage girls, then sure, put it in the lead. But if X is a financier and science and education philanthropist, such muck does not belong in the lead. The "Solicitation of prostitution" section is also over-egged. It appears the subject has certain sexual weirdnesses, but they are pretty tame (he paid a girl $300 who stripped and massaged him; she undressed but left on her underwear—laughable really, except she was aged 14, having told him she was 18). It is pathetic to include all that gossip in an encyclopedic article. Either the guy is notable for reasons unrelated to his sexual mishaps (in which case the mishaps are way overblown), or the article should be deleted. OMG, I wrote the above before seeing Nishidani's post—normally I would take anything Nishidani said as authoritative, but I'm not sure he is correct on such blatant turd-polishing in a BLP. Johnuniq (talk) 09:29, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
A criminal conviction for sexual activity with a minor is not "gossip", and the sources are not blogs nor opinion pieces. He is notable as a financier and as a convicted sex offender, per the sources on both activities. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:59, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
I admit to bias, J, but Nomo is correct. I don't give a rodent's rectum for what people do privately (excluding with the underaged and animals: the latter esp can't protest or lay a complaint in court, and I don't think Khomeini's suggestions (Ernest Gellner,Culture, Identity and Politics, Cam UP 1987 p.134) really help them much either), and I remember the disgust I felt when the Profumo Affair broke out and ruined a very decent humane man, with a good war and service record (it was typical that he cleaned pubic shithouses in penitence for the rest of his life). But these cases, with the underage, are different. You know where I live, and this crap (almost identical) has been daily fare for several years in the case of Silvio Berlusconi (also 2013 Silvio Berlusconi conviction), and our article there reports it in the lead, as it does for Dominique Strauss-Kahn. When public figures use their power or wealth that way, it must be registered when it comes to convictions.Nishidani (talk) 10:26, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Graham Fitch
Graham Fitch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has some trouble in the history. Somebody identifying as the subject contacted me on the IRC help channel (yes, IRC is evil, and I should be de-sysopped for using it stante pede), and is clearly distressed about publicizing the section currently in the history. I concur with them that it is not worth having. Some extra eyeballs on the article would be welcome. I have also defered to OTRS Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 08:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Slanderous attack against a living person on the talk page of the article
Can someone not involved in the dispute look it over please. [23] An editor calls someone a "murderer" despite them being found not guilty of the crime, and also wishes to add in information to make them appear as a racist. I was unable to reason with them. The only people that wish to add in the information are trying to lead people into believing the person is a racist, despite overwhelming evidence saying they were not. This is obvious in what this editor says of course(please read the diffs), and slightly less obvious in the other editor who wants it in, you'd have to read their previous statements to be convinced they were doing it for that reason alone. DreamFocus16:52, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I've redacted the material, and left a note regarding WP:BLP policy on the user's talk page. As to broader issues regarding whether a person is 'racist' or not, I'll not comment, as I've not looked at the sources concerned. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Jean-Marie Atangana Mebara
The article Jean-Marie Atangana Mebara is extremely biased and has many BLP issues. I am not at all familiar with the situation (I was just trying to find his last name to alphabetize on the Jean-Marie page), but it looks like lots of scissors are needed here. Matchups17:37, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I contributed a new article to AfC on Jeremy Stoppelman, where I have a COI. The article was accepted and moved to article-space. User:Keithbob recently trimmed a substantial portion of the article, which was needed. In fact, I think it's generally much better that an impartial editor removed some BLP violations, rather than leaving open the possible accusation that I have omitted it on account of my COI.
However, in the process I believe some factual errors have been made and some material is awkwardly over-general. I've placed some specific points for consideration here. For example, it mentions Levchin as a founder of Yelp, but he was an investor - only Stoppelman and Russel Simmons are considered founders. It now mentions that he was a VP of Engineering at Paypal in the Lead, but his title is no longer included in the body. Also, the article has a very odd way (IMO) of describing that he is considered part of the PayPal Mafia.
Keithbob has suggested I post here in hopes that an impartial editor will thoughtfully consider my suggestions and implement those that make sense and/or make other edits. I have made many edits directly to the article, but just to clean up overt grammar, spelling and copyediting problems. CorporateM (Talk) 20:26, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
So, the person known previously as Bradley Manning announced her transition in the press today. Per MOS:IDENTITY and basic human decency we have the article at Chelsea Manning and should use female pronouns throughout. There are already people arguing on the talk page otherwise. Morwen (talk) 13:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I'd suggest we go out of our way to avoid all pronouns, using Manning instead. I'd also treat Chelsea as his/her nickname (which it is) until officially recognized by the courts. †TE†Talk13:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
We don't use human decency as a basis for encyclopedic articles, we use verified facts. MOS:IDENTITY doesn't apply here, see my explanation below. Yintan13:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Now Bradley Manning has decided he wants to become a woman called Chelsea, the Bradley Manning article has been immediately moved to Chelsea Manning and refers to him as "she". IMHO this does not make sense for a number of reasons:
1) Bradley's name is still Bradley, there hasn't been an official name change. 2) There hasn't been a gender change either. 3) Some editors quote MOS:IDENTITY as a valid reason but I don't believe it is. The guideline says "Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman"), pronouns, and possessive adjectives that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification." There's no question about Manning's gender, not yet. He may want to call himself a woman, but he isn't.
I find this article move extremely premature since there's not a single source that says Bradley is a woman called Chelsea. Apart from Bradley himself, but that obviously isn't a proper third party source. Yintan13:30, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
The Guardian is an advocacy source, and their use of "she" is insufficient to justify using it in the article. If the normal news sources start saying "she", then maybe you've got some justification. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 14:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Sigh. "Bradley Manning has expressed a wish to live as a woman and begin hormone therapy". That makes him female, does it? I give up, we're going in circles here. Yintan13:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Reporting that statement is valid. Changing the pronouns is not, until such time as valid sources generally do so. You're trying to use the article for advocacy, which is against the rules. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 13:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Also keep in mind that this statement comes from Manning's lawyer, who also claims to "expects" a pardon from the President. That kind of baseless declaration or puffery undermines his credibility. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 14:00, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
And he could say he wants to be called Minnie Mouse, for all we care, but that don't make it so. The sources continue to say "he".[25] There have been editors itching for months to make this switch, but they've jumped the gun. Wikipedia is not supposed to be an advocate, it's supposed to report valid sources. The article needs to be reverted back to where it was, until (or if) the sources start calling him "her". ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 13:45, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
MOS is irrelevant to this situation, and until valid sources start saying "she", there is no BLP issue. I note that even the liberal-leaning Huffington Post adopted the practice suggested somewhere here, that pronouns should be avoided, and just say "Manning", since that part is not in dispute. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→
When CNN starts calling Bradley "she", then you might have something. All you have currently is an advocacy statement by a lawyer, which if anyone stops and thinks about it, does not serve his client very well. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 14:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
The fact that even the Daily Mail is using "she"[1] kind of makes Baseball Bugs's point about "advocacy sources" a bit moot. Who ought to be making statements about what gender a person considers themself to be? The person themself? Or a load of random editors on Wikipedia? Horatio Snickers (talk) 19:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
If Wikipedia is unable to respect a clearly documented change to a person's name and gender identity, then the BLP policy basically isn't worth the magnetic disk platter it is floating around on. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:03, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
MOS:IDENTITY is clear - we go by a person's own latest "expressed gender self-identification". We have this from multiple sources. It is ridiculous and illogical to describe this as a 'PR stunt' - Manning's gender identity issues have been well documented, and were repeatedly referred to during the trial. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC) AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
MOS does not override sourcing. The only "source" we have for this current situation is a lawyer making this statement, along with threats to somehow "force" the government to allow a federal prisoner to get a medical sex-change, and a claim that he "expects" Manning to get a presidential pardon. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 14:24, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
With respect, the sources we have are respected and reliable journalistic outlets reporting on a statement by Manning through her lawyer, which we have no reason to doubt the truth of, and which clearly expresses her chosen identity. At that point - once we've established how Manning self-identifies - it doesn't matter what style particular news sources are using, because Wikipedia has its own, in MOS;IDENTITY. 109.144.178.116 (talk) 14:48, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
The statement itself can be reported. But we can't start calling Manning "she" until such time as the sources broadly (not just the advocacy sources) start calling Manning "she". We now have admins warring over the article title. That's what happens when something like this is done without consensus. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 14:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
This is completely ridiculous and I agree with Baseball Bugs on all of his points above. This isn't Manning's legal name, nor is it what most sources in the media use. One of the big problems with Wikipedia is that we rush to change things the second we hear they are different without thinking. When it comes to naming, Wikipedia does not lead; we follow. As an internationally-known figure, we have no right to change the name until most reliable sources do so first. At least we can wait a few days or weeks until it becomes clear that this is the correct name, or else we risk flip flopping and confusing our readers. ThemFromSpace14:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
We are bound by our own policies and guidelines, not those of our sources. Ourmanual of style is crystal clear on the subject of gender identity: Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman"), pronouns, and possessive adjectives that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. This applies in references to any phase of that person's life. Manning herself, not just her lawyers, has stated that she identifies as female and wishes to be treated as such: "As I transition into this next phase of my life, I want everyone to know the real me. I am Chelsea Manning. I am a female. Given the way that I feel, and have felt since childhood, I want to begin hormone therapy as soon as possible." (And incidentally, for anyone who has been following this case, this shouldn't come as a shock, since it was widely reported a couple of years ago that Manning identified as a woman.) Dezastru (talk) 16:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Totally agree with Baseball Bugs We can and should report that Bradley Manning wants to change his gender, but as his name is still legally Bradley Manning and he's still physically and legally a man, the article should be titled as Bradley Manning and all feminine pronouns need to be changed back to male. KoshVorlon.WeareallKosh ... 16:38, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
We defer to the person's own stated preference. "Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the gendered nouns (for example 'man/woman', 'waiter/waitress', 'chairman/chairwoman'), pronouns, and possessive adjectives that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification." There is no mention of legal identity or of physical appearance there. Dezastru (talk) 16:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
No, we defer to reliable sourcing, of which there isn't any yet. Indications are that this is some sort of negotiation tactic for the appeals process. Until CNN starts saying "her", it is not wikipedia's place to do so. And the fact that some blog says "Wikipedia Beats Major News Organizations..." is precisely the reason this move to "Chelsea" was NOT appropriate. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 17:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Who is a more reliable source on the subject of an individual's gender self-identity? CNN or the person himself/herself? Dezastru (talk) 17:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
The person themself is not a valid source of information. A report of that information, by a valid source, is fair game. CNN has reported this statement. But until they start calling Manning "she", wikipedia is out of bounds in doing so. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 22:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Our content decisions are based on material in reliable sources. Our style decisions are based on our own policies and guidelines, including our Manual of Style. Dezastru (talk) 17:38, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Looking over the numerous discussions that crafted or attempted to adjust MOS:IDENTITY, the "policy" that is decreed there is clearly controversial. The section was largely influenced by the LGBT Wikiproject, and hasn't really been used before this article to deal with a current change in self-identification. Several months ago, he wanted to be known as Breanna. Many three year olds self-identify as a cat or a dog or some other animal, but that's because three year olds are generally doorknobs. Political correctness is making a mess of the article, and yeah it's great that MOS:IDENTITY says "This is what we do", and that we do that to be polite... But hey, newscheck, we aren't a LGBTQWERTY advocacy group and we should report reality. People that disagree with the concept of "Well I've decided I've always been a woman named Chelsea" aren't transphobic, they just don't believe that a person declaring "I've decided I'm this" suddenly makes it so. By that reasoning, all the families that claim they are the true royal lineage of Britain or France should be identified as beinng the royal family. Just because you decide you are something doesn't change the physical reality. - Floydianτ¢19:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Manning is an adult, so your comment about 3-year-olds identifying as cats is entirely irrelevant, and disrespectful. If you have a problem with MOS:IDENTITY, you should discuss your suggestions for improvement at the appropriate Talk page, which is not here. Until there is a change in the Manual of Style, we follow what it currently says, which is to respect the person's expressed preference for gender identification. "We should report reality" – indeed we should, and the reality is that Manning self-identifies as a woman. Dezastru (talk) 19:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Style guidelines are not policy, so don't act like "MOS:IDENTITY" is the ironclad decider of how this article should be handled. Personally I don't think this project should be running around willy-nilly just because someone woke up this morning and said "today I am a girl!". This is just ugly political correctness run amok. Tarc (talk) 19:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
You appear not to understand that sexual reassignment surgery is the last step in a person's transition between genders. It *starts* with changing one's name and beginning hormone therapy. Once they have expressed that statement, there is no reliable source which can rebut it. A person's gender is entirely personal. Reliable sources might note that Manning is biologically male, but that in no way proves that his gender identity is male. You might want to study modern science of sexuality and gender identity before making comments like that. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Indeed. And some people may never ultimately decide to undergo sexual reassignment surgery, but that doesn't necessarily mean their internal identification as a different gender than their physically suggestive gender is less strong than others'. Also, it's a side issue, but since several have implied here that Manning just woke up this morning and randomly decided she wanted to be a woman, the actual reporting has been that she had been struggling with her gender identity for years.[26][27]Dezastru (talk) 20:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
As you can tell, I really don't believe in any of this bunk anyways...as the person above said, this is LGBT advocacy, not reality. When they get their status/name legally changed, then we can worry about what to rename a Wikipedia article to. Until then, it really doesn't matter; Bradley Manning is male. Tarc (talk) 19:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
What I "believe in" is very much relevant, esp when your point of view is unsupported by policy. I already pointed out above that MOS:IDENTITY is not policy; what part of that statement did you find confusing? Tarc (talk) 20:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
All of that is utterly irrelevant. Adhering to a person's expressed identity is not "advocacy," it is common sense and human decency. For you to compare someone's sexual identity with "three year olds" is the epitome of oblivious bigotry. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
It's not even a new guideline. This is from four years ago (the page move having been a few days earlier), and this is probably a better example, since the edit concerns personal pronouns. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Human decency is accepting that a person is free to express themselves as they see fit and live their life freely. Encyclopedic is sticking to the facts and not the fantasies. I don't see any comparison of three year old's intelligence to sexual identity; the point I'm making is that anyone can self-identify as anything on a whim. The royal family comparison is better; Charles Napoléon is claimed to be the true head of state in France by some, but that doesn't make it so. Another one: The guy that runs the Principality of Sealand self-identifies as the head of state of his sovereign nation; so should we be identifying Sealand as a nation? - Floydianτ¢20:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Actually, we describe the Principality of Sealand variously as an "unrecognised entity" and a "micronation," fairly describe the dispute over its claims to sovereignty and the article exists at the title of Principality of Sealand, as per its asserted claims. Similarly, the article should exist at Chelsea Manning as per the asserted claim to gender identity. I note that nobody has rebutted Chelsea's claim to her gender identity, and indeed no one can rebut that claim in any sensical way. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:19, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
No, I don't care what other nations think. We only care what the person or entity itself believes is true, right? Oh no wait, gender identity is actually the only concept on Wikipedia that ignores our policies of neutrality and verifiability, opting to prefer the self-declaration of a person as established fact. I can rebutt the claim, because she has a penis. They may have self-identified as a woman, but they are still a male with the name Bradley, period. I self-identify as the ruler of the universe, so I expect to be identified as such. Any and all arguments against my claim shall henceforth be discarded and berated as Floydianophobic. Stupid right? - Floydianτ¢20:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
just chiming in to say that the fact that a woman has a penis doesn't mean she is not a woman (incidentally, have you actually seen manning's penis? can you provide evidence that her penis actually exists?). in fact, that seems to directly contradict the first sentence of the article about Transsexualism: "Transsexualism describes the condition in which an individual identifies with a gender inconsistent or not culturally associated with their assigned sex, i.e. in which a person's assigned sex at birth conflicts with their brain sex." also note, from the same article, "In English, a transsexual person's first step in transition often includes the request to be referred to using pronouns for their target gender (she rather than he, her rather than him, and hers rather than his, or vice versa)." some transsexual people choose to never "physically" transition to their gender. that doesn't mean they do not belong to that gender. in addition, i do not find the sealand argument to be a sound one. finding one's sexual identity is not really comparable to making up a title for oneself. ~ Boomur [talk] 21:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
The New York Times' public editor has posted some details about their thinking in terms of how to refer to Manning.[28] I'll quote extensively since it may be paywalled:
Here is the Times stylebook:
“
...Cite a person’s transgender status only when it is pertinent and its pertinence is clear to the reader. Unless a former name is newsworthy or pertinent, use the name and pronouns (he, his, she, her, hers) preferred by the transgender person. If no preference is known, use the pronouns consistent with the way the subject lives publicly.
”
The public editor comments:
“
(quoting the head of the Times copy editing department) “We can’t just spring a new name and a new pronoun” on readers with no explanation, she said. She noted the importance in the stylebook entry of the words “unless a former name is newsworthy or pertinent,” which certainly applies here.
An article on The Times’s Web site on Thursday morning on the gender issue continued to use the masculine pronoun and courtesy title. That, said the associate managing editor Philip B. Corbett, will evolve over time.
It’s tricky, no doubt. But given Ms. Manning’s preference, it may be best to quickly change to the feminine and to explain that — rather than the other way around.
”
Clearly the Times is struggling with how to handle this gender change. We may be somewhat ahead of the Times here, but its not clear to me that, in this particular case, there's a significant conflict between the coverage on wikipedia and in mainstream sources. GabrielF (talk) 20:48, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to try for a point-by-point rebuttal of why MOS:IDENTITY applies and should stand here:
There are no/insufficient/invalid sources for referring to Manning as a woman: the BBC, the Guardian, the Independent and the Daily Mail have all reported Manning wishes to be known as a woman, have used female pronouns for Manning, and are generally considered to be highly reliable sources in terms of WP:RELY; I know of no reason why they wouldn't be reliable sources here, too. (I'm citing UK sources since I'm British and they're the ones I know; there are certainly US/worldwide sources saying similar.)
Wikipedia's style guideline, MOS:IDENTITY, is incorrect and is the result of campaigning/canvassing from folk like WP:LGBT: The style guide follows the guidelines of other notable neutral organizations, such as Associated Press and the New York Times. It's not going out on a limb; it's following the style used by other organizations.
The page move was controversial and should have had a seven-day wait at WP:RM: I can't argue that the move wasn't controversial, but moving it back simply so we can propose it properly doesn't seem to achieve anything. Let's improve things from where we are now, not jump through hoops for the sake of jumping through hoops.
Wikipedia should use Manning's legal name: Wikipedia's policies are only governed by legalities when it's legally obliged to do something; someone's legal state may otherwise be something worth reporting on but it doesn't govern what we do. I don't think we should expunge all mention of Manning being transgender, or of previously using the name Bradley and male pronouns, but equally I see no reason why we need to wait for a name change by deed poll. Equally, the article on Bill Clinton is called "Bill Clinton", not "William Jefferson Clinton", and for good reason.
Wikipedia should wait until Manning has had gender reassignment surgery: Surgery is not a "magic point" at which someone suddenly changes gender; gender transition is a long process that almost universally begins at beginning to live as a chosen gender and using a chosen name, which is what Manning has done. Indeed, plenty of transgender people choose not to have surgery, for a whole variety of reasons, and it no more stops them being transgender than choosing not to have a cancer surgically removed stops the cancer existing.
Choosing a different name doesn't mean Wikipedia should immediately change: WP:UCN supports this, but as other editors have noted, this policy (and this one is a policy) states that after an article subject changes its name, sources published afterwards hold more weight. As noted above, reliable sources published after Manning's announcement are largely using the new name, particularly as the name change gains more publicity. Using "Chelsea" isn't going to cause confusion for readers any more than reading about Manning's chosen identity at any other source.
Whatever happens with that article, editors should be instructed to not make retroactive changes at other articles in an attempt to expunge any references of "Bradley Manning" when the sources used to reference said articles say exactly that. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I second what Morwen said above. Any editor who tries to move the article to her former name or use male pronouns violates Wikipedia policy including MOS:IDENTITY, the spirit of BLP, and is guilty of gross sexual harrassment towards the subject of the article, an offence normally leading to the user being blocked. Josh Gorand (talk) 22:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I will be closely monitoring every single one of your edits on this website for NPOV, and immediately reverting and reporting any that fail to adhere to that policy. You've completely discredited yourself, go back to Tumblr. Clinton(talk)00:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
This is a very straightforward issue. Chelsea is a woman, having self defined as such. There are various reliable sources indicating that she now identifies as a woman. That's it. She's a woman. Her name is Chelsea. Move on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.250.234.13 (talk) 23:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Folks, this is a problem in the core of Wikipedia policy. You need to review what a valid source is for "human truth" so that a human becomes the only source for their chosen name and gender. People are different than social objects. Social objects are perceived through culture. A person is alive, so you can ask what they are directly. That's it. If you want to have an ALL-CAPS legal entity/name page for every natural person you can do so as well, but make sure the page is about the legal person, not the human person. 201.37.191.252 (talk) 23:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I personally think this discussion should be closed. The main points are being talked about on the talk page and they aren't making personal attacks in the move discussion. While some of this is constructive, the rest is just baiting for both sides just for the sake of it. --Thebirdlover (talk) 00:38, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
My main concern is that it appears that Wikipedia has chosen to adopt a point of view here about her name - one not yet common in the media. Here's some of the headlines/quotes about this:
BBC: Bradley Manning: 'I am a woman'
NPR: Bradley Manning: 'I am a female', call me Chelsea
CNN: Bradley Manning: Know the real me
MSNBC: Bradley Manning: 'I am a woman'
Fox: Bradley Manning wants to live as a woman, be called Chelsea
NYT seems to avoid using either Chelsea or Bradley
Politico: Bradley Manning: 'I am a female'
Washington Post seems to somewhat prefer Chelsea Manning
Daily Mail: 'I am Chelsea Manning': Bradley Manning announces that she is a woman and intends to start hormone therapy to transition to a female
Reuters: Bradley Manning faces legal and social difficulties as transgender
Chicago Tribune: Bradley Manning faces legal and social difficulties as transgender
Le Monde: COMING-OUT – Bradley Manning : « Je suis Chelsea Manning. Je suis une femme. »
The Independent: Bradley Manning: I am Chelsea. I am female
The Guardian uses Chelsea Manning.
Xinhua: "US soldier Bradley Manning has asked to be recognized as a woman."
I see the policy here, WP:IDENTITY, which is fine, but I object to the haste. If the media starts reporting on Chelsea Manning rather than Bradley Manning and, presumably, people too (it's probably too early to do Google matches here), then the article title should reflect that. This is no transphobic thing either - personally I'd be happy to start calling her Chelsea today if I knew her, I'm a gay guy with a couple trans friends (I cannot wait for the flaming) but...It's jarring to see a sudden divergence between what Wikipedia calls someone and what most of the public/media still seems to be calling someone.
WP:IDENTITY indicates that "Disputes over how to refer to a person or group are addressed by policies such as Verifiability, Neutral point of view, and Article titles where the term appears in the title of an article.". There's no dispute about the verifiability of Chelsea Manning's birth/legal name and her new chosen name. There is an issue with "Article title" where "Recognizability" and "Naturalness" may be inquestion until her new name is in common use. Equilibrium007 (talk) 00:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
In response to nothing in particular (I just like bullets), I'd like to point out that though I'm not a BLP expert my understanding is that we rely on self-identification in a variety of BLP contexts. For instance, if someone says they're Jewish, and that was reported in a reliable source, we'd identify them as Jewish and not say "well, you're not actually Jewish because we can't independently verify that you've satisfied our standard of attending temple at least 3 times in the last 6 months." I think we would also base a discussion of someone's sexual orientation on statements they make and not the gender of people they are seen kissing in public. I don't understand how this is different. If you review our article on gender, you'll see there's a biological and a self-identification component. I think the person themselves is the only reliable source about the latter. When those two things don't match, why should we choose biological sex over gender identity when doing so is hurtful? AgnosticAphidtalk00:53, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
One thought What do you do about this sentence? "Her father told PBS that she created her first website when she was ten years old." Manning identified and surely self-described as a male at this point in her life. Is it incorrect to describe Manning as Bradley or as a he/him at this chronological point? —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:26, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Centralize discussion
This is being edit warred in many of the articles that have wikilinks. It is also being discussed in forums and talk pages. Should we just create an RfC somewhere to centralize it?--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Someone may wish to ask at VP/Policy where the best place to anchor the RfC should be. We should mark all of the other discussions as suspended and then moved to the RfC. This will prevent more edit time being wasted on edit wars and repeated points.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Resolved
