Talk:Ryan Giggs

Gossip

• I have reviewed the situation because of the allegation of improper use of suppression tools. Any suppressions made have fallen within the applicable policies. Folks, this is an encyclopedia, not a gossip sheet. Information, especially salacious or highly controversial information, being added to biographical articles must be sourced, without exception. This is Wikipedia's policy and standard, and it has nothing to do with injunctions or superinjunctions or anything happening in the courts of the United Kingdom. If people feel an overwhelming urge to spread gossip, I strongly urge them to go elsewhere, as repeated BLP violations is grounds for removal from the project. This includes talk pages of articles. Risker (talk) 21:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC) Corrected Risker (talk) 15:36, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

>>This is Wikipedia's policy and standard, and it has nothing to do with injunctions or superinjunctions or anything happening in the courts of the United Kingdom

Liar liar your pants are on fire: A spokesman for Wikipedia confirmed the website will continue to do all it can to prevent super injunctions being breached by British users (http://www.metro.co.uk/news/862006-wikipedia-names-super-injunction-celebrities)

Wow. I wonder who the super injunction relates to now?.........

Scholes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.194.27 (talk) 20:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

If you truly believe everything that you read in the papers, then I worry for you. The point about super-injunctions is that they prevent any discussion about the subject of that injunction. Therefore there will be no reliable sources about this and that means it cannot be included on Wikipedia. This has always been the case, injunction or not. Until there are reliable sources that state categorically the subject of any injunctions, the gossip will be removed as per WP:BLP wherever it is placed. Woody (talk) 22:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

"I have reviewed the situation because of the allegation of improper use of suppression tools". Doesn't the fact that suppression tools are being used give the game away a little bit? Perhaps we should be using suppression tools to mask the fact that suppression tools are being used... doomgaze (talk) 23:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Would that make them super-suppression tools? Habasi (talk) 00:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering if full protection might be appropriate for a while, or are we doing ok with suppression? –anemoneprojectors– 20:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

We've only had one bad edit since the semi-protection started so at the moment I think it is okay. We have had had lots of good edits in the same amount of time so I would be loathe to protect it but if we do get another bad edit we will have to look into fully-protecting it. Woody (talk) 21:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah yeah I forgot to look at when the page was semi-protected and how many edits there have been since. –anemoneprojectors– 21:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that information should not be added without reliable sources, and when this is done, it should be reverted if sources can't be found. What I'm unclear about, though, is why edit summaries would be blocked and why people cannot see what the reverted edits were. Is it usual on Wikipedia to do this? Boleyn (talk) 17:11, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes it is not that common but there is a fair amount of redaction across articles now, particularly BLPs. Vandalism that is particularly egregious or potentially defamatory can be removed. See WP:REVDEL for the specific policy and guidelines. The edit summaries had obscenities in them hence why they were removed. Woody (talk) 22:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

First of all I completely agree that all information needs to be sourced before it can be added. We could analyse the number of links to this article from Twitter 'rumours', however its near impossible to quantify rumours and use that as a source. Seeing as the very nature of a super-injunction means that no references exist, and therefore no references can be sourced, the matter is simply a catch-22 - nothing exists because nothing can be sourced yet nothing can be sourced because nothing exists. HOWEVER, the very fact that we are all talking with absolute and prior knowledge, verbatim, about the fact of a super-injunction, surely proves the fact that there has been a super-injunction? Surely this talk page is our source? Look at this way - if you moved this entire talk page onto an external site away from Wikimedia, perhaps a blog or a foreign article, then this could easily provide us with a source of quantifiable knowledge and an arguable reference point. Therefore if we are to truly be able to edit this article including sourcing, then the source must come from within discussion.

There is no use evading this - eventually some bright spark will simply look at this talk page and come up with their own conclusions. You would have to be an idiot, after reading this talk page, not to realise who the super-injunction relates to. We have inadvertently created our own sources. I don't see this as gossip, everyone on this page knows the trut,h otherwise your own arguments would be completely discredited - this is a huge chunk of personal information that Wikipedia is missing out on and it's absolutely vital to add this to the written article. I am a strong opponent of vandalism and I would hate to see this article ruined without sources - yet, I believe once we have a source, there is nothing you can do or should do to prevent it, and guess what? We have this source so it is only a matter of time.82.26.166.196 (talk) 11:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

That's the point though. No reliable sources exist - possibly because of the terms of an injunction, possibly because the gossip is in fact rubbish. That makes things very simple for WP, because guidelines here require reliable sources - no sources equals no coverage on here. And no, this talk page wouldn't be considered a reliable source, even if it was reproduced on another site first, for the same reasons that a chat with your friends over a couple of beers wouldn't be. See WP:IRS. EJBH (talk) 13:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

All very true. I mean obviously it was Ryan Giggs, a quick read of last weeks Private Eye and it's nudge nudge article or a conversation with someone in the Have I Got News For You show last week will tell you that. :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.243.211 (talk) 23:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

"Therefore there will be no reliable sources about this" hmm, a conclusion too far, rather it is a matter of time until he is outted in a reliable source, and this article will have a super-injunction section, just like Fred Goodwin, and Andrew Marr. while reversion of unsupported statements is fine, the use of "supression tools" seems as timid as the BBC, and does not reflect well on WP. Slowking4 (talk) 15:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

In all seriousness, does this qualify as a reliable source for the above issues ? http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/football/3570530/Ryan-Giggs-is-full-of-admiration-for-Javier-Hernandez.html For legal reasons, please don't read the text of the link. Not that there is anything in it to read. Robinr22 (talk) 00:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Well the article's headline is "Giggs: I'm in awe of Javier's form" and it mentions nothing about anything. The link is made up. Turns out you can put anything, same as Digital Spy. Even http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/football/3570530/Ryan-Giggs-eats-babies.html works. –anemoneprojectors– 00:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh. Well, that makes me a moron for believing everything I read on the interwebs. Unless...he really does eat babies? Should I remove the reference? Robinr22 (talk) 00:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I dunno. The majority of this discussion could be removed. So I dunno. –anemoneprojectors– 00:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Better safe than sorry I guess, mostly because I don't want to have to sell my kidneys for legal fees. Will remove the offending bit and try not to be so guillible in future *hides from angry lawyers* Robinr22 (talk) 00:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that a section should be added that mentions that Ryan Giggs was caught up in the super-injunction discussion taking place in England. Super-injunctions and the discussion that is taking place have historical significance - particularly the usefulness of super-injunctions in the modern era (see: http://blogs.forbes.com/kashmirhill/2011/05/09/british-celebs-supposed-secrets-posted-to-twitter/?amp&amp&amp&amp). Moreover, the discussions that are now taking place will shape the law in England on freedom of speech, freedom of the press, privacy, and injunctions for future generations. I can see these events showing up in law journal articles etc in the United States - particularly articles comparing and contrasting the different standards in the U.S. and in England (my personal interest in this event). I'll leave it to others to decide. But, a solid source that acknowledges the existence of this historical event can be found: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/696216-manchester-united-has-ryan-giggs-super-injunction-helped-united-to-epl-title. CavalierLion (talk) 18:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Both of these sources are recycling the existing speculation, particularly from Twitter, which is almost invariably unusable in Wikipedia articles per WP:SPS. While names have started to appear in the foreign media, they are simply an echo chamber for the existing speculation which fails WP:BLP. Until a mainstream source reveals the precise contents of the super-injunction, nothing is going in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

The 20/05/2011 Daily Mail article says 'The footballer with an injunction against The Sun and Imogen Thomas is suing social networking website Twitter over allegations about his private life.' ... 'It refers to the widely-reported posting on May 8 of a series of Tweets purporting to name a number of celebrities who had obtained injunctions.'

The tweet on May 8th said that the person having an affair with Imogen Thomas is Ryan Giggs.

Now, we know the Daily Mail know the true identity of the footballer, so can we now take this as the required proof that Ryan Giggs is the owner of the injunction? So, ironically, by taking this new legal step, Ryan Giggs has accidentlely provided the proof needed that he is the person involved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.105.249 (talk) 19:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Not really, since the tweets are not in themselves reliable sources per WP:SPS. However, let's be honest here, the Daily Mirror used jigsaw identification to name the footballer as Giggs in this story. Why else would it cite an obscure foreign language website and black out the name? However, this is not enough for the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the tweet by itself is not valid. However, have the law firm, by their actions, not implicitly validated them? After all, no other person by Ryan Giggs would have an interest in finding the name of a twitter user who posted 'Ryan Giggs is having an affair with Imogen Thomas'. I can't see a team mate for instance, popping up and saying 'No, it was me. I shagged her. My manhood demands the right to be correctly identified. I will lose all my product placement contracts unless I am outed in the media with enough different girls to fulfil my quota.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.105.249 (talk) 06:18, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Jimbo on super-injunctions

In this BBC News interview, Jimmy Wales says: "The Wikipedia community does not allow such things to come on the site unless there is a reliable source which currently there isn't because the newspapers aren't allowed to publish." It should be stressed again that it is the lack of sourcing that prevents the naming of individuals at the moment, not the UK court system. None of the current sources for the super-injunctions go beyond the normal round of web speculation.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Content of talk pages

Out of curiosity, why does the above edit mention "This includes talk pages of articles.". Surely the talk page is exactly the right place for such discussions to take place without fear of reprisal over violating policy designed to protect the integrity of articles or, more worryingly, UK court injunctions? This part of the discussion comes across as very suspicious to me, I would appreciate clarification on the matter from a wikipedia user other than the above editor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.23.128.190 (talk) 16:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you completely. Anyhow, it was reading this talk page when I figured out it was Ryan Giggs that was involved with an unnamed woman(possibly his wife, possibly not). 66.229.90.243 (talk) 00:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Criticism

If Information....must be sourced, without exception (sic) most of this biography needs to be removed. I disagree with the above statement that this is not the place for highly controversial information. This is the people's encyclopedia and therefore it should discuss main stream opinons(read Twitter) even if these opions are not true. Given the volume of tweets on this footballer, it would be great to add a few lines to discuss this, but at the same time to make clear there is no evidence to support this.

Regarding BLP violations, is it a violation for a PR company to edit their client's biography ? I am not suggesting this is the case, just wondering if this would be a BLP violation as well ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.84.178 (talk) 20:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia might be 'the people's encyclopedia', but it still has policies which must be observed. If a client's PR firm was adding or removing material from an article this is covered by Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Twitter is not a reliable source, and it is particularkly contentious material, which certainly applies to the rumour involving Giggs, which WP:BLP policy insists must be removed immediately. Philip Cross (talk) 20:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

It may be worth to review editors of this biography. I may be completely wrong, but personally I believe this article has been cleaned up by a professional writer. This may quite well have been a dedicated fan of course —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.84.178 (talk) 21:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Activisim

According to http://www.unicef.org.uk/UNICEFs-Work/Our-supporters/Celebrities/Ryan-Giggs/ he has been a UNICEF ambassador since August 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.223.124.79 (talk) 12:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

ANI thread related to this article

Wikipedia:Ani#edit_violating_worldwide_U.K._injunction.3F, just FYI. Buddy431 (talk) 20:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Now archived here. Buddy431 (talk) 22:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Assault allegation

Somebody (presumably Giggs' fans or public relations staff) keeps editing out the assault in 1997 that Giggs was absolved of in a Manchester nightclub. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on balance and fairness as it, whilst not libellous or defamatory as it was reported in many newspapers at the time, is crucial to the image and character definition of Giggs, for all his success. It is important to have Wikipedia police check back and see why this information keeps getting edited out, as it was newsworthy then, and still is, as truth is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.17.226 (talk) 16:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

That info should not and will not be included in his Wikipedia article per our policy on the biographies of living people. It is only rumours, speculation and allegations and he was not convicted of anything. If he was convicted of something and that conviction was sourced to a reliable source then we might have a discussion on inclusion. As it is, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information or tid-bits of unconfirmed tabloid gossip from 14 years ago. Woody (talk) 17:09, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Please take your high horse over to the article on OJ Simpson. To my knowledge, he has not been convicted of murder in a criminal case, yet the page is littered with "only rumours, speculation and allegations". Oh wait, you are only making up the rules as you go along. Ooops, sorry, my bad. -anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.223.199.76 (talk) 21:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a particularly high horse. Just because one article has degenerated does not mean this one has to and I don't make the rules, if you follow the WP:BLP link you will find the rules there. I didn't make them. Woody (talk) 22:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

There is a difference between High as in Elevated, and High as in Stinking. EasyTarget (talk) 14:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

There was a story about this in the Sunday Mirror on 15 February 1998, in which Taylor made this claim about the incident in November 1997, but did not press charges. This is all too old and speculative for the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

i wouldn't assume a WP:COI, that unsourced tattle gets deleted, rather it's the football fan cabal. many a PR person has come to grief, when the unflattering is sourced. with the super-injunction red flag, it's a matter of time. Slowking4 (talk) 18:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Matter of time before what? Woody (talk) 22:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

there is a super-injunction section, just like Fred Goodwin, and Andrew Marr. the British public is aroused.[1], [2] the High Court is not above the "consent of the governed", maybe the commons will act? [3] i applaud your consistent application of "referenced statements", but those references will change. Slowking4 (talk) 14:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Family Man

Apparently Ryan Giggs is famously family orientated. Here is a reliable source. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1384757/Your-Secret-Life-So-mention-wife-Hugh---fact-drives-Volvo.html?ito=feeds-newsxml —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.22.8 (talk) 23:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Confusion

The Wikipedia person said that the reason 'gossip' is not allowed on this page is because there are a lack of sources to back it up. However, then why are the old versions not available to one to examine? Surely there is special treatment given here contray to what he says... normally it would just be removed but one could still look at the version history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.156.107 (talk) 16:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Edits may be revdeleted if they contain defamatory material. Nothing has been removed that would add significant context to the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:14, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Suitable Source.

http://www.sport.es/es/noticias/balon-rosa/20110508/las-apuestas-dicen-que-ryan-giggs-tapado-infiel/997901.shtml

Spanish Newspaper (Errr. well if the Sun etc. are allowed to call themselves newspapers I guess this is too) that does not appear to consider itself covered by a UK injunction. Even if Gigg's PRdophiles here successfully argue that a Spanish Tabloid is not a good source (and they might be right.. god help us if all Tabloid stories were to be considered definitive sources) I think the end of this fiasco is now firmly in sight. EasyTarget (talk) 14:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

See Talk:Imogen_Thomas#Sport.es. People have been working themselves into a lather over this Spanish language story, but it just a rehash of speculation.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Just out of interest; what does it say inside the paywall then? EasyTarget (talk) 14:53, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

There isn't a paywall on the sport.es story, it says that you must log in to post comments. The comments are here and are nothing special. The Daily Mirror cited the sport.es story a few days ago.[4]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I think 'Cite' is a willful exaggeration; they copied the story and the photo (of course); redacted the name and did not include the URL; it's even not explicitly stated the page is from sport.es. This is excellent because the fact they did redact it so heavily is tacit confirmation we are on the right track since the Mirror is injuncted. EasyTarget (talk) 12:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Another Source is sina.com.hk (in Chinese - use Google translate if you need), (see Sina.com) they flat out confirm the name. VERTott 02:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The Chinese source (translated here) is no further forward from the sport.es source. There is a need to avoid gossip and feedback loops, and saying that social media sites (Twitter, Facebook etc) named the player is simply recycling the existing speculation that fails WP:BLP.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes it is it says " but the foreign media and social networking sites broke the news that the protagonist is the Manchester United star Jesse (Ryan Giggs)" (my emphasis) which is not a just "saying that social media sites" it is also saying foreign media as well. I was very careful to not accuse him of anything only reporting what has been reported WP:WELLKNOWN says " If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out", in this case it is notable, relevant, and well-documented by a number third-party sources. So can't see what the issue is. VERTott 06:43, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but what "foreign media" does the Chinese story cite? The New York Times or a tabloid like sport.es? This is classic WP:BLPGOSSIP, because it fails to support the statement clearly. There is one prime suspect being named again and again, but the sourcing is all second hand. Nobody in a position to know has stuck their head above the parapet and said "Yes, it's him". WP:WELLKNOWN does not apply here because repeating speculation a dozen times does not establish a fact.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

This has gone much further than a case of internet gossip, it has now been reported by Sina.com the largest Chinese-language infotainment web portal. VERTott 07:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

This particular WP:BLP claim is too important to source to foreign language media that have not seen the actual super-injunction document. All the foreign media are doing is repeating the name of the prime suspect. Realistically, a mainstream English language source is going to have to break the super-injunction for it to be reliable enough information to go into the article. Other possibilities include a successful court challenge, or one of the parties involved coming forward and naming names, as happened with Andrew Marr.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:30, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with your interpretation, and have posted at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard asking for more input. VERTott 08:14, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Vertott that the existence of the allegation is well established and has been well documented by reliable sources. (PS - It is highly likely that the foreign media has a copy of the court documents at this point, so I don't think it is proper to state that it is a fact that they have not seen the actual document(s)). It also seems downright silly to say that a source has to be in the English language for it to be considered reliable. At this point, it clearly belongs on the main page. CavalierLion (talk) 13:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

(outdent)

Just my 2 cents. I think with an allegation as serious as this, especially since it concerns a living person, we have to err on the side of caution until a better-quality source confirms it. I would be very much for including this information (despite Mr Giggs being one of my favourite players) as it would reflect badly on wikipedia to keep it out, since Wikipedia is not sensored, if it was stated in a High Quality reliable source. The webpage mentioned above (though very nice to look at) does not seem to fulfil this criterion (it appears to be more on the Daily Star end of the scale). I would normally only include information from tabloids in WP articles in very rare circumstances, and certainly not for something like this. I have never heard of sina.com and as such cannot comment on whether it is reliable with a reputation for fact-checking and so forth. It seems odd to me that no big-name foreign paper has carried the story, assuming it is true of course. doomgaze (talk) 13:38, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The silence of the reliable foreign media is becoming a puzzle. One can only assume that The New York Times etc does not think that the story is notable enough, and does not want to upset the UK government by interfering in an ongoing court case. It is also interesting that Imogen Thomas threatened to name the footballer, and her television interview on ITV's This Morning was prerecorded in case she did this.[5]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the silence by the American media is all that surprising. Very very few people in America have heard of these people. As an example, I think it would be akin to the English media not talking about the Albert Haynesworth incidents (although I think the NFL is much more popular in England than Soccer is in the U.S.). So, if the NY Times wrote an article on these people, almost their entire readership would wonder why. The U.S. papers, however, may talk about Super injunctions, as censorship is generally considered a terrible thing. CavalierLion (talk) 17:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I would like to make it clear, I did not add anything that was in any way libeless, all I added was that it was reported in non-UK media sources that this person had obtained the super injunction keeping his name out of a scandal involving X VERTott 07:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Wakey Wakey, a hearty 'good morning!' to mr Giggs PR wonks.

So what is the suitability of Wakey Wakey news as a source:

http://wakeywakeynews.com/60823/imogen-thomass-married-lover-finally-exposed-footballer-ryan-giggs

My quick search did not reveal them being used as a source anywhere else on this site, but I'm not a search-ninja.

However; they showed up as a spotlight article on my Google News frontpage (uk personalised edition) this morning, which is a per-user dynamic page and I'm in the Netherlands; I'm very curious as to whether UK users are also seeing this via news aggregation sites. I'd sound a note of caution however; we're forced into a game of Chinese whispers here coming from media people not known for high-quality behaviour; my personal view is that is premature to put this on the main article. It may still be wrong, or a false flag. EasyTarget (talk) 09:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Wakeywakeynews is not the most heavyweight of sources, but the real problem is the use of the word "allegedly" in the very first sentence. All this confirms is that foreign language media are free to repeat the current speculation, but they have no first hand knowledge of the super-injunction documents. BTW, most of the editors here seem to be more interested in reliable verification than in acting as Giggs' PR agent.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

http://www.irishcentral.com/story/sport/sean_oshea/super-injunction-taken-by-ryan-giggs-against-british-media-says-websites-121596419.html

Is this notable enough for us to add to the main article that he has been widely named as being behind the Thomas injunction while remaining clear that he is not confirmed as the player involved. Or would such a edit be more suitable for the Superinjunction page, or that of Thomas? It states that many sites are now naming Giggs as the player involved; while giving no direct statement that he is the target of the injunction. It references an article in 'Bleacher Reports' that also uses the term 'allegedly'.

NB: Agreed about the HIGNFY'esque 'allegedly', and also that I cannot spot any overt editing from his PR wonks (I know I'm using a pejorative here, for that and other reasons I wont be touching the main article). EasyTarget (talk) 12:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

"Named on numerous websites". All these sources are simply re-hashing the same speculation from each other. doomgaze (talk) 12:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Lets not forget they also all manage to get in a set of photos of Thomas in her underwear too; the principle of 'follow the money' needs to be applied here; dont assume these sites are acting purely out of Journalistic integrity. EasyTarget (talk) 12:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Nice piped link, like it. doomgaze (talk) 12:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's not kid ourselves, Giggs was named in the Twitter posts. Then the news organizations report that Twitter named names for the super-injunctions - with the exception of one person. The papers further readily identify the person who was wrongly named in Twitter - and then redact the names of the others. The papers further report that the spanish press named names - and then redacts Giggs name from the Spanish paper's account. The English press has in effect 100% confirmed that Twitter was correct. On top of this Giggs remains silent - essentially admitting that the reports are true. I honestly don't understand the English system that this censorship is acceptable. Frankly, its quite absurd that you guys cannot report on what everybody in England (who cares) already knows. On top of that, it is more absurd, that it is deemed improper to even acknowledge that Giggs has been alleged to be the person who took out the superinjunction. The existence of this allegation appears in hundreds of different places. And, to make it even worse, revdelete is used on censor the history of the main page, just because someone acknowledges the existence of an undeniable fact: that the allegation has been made and that it is historical and newsworthy (with regard to the issue of whether super injunctions are proper or not). In sum, I completely disagree with how readily the English (and English editors) accept (and appear to agree with) censorship and the use of revdelete. CavalierLion (talk) 14:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Contempt of court is quite a serious matter if you are UK based or within the reach of UK courts to sanction. We're not talking a light slap on the wrist here; we're talking about serious financial penalties for organisations, and custody for us little people.

Also I am still not 100% on this; it could be a huge mistake on our part; what if we are all (as others put it above) simply circulating a tittle-tattle lie based on a single tweet from a source we know got it wrong with others? Wikipedia policies and wonkery aside; We owe it to Giggs, his family, and everybody else personally involved in this to strongly exercise the precautionary principle. Doing so is not a form of kowtowing to authority; it's an act of civil courtesy.

Also this is just celebrity muppetry; we should save the ire and civil disobedience for cases like 'sir' Fred and his attempts to silence us about him porking a colleague. EasyTarget (talk) 15:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, WP:NORUSH here and please avoid soapboxing. Even if this turns out to be true, the notability would be the controversy over the super-injunction rather than "footballer has extra-marital affair", which is a ten-a-penny tabloid story. Since the false speculation over Alan Shearer, Gabby Logan, Ewan McGregor and Jemima Khan, the consensus has been that nothing related to a super-injunction goes in an article without ironclad sourcing. WP:REDFLAG says that exceptional claims require exceptional sources, not join the dots games with Twitter and foreign websites.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:16, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Please remember that the English represent only a very very small faction of wikipedia users - and these laws do not apply to the vast majority of users. It is wrong to censor non-offensive edits (using revdelete) made by people, where the edit is completely legal for the person making it. Now, if you are saying that there is fear that Wikipedia may be subject to these arcane English laws and there is risk that Wikipedia may be in contempt if they allow these posts to remain on the cite, then I can understand. But, why not honestly say that rather than attempting to justify the censorship of these edits on grounds that appear absurd on their face (I think we can all agree that it is 100% undeniable fact that the allegation has been made and is noteworthy - because of the superinjuction controversy.) Also, there does not appear to be any consensus on this issue. Rather, a couple English based editors that appear to be hellbent on forcing Americans to adhere to an arcane English law. (Also, the Norush doesn't apply because we are principally talking about the use of revdelete and not the entries on the main page)CavalierLion (talk) 15:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

We are all starting to repeat the same arguments. It might be worth asking WP:ANI for further guidance, but there have already been several discussions related to super-injunctions. It is also worth pointing out that Ryan Giggs is not the only article which has seen this issue arise. It would be unfair to single out Giggs when the BLPs of several other UK celebrities are in the same position.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

can't say i share the legal concern. when you roll out the "supression tools", it merely calls attention to the article, the inference is drawn, spamhoneypot created, and makes work for admins. it's one thing to suppress "xyz is a pedophile", but supressing links, that a google search can find? what legal shield is gained? i'm not surprised though, there seems to be a reflexive legalistic crouch at Wikimedia Foundation, i.e. Texas Instruments signing key controversy, etc.

but question Ian: if wakeywakey is not reliable, what is? Nytimes, Herald Tribune, L'Express, Paris Match, People, National Inquirer. is there a reliable sources list? Slowking4 (talk) 15:31, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The problem is not reliable sourcing, but the way the information is being presented. Phrases like "allegedly" and "foreign websites report" make it clear that gossip is being rehashed. Until more direct sourcing comes along, caution is needed.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:44, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

you're losing me there, for if the NYTimes were to print the story "sources allege that xyz has taken out a super-injunction", it would be good to go, surely? we rely on their fact checking as reliable; we report their weazle words, regardless of what the truth may be. is my understanding of policy wrong? Slowking4 (talk) 17:41, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

See above, Jimbo said that if the New York Times reported it, it could go in the article.[6] The NYT is usually smart enough not to repeat gossip, and Jimbo also says "There should be no law constraining people from publishing legally obtained, factual information." Events have moved on, see below. Twitter is hosted in the USA, the US media may now wake up and cover this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:09, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

IrishCentral have reported it as fact. I don't think there's any reasonable doubt left that the allegations aren't true. I think WP:IAR comes into this. The reason it's not widely reported is that the local press is gagged, not because it's wild rumour.

http://www.irishcentral.com/story/sport/sean_oshea/will-ryan-giggs-super-injunction-unsettle-manchester-united-against-barcelona-as-spanish-media-play-it-up-121812079.html 82.46.3.220 (talk) 20:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Footballer "sues Twitter and Twitter users"

Sky News is reporting that the footballer in the Imogen Thomas case is suing Twitter and Twitter users.[7] This is a major development, and may lead to further news coverage.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Also on BBC News here: [8]. The super-injunction (minus the footballer's name) is here. Quote: "Lawyers at Schillings who represent CTB have issued a statement clarifying the action it has taken. It said it was not suing Twitter but had made an application 'to obtain limited information concerning the unlawful use of Twitter by a small number of individuals who may have breached a court order'. Twitter has refused to comment on the matter."--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

But what all does this have to do with Mr Giggs? –anemoneprojectors– 19:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Ryan Giggs has been named as the footballer in question by the Spanish media. Example: [9] Jammy07 (talk) 22:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

A lot if you read ars technica here - so is this a reliable enough source ? VERTott 22:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

In WP:V terms, not a lot, but since people keep asking why the article does not have this, a look at some of the legal issues is helpful. Nobody is likely to faint with shock when the footballer's name is revealed, after some huge hint dropping in the UK press, but there is still no confirmation that would be sufficient for the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:14, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

see above. VERTott 22:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Time to re-add section on Super Injunction ?

Given that it is now reported by ars technica, I popose that we now re-add the following :

In May 2011, it was reported in non-UK media sources that Giggs had applied for and obtained a Super Injunction keeping his name out of a sex scandal involving model Imogen Thomas.

Comment please ? VERTott 22:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps a link to the article on the Striesand Effect would be appropriate. It seems to me that we have passed the threshold from unsubstantiated rumour in to fact some time ago. I'm not one for 'not smoke without fire' but I would imagine if the injunction had not been taken out by Mr Giggs he would've been protesting his non-involvement some time ago. Quite what all the talk of the NYT being some sort of threshold of reliability is all about I have no idea. I would think the population of New York would be as interested in the love life of an English footballer as I would be in the love life of a Texan baseball player... None whatsoever. 92.41.29.63 (talk) 23:09, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

There is also one now at Forbes here - that now tips it and have added it. VERTott 23:21, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I would support adding this but for the use of WP:WEASEL wording. WP:BLPGOSSIP still applies, and the sources are not naming Giggs directly.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 23:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I've clarified that it was not a super-injunction. The British press are going crazy over the use of "super-injunctions" when in reality only two of these have been issued in the past 18 months and both have now elapsed or been over-turned. Giggs is alleged to have taken out a gagging order that prevents details about his alleged indiscretions being made public. If it was a super-injunction the British public would not be aware that there was an issue at all, Thomas name would not be public etc. Woody (talk) 23:50, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The term super-injunction is vague and does not have a precise legal meaning. It is often taken as meaning that the plaintiff is anonymous (as CTB is in this case).[10]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 23:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

In legal terms a super-injunction is not a vague term in any sense. It is a specific form of injunction in Britain that prevents the publication of any information pertaining to the injunction, even the fact that the injunction exists. Yesterdays report by Neuberger helps to define this area (this Guardian blog should help you]. Various elements of the media have whipped themselves into a frenzy describing anonymised privacy injunctions as super-injunctions. They are wrong and we should not be peddling their inaccuracies. Woody (talk) 10:37, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Ars has updated their article to name Ryan Giggs specifically. Wired also has an article now that also names Ryan [11]. -- Ned Scott 00:05, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Can I just add that breaking a super-injunction, or a gagging order, would be contempt of court. Moreover they can trace people by their IP addresses. That is also not to mention that there is no real evidence to support this claim. Wikipedia is not the place to spread rumours, or to break court orders.--Welshsocialist (talk) 00:10, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

The case has reached a tipping point. Wikipedia cannot airbrush this out of the article if it receives significant foreign media coverage. The real problem would be libel, but since it is now glaringly obvious that Giggs is the footballer involved, his chances in a US court would be slim.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 00:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

All I am saying is that I would be very carefull. This is a legal matter, and you could find yourself in contempt of court.--Welshsocialist (talk) 00:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

The court should watch it - it might find itself in contempt of Wikipedia if it's not careful! Halkyn (talk) 10:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Keep in mind that a large percentage of Wikipedia users/editors are American and these injunctions do not apply to them. Also, even if wrong, this would not come close to being libel or defamation under U.S. law. CavalierLion (talk) 14:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Quite an interesting legal point as to whether you would find yourself in contempt of court actually. You have to be told about a court order first before you can break it. This is typically why the media is made aware of various gagging injunctinos to ensure another outlet that was not defending in the original court battle does not accidentally report whatever was being hidden. Given the courts are happy to view things put on twitter and wikipedia as published, does that then mean that really every twitter user and wikipedia editor needs to be informed to ensure they don't say whatever they're not supposed to be saying? This would rather defeat the point of the injunction in the first place. Bambers (talk) 10:36, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

That's why "super-injunctions" were invented. There is no way to stop the news, once it is out, without injuncting the whole population, which would expose the existence of the issue to all. Therefore, super-injunction stops it leaving the courthouse in the first place. Once it's out, the injunction is useless against the Internet. Despite what Welshsocialist says, you can't really be accused of breaking an injunction if you havn't been given one in the first place. Halkyn (talk) 10:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

A point of order

As Wikipedia is based in the United States, it is not bound by any English court ruling, so if reliable sources name Giggs as the requester of the superinjunction, then there is no reason it should not be in this article: especially as this is a major story in British politics at the moment. We need to, however, keep an eye on the article to fulfill BLP claims. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I know that all courts take a very dim view of anyone who brakes an injunction, so a US court may order the disclosure of twitter users account details, providing that it can be shown that the owner of that account is likely to have first hand knowledge of the order and the source of the information they posted was that order. However just repeating what other news outlets have said is not likely to get anyone into hot water with a US court. VERTott 02:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I think there is zero chance that a U.S. court would ever consider giving out account details of an American for doing something that is completely legal under U.S. law - even if they had first hand knowledge. CavalierLion (talk) 14:29, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

There's an analogue with the Sasebo slashing; in that case, the only reason we do not publish the murderer's name is because there's no RSes for it (given the Japanese legal system's tight lid on the case). The only ever source we had was 2chan interpreting film stills from a news report on the slashing. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

If CTB gets the users, then (unless they have been injuncted) they can do nothing against them. As far as we know, the twitter users are not the subject of any court injunction. Nor am I. If one were to come through the door, I would be obliged to obey it, in Wales. But none has and I don't expect one will. Halkyn (talk) 10:50, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Can I just ask if the Forbes article really counts as evidence? The term used in the article 'Though he-who-cannot-be-named filed the suit as “CTB,” the American press, which is not subject to the power of the super injunction, have pointed the finger' This means Forbes is not directly confirming the story, merely repeating and rehashing previous speculation, it still is not direct confirmation. The term 'pointed the finger' means has been accused, no more, no less. 86.141.241.126 (talk) 11:37, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I hope I am not creating legal trouble for myself, but I believe El Mundo counts as a reliable source - assessed as one of the 'newspapers of record' of Spain. In which case, editors outside the UK familiar with both the English and Spanish languages are directed to page 61 of El Mundo for 11 May 2011. Sam Blacketer (talk) 17:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I've read before about Wikipedia's policy of being uncensored. Surely this applies to more than just nudity and swear words? Surely Wikipedia's credibility would be damaged if we didn't include information on the alleged super-injunction? 135.196.223.82 (talk) 15:35, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

As I understand it (and I'm no lawyer) there's a significant difference between revealing the identity of CTB and discussing it once that identity is in the public domain which it now clearly is. It's also worth keeping in mind that a Scottish Sunday newspaper has revealed the identity of CTB on the basis that English injunctions do not apply in Scotland. It would be an interesting twist if CTB's lawyers were to pursue action against Twitter but not against the Scottish paper. Time will tell 92.40.73.156 (talk) 16:56, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

The Sunday Herald has named him so that can be used as another source. --87.194.194.250 (talk) 17:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Sunday Herald photo

It looks like the end here. The Scottish Sunday Herald has published this photo: [12] . Apparently, "the footballer's" lawyers had not applied for a separate injunction under Scottish law.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

If, as I suspect the case falls apart on Monday, and it is confirmed, then I think that a mention in the lead is in order. VERTott 13:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, and should also be on the main page. Unfortunately, Mr Giggs has spent a lot of money testing WP:DEADHORSE.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:50, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Great minds and that - see Talk:CTB v News Group Newspapers#Wikipedia:In the news. VERTott 13:55, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I was just going to post wondering if a mention in the lead is called for now. His past deeds are not really of interest, but his hilarious attempts to use the legal system to sue the whole world are worthy of note - perhaps one of the better examples of the Streisand Effect in recent years, as most other people who try it give up quickly, he has taken far longer than most to get the message. SFC9394 (talk) 14:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

This is not currently WP:LEAD material per WP:BLP. The historians will judge how notable this was.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think a mention in the lead isn't in order. Mato (talk) 18:52, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I imagine this will become much more noteworthy when the injunction is inevitably lifted, as it will be the very center of a major political issue in the UK. Let's wait and see what happens. --Dorsal Axe 13:46, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

There's no such thing as an injunction in Scottish law. The nearest equivalent is an interdict, and they don't do anonymised interdicts, so the name would be revealed. Richard Gadsden (talk) 09:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Guy with beard - Evidence of name?

How do we know who this guy in the picture is? Is there any credible source for linking the picture to the name? Mootros (talk) 14:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources have not challenged the identity.[13]. Unless someone else looks very much like Ryan Giggs, no worries here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

How do you mean? The Guardian does not say Giggs. How can you challenge something without saying the name? Mootros (talk) 14:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

There is some scope for WP:OR, but also an element of WP:BLUE given the events now unfolding. This is a good example of the problem identified by Jimbo, as The Guardian would not be able to say "Yes, it's him" without breaking the injunction. Let's hope this farce is soon put out of its misery, The Sun is currently making a fresh application to lift the injunction.[14]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:34, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

All I see is half a face of a guy with a beard. The analogy of the sky is absurd (how many "sky" is there in the world?). This is a case of blatant OR and should be marked as such. Mootros (talk) 14:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

No problem with the tagging for the time being, but since we should see an end to this nonsense shortly, there will be plenty more media coverage.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Eady turns down fresh request to lift injunction: I was wrong, it happens:). It looks like David Eady is unfamiliar with WP:DEADHORSE as well.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Do we need to wait for Hansard? Named in Parliament

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2011/may/23/politics-live-blog#block-40

Not a lot to add really; but we can firm up the citations and give UK sources now. Remember this is about the injunction, not the affair. EasyTarget (talk) 15:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)