Jump to content

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive60

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons | Noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MiszaBot II (talk | contribs) at 06:37, 11 March 2009 (Archiving 5 thread(s) from Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Sam Adams (politician)

I am being accused of violating WP:BLP on the subject's talk page by using of the word "grooming". I've provided the WP article defining the term, reliable sources describing the subject's behavior without labelling it (The New York Times and the Oregonian), and sources actually using the word. Nonetheless, I am directed to remove the word. My biggest interest on WP is fixing BLP problems. The accusation rankles. Other opinions would be welcome. David in DC (talk) 00:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you violated BLP. It's within the realm of reasonable opinion, and you even provided a cite. If it were to go into the article, it would have to be prefaced as the cited opinion of so-and-so, but you seem to understand that already. THF (talk) 00:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree. In order to decide whether something is okay by BLP or appropriate for the article, you have to be able to mention what it is that you are talking about, propose it on the talk page, and have people discuss why it does or does not comply. This is Wikipedia, not the Fight Club (The first rule of BLP is - you do not talk about BLP violations...) Wikidemon (talk) 00:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
To start off with, there is a problem with some of the contentions here. The talk page is not the place to make accusations about a BLP. Per WP:BLP, in fact the very first sentence which should help indicate the importance of it, it states: Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. (emphasis already there). So, no, the talk page is not the place to make unsubstantiated claims, period. I say unsubstantiated claims because no reliable source that could be used in this BLP article has been provided that supports the contention. First, the first article provided to actually use the term grooming in the same article as Sam Adams is an unsigned opinion piece, which to me fails the RS guidelines under BLP (also at no time has David said that according to the Statesman Journal’s opinion Adams was grooming as would be required if that source was allowed to be used since it is an opinion piece). The community blogger would also fail as a RS unless you can show he is subject to the full editorial control of the newspaper, but even then read the article and tell me where the blogger says Adams was grooming. The blogger quotes someone else who uses the term (but doesn’t actually come out and say Adams was grooming, which might be because he is afraid of a libel/slander suit), and then later refers to the conduct of someone else as grooming, not Adams. The last article repeats the quote from the previous article, which is actually where the quote comes from (again not saying Adams was grooming), and the other mentions are opinions of people who called in and from people posting comments after the story, none of which belong in a BLP. The notion that David provided the definition of grooming (using Wikipeida which fails RS BTW), and then used an article that described Adams actions, and then David makes the conclusion that this is grooming is WP:SYNTH, or as it states: Synthesis occurs when an editor puts together multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not in any of the sources. Now, I am not saying what Adams did was right, or that it wasn’t grooming. That isn’t the point. The fact remains that no RS has come out at said Adams was grooming. What is needed is a RS that comes out and says “Sam Adams was grooming Breedlove” and until a source that says that is provided, mentions of grooming need to be retracted. Aboutmovies (talk) 04:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
The "unsigned opinion piece" is from the editorial board of a newspaper, so isn't exactly anonymous or violative of BLP sourcing. The sourced sentence "The Statesman Journal called for Adams to resign for lying and raised the issue of whether he had been "grooming" his teenaged lover" would pass BLP in mainspace, much less the talk-page. The article arguably violates NPOV for omitting it. The entire response above is completely misplaced. THF (talk) 12:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
"News reporting is distinct from opinion pieces. Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact, and should be attributed in-text. In articles about living persons, only material from high-quality news organizations should be used." (emphasis not added). Which if we look above that within RS we have "Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market, such as The Washington Post, The Times in Britain, and The Associated Press." The Statesman Journal is not the high quality end of the market. They are not in the same league (they are the equivalent of Double AA to the Washington Post being an MLB club), they do not win national awards for quality, and they make tons of errors all the time. Sorry, but an unsigned opinion piece in a second rate paper should not cut it. At least The Oregonian signed their piece. For something like this, we must demand what the guidelines and policies call for, and those given so far do not meet the standards. If mainstream sources think this is what he did, proper sourcing should easily be located. If not, this should give us pause as to why The Oregonian or other newspapers have not come out and called it grooming. Also, if you haven't looked through the Willamette Week newspaper (which is a Pulitzer Prize winning paper that broke the story) you might try it, and their archives do not come up in Google. Aboutmovies (talk) 19:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I would be much more impressed with your argument if the Portland Mercury's op-ed and the opinion of the "board of the Portland Area Business Association and the LGBTQ chamber of commerce" weren't in the article without any complaint from you. I detect POV-pushing. Regardless, there is no BLPN issue. THF (talk) 19:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC) retracting 01:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Um, assume bad faith much? Aboutmovies raised a legitimate point and you ignored it and instead went for an ad hominem attack. Let's stick to discussing the BLP issue. -kotra (talk) 19:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
To clarify: hypocrisy (real or imagined) doesn't matter. We're discussing this particular issue and nothing else. -kotra (talk) 20:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) There is no BLP issue. My proposed language accurately sourced the material. It's legitimate to discuss the issue on the talk page. The Statesman Journal is more notable than the majority of existing sources quoted on the Sam Adams page, so it's a NPOV violation to exclude them.THF (talk) 20:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I won't comment on whether the material should be in the article or not, but an editor has to be able to make a good faith proposal on the talk page, for editors to be able to discuss whether the sourcing is strong enough. BLP does not prevent those discussions. If it did we could not have this discussion either and, in fact, the matter would be beyond discussion - just revert warring presumably until one side wins.Wikidemon (talk) 20:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) First, the argument about is there/isn't there is simply the OTHERSTUFF argument. I didn't add what was there. Secondly, the argument has never been whether grooming should be in the article, that is a secondary issue. The problem has been that an editor has called what Adams did was grooming on the talk page, which as no proper source that could be used in the article categorizes what he did as this behavior, it cannot be on the talk page or the article or on someone's user page (not to mention it was called grooming long before any sources were even proffered). Next, note that my argument above isn't that the Statesman Journal could not be used as a source, it simply cannot in this circumstance for this article. Remember that "How reliable a source is depends on context." (from the lead of RS). Thus in this circumstance the opinion piece fails as an RS. As to the other sources, I didn't add them and thus could not tell you if they are reliable. But I do know that there is a big difference between using a source to say "The Oregonian called for the resignation" which is related to them and is a response to Adams' actions, versus the Statesman Journal in its opinion says Adams was grooming, which is related to their view and classification of his actions. The calling for a resignation will not lead to liability in a libel suit, calling someones actions something can, which is one of the main points of BLP. Now obviously under case law the Statesman Journal is unlikely to have liability as a new source, but individual editors are not news sources and NYT v. Sullivan would not be of much help, which again ties back into why BLP exists, but this is getting off point. As to the last contention, true, but the discussion on the talk page was never about adding it to the article, it was simple categorizing of actions. Discussion whether to add it with the providing of sources to begin with is a different matter. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
First, the argument about is there/isn't there is simply the OTHERSTUFF argument. No: it's a POV argument. If fringe sources can be quoted on the page, then it violates POV to misuse BLP to prohibit a mainstream newspaper from being cited. THF (talk) 21:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Again, newspapers or any media outlet are not inherently a reliable source. A RS is determined in the context of how it is used. A peer reviewed, most exalted book ever on insects would be a reliable source for insects, not so much as a source for reliable information on the Presidency of Herbert Hoover. So, the prohibition on using the Statesman Journal is not because the paper itself generally would not be a RS, it is in this context that it fails, as outlined above in the direct quotes from RS. That is to say, the SJ article is an opinion piece, thus per RS, to be used in a BLP, it must be from a high quality news source, which examples are then given. So the only argument relevant in this thread related to the use of that article has to be that it comes from a high quality news source of the level of those proffered in the RS guideline. The other sources are used, so this one should is the OTHERSTUFF argument. You are arguing that the SJ article should be allowed to be used because other low-quality sources are used. That is OTHERSTUFF. The argument is whether this SJ article can be used, period. If you feel the other articles used as sources fail to meet RS guidelines in the context of how they are used, that is a separate issue you are free to raise on the talk page, but it is not relevant to whether or not this source passes RS in this context. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

No one is proposing putting the word grooming in the article. But it is not a BLP violation to use it on the talk page. Both the NYT and Oregonian describe grooming. If an editor cannot discuss the grooming angle in a collapsed discussion on the talk page, we've come to a bad place.

Take the controversy out with a hypothetical. The NYT and Oregonian say Sam Adams put a leash on his dog, stepped out his door, rounded the block, and returned home with his dog. It is not WP:SYNTH to say Sam Adams walked his dog and source it to the NYT and Oregonian.

Now, as for the Statesman-Journal editorial using the word grooming, it is true to say that the reliable source rules prevent the use of the opinion piece to assert that Sam Adams groomed this young man. But it is not a violation of WP:RS or WP:BLP to take note of the assertion in deciding whether to name the young man in the article.

Where an editorial board of a reliable source (the gratuitous knocks on the Statesman-Journal's reputation for accuracy and professional standards border on nonsensical) raises this issue, Wikipedia editors must be able to take that into account when excercising editorial judgment about whether to name the young man in the WP article about Adams.

The reason not to name the young man in the article cannot rest on WP:HARM to him; they rest on harm to any minor now or in the future being groomed by any powerful man or woman. Such a minor should be able to count on not being "outed" on wikipedia, no matter the course the affair takes.

Please remember, the underlying talk page discussion, collapsed for reasons of discretion, is not about whether to put "grooming" in the article. It's about whether to name Adams' erstwhile paramour. The consensus seems to be that his name adds nothing important to the article and unduly risks harm to others. Consensus has not yet been achieved, but that's the direction.

The two articles summarizing, and directly quoting from, the radio program where the head of the policeman's union DID use the word "grooming" seal the deal. They both quote the union chief verbatim.

There are sufficient sources for an editor to introduce the issue of grooming and how naming the young man will harm others who find themselves in the same position, in a collapsed but ongoing talk page discussion about whether to name Adams' former inamorata.

Two other points:
1) Libel/slander is a red herring. WP:BLP rightly imposes a stricter standard than libel/slander law. I'm arguing that I've met that standard on the talk page in my comments about grooming.
2) I've commended aboutmovies on his talk page for his approach here. I repeat that commendation here. It's the mark of an adult to be able to disagree without being disagreeable. I have no monopoly on wisdom and appreciate civil attempts at content dispute resolution. My thanks go out to everyone who is treating this with the seriousness and civility it requires. David in DC (talk) 21:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any harm in David's use of the term in the context of discussion. Immediately following his first use of the term, David said "Not illegal." The behavior is not illegal; in the course of the discussion, it's pretty clear that it is alleged, but not 100% understood to have occurred. Partly because it is not illegal, it's a term that's open to some interpretation; in general, one person could argue that grooming took place in a given scenario, and another could argue that it didn't, without anybody being factually incorrect.
So I believe that what David said, although I do not agree with it, was no violation of WP:BLP. I don't believe it causes harm to Sam Adams. I think it's within the realm of the kind of discussion we need to be having in making editorial judgments. However, I do think it's always worth carefully considering the way we phrase such things, and it might be a nice gesture on David's part to retract a key phrase voluntarily, provided that it doesn't obscure an essential element of our discussion (i.e., provided that the transparency of our reasoning is preserved).
In response to THF, I'd like to just add my personal opinion, from having worked closely with Aboutmovies for several years: Aboutmovies has worked on innumerable articles (probably more than anyone else in the state) and consistently shows a strong adherence to Wikipedia's policies. More strongly than anyone else I've encountered on the site. Of course nobody is above the occasional effects of personal bias, but it simply rings false to me that it would be the case here. And THF, your words do nothing to convince me otherwise. -Pete (talk) 01:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
STRIKING text below, as it's been pointed out that it's off topic. -Pete (talk) 15:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
In response to David's other point (the one about article content), I find the argument about harm to others, in this case, unconvincing. I do agree that "outing" in general raises this concern. However, I don't think it's accurate in this case to refer to including B.B.'s name in the article as "outing." For someone to be "outed," they must first be "in." B.B. explained the issue on Myspace; he then granted numerous interviews, including two on national television; and now he is posing nude in a magazine. He's well past the age of consent now. What we are talking about is common knowledge, and furthermore, knowledge that he doesn't seem to object to. So for us to include the name does not go against his intent, and therefore sets no precedent for future cases where the so-called "victim" does not wish to go public. I respect David's concern for society at large, but in this instance, I believe that concern is misplaced. -Pete (talk) 01:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I would ask that this discussion be kept to only the issue raised here, which is the use of the term grooming. Whether or not to include the name is a separate and unrelated policy matter with very different arguments. I will now explain synthesis with a hypothetical situation to show why it is not allowed and how in this case using the NYT/Oregonian combo is synthesis (assume all sources meet RS for their purposes in the context used).
Source A: Bob watches cartoons; Source B: Serial killers usually watch cartoons; Synthesized sentence: Bob is a serial killer. (here you see why synthesis is not allowed, and what it is; here and in the grooming context it is taking a persons actions, then taking a description of the same type of actions that has a value judgment and then attaching that value judgment to the actions of the person)
Source A: Bob watches cartoons; Source B: Bob is a serial killer; Non-synthesized sentence: Bob is a serial killer who watches cartoons. (this is proper as it is taking the actions/attributes of the person from both sources and simply combines them into one sentence where two sentences could easily be used; both sources refer explicitly to the actions of Bob and Bob alone)
The first example is not allowed as it takes the actions of the person and then adds the opinion of the Wikipedia editor that since those actions meet a definition of some attribute, then those actions must be that attribute. That is OR/SYNTH.
Honestly, the example at WP:SYNTH explains it all, and is what is being put forth here:
This entire paragraph is original research, because it expresses the editor's opinion that, given the Harvard manual's definition of plagiarism, Jones did not commit it. To make the paragraph consistent with this policy, a reliable source is needed that specifically comments on the Smith and Jones dispute and makes the same point about the Harvard manual and plagiarism. In other words, that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published in Wikipedia by a contributor.
Now convert to the situation at hand:
This entire paragraph is original research, because it expresses the editor's opinion that, given the [New York Times]' definition of [grooming], [Adams] did [] commit it. To make the paragraph consistent with this policy, a reliable source is needed that specifically comments on the [Adams] and [grooming] dispute and makes the same point about the [New York Times]' and [grooming]. In other words, that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published in Wikipedia by a contributor.
As to a BLP violation and talk page and what not, bringing up grooming is one thing. Outright labeling a BLP's actions as grooming, which is what was done here, on the talk page or any page (as I quoted above from BLP) is not in itself a problem. It becomes a problem when then no proper sources back up that claim when sources for that assertion are requested.
Lastly, as to the "knocks" on the Statesman Journal, those are extremely relevant. In fact if you want to use the SJ article here for the use of the word grooming, that is the only thing relevant. As I pointed out with the relevant guideline that I quoted from extensively above, the only way to overcome that is to show that the SJ is of high quality on the level of newspapers such as the Washington Post. I don't think you can, its simply not at that level. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Aboutmovies, you make a strong case. Do I understand you correctly, that you have no policy-based problem with the general thrust of David's arguments, but only with the direct assertion that the article's subject had engaged in a specific kind of behavior? Are you saying that if David had prefaced his remarks in one or two places with "I believe that..." or "It's arguable that...", that everything would be OK? It seems like a fairly minor issue, but if the standard is "Harm," and you're arguing that the statement causes harm to the article's subject, then the scale really doesn't matter. Our policy does not state that we will seek to avoid large-scale harm, but that any kind of possible harm to the article's subject is one of the most important factors in making this kind of determination. -Pete (talk) 20:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes and no. First "Harm" is not the standard, that was removed from WP:BLP, so that is irrelevant for any policy based decision here (the more appropriate choice of terms from BLP would be verifiable/accurate). Of course we could go IAR, but then if you live by it you die by it, and that would justify the inclusion of the name people that started the original discussion. The problem we have here is there are clear guidelines/policies in place that directly address this with SYNTH and RS/BLP. In sum it says, BLPs are special, don't use opinion pieces except in certain circumstances (which are not met here), and the BLP rules apply to all pages on Wikipedia (that is this includes the Adams talk page). The assertions on the talk page that Adams groomed are presented as fact, not opinion, but in many ways that doesn't matter too much. That's because if it is merely an editor's opinion, then that is OR and can't make it into the article. But what's more then is that the discussion becomes about people's opinions about the subject of the article, which is off-topic and anyone can remove, as everyone here knows talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article, not people's opinion's about the topic (in theory at least). So in that case, changing the wording to opinion does in fact solve the BLP issue as it no longer is an assertion of fact that is unsupported, but it becomes another issue that keeps it off Wikipedia. That's why my suggestions have focused on providing a proper source, not what is acceptable wording. To address the BLP violation issue and how can we raise things like this on the talk page and allow for discussion contention that seems to be floating out there, its rather simple. Placing content that is unsourced into a BLP is not in-itself a particular issue. It is like anytime content is added without a source, it is subject to challenge and removal. If a proper source is not provided, then just like on any page the information needs to be removed. Now in the case of BLPs that means this applies to the talk page as well. So, in the future, if someone wanted to raise an issue such as this on the talk page, they add it as was done here, then if someone challenges it (as was done here), then a proper source needs to be given or the info removed. The alternative is to leave unsourced contentions on the talk page that have been challenged, such as someone claiming Bill Clinton is an alien from outer space (I'm fairly certain I've seen that contention on the cover of one of the tabloids at the grocery store checkout at some point). This is obviously an extreme example, but I don't want a closer to reality speculation about say someone's sexuality or mental competence, and I believe there is a published source for the information. Allowing material that makes assertions about activities that have negative connotations about a BLP to remain in articles or on talk pages after being challenged goes against what the lead covers at BLP. Of course this can all be solved simply with a better source. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Outdent. I used the word. Aboutmovies asked for sources. I gave sources. Aboutmovies judges those sources to fail WP:RS. I judge them to meet WP:RS. The NYT and Oregonian articles describe grooming, the same way in my hypothetical above the narration describes walking a dog. The Stateman-Journal piece uses the word. The Statesman-Journal is a reliable source. You can call it a duck or a liverwurst sandwich, but that doesn't make it any lerss a reliable source.

The two sources quoting the police union spokesman indicate he used the word on a radio program. While the spokesman's words themselves are a verboten primary source, the radio program is a completely legitimate secondary source, and the articles transcribing the quotes on the radio program are a tertiary source. David in DC (talk) 16:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

As to the NYT/Oregonian combo, I'm sorry but you don't seem to understand SYNTH. Your dog hypo doesn't work, and here is why. The Oregonian talks about Adams' actions, the NYT does not talk about ADAMS' actions. It talks about grooming and doesn't mention Adams. If it did, no problem. Your dog hypo says both sources mention Adams, thus no SYNTH problem. If both sources mention the person, there is not a problem, as SYNTH explains. And there is not a RS problem with those, SYNTH is part of original research.
Again, with the police union boss, he doesn't say Adams was grooming. It says "...which most psychologists call grooming". What the caller is saying is basically the same thing as your SYNTH problem. He describes the behavior, and then says psychologists call that grooming, which we already know from the NYT article that this type of behavior is grooming. Problem is, the caller (the head of the police union) does not say "Adams groomed XXXX" or some other direct allegation. He tiptoes around it. So, its not about what kind of source is used, it is that he did not say Adams groomed (reading it that way is reading between the lines). As to the "you think it is RS and I don't", well actually its not my guideline, its RS, which is a community guideline created by consensus. I had nothing to do with its formulation or revisions. So, what part of: "Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact, and should be attributed in-text. In articles about living persons, only material from high-quality news organizations should be used." does the opinion piece from the SJ not fit? It looks like an opinion piece to me and it looks like an article about a living person, so check and check. That leaves you with "what is a high quality news source" which is: "particularly the high-quality end of the market, such as The Washington Post, The Times in Britain, and The Associated Press." So, does the SJ stand up to the quality of those types of sources? That's your only argument and you continue to avoid it. The SJ is not even in the top 100 by circulation in the US, which means it is highly unlikely they are a high quality source on the level of The Washington Post. Its pure economics. The NY Yankees have a winning record pretty much every year, and they spend the most on payroll almost every year, and in general teams with the higher payrolls tend to win (there are occasionally outliers, but in general). This is because high revenues allow you the opportunity to purchase top talent, which affects quality whether that be baseball or newspapers. The SJ has about 1/5 the circulation of The Oregonian, which itself is the 23rd largest by circulation in the US. Compared to the Washington Post, the SJ is a small town paper, not a high quality new source. To address the outlier issue, out of all the journalism categories for the Pulitzer Prizes the SJ has zero nominations or wins going by the prizes' website. The Washington Post has 9 winners alone in the first 4 categories (including 7 winners in commentary alone, thus why we would allow opinion pieces from the WP), after that I stopped counting. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
User:Aboutmovies, in your discussion of RS above, you seem to be making two claims. First that WP that says something is "preferred" should in fact mean "required", and second, that a paper's circulation is reflective of its reliabilty. By your strange Yankees rationale, the National Enquirer is more of a RS that the Chicago Tribune "because high revenues allow you the opportunity to purchase top talent, which affects quality whether that be baseball or newspapers.." Does that still apply if the revenues come from the Moonies? Does your analogy still hold if Tampa Bay make the World Series?
WP specifically outlines what RS are *not*, but leaves what they *are* largely up to discretion, in this case only saying they should be "high quality news sources only". The SJ may not have a high circulation, but a reputable mid-sized city broadsheet that undergoes significant fact-checking, reports with attributed sources, and has experienced reporters on political rounds should constitute a high quality news source. In fact, for many notable events outside major cities, these may be the only RS available. It's my understanding that it's not sufficient for editors to simply assert here that something is not an RS, as that may have ramifications elsewhere. The place to do that is on the sources noticeboard, where there is no beef with the SJ I can find. Richard Cooke (talk) 13:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
As to your second paragraph: I have not said the SJ is not a reliable source. I'm tired of repeating that, and that RS is determined in context. The New York Times would likely not be a reliable source on astrophysics theory, they likely do not have expertise in that field. Most law students would tell you your local big city newspaper is not a particularly reliable source when it comes to what court decisions mean and what actually happened, the papers often do not have reporters with JDs available to cover the story. Thus, the SJ is a reliable source for many things, but when it comes to using opinion pieces (thus no "reports with attributed sources" in this instance) about BLPs that is not good enough, as quoted several times above from the RS guideline. It has to be high quality, and the examples given for high quality are not mid-sized-city newspapers known for errors and poor quality, as even the vandals agree.
With your first paragraph, I thought emphasizing GENERAL would be enough, but apparently not. Throw in "opportunity to purchase top talent" and "highly unlikely" as well as "pretty much" I would hope get the message across that this is in general, there will be exceptions. Which is why I then went with the Pulitzer part, as that would address the inevitable Tampa Bay example. That is to say, the New York Mets also have a high payroll and don't make it to the World Series (at least not this century) as their attempts at purchasing top talent haven't always panned out, that's why it is only an "opportunity". In our sports world analogy, Tampa Bay showed their high quality by making the World Series. That would equate to the SJ winning or at least being nominated for a few Pulitzers, which it has not been nominated nor won one (or some other award/prize/distinction that would put it on par with the Washington Post). Aboutmovies (talk) 08:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Aboutmovies - I'm impressed with your reasoning. Has anyone checked out Factiva or its ilk for a source with a bit more authority? This thread is pretty complex now, but it does seem as though the situation would be solved with an RS using the word "grooming" with relation to Adams. I've got a Factiva account and would be happy to run a search if that would help. User:Aboutmovies, given your thoughtful criteria for the selection of BLP RS, I'd welcome your input on the Michael Wines discussion above. It's a doosie. Richard Cooke (talk) 22:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

David J. Schmidly

David J. Schmidly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This article, not noted as a BLP, has a cited criticism section that outweighs the rest by a magnitude. An account, presumably the subject, has removed the section more than once. This appears to have all the ingredients for Oeuf pour le Visage... LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

  • I have now indefinitely blocked Schmidly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for disrupting the above article, and left a hopefully friendly notice on their talkpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure whether the block was a good idea or not but I've blanked the criticism section as a courtesy, pending resolution of this matter - you might consider protecting the page or watching it for the moment. Another admin deleted the user page of the now-blocked account, which I think was inappropriate. There should be no rush here, and the matter ought to be resolved carefully. I'll expand this thought momentarily. Wikidemon (talk) 18:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
      • From a response by the editor it appears that they are not the article subject, but a relative (which also does make the userpage deletion more appropriate). They also say they are going to follow the WP:Office route of complaining about the section, so together with your action in blanking the section I think I can safely unblock the account (indefinite being that only) - pending your/other third parties agreement. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
        • (ec) - yes, I agree. They also may want to consider whether they want to advertise their identity or, perhaps, participate under an anonymous account with due acknowledgment of policies against good hand / bad hand accounts. Although I have not reviewed the matter in any depth, I am concerned that the "controversy" section readily triggers the "do no harm" part of BLP because it involves a prominent person who opponents are trying to have fired as a university president over a scandal involving nepotism / cronyism. I can't quickly assess the faithfulness of the material to the sources but even if it is all reliable sourced there are additional concerns about WP:POV, WP:WEIGHT, WP:COATRACK, etc. This is an evolving news story and a current scandal. When his constituents learn of the scandal and google his name they will come to this article where, in its prior form, they would get the impression that his primary notability is being the subject of these accusations. So this article could very well have an unfair effect on his career. The now-blocked editor, as a relative of the person in question (apparently), is likely upset, concerned, and only starting to become familiar with Wikipedia process (e.g. OTRS tickets, notice boards, policies). If I were in that position I would find it easy to get paranoid about Wikipedia as a place where amateurs gang up to defend bad content... on the other hand we have a chance here to show that Wikipedia is better than the professional sources at sorting things like this out in an orderly way. Wikidemon (talk) 18:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • It is not necessary for an article to be "noted" as a BLP for it to clearly be one. IMHO, the article therefore must conform to BLP standards. Collect (talk) 18:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Agrees. One glaring problem with the previous section was the use of a blog. While the rest of the section appears to be better sourced (I checked the USA Today one and it appears to largely agree with the article) but as noted above the section grealy outweights the rest of the article. If the article were relatively complete, perhaps the section would be okay but as the article stands, such a section is IMHO a clear BLP violation Nil Einne (talk) 10:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Recep Tayyip Erdoğan

Recep Tayyip Erdoğan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I think this edit violates the BLP guideline that "criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability" and "The views of a tiny minority have no place in the article" It was not a notable reaction, and it is a opinion not echoed anywhere else so it doesn't have a place in the article. Another issue is that information from the same section was taken from non-English sources[1]. I understand that verifiability is taken more seriously when the article is BLP so I am assuming that this is also a violation of BLP policy. Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 19:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I request that before anybody comments, they should skim the relevent conversation on the Erdogan talk page. To summarize, I would like to add the following statement sourced to the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a highly respected think tank in the United States:

"Soner Cagaptay of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy noted that shortly after the Davos incident, Erdogan hosted Salva Kiir Mayardit, the Vice President of Sudan, who is being indicted for his role in the Darfur genocide. Cagaptay brings up this fact to note that Erdogan's action at Davos were less about humanitarian concern than they are about what Cagaptay calls a "civilizational view."[2]

Falastine fee Qalby tried the following tactics (some legitimate, some intellectually dishonest) to try to stop this statement from appearing in the article: twice reverting my edits,[3][4] argument by assertion, requesting a third opinion, disrespecting the third opinion he received and denying its validity,[5] and finally opening this BLP noticeboard discussion. In the words of the person whose opinion Falastine fee Qalby completely disregarded and insulted, "So by third opinion, you really mean as many opinions as it takes until someone agrees with you." --GHcool (talk) 17:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Apparently, Ghcool is bullying me because I dare ask for opinions from people uninvolved. GHCool is not being honest here, I requested a third opinion on the wp:3 board in hopes of getting an opinion from an uninvolved editor, Goalie1998 (who Ghcool says provided a third opinion) is not a uninvolved party. Ghcool is now resorting to attacking me just because I wanted some input as to whether there is a copyright violation. I didn't editwar when I could certainly have. Can someone put an end to this already? --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 18:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of World Championship Wrestling

Ger Brennan

Repeated vandalism on this page for example http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Ger_Brennan&diff=262233020&oldid=261796126 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.192.131 (talk) 10:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Jon Wiener

Appears to be a fairly undocumented page mainly written by User:jonwiener, which I consider odd. Might someone go there and see if this is a personal puff page or the like? Many thanks! Collect (talk) 16:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you want WP:COI/N. Or, instead of a noticeboard, leave a message with the user. If the user isn't active, put a {{COI-check}} on the article. THF (talk) 16:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I am used to here ... will add template if no one yells. Collect (talk) 17:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Sanaz Shirazi

I zapped this down to a sourced stub when this came up at Wikipedia:Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents#user:Qchristina, legal threat. The complaining editor's apparently legitimate grievance was being reverted as vandalism. This was a classic example of a legitimate complaint about a biography being unheard because the editor was a novice and didn't go about complaining in the correct fashion. I've given some guidance to the editor at User talk:Uncle G#Sanaz Shirazi, and Rjanag is helping out at User talk:Qchristina. We're no longer at the point of blocking a BLP complainant for legal threats and vandalism, I think. But some independent eyes and some extra help to a novice editor at the article and at xyr talk page, even if only a copyedit or a friendly tip here and there, would be appreciated. Uncle G (talk) 23:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Stuart Pearson (businessman)

  • Stuart Pearson (businessman) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - This was brought to my attention by Tyrone laces, and I did my best to research the subject but there really isn't much information about Stuart Pearson. The claim that they bought and own Taggart Holdings may or may not be true---all I can find is that they were putting an offer in, not that they completed it. I found the same thing for the article's claim that they own 30% of Aer Lingus. I removed the Aer Lingus claim, but looking at the rest of the information in the article I'm having trouble finding any citable sources for the information. I'm not quite sure what to do in this situation, so I was looking for some input. From what I understand, unverifiable information in biographies of living people should be removed, but it would be taking away most of the article.. DreamHaze (talk) 00:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Eliot Spitzer

I removed the information. The information was an editor's own syntheses of the information in the sources. Neither source mentioned the Spitzer case at all. A new name 2008 (talk) 20:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I have removed it a second time and tried to explain in more detail why the information does not belong. A new name 2008 (talk) 13:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Larry Sanger

Larry Sanger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

We need some people to help with festering conflicts there along with allegations of BLP violations. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you let us know what to specifically look for? I know two editors there, not be be named, have been trying to hammer out the article. It actually looks somewhat ok, but I haven't been following it or the dispute that closely. Thanks! --Tom 13:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Events like this do not indicate to me that things are being "hammered out" in an appropriate fashion. There is currently two versions of the article and little in the way of reasoned discussion going on (more just grandstanding and posturing). ScienceApologist (talk) 14:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Nadia Styles

An editor keeps putting in the statement, "She is now a Christian and has become a critic of the porn industry, describing the years of abuse she suffered while involved in it" and cites it to a youtube video of the subject. I've reverted the user twice and gave him BLP warnings. Is this appropriate? I feel that youtube should never be considered a reliable source nor used to support any assertions since youtube doesn't authenticate the content. Furthermore, if we treat the video as an authentic primary source, there should be a secondary reliable source reporting on this. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree about your assesment of youtube as a citation, but sometimes feel like a lone voice in the city :) Anyways, good luck. --Tom 13:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Gross BLP concerns with Sathya Sai Baba

I recently made over a hundred edits to the article after an arbitration case. I have focused on fixing structure problems, dealing with undue weight, consolidating sources, and removing unreliable sources so that the content can be reworked or removed if completely unusable. It is apparent that the article is indecently sourced and is in need of some overhaul. The arbitration remedies are outlined here and here. A few editors expressed interest in reverting to an earlier version or even deleting it (both of which I believe to be unsuitable); more input would be appreciated on the matter. ←Spidern→ 23:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


Billie Ray Martin

Doesigewebsite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - has made a threat and placed a notice to take legal action over a Wikipedia dispute regarding the following article:

Billie Ray Martin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) on my talk page. However, the information is public about the subject matter in the article and it appears here // CZmarlin (talk) 02:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Unless it's a sock, you named the wrong threat-maker; I've fixed that. THF (talk) 02:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
(ec) IMDB is not a reliable source, especially if the information has been challenged, as it has. Kevin (talk) 02:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Right: See also Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_17#Is_IMDb_a_reliable_source.3F THF (talk) 02:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the material for now. I did a search on NewsBank for the birth name, and found nothing, so I don't think there will be any easily found sources. Kevin (talk) 02:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Rod Dreher

Can somebody keep an eye on this please? Some IPs keep re-adding a statement Dreher made a while ago about shooting trespassors in order to make him look bad. Hopefully people here agree that cherry-picking something outrageous a person has said, distorting it, and stripping it from its context isn't in keeping with BLP.70.20.106.127 (talk) 10:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Yasser Latif Hamdani

Anonymous IP Vandal(s) are making seriously flawed and inaccurate statements on the Yasser Latif Hamdani. Yasser Latif Hamdani is not an Ahmadi. He believes in a secular Pakistan and believes that Pakistan was created as a secular state by Jinnah. 125.21.165.158 in particular has been quite belligerant. History can be seen here. [[6]]

221.132.117.17 (talk) 15:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Need more eyes on Jack Weiss

There's a city an LA City Attorney election today and one of the candidates, Jack Weiss, has had some dubious material inserted over the last few days. I've tried to clean it up somewhat but it needs more watchlisting, as might some of the other candidates. These pages will get more traffic than normal today. Phil153 (talk) 17:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I have removed all of the unsourced material in the controversy section, as well as a bit sourced to a DA's office press release. Watchlisted also. Kevin (talk) 01:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Richard Carl Fuisz

I'm concerned that a potentially libelous statement accusing Mr. Fuisz of being a CIA operative continues to be re-added after removal, primarily by Richard Norton. The text is sourced from a just published interview with Susan Lindauer (who is Richard Norton's cousin). Ms Lindauer was been found previously to be mentally unfit to stand trial. I think the inclusion of the statement as is with this source violates the guidelines in the living person biography section.Chitownhustler (talk) 22:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

John Yoo

Your standard COATRACK, SYN, POV, and BLP violations on everyone's favorite Berkeley professor. Absolutely no effort in the article to give Yoo's side of the story, even though he has been interviewed and has written about it, and a good third of the references in the footnotes don't even mention Yoo. Lots of original research, too. I'd scrub it, but then I'd get accused of furthering a right-wing conspiracy. THF (talk) 23:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive60&oldid=276462665"