Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive129

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Ahmed Okasha Addaly

Ahmed Okasha Addaly is self-promotional article of the non-valuable person. Out of project scope and could be nominated for deletion.
--George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

For info: George C. prod'ed this and the article's creator removed the tag which George then reverted, I undid this and have CSD'd it as unambiguous promotion (G11) and unremarkable person (A7) to avoid taking it through an AfD. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 15:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Deleted as A7 and G11. This was a glorified resume consisting solely of original research and POV puffery from an individual not meeting any of WIkipedia's notability criteria. Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 15:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Quartzsite, Arizona

This is not strictly, or literally a BLP issue, but it does concern a living person mentioned by name, so I'm posting it here. (For the record, I live in Norway and have absolutely no previous knowledge or interest in the case.)

Under the section "Freedom of speech and corruption controversy" a number of very serious allegations are made against Judge Karen Slaughter, some of which are referenced (even though I cannot vouch for the references' accuracy as to the incident), but many of which are not., such as "JP Judge Slaughter failed to uphold the law in the Michael Roth Injunction and should be impeached. First, she is not allowed to make up her own law, but did." and "Again, JP Slaughter failed to uphold the law."

Obviously, I would have made quite a few radical edits in the text as it stands now, (under WP:Soapbox and a number of other guideline violations), but I simply don't know if the incident in itself is notable or should be removed en bloc, so I ask an uninvolved administrator to have a look and take action as required. Asav (talk) 15:49, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

This goes well beyond a BLP issue. The entire section, recently added by IPs, about recent events does not belong in an article about a place. I have removed it from the article and posted a message on the article's Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Although it's not really a BLP issue anymore, I would appreciate other eyes on this article.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:28, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

David Ramadan

The subject page has been written as a self serving political advertisement in support of the named political candidate, created by his paid operatives and supporters. As it stands in the currently protected state, it simply constitutes a link to the subjects desired PR sources and addresses no in depth insight into the individual, his history, or the raging societal controversies surrounding him. Any changes applied to this page which varies from or introduces verifiable and valid subjects which might challenge the subjects assertions, 'party line' and 'talking points' or introduce verifiable opposing views have unilaterally been repeatedly deleted without discussion, (even to the extent of the subjects legal name). It biases completely in the subjects favor and constitutes pure Political Campaigning much more appropriately placed in http://campaigns.wikia.com/wiki/Campaigns_Wikia.

The subjects 'biography' makes no mention of the issues surrounding his candidacy which are numerous, his opponent, the election issues, the documented national interests in his running for office and the documented national issues raised by numerous nationally recognized and political party unaffiliated entities. Mr. Ramadan's candidacy has been commented upon in numerous 'mainstream' verifiable publications (and even more in the blogosphere), his campaign finance record is both public and shows what many consider to be a contradiction between his public philosophical statements and reality not to mention serious issues surrounding his claiming foreign citizenship rights while running for a U.S. State governmental position.

Mr. Ramadan's contradictions touch on many subjects, naturalization, societal and religious philosophy, legal philosophy, personal history, citizenship, truthfulness and candor, personal and political affiliations, and even national security. Many thorny issues are involved with Mr. Ramadan's biography, the greatest being associated to Islamic issues such as his support for Park51, a publicly perceived inclination to support Sharia and connections to other controversial individuals with documented support for these issues. All issues of greater gravamen than his 'traffic plan' for the district seat he is a candidate for. As a WP:BLP subject Mr. Ramadan may well achieve that status in the future as a result of circumstance and history, but with the minor minimal history of the subject and in the current 'climate' of an active campaign, and the serious contentions of his opponents (not just political) I believe that Wikipedia would better be served by transferring his entry to http://campaigns.wikia.com/wiki/Campaigns_Wikia.

However, In the case that you might decide to retain this article, I appeal to allow the removal of bias in favor of the subject as it now stands by restoring the page to 'some' state which addresses the issues surrounding Mr. Ramadan. I assure you that I am acting in good faith and am unaffiliated in any way with ANY party (not just political) related to this page, its' content or cites, my interest is based solely on principle and philosophy, I'm not adverse to editing my entries in order to comply with any suggested guidelines and have no problem seeking and participating in discussion and have no desire to enter into 'edit wars'. Zparqi (talk) 19:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I took off some of the uncited promotion. There was also some uncited material which seemed to be added to make him seem more Arab. Article needs to be watched, it seems. Borock (talk) 12:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Jared Bernstein

I would appreciate it if you would look at the entry for "Jared Bernstein."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Bernstein

On June 1, 2011, I posted a note on the discussion page suggesting that a fact be added to the "Publications" section. I also explained why this fact is relevant to the Publications section. I waited until July 7, 2011 for any comments on my suggestion -- none were posted, so I added my suggested edit that day.

On Aug. 2, 2001, an anonymous editor undid my edit without providing any reason.

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Jared_Bernstein&action=history

Rather than risk starting an edit war by simply undoing his edit, I would appreciate your guidance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebw343 (talk • contribs) 14:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Ebw343 (talk) 14:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)Ebw343

I replied on the article talk page. Short answer is that your addition was original research, and that was the reason it was removed. FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 14:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. How about this:

According to Mr. Bernstein's website, which lists his publications, he has not published an article in a peer-reviewed economics journal. (footnote) See http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/publications/

Ebw343 (talk) 20:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC) Ebw343

I think that would still be original research. As Wikipedia editors we take our content from existing published works. So, we would need for one or more secondary sources to explicitly state that he had not published in a peer reviewed economics journal. And we do not want to engage in synthesis by pulling data from several places to draw an independent conclusion. This is especially important since the independent conclusion you are drawing could be seen as undermining his work in economics. I hope that helps. FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 18:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Lauren_Harries

Hi can someone have a look at this please. I removed material that was rather attackin and unsourced or sourced to a wiki. An IP is now reinserting it and i dont want to get into an edit war. Both the article and the talk page are subject to attacking material and postings.RafikiSykes (talk) 22:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC) I am also concerned with the Ip accusing the subjects mother of illegal actions regarding her daughters counselling and operatins. RafikiSykes (talk) 22:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Additions seem contentious to me and the citations seem weak - clearly needs discussion and consensus to include - removed for now and provided the IP that is desirous of adding the disputed content a link to this discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 22:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, I would have also posted a 3RR warning as the IP has already reverted three times.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

For good measure, the controversial additions appear to be copied or closely paraphrased from other sites. 99.155.206.229 (talk) 23:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the help everyone. I will discuss things on the talk page though I expect her gender history will make her a continuing target of questionable additions.RafikiSykes (talk) 00:27, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/92.7.18.204 < IP has changed and has reinserted the things sourced to tongs wiki and is going against MOS by using male pronouns for post transition Lauren on the talk page.RafikiSykes (talk) 12:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I've made a request to WP:RFPP to have this semi-protected due to the repeated vandalism and BLP issues. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:48, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protection is now in place for a week. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:21, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Rinat Akhmetov

I kindly ask you to help me to resolve disputable situation with user Львівське: recently I have thoroughly reviewed and restructured the article Rinat Akhmetov, removed poorly sourced statements having put proven facts in chronological and logical order. Львівське is now systematically restoring his version though it includes statements violating WIKI policies about Verifiability, Biographies of living persons and gossip. Kindly assist on the matter. --Orekhova (talk) 10:48, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Mike Murphy (broadcaster)

Unsourced BLP with identifying personal information about family and others. causa sui (talk) 17:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Even with the tag you added, at least some of the unsourced information should be removed. What is a "veteran broadcaster"? Do they mean former broadcaster? And what does "fronting television shows" mean? It sounds vaguely sinister.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Right or wrong, I decided what both terms meant and tidied up the article. Now I'll wait a while to see if anyone sources the remaining material (based on the tag). Otherwise, the article will have to be gutted.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Gwen Shamblin

It was recommended by another editor to place my concerns here. If someone could help me with this. I have been attempting to edit this biography due to concerns with the following:

Misuse of Primary Sources - There are two users who appear to have accounts created only to edit this wiki that have been inserting an unnecessary number of links to both negative content and court documents that were part of a libel suit by Mrs. Shamblin against another party.
Self-Published Material - Most of the court documentation linked to are motions filed by the defendant and attorneys and not the official court decisions. Maintaining an Impartial Tone on this description is also called into question. In addition, a number of these links are to documents stored on a site that has had links previously removed for bias and original research.
Undue Weight - These same users have also added content and undone edits I have made to consolidate some of the negative discussion resulting in one of the larger sections of her bio. They have also added content and undone edits to content about another case that already has its own wiki page and I believe does not need to be duplicated on Mrs. Shamblin's site, but only briefly referenced and linked to. This activity has created undue weight on these items that I feel is not appropriate to their significance to the subject (for example, in the court case section, the defendant's name (Martinez) is mentioned 7 times in the same section).

If anyone has time to take a look at Gwen Shamblin's wiki page and recent history and comment on these concerns and provide suggestions, I would be very appreciative. Thank you. MarcD2010. —Preceding undated comment added 19:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC).

Boris Said

Someone apparently put some pretty rude, personal comments into the entry for Boris Said in the past day. I hope I am doing this right - here is the diff [1]. I am not a NASCAR follower and had never heard of Boris Said before, but I heard his name mentioned because of "what he did" at Watkins Glen yesterday and wanted to know what it was. I was shocked when I saw the entry since it definitely attacks the person it is about. Hopefully someone with the right permissions will edit this to remove the insulting comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.59.18.126 (talk) 03:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted those negative comments, and protected the article for a month from unregisterred users. --Jayron32 03:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Boris Said

This article is personally biased and libel. Please remove. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.67.37.73 (talk) 03:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

This has already been fixed. See above. --Jayron32 03:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Adam Levine

The article insists on including that Adam Levine is part Jewish, even though it is completely unnecessary. It also falsely cites two sources which have nothing to do with Levine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.205.233 (talk) 13:27, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Here we go again... Yup, it looks like a classic case of ethno-tagging, right down to comments about his maternal grandmother. As for the sources, can you say which ones are problematic? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Here we go again, fanatical scrubbing of all mention of Jewish ancestry... this was the source:[2]. Fences&Windows 22:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

That citation asserts that the subject fits in the cat - People with three non Jewish grandparents - Off2riorob (talk)

"Levine's father and grandfather on his mother's side were both Jewish". Edenc1 • Talk 16:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Levins father was half Jewish one of his four grandparents was a full Jew, the other three were not Jewish at all. The majority are clearly more notable than the minority - or at least deserve a mention. Is it correct to focus on the minority - The subjject himself refused a Bar Mitzvah and self describes as an atheist. This Levin is a quarter Jew, and fits in the cat - People whose genetics are seventy five percent not Jewish - Off2riorob (talk) 19:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

And this Levine is in the Category:American people of Jewish descent which is correct, that's what the source says, he is descended from one Jewish ancestor. Is that not sufficient, already? CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 22:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Ancestry/descent categories are not mutually exclusive. Stop being so fanatical with the Jew-scrubbing, it's really tiresome. Fences&Windows 01:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Another unintelligible response, this makes no senses F&W. Fanatical, eh? And what does one scrub a Jew with I wonder? CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 11:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree w/Cullen. Looking through this long string, including the below, I find Cullen's comments above to be the most convincing. We follow the RSs. That's a good way to avoid POV.--~~

- note - from my talkpage but related to thus discussion.- == Adam Levine ==

Hello Off2riorob,

The reference discussed at WP:BLPN states that his father is Jewish, as well as his grandfather on his mother's side. The implication of stating his father is Jewish is that his paternal grandparents are also Jewish. So that's 50% of his grandparents, plus the 25% that is his maternal grandfather. So, if we are into tracking percentages of Jewish ancestry, that comes to 75% not the 25% you repeatedly stated. I think it is fair to say he's of Jewish ancestry, though clearly, according to the source, not religiously observant. Please also be sensitive about exegesis of Jewish ancestry that calls to mind antebellum Southern categories like quadroon and octaroon. Such analyses make a mockery of my sons, born to a Jewish mother and a non-Jewish father (me) who converted to Judaism after their birth. My boys would object to being called "half Jewish". They live in a 99% non-Jewish mileu, but are proud young Jews. It is all complex and very, very sensitive. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Its not sensitive - you are a convert to Judaism and not ethnically Jewish at all. Your sons sound like religiously practicing ethnic half Jews. As regards Levine, one of his grandparents is Jewish - the Jewish post is calling his father Jewish - but the fact is that one of his parents is not Jewish at all and only one out of four of his grandparents is Jewish - he is more not Jewish than he is Jewish. Off2riorob (talk) 05:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

"It is all very complex and very, very sensitive". True enough. But is it sensitive enough to (a) ask the opinion of the subject of the BLP whether he/she wishes to be labelled unambiguously 'Jewish', and (b) establish that this 'sensitive' issue is one that should be used as ammunition in the endless ethnotagging warfare that goes on in Wikipedia? Frankly, I suspect that 'sensitivity' is the least of the concerns of several of those involved in this debate. Still, who cares about people, when we can argue about abstractions... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

You are misreading the source, Off2riorob. The source says that his father is Jewish. Therefore, it is highly likely that his paternal grandparents are both Jewish. His maternal grandfather is Jewish according to the source, therefore it is highly likely that three of his four grandparents are Jewish. How do you reach the conclusion that only one of his grandparents are Jewish and that he is "more not Jewish" than Jewish, in terms of ancestry or ethnicity? Are you assuming that his paternal grandparents are not Jewish? What is the reasonable basis for such an assumption? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

As for "ethnotagging", Andy, the subject of the BLP openly discusses his Jewish ethnic background in the referenced source. He could have declined to comment if he wished to. You won't find me arguing to categorize him as religiously Jewish, because the source makes it clear he isn't. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:15, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

"it is highly likely" - the source does not support it. Off2riorob (talk) 06:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Nice try. A Jewish media source asks specific questions about his background. He gives polite answers to the questions asked. So this means that he accepts everything the Wikipedia ethnotaggers wish to state about him? Yeah, right. And incidentally, if he isn't 'religiously Jewish' (which he isn't), is he 'Jewish' at all? Logic might suggest at least partly (ethnically), but given the fact that the article (before I removed the ethnotagging) went out of its way to point out that his maternal grandmother wasn't Jewish, according to Halachic law, he isn't. I think this is nonsense, but the ethnotaggers tend to argue otherwise - except here they don't. I wonder why? - Actually, I don't. Sadly, Wikipedia suffers from a surfeit of POV-pushers and obsessives from all sorts of backgrounds, who will use whatever argument they can to slap a label on someone, regardless of what they argued the last time. If Adam Levine considers himself Jewish, and is proud of the fact, good for him - but that is for him to decide, not the Wikipedia Committee for Ethnobureacratic Classification and Stereotyping. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep ethnicity out of it. I think WP:BLPCAT and Wikipedia_talk:Categorization/Ethnicity,_gender,_religion_and_sexuality are pretty clear here. If the ethnicity/religion is ambiguous, keep it out. NickCT (talk) 16:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

NickCT—A person can believe that there is no God, and that the moon is made out of green cheese—and still be a Jew. Being a Jew is not predicated on holding any particular beliefs. Also, you are referring to "ethnicity". That is original research. No source that I have been able to find says anything about Adam Levine being an "ethnic Jew" or anything along those lines. You've got to stick to real language, which is to say, the language used by reliable sources. You are pointing to policy at WP:BLPCAT, which specifically speaks of "belief":

"Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources."

In fact there is no "belief…in question" concerning Judaism because being a Jew is not predicated on holding any particular beliefs. Please note the following:

"A Jew is any person whose mother was a Jew or any person who has gone through the formal process of conversion to Judaism. It is important to note that being a Jew has nothing to do with what you believe or what you do." [3]

"According to Jewish law, a child born to a Jewish mother or an adult who has converted to Judaism is considered a Jew; one does not have to reaffirm their Jewishness or practice any of the laws of the Torah to be Jewish."[4]

Adam Levine was born to a non-Jewish mother. More importantly I have not found a reliable source stating that Adam Levine is Jewish. On the point of Adam Levine being born to a non-Jewish mother I think it is common knowledge that the liberal end of the spectrum of Judaism recognizes either parent as conferring Jewish identity on a child. But without a source stating that Adam Levine is Jewish, I don't think Adam Levine should be placed in any Category for Jewish identity. The notion that he is "ethnically" Jewish (you refer to his "ethnicity") is original research. No source that I have seen is using any such terminology. This is an especially important point because the majority of the world's Jewish people are not religious in any way. They may not hold any "beliefs" whatsoever of a religious nature and they may not partake of any religious "practices" whatsoever. But reliable sources are more than capable of verifying for us that they are Jewish. I am going to have to recommend that he be in no Categories relating to Jewish identity. Bus stop (talk) 21:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Bus stop, I have already pointed out repeatedly that 'Judaism 101' isn't WP:RS. Furthermore the second source you cite ('Who is a Jew?') cites the first as a source, so cannot be considered reliable either. Also, Halachic law is of no relevence to Wikipedia, as you well know. Please stop wasting peoples time with the same poor arguments repeated ad nauseam, and your own WP:OR interpretations of what 'ethnicity' means. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—I'm not even using the word "ethnicity". I'm not sure why you are referring to "…your own WP:OR interpretations of what 'ethnicity' means." I am merely pointing out that not even one reliable source uses the term "ethnicity" or any related term in relation to Adam Levine. If you know of such a source please bring it to our attention.

Furthermore you are saying here that "…if he isn't 'religiously Jewish' (which he isn't), is he 'Jewish' at all?"

In fact there are Secular Jews. Is it your opinion that secular Jews are not Jewish? I think you are trying to apply a one-size-fits-all definition to Judaism and it does not fit.

A sampling from the lead of our Secular Jewish culture article:

"Secular Jewish culture embraces several related phenomena; above all, it is the international culture of secular communities of Jewish people, but it can also include the cultural contributions of individuals who identify as secular Jews."

Are they not Jews? The language above says otherwise. That, by the way, is the very first sentence of that article. Bus stop (talk) 22:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, they are. "Secular Jewish culture" is the culture of people who are (a) secular, and (b) see themselves as ethnically Jewish (not that Wikipedia meets WP:RS either). AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—you are inserting the term "ethnically Jewish". Sources in fact never describe a person as being "ethnically Jewish". That is purely your own language. It is often a good idea to stick to the actual language used by sources to avoid original research. The relevant point is that no source ever says that a Jew is a person that holds any particular "belief". But if you know of such a source please present it to us.

If we were to look at Christianity, by way of contrast, we see a different type of religion. The place of Jesus in Christianity makes for a religion different from Judaism. To "believe" that the figure Jesus in a spiritual form provides Salvation is clearly in the realm of belief. The terminology used in Christianity clearly alludes to this: one speaks of "believing" in Jesus. You do not ever hear any talk parallel to this in Judaism. And sources tell us straightforwardly that one need not hold any particular "belief" in order to be a Jew. Bus stop (talk) 12:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the term is used. Frequently and often. And even in a number of WP articles including BLPs, hence "never" is absurd. And the categorization of people has been found to be problematic at best - so Andy is on very solid ground. [5], [6], [7] show current news articles using the term. Need more? Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Collect—yes, the term is used, because all Jews are "ethnically Jewish", with the exception of converts to Judaism, as your 3 links above illustrate. Matisyahu, for instance, your first link above, is an Orthodox Jew. That is not how you are using the term "ethnically Jewish", and our article on Matisyahu does not, nor would it ever, refer to him as being "ethnically Jewish", because it would be redundant. Bus stop (talk) 12:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

You made a specific claim. The claim was shown to be wrong. Cheers. Andy has not been shown to be wrong. Cheers again. Collect (talk) 13:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

BTW, the cite reads specifically While always ethnically Jewish, Matisyahu was a late-bloomer in terms of his faith. Raised in White Plains, New York, his was a predominantly secular childhood with no strong connection to the sacred aspects of his Jewish heritage, or a belief in God. In short - he was not raised "Orthodox" nor was he always "Orthodox." And I suggest that more errors do not help your position on categorization. Cheers yet again. Collect (talk) 13:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Collect—that is correct, the quote reads: "While always ethnically Jewish, Matisyahu was a late-bloomer in terms of his faith." This is a reference to Matisyahu's having been born Jewish. Were you only using the phrase to refer to Jewish by birth I would have no objection. The source above is using the phrase correctly. Another point worth making is that this is a relatively rare usage. You don't for instance find the subject of this thread, Adam Levine, referred to by those phrases. Ethnic Jew and ethnically Jewish are rarely encountered, and they are ~~never~~ rarely used by reliable sources simply to refer to nonobservance. There are other, preferable terms, that well-written sources employ. They use terms like secular and nonobservant and assimilated for instance. We cannot employ a term like "ethnically Jewish" in a way basically inconsistent with the way a source uses it. Bus stop (talk) 14:34, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Bus stop, I used the term 'ethnically Jewish' on this talk page, because (a) it is common academic language when discussing ethnicity (which is what you are describing) in general terms, and (b) to distinguish from a person who is of the Judaic faith (which is a religion by any reasonable definition). Can I ask whether you agree that the terms I used are correct in general, for discussing the topic in neutral academic language, and if you don't to suggest any other way that a person can be described as 'Jewish' (again in neutral academic terms), other than by ethnicity, or by faith. 'secular' can only mean 'ethnically Jewish, but not having any religion', whereas the other terms you suggest are loaded, at minimum, in that they carry the implication that an ethnically-Jewish person ought to be a follower of the faith - and 'assimilated' is downright offensive. Talk page dialogue over complex issues needs to be conducted in the language appropriate to the topic in general, not the language preferred by a particular section within the group being discussed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

(e/c) Bus Stop, you appear to be being deliberately obtuse about this issue and repeatedly engage in the same debates/arguments left, right and centre. ~~Above~~ Below you state:

"One need not be religious to be Jewish. Secular Jews are just as "Jewish" as Orthodox Jews."

Well, unfortunately, for the purposes of Wikipedia, secular Jews are ethnically Jewish whereas Orthodox Jews are religiously Jewish, this is what the whole debate is about, IMHO. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 18:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

a jew is a jew. ortho or reform, secular or sephardi, tall or short. not sure why people feel a need to qualify it with adjectives. what's wrong with calling a jew, a jew? i understand explanations in a bio (like: while raised orthodox, she later became active in the conservative movement), but not adjectives. be brave - call a jew, a jew. let's see what happens. Soosim (talk) 14:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

What is wrong with reading a discussion before you comment? There seem to be no sources whatsoever that actually state that Levine is 'a Jew'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:34, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Sooism, your comment begs belief, especially seeing as what is written directly above your comment. Try reading Wikipedia:CATEGRS for example. What's wrong is that if their religion or ethnicity has no relevance to their notability or career, then it shouldn't be mentioned.

And adjectives are useful as in gay man and straight man, the first being homosexual and the second heterosexual, but according to your reasoning, damn, let's just call a man a man and not differentiate between the two. ??? I don't even know how to qualify this type of reasoning (sic). CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 15:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

CaptainScreebo—we do not have to stick to the language that you suggest here. We are free to choose from the language that relevant reliable sources provide us with. You are oversimplifying in your prescriptive language here. I think that a Jewish person can be observant, nonobservant, or in-between. I think the best way for all of us to proceed is to look for the language that reliable sources provide us with. Bus stop (talk) 15:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, leave it out Bus stop. An ethnically Jewish person (which as yet we have no reason to see Levine as) may or may not be of the Judaic faith. Thank you for stating the blindingly obvious. Now go find (a) a source that states that Levine is Jewish (in any way whatsoever) and (b) a logical reason why this should be noted in the article beyond your wish to tag as many Jews as you can. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh I see Andy beat me to it, yes leave it out, I am not suggesting what language one should use, I am pointing out the difference to you between a secular/ethnic Jew and a practising/Orthodox/religious Jew, look I didn't want to say this to Sooism, but let's start handing out the yellow stars again shall we?

I know this is deeply offensive and it's not aimed at anyone in particular, but you are doing the work of the anti-semitic brigade too in keeping your ridiculous arguments going, basically anyone with Jewish heritage, whether they are observant or not is a Jew right? Both the pro- and anti- brigades wish to tag anyone and everyone possible to advance their personal agendas, Wikipedia is not a WP:BATTLEground, do you do anything else but repeatedly (and doggedly) intervene as soon as there is a discussion about whether someone should be labelled Jewish (secular or religious if you prefer) or not? CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 16:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes it is offensive, but also confusing. It's not clear what your point is. Nobody is tagging here, or doing the work of Nazis. There's a persistent debate among a small group of editors about Jewish identity and Jewish-related categories, that continues to spill over into multiple discussion boards, and seems to involve taunts, name-calling, and apparently Nazi comparisons. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but it is clear, if you read the above (recent) discussion, Wikipedia has clearly defined policies about BLPs, categories, religion and ethnicity, and the notability and relevance of such attributes to the person's fame/career, which a small group of editors repeatedly ignore. Saying a jew is a jew, no matter what, whether practising or just descended from Jewish ancestry, is reminiscent of the criteria used by Nazi Germany to differentiate between Aryans and non-Aryans, see this section for example. And this behaviour is demonstrated by both pro- and anti-semitic povs, despite the policy, guidelines and so on being repeatedly explained, pointed out etc. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 14:19, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

If someone is sourced of being of Jewish descent or background then they are sourced as such. If someone is sourced as being of Jewish religion, same thing but then they fall into a preference against categorization by religion unless it's relevant to their notability. The sources use a number of different terms depending on the context, and which sources. Whether that makes a person "a Jew" or not is beyond the scope of the encyclopedia. Bringing in the Holocaust raises complex questions without resolving things. One easy lesson is not to categorize people because that is a tool of bigotry. A contrary lesson of history is that Jews are foolhardy to ignore their Jewishness through denial or assimilation because the world will not let them forget. In any event group identity has various criteria: self-definition, scholarly / academic, external definition, historical, and so on. Wikipedia covers matters of identity and culture to the extent the sources consider it worthy of note, as we reflect the state of human knowledge as it stands, not as it should be. This is a question of identity politics more than it is of BLP concerns like sourcing and harm -- Levine's ancestry and religious background are or should be clear from the sources so we're not maligning him by claining any untruths -- which is why the endless rehashing of Jewish labels on this page doesn't seem to go anywhere. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

One easy lesson is not to categorize people because that is a tool of bigotry.

This conversation began because some people insisted on putting Levine's Jewish ancestry into the article and making him Jewish, whereas he states in one of the sources quoted above that he does not follow the Jewish faith and prefers a wider, more open spirituality, enough time on this, look through the conversation to find the ref. End of story. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 17:18, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

CaptainScreebo—This is off-topic:

"…let's start handing out the yellow stars again shall we?"[8]

And from your same post as the above, this is off-topic:

"…you are doing the work of the anti-semitic brigade…"[9]

This is off-topic:

"Saying a jew is a jew, no matter what, whether practising or just descended from Jewish ancestry, is reminiscent of the criteria used by Nazi Germany to differentiate between Aryans and non-Aryans…"[10]

And from your same post as the above, this is off-topic:

"…this behaviour is demonstrated by both pro- and anti-semitic povs…"[11]

I don't think my own posts have been characterized by such widely ranging subject matter. In my first post I tried to address the topic raised at the beginning of this thread. I said:

"…I have not found a reliable source stating that Adam Levine is Jewish."[12]

And in my same post as above I said:

"…without a source stating that Adam Levine is Jewish, I don't think Adam Levine should be placed in any Category for Jewish identity."[13]

I and others have felt compelled to respond to off-topic comments posted by you and others. "Off-topic" in this case is I think a matter of degree. I think that you are going too far off-topic. I have only posted what in my opinion are the most egregiously off-topic of your comments. I am tempted to address your comments but they are far afield from anything germane to this discussion. We have Talk page guidelines that should be kept in mind. If I address your comments I will be complicit in perpetuating a discussion that is tangential at best to the ostensible purpose of this thread. I am also sure that such a discussion in this space will lead to nothing productive. This is not to say that I do not have what I think are adequate responses to the implications of the points that you raise. But I do not wish to address way off-topic discussion, and certainly not in this forum. Bus stop (talk) 15:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

tangential discussion about editor behavior

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

AndyTheGrump—you say that "And incidentally, if he isn't 'religiously Jewish' (which he isn't), is he 'Jewish' at all?" Though it is presented as an interrogative, it makes a point. The point is that your point is an incorrect one. One need not be religious to be Jewish. Secular Jews are just as "Jewish" as Orthodox Jews. I'm not addressing most of the above questions posed to me because your above statement, posed as an interrogative, is so completely incorrect. If you wish to modify your stance on that which I am quoting you as saying, please do. I am sure that sometimes I misspeak too. But if you are standing by your above quote, and I have asked you about it before in this thread, then it is obvious to me at least that there is no point in my trying to address the questions that you pose immediately above to me. Bus stop (talk) 16:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Bus stop, please stop being a Wikilawyering shit, and answer the question I asked, rather than dragging up a misleading half quotation of what I said. As everyone can plainly see, I wrote "And incidentally, if he isn't 'religiously Jewish' (which he isn't), is he 'Jewish' at all? Logic might suggest at least partly (ethnically), but given the fact that the article (before I removed the ethnotagging) went out of its way to point out that his maternal grandmother wasn't Jewish, according to Halachic law, he isn't. I think this is nonsense". Try a stunt like that again, and I will report you to AN/I (unless you wish to draw attention to your misbehaviour by complaining about my description of you, and beat me to it) AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—please exercise restraint so as not to violate our policies of wp:civil and wp:npa. I too get flustered but I try to exercise restraint. Obviously it is not pleasant to be spoken to in strongly negative terms and I never speak to you in such terms. I am worthy of respect just as you are worthy of respect. We can disagree without being disagreeable as the cliche says. Also this is not just about you and I. There are others here. We have a job to cultivate a pleasant and welcoming atmosphere here. That is a responsibility to others that I recognize, and I try not to set a bad example that other editors might follow, including editors who might just be familiarizing themselves with editing Wikipedia. Bus stop (talk) 17:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not interested in your patronising waffle. There is nothing whatsoever remotely 'pleasant' about deliberately misrepresenting another contributors comments. If you don't like the language, don't engage in behaviour that justifies it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

For some reason we have a perpetuation of this issue with this edit and this edit.

Now the issue seems to be, if I understand the two edit summaries of the above, that the parent's attributes of identity are "inconsequential", a term probably borrowed from my prior edit here.

But there are some important distinctions between my earlier edit and the subsequent reverts. One important distinction is that no source whatsoever supports a statement that the subject is an "atheist". But more to the point, Bar mitzvah genuinely is inconsequential, while the attributes of identity of the parents are not.

A person is "Bar mitzvah" as a consequence of the passage of time—in the case of a male that point in time is reached at thirteen years of age; in the case of a female that point is reached at the age of 12. This source only references a party. As such it is pretty inconsequential. Furthermore no source, including that one, is saying that Adam Levine is Jewish; for Wikipedia purposes Adam Levine is therefore not Jewish.

Why would our article make a point of stating that someone did not have a Bar mitzvah party if our article is not even saying that Adam Levine is Jewish? Do non-Jews get Bar mitzvah-ed? Do non-Jews have Bar mitzvah parties? I removed that as "inconsequential".

Now another editor is removing the information that the father is Jewish and the mother is Protestant. This is a pointless tearing down of the article, as the attributes of identity of the parents are well-sourced, and they arguably are consequential.

We are permitted to provide the reader with well-sourced information on the background of the subject of the article, and the reader arguably might find this interesting. Bus stop (talk) 18:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

So you are seriously suggesting that Levine's mother's religious beliefs are consequential, while his aren't? Don't be ridiculous. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—I'm not understanding what you are saying, because I said nothing about Adam Levine's "religious beliefs". Why wouldn't the attributes of identity of parents be potentially includable material in biographies? Is this something particular to this article, or do you feel that the attributes of identity of parents should never be included in biographies? Bus stop (talk) 19:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

What the heck are "attributes of identity"? This isn't... well, fill in the grossly-inappropriate/entirely-reasonable comparison with some totalitarian state or another to taste. Like I said right at the beginning of this discussion, 'a classic case of ethno-tagging'. We cannot include random statements about people's parents just to satisfy the preoccupations of minority groups - particularly where not only does the person in question not identify with the said group, but where members of the said group are insisting that he isn't a member anyway. And to answer your more general question, no, I don't think that "attributes of identity" should be used in articles at all - because it is a phrase you've pulled out of a hat in an attempt to give some sort of academic credibility to your own peculiar worldview. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

In American Jewish culture, "having" a Bar Mitzvah generally refers to going through the ceremony. In some parts that's a perfunctory matter involving saying a few prayers, in others it is a rite of passage on the scale of a quinceanera. As to whether it's noteworthy that a person "refused" to have a Bar Mitzvah (note that refusing one is different than simply not having one), that's all a matter of sourcing and editorial discretion best reserved for the article talk page. Similarly, simply being agnostic or atheist isn't particularly noteworthy ([hhttp://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/08/23/eveningnews/main3199062.shtml unless perhaps you're Mother Teresa). However, if the sources establish one's loss of faith or rebellion against faith as being relevant, of due weight to the biography, etc., it is conceivably worth noting. Posing these questions as whether somebody is "ethno-tagging" or not is pretty much unintelligible for Wikipedia's purposes, as that's a behavior question rather than a content question, and even as a behavior matter the concept that editors should not take an interest in the ethnicity of people has not gained wide consensus. It does not matter to the encyclopedia what a source's or reader's inner motivations are for why they find a fact worthy of note, nor does it matter why an editor might be interested in the fact. What matters is whether the fact is sourced, relevant, of due weight, and so on. Many sources, and most written biographies, do find the national origin, ethnicity, culture, ancestry, and religion of a subject's parents to be worthy of note. For various reasons we tend to downplay religion where it is not related to a person's notability, but we do not downplay parentage and upbringing. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:39, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

We do not downplay parentage and upbringing". I'd of thought that refusing a Bar Mitzvah was relevant if you are discussing someone's upbringing - certainly as relevant as commenting that his mother was Protestant. In any case, we are not 'downplaying' anything - instead we are asking the entirely reasonable question as to whether any of this is worthy of inclusion in an article about an American musician. Or are you also suggesting that Levin's mother's religion is significant, but that his (lack of) faith isn't? This is a ludicrous proposition to make. Or is 'Protestant' actually an euphemism for 'not Jewish'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—a Jewish attribute of identity is associated with Adam Levine's father, is it not? I am not trying to "give some sort of academic credibility" to anything. I'm just trying to speak plain English. But I'm glad you asked me to clarify what I was saying. I never suggested using the phrase "attribute of identity" in article space. Look at the sentence that was in the article—it read "Levine is Jewish on his father's side..." I didn't write that sentence or alter it in any way. I think it is fine the way it is, because it adheres to the terminology used by the source. You came along and removed that sentence, which is why we are having this conversation. Bus stop (talk) 20:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikidemon—it would be more correct to say that he "declined" to have a Bar mitzvah. The word "refuse" isn't used in the source. Bus stop (talk) 20:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

No, " Jewish attribute of identity" isn't associated with anyone - identity isn't an attribute, it is a fluid, contextual cultural construct. The word you seem to be looking for, but avoiding, is "ethnicity" - though again, it is a complex social construct, rather than any sort of rigid 'attribute'. Incidentally, you seem to be rather confused as to what this 'identity' is in Levine's case: You have previously stated that in your opinion he isn't Jewish - but now you note that he declined to have a Bar Mitzvah. If he had accepted instead, would he be Jewish, in your opinion? If so, this would rather imply that the only person who can determine Levine's identity is Levine - and he seems to have declined to be classified. What does this tell you about 'attributes of identity'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—you ask:

"If he had accepted [a Bar mitzvah] instead, would he be Jewish...?"[14]

No, a Bar mitzvah would not make a person Jewish. A Jew is simply defined as a person who was born Jewish or converted to Judaism. The Jewish religion is different from the Christian religion in this regard. While it is true that Christianity recognizes conversion, Christianity places far less emphasis on Christian identity acquired at birth.

Of course, for Wikipedia purposes, a Jew is anyone identified by reliable sources as being Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 22:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

You haven't answered the question I asked: if Levine had accepted the Bar Mitzvah, would he in your opinion be Jewish? (Christianity seems to be a red herring here - I don't think anyone has suggested that Levine is a Christian). You seem to be asserting that being Jewish is an "attribute of identity", and I am trying to ascertain how one acquires this attribute, and whether this attribute has any material existence beyond the minds of those who wish to see it attributed (presumably not including Levine). Like I said, a social construct, and one with contested membership - so not an 'attribute' at all. For Wikipedia purposes, 'a Jew' is a label applied to some people by some others, some of the time... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—I have no opinion independent of Judaism. Who would listen to me, even if I did? I am simply parroting Judaism's definition of itself. My point in mentioning Christianity is that Christianity defines itself differently than Judaism does. Christianity is also the more influential religion: people tend to be more familiar with the way a Christian is defined than the way a Jew is defined. Bus stop (talk) 00:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

But "Judaism's definition of itself" is neither clear, nor consistent, as you yourself have acknowledged - to a the reform wing of Judaism, the fact of Levine's father being Jewish, combined with a commitment to the faith (presumably the Bar Mitzvah would be relevant here?), would make him 'a Jew', but to the orthodox wing, the fact that his mother appears not to be of Jewish descent would rule that out - without the explicit and complex process of 'conversion'. I note too that you are contrasting Judaism with Christianity, in spite of earlier stating that "religious beliefs" weren't relevant. The real point is that you are "parroting Judaism's definition of itself" - or at least your particular interpretation of it. As a matter of faith, it may be undeniable, but as a statement about the 'identity' of someone not of that faith, it is nothing more than opinion - unless of course, your faith is the 'correct' one - but that isn't for Wikipedia to decide. We cannot classify people according an 'identity' that derives from outside of them, except in as much as we can assert that others have used such term to describe them - and that is a dangerous game. Labels encourage stereotypes, and we have too many of these already. Adam Levine is a human being, and a musician, not a set of 'attributes' - and Wikipedia does everyone a disservice if it suggests otherwise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I replaced this - its all cited and users wanted to mention the subjects Jewish heritage , so whats the issue? - Levine is Jewish on his father's side and a Protestant on his mother's side. He refused a Bar Mitzvah and is an atheist. [6][7]

AndyTheGrump—Please don't attribute to me something that I never said:

"But Judaism's definition of itself' is neither clear, nor consistent, as you yourself have acknowledged…"[15]

In point of fact I have not "acknowledged" anything of the sort. Would you please provide a link to where you find me acknowledging anything remotely like that? Bus stop (talk) 04:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—you are here removing material from the Adam Levine article with an edit summary reading:

"It thus follows logically that if Levine's religious beliefs aren't noteworthy, then neither are his parents' (though you should read the source cited Bus stop)"

I'm unable to understand the above. Where has it been discussed whether Levine's religious beliefs were noteworthy or not? And even if such a discussion took place, what bearing would it have on whether or not we mention his parents? You are removing information from the article. For what reason? Bus stop (talk) 04:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I do not understand why there should be a problem with the facts, this is supposed to be an encyclopeadia. If I was born into a **** family but am not practising, just say the facts. If my grandmother or second uncle removed was a ****, that is a fact, whether you agree with it or not! The reason people come to wikepedia is to ascertain the facts, not to be told what to make of those facts or for someone to decide what facts should be made available. 188.220.186.57 (talk) 12:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

188.220.186.57—really you can add about Adam Levine's ancestors. But the article is primarily about Adam Levine, and sources are telling us that Adam Levine is Jewish, and Adam Levine is telling us that Adam Levine is Jewish:

1. ) "Levine, an alarmingly self-assured, caustic, 28-year-old middle-class Jewish boy, is booming the word 'extraneous!' during a lengthy argument over a forthcoming video."[16]"

2. ) "Sitting at a ginormous conference table covered in what appears to be silver–painted snakeskin, Levine talks about growing up just a few minutes from the Roosevelt Hotel. He was born at nearby Cedars–Sinai Hospital — 'like all the other Los Angeles Jews,' he quips."[17]

3. ) "Look for me out there on 'the PCH'. I will be the skinny Jew on a motorcycle. Can't miss me."[18]

4. ) "Dear early bird sandblasters at my neighbor's house. Fuck off. Love, your cranky Jewish neighbor and future mayor."[19]

Feel free to weigh in at the article's Talk page.[20] Bus stop (talk) 02:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Isak Rajjak Shaikh

Long-germinated proposal. Not only non-neutral with respect to subject, but has become a lengthy sounding board with numerous unsourced negative claims against others, violating WP:BLP. 99.155.206.229 (talk) 13:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The lack of any real sources combined with the fair amount of personal info leads me to believe the creator must have a COI Nil Einne (talk) 17:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

An autobiography [21] that's become a depository for BLP violations [22], [23], [24]. Even though the article is not in mainspace, Wikipedia pages are not intended for the settling of personal scores; the agenda has spilled over into other articles [25]. This will not attain article status, and can only do harm to the subject if any potential employers or associates read it. My request is that it be deleted and salted, with the creator warned that he may not continue in this vein. 99.155.206.229 (talk) 18:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Since there's virtually no response to this, I have to conclude that I'm off the mark. My question: Can a user freely post disparaging or libelous claims on Wikipedia, as long as they're not in mainspace? Because that's my takeaway from this. 99.155.206.229 (talk) 02:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Your edit summary caught my attention. I agree that this page is seriously problematic. I anticipate deleting it in the next couple of days if the page is not improved significantly and the concerns you have raised aren't addressed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Well I do write for money, and know that every once in a while one must practice the craft rather more bluntly. But my frustration was real, and your answer is really appreciated. I know this AFC is just someone ranting in a byway, but it's not right, and is an abuse of Wikipedia. Thank you. 99.155.206.229 (talk) 02:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Michael Ledwith

- Contributions/Neil80123

I think I need fresh eyes at Michael Ledwith, if anyone can spare some. A new editor, User:Neil80123, has been rewriting the article to focus on a series of sexual abuse allegations. Initially I was reverting due to the presence of extensive copyvio, although I also had concerns with undue weight and original research. The copyvio is now less of an issue after discussions on the user's talk page, but I suspect that the latest additions continue with reduced undue weight concerns as well as problems with what looks like OR, although the explicit commentary has now been removed. As a quick summary of the case, there are four points in regard to the abuse allegations:

Michael Ledwith was President of a major seminary in Ireland, and resigned suddenly before his term expired. It was later revealed that he was being investigated in regard to a sexual abuse claim against a minor, with Ledwith denied. The investigation did not come to a conclusion, as Ledwith reach a private settlement that included a confidentially clause, preventing progress.
A second abuse claim emerged from the time after he resigned as President but before he left the college. That claim was dropped after the claimant changed his story and stated that the incident was consensual. Ledwith denied the allegation, consensual or otherwise.
There were claims in the media that Ledwith had previously been accused of sexual harassment by students at the college, but that the college had not acted properly. The college initiated the McCullough Report, which was unable to find any students who had made claims about harrassment. It did find that they had complained about his propensities - particularly that he might be homosexual and had focused to much on worldly goods.
The Ferns Report looked into Ledwith, and could not substantiate the first claim, due to the confidentially agreement, and questioned the reliability of the second. It was critical of Ledwith, though.

Anyway, that's the background. As it stands the article now has extensive coverage of those issues, and I'm not sure what would be appropriate for the article. So it would be valuable if someone else could look into what the proper weight and tone should be. - Bilby (talk) 13:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I reverted his recent additions - for "large reliance on primary reports" - and left the user a link to this discussion thread and asked him not to replace without discussion and some degree of support for the expansion. Off2riorob (talk) 19:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I have taken the criticisms into account and have balanced the primary source material with valid newspaper linking and backing them up. I have also take Bilby's critique into account and removed entirely the 1994 allegation of rape by a semanarian in order to achieve balance. I have also noted that no conclusions have been reached on Msr Ledwith's behaviour, but noted the newspaper commentary and the account of the Ferns report, and noted that Ledwith fully co-operated. I have rebalanced to say there are no conclusions, but the matter remains controversial in Ireland and have noted newspaper editorial on this. I think, in this case, it is very important to air the objective facts. I have also reinstated Bilby's section on his post clerical career and taken into account that this is necessary to achieve balance. On that basis I must insist that I am contacted directly before any further edits are made to this article, particularly the removal of the Ferns report section which throws light on the various allegations and is very balanced in its findings for and against Fr Ledwith. I think on this basis we need to leave these facts in as this report forms the basis for most of the newspaper coverage. Also in order to have credibility as a scholarly source then Wikipedia needs to incorporate primary source material, and I have, in my edits, noted the WP policy on Primary sources which have not been breached in this article. Finally this article needed to be substantially rewritten as that the facts were poorly listed and considered and it was the victim of the most god awful turgid prose I have ever seen. For God's sake if people are going to volunteer to be editors could they at least learn the skills of writing?

I am publishing this entry into the discussion forum of the article history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neil80123 (talk • contribs) 10:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

2011 Chilean Pen Incident

(partly copied from my talk page)

The article 2011 Chilean Pen Incident apparently meets our criteria for inclusion, however, I have serious objections to the presence of this article on Wikipedia. It is not a matter of WP:V or WP:NPOV, the root of the problem lies somewhere else.

There's no important information for this encyclopedia. The president's stupid blunder was caught by people on Internet and after the video became a hit on YouTube, it was interpreted and researched by the media as an embarrassing error of a highly visible politician. What is the result for this encyclopedia? Our article intentionally presents the politician in the role of a thief or kleptomaniac, and I'm afraid it is the only purpose of the article. Of course, it is possible to object to my argument on the ground that the article simply explains the situation and provides a broader context to an uninformed reader. However, I can't find any encyclopedic significance of the event itself.

Now some comments regarding the ethical aspects of the issue:

This whole hullabaloo over a really unclear and unimportant event has been grossly inflated by the media from the very beginning. I pause the term unclear, as to me it is quite shocking how quickly was the president's unwitting gesture called in the media worldwide a 'theft' or 'stealing'. Do they think the president is such an idiot to steal (deliberately) protocol pens in front of cameras?? The situation could be interpreted in various ways (as an unintentional and distracted gesture, as a deliberate theft etc.), but they have chosen the most shocking and disparaging interpretation. It tells something about the careless and frivolous attitude of the media, which is — I thought (!) — typical mainly to tabloid newspapers. However, it was rightly pointed out that the event has caught more attention than anything Klaus has ever done before. In my opinion the article has a very little informational value for this project and serves only to disparage the subject. Of course, it could be preserved as a monument and memento of the idiocy of today's world.

Please, note that I'm not a supporter or defender of the Czech president, I would protest against any effort to discredit anyone. I'm aware that this is only my opinion, and I'm willing to accept any sensible explanation of the encyclopedic importance of this topic. I just follow my common sense.

My questions are:

How important is the information/article for the global media portrait of the Czech president?
How important is the event for president's career/work? Is there any significant influence on his career/work?
Is there any encyclopedic value for this project?

Thanks for any consideration.

Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 12:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I would be willing to accept any significant criticism regarding president's political decisions, but this is a cheap way to discredit him. It is unworthy of serious encyclopedic attention. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 13:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. There is nothing encyclopedic on this topic. How about nominating this article for deletion? - Darwinek (talk) 15:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The article is an overworked anecdote of zero lasting impact on anything at all. Take it to AfD. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Collect and Darwinek, this is in the same bucket as Bush and the pretzel, Bush walking into a door in China, and Bush falling off a Segway (not to pick on GWB, lest anyone think that was my intent). – ukexpat (talk) 19:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion now per unanimous comments here. FuFoFuEd (talk) 20:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Wellesley Aron

Until a few weeks ago (before July 2011) the information on the early life of Wellesley in Wikipedia was poorly written and inaccurate. I suspect that it was based largely on the book "Rebel With A Cause" and that the author of this book and the writer of the article too, both had little direct connections with Wellesley or even poor indirect connections. This situation does not promote good copy! The corrections that I have been introducing are based not on that book (which I have little regard for) but on what I have found in the Habonim Archives in Yad Tabenkin, Ramat Gan, Israel. Wellesley was one of the founders of Habonim Jewish Cultural Youth Movement, which started without its present socilaist and zionist attitudes and is now algamated as Habonim Dror. Variuos interviews, letters, minutes, memoranda and reports of those early days 1928/9 enable one to build up a picture of Wellesley and his nature, achievements and problems, which is lacking from that article. Other members in Habonim can help too, so if someone wants to ask questions and improve on the article, I at least will be glad to oblige. Macrocompassion (talk) 13:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

This forum is intended for issues and questions regarding the biographies of living persons, Macrocompassion. It looks that Wellesley Aron died in 1988. You are free to fix the article with correct and verifiable information. You can also ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jewish history. Thanks for your understanding. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 13:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Sandi Thom

Article is being edited using direct qoutes and whole sections of artists promotional blog on her official website including facts that cannot be verified including promotional aspects that have not happened yet but are due for press release. Despite my editing they are being put back asap. 23:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[skinnylizzy] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skinnylizzy (talk • contribs)

I agree and have posted a message to the article's Talk page in support of your reversion of the additions. For the moment, your last reversion has stuck. I will watch the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Tommy DeVito

I recently corrected the birth year and the incorrect notion that Tommy DeVito was the twim brother of Nick DeVito. Nick DeVito's date of birth listed on the Social Security Death Index makes it completely impossible for Tommy to be his twin brother. Somebody keeps changing it back to the previous wrong information which appears in the internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.170.160.9 (talk) 23:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Your edits are unencyclopedic and not based on reliable sources. The only thing I've changed is to remove the allegation that Nick is Tommy's twin because the source in the article says only brother, not twin.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Tukufu Zuberi

Could someone please take a look at the International activities section of this article? It looks like a résumé to me, but I'd like to have some other eyes look at it and determine what to do with it. Appreciate the help. 75.13.69.27 (talk) 00:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you. It's been around a long time, though, and my guess is there'd be push-back if it were simply removed. You've tagged it. I noticed that someone objected to it on the Talk page in November 2010, but it never gained any traction. Why don't you start a new topic on the Talk page recommending removal of the table, integrating anything noteworthy into the prose, and getting rid of the rest completely (many entries don't need to be there at all). I've put it on my watchlist, but I'm too tired to tackle it at the moment. I'll try to look at it again tomorrow.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Nevin Shapiro

The newly-created Nevin Shapiro article will probably need more eyes on it. Shapiro was apparently involved in a massive Ponzi scheme (to which he has pleaded guilty), and also heavily involved with the University of Miami football team. Though the article is sourced, I think that someone should look into it further - I think there may be problems with some of the things that Shapiro 'allegedly' did for the team, which may lack proper sources, and thus have BLP concerns. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Henry Gee

Henry Gee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Needs to be on more watchlists because drive-by spas have been adding entertaining nonsense such as "Celebrity Nutritionist, spoonwright ... does not hurl rocks" to the intro, "Died London, because, as has been stated, the transition between life and death would hardly be noticeable" and "Known for large smelly feet encased in rubberized foam" to the infobox (version link), etc. – Athaenara ✉ 03:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Kris Jordan

I am disappointed to find the article on Kris Jordan locked, as there is plenty of new material that's being ignored because of the lockdown. The page has been locked twice because of alleged sock-puppetry, but there appears to be little evidence of both sock-puppetry and the information posted by the culprit being inaccurate. That makes me wonder if people doing the administrative work on the article are trying to shield Mr. Jordan rather than uphold Wiki rules.

Specifically, there are local news reports (easily verifiable) that Jordan's wife called 911 and accused Jordan of "pushing her around, drunk, for what she said was one of "numerous times" over the last two years." Earlier, the city prosecutor announced he won't file charges against Jordan. Jordan offered an explanation for the tiff: "She got a little upset. Girls do that." This is only the latest news item on Jordan, but there have been more developments in Ohio that are not reflected in the current piece. But no updates could be made to the article in the past month and a half because someone too exception to changes made over the previous year. It makes no sense. --Alex.deWitte (talk) 05:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Go to the talk page of the article, and use the {{editprotected}} template to request changes. Make sure to include your proposed changes, and links to reliable sources which verify the changes you want to make. When you do so, please be sure to link to actual sources, per WP:BURDEN, no one is going to do your homework for you, if you want changes it is up to you to find and present sources that support them. But use the article talk page; that is what it is for. --Jayron32 05:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Leonel Fernandez

In this talk page message I explain the issue.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the paragraph that you find disturbing, but, as I commented on the article Talk page, it's not completely unsourced. However, there are too many troubling issues with it to allow it to remain as it was worded. I've also commented on the article's Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Mette-Marit, Crown Princess of Norway

Has repeatedly had Breivik COATRACKED therein - removal of said COATRACK was labelled "rv vandalism" which I trust is not the opinion of those here [26] . I ask that anyone interested in the Breivik "attach to every article possible" COATRACK note this. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it's only marginally coatrack, but I agree it doesn't belong in the article and have reverted the latest attempt to reinsert it.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - I just did not believe "she was personally affected" was a sufficient connection <g>. Collect (talk) 20:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, that phrase is probably because it was her stepbrother who was killed, but I thought it was too attenuated to justify inclusion, not necessarily an obvious call in my view.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

lou jones (photographer)

Hi, I work for Lou Jones (photographer) as his studio manager and I am trying to make his page not have a "C" rating anymore. It has also been labeled as biased, but I went through and tried my best to present information in a very dry/neutral way. I also provided links for every fact. How can I receive a new rating so that the page is not flagged? He is not a controversial figure, but he has many accomplishments from being a photographer for so many years. Please help! :-) Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lkcornwell (talk • contribs) 20:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

You have a clear conflict of interest in having created and then editing the article. Don't conflate the quality rating by the project with the maintenance template in the article itself. I suggest you focus on the article first and start a discussion on the Talk page about the template issues and why you think each criticism is no longer supported. You should clearly declare your relationship with Jones at the beginning of the discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I cleaned up some of the stuff for you and removed two of the multiple issues from the maintenance template. The two remaining issues can probably be removed, but I would need to check all the references in the article before being able to comfortably remove them.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Bethel Church, Mansfield Woodhouse

Bethel Church, Mansfield Woodhouse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Ok, this ones a zinger. Some living persons mentioned in the article in a not-very positive light. And all of the sourcing is to a couple of authors for one local newspaper :S which is more than concerning. It looks like some sort of internal dispute gone bad - eyes on would be good --Errant ^(chat!) 22:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I was involved in this one - Article was created/largely expanded by User:Cirt as I remember. User:Cirt created this version all by himself. Off2riorob (talk) 22:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Ferdinand von Prondzynski

This article has a hotly debated "Controversy" section, which the subject considers highly problematic. The subject has posted at Editor Assistance/Requests about it. There has been massive edit-warring on the article over these issues; it being semi-protected (yesterday) may not make much difference, and certainly won't fix the problem permanently. There have also been assertions that the remainder of the article is unduly promotional. There are also hugely lengthy discussions about the issues on the talk page (some of which possibly shouldn't be there either; includes various people's email addresses and other similar material.) I've removed a weakly sourced half-sentence from the Controversy section, but more help would be appreciated. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Cal Robertson

This article is missing sources, incoherent and potential slander. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnsgoat (talk • contribs) 04:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I checked the article; there's very little there, and nothing I see as slanderous. The person is only borderline notable, but I can't see anything in the article now which could possibly be objectionable; it is just an actor with a list of roles and a brief synopsis of one of them. --Jayron32 04:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

There was some negative information that has been removed ("struggling actor" and on academic probation).--Bbb23 (talk) 04:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Fnatic

I find myself in an incipient edit war which I have bowed out of on the article Fnatic. The article contains lists of names of people for which there are no articles, and not even redlinks. It was my understanding that we should not have articles with names of people if there are no articles about the people. How are we supposed to know that the people in the lists even exist, let alone meet the criteria in the article or WP:BIO requirements? Can somebody point me to a policy or consensus, or even a guideline, on including names of people without articles in lists? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 23:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Given that there was no stated source either, I've deleted the disputed list. Frankly, I can't see much evidence that the article would pass Wikipedia notability guidelines. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The contributor in question (User:Xblackbirdx200), after I deleted the list, wrote a 'history' section based on the same data - again with no sourcing other than the Fnatic website, and seems unwilling to discuss this. After I deleted the 'history section, with an explanation in the edit summary [27], Xblackbirdx200 has reinserted it. I have left a comment on Xblackbirdx200's talk page, but I thin k that other action may now be required. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:12, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Xblackbirdx200 has re-added the history section and re-added the list of nn people. I've issued them a 3RR warning and have removed the list of people, but not the history section. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 19:52, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

And once again, User:Xblackbirdx200 has readded the list of non-notables:[28]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Rachel Reeves

A user Shakehandsman keeps changing content on this page so that it is non-neutral. For example "She again contested the seat in the 2006 by-election following the death of sitting MP Eric Forth and finished fourth. Reeves' support reduced from 10,241 votes to 1,925 in what was described as a "humiliation" for Labour". The references that he uses after this point do not state this, or even use the word "humilation". Shakehandsman's language makes it appear that Rachel Reeves result alone was considered a "humiliation", yet this is not the case and the articles cited are about how, overall, the national election result was not good for Labour and the Conservatives. When somebody attempted to change the text to reflect this, using the content of the cited articles, Shakehandsman simply changed it back, to what is clearly a non-neutral, non-factual, un-cited comment. For some reason they also keep changing the place where Rachel lives from 'Leeds West' to 'Leeds' and flagging this as non-neutral, when it is simply fact. He has also removed factual citations from the article and seems to be deliberately targeting the page, changing the language so it is non-neutral and adding incorrect references, whilst taking out accurate ones. The user describes themselves as dealing with 'vandalism, particularly COI editors and sockpuppets', yet they seem to be the one breaking Wikipedia policies of NPOV, Verifiability and Tone.

I am concerned that this users persistant changing of comments could result in an edit war, which is not helpful to anybody. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suadehead86 (talk • contribs) 14:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

One of the two cited sources uses the word "humiliation" in connection with the Bromley seat (the one Reeves ran for). Although it's true that the language in the article combines Reeves's results with the overall problem for Labour, it's not as badly written as you make it out to be and is probably sufficiently neutral to pass muster.

The lead (heh) and infobox say Leeds West. I assume it's just the sentence in the body that says she moved to Leeds to run for the Leeds West seat. The cite for that sentence says she lives in Kirkstall and moved into the "Leeds West constituency". Where is Kirkstall? Does any of this matter that much?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

- User:Shakehandsman again... I would ban him from editing any BLP articles on wikipedia - can a couple of experienced BLP editors please add him to their watchlist for additional assessment of his contributions - user has been the focus of multiple OTRS reports on multiple BLP articles - user is focused on attacking women - usually labour political BLP articles - his usual position is to claim, ow look at all these sockpuppets coming to neutralize the BLP after I have edited it.Off2riorob (talk) 23:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I have an impeccable record at Wikipedia and there is absolutely nothing wrong in my contributions to the Reeves article and the dispute from the ticket you mention were very minor and trivial issues such as the location of Shahid Malik's residence (which was fully sourced using reliable publications and something you have simply deleted from the article and simply left blank for no good reason). None of the above points by a brand new editor who has just appeared today have any real basis in fact as highlighted above. I've worked hard greatly improving the Reeves article removing a great deal of biased, unsourced and problematic content and all my edits have been supported by multiple respected and longstanding Wikipedia editors. The false claims above are by a brand new account with zero edits, yet as with every other occasion you take their side just as you always have with serial socks in the past who've made false allegations against me or hurled disgusting insults my way. Your conduct toward me and numerous other here on Wikipedia is a disgrace, it's little wonder Wikipedia is losing contributors. My record on gender equality is second to none and I've added material to practical every single MP involved in court cases regardless of gender or party. If this nonsense continues any longer continues I'll be seeking a formal ban on you having any interaction with me rather than the present informal situation. I will concede that you're quite right that an very good at catching sockpuppets and COI editors and I'm very proud of this. I won't be stating what action I feel should be taken against Off2riorob as is really isn't the place for such things and is unhelpful, I will simply say that I very much share the views and concerns of many other editors. --Shakehandsman (talk) 21:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Just to rebuff any of the points above, all neutral sources say she lives in Leeds, not Leeds West hence my changes. If a user has a relaible source stating Reeves lives in the constituency then go ahead and add it. Any points about the Conservatives are totally irrelevant as Reeves is a Labour MP. The fact that a different party didn't do quite as well as expected on a particular election night in a constituency where Reeves no longer plays any part has no relevance to a BLP about a Labour MP and such information would belong in the article about the constituency in question or the particular Conservative MP. The complaint has no merit whatsoever and is very strange.--Shakehandsman (talk) 22:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

By the way if anyone wants a genuinely troublesome editor to add to their watchlist then I'd suggest user:80.235.236.54, someone who has made numerous Rachel Reeves related edits breaching NPOV over a considerable period of time. I've managed to deal with most of them but a few of their early promotional additions still remain.--Shakehandsman (talk) 01:12, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Hailey Dunn

I am seriously concerned that the entire "Investigation" section is full of unproven allegations against various people suspected of having had a role in Hailey Dunn's disappearance and likely murder. I would propose that the "Investigation" section should be removed (in its entirety) and revdel'ed or oversighted. This article is currently the subject of an AfD, but there doesn't currently appear to be a consensus to delete it. Richwales (talk · contribs) 00:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the "Investigation" section myself. If the ultimate consensus is that I'm overreacting, my action can easily be reverted (and I'll apologize), but WP:BLP says we need to be aggressive and take the initiative with stuff like this. Richwales (talk · contribs) 01:37, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with you - I almost did the same thing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, the article has been deleted. Does anything further need to be done to expunge the material in this now-deleted article which most likely constituted a BLP violation? Richwales (talk · contribs) 15:19, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to split Fiona Graham article

An editor has suggested to split the Fiona Graham article to separately report on her life as anthropologist and as geisha. The discussion can be found here. (Since the article has been brought up on this board several times before I figured it would be the most appropriate venue to ask for input - if you think there's a better place for that, please feel free to move this section.) --Six words (talk) 10:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

What is there to discuss? Unless I'm missing something, we don't spilt BLP articles in that way, so regardless of what you decide on that page it will not be allowed. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Many people would have lives which could be so split - Wikipedia does not do it - the person remains one person. Collect (talk) 11:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The other problem with the discussion over there, it mentions write the second article accords to the 'cultural traditions' of the Geisha - which is a complete and utter no,no. Otherwise, where do we stop - changing Muslim articles to reflect their cultural traditions, the christian articles ? Etc etc. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The split proposal is absurd and I've said so on the article's Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

KSM

People using his photograph in these boxes. Okay?

This user feels that letting oneself be struck with terror by terrorists means actually doing most of their job for them.

One persons terrorist is another persons freedom fighter and revolutionary. I would support removal simply because its inflammatory with no added value to article creation.. - Not sure its a BLP issue really - he confessed to terrorism, confessed to being a mastermind of the 9 11 plane attacks - although he has not been convicted yet. Off2riorob (talk) 12:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Would need an MfD - but I doubt it would be deleted considering the wide range of political userboxes extant. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

(Undent)A more limited goal than deletion would be replacing the word "idiot" with a different word. Here's what WP:Userboxes says about it:

All userboxes are governed by the civility policy. Userboxes must not include incivility or personal attacks. Userboxes must not be inflammatory or divisive. Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise, opinion pieces on current affairs or politics, self-promotion, or advertising. Simply: If content is not appropriate on a user page, it is not appropriate within userboxes.

Per WP:BLP, "The BLP policy also applies to user and user talk pages. The single exception is that users may make any claim they wish about themselves...." I think that characterizing KSM as a "terrorist" is something that's arguably supported by reliable sources, whereas characterizing him as an "idiot" is not. Per The New Yorker:[29]

Insofar as we know Mohammed, we see him as a brilliant behind-the-scenes tactician and a resolute ideologue. As it turns out, he is earthy, slick in a way, but naïve, and seemingly motivated as much by pathology as by ideology. Fouda describes Mohammed’s Arabic as crude and colloquial and his knowledge of Islamic texts as almost nonexistent. A journalist who observed Mohammed’s appearance at one of the Guantánamo hearings likened his voluble performance to that of a Pakistani Jackie Mason. A college classmate said that he was an eager participant in impromptu skits and plays. A man who knew him from a mosque in Doha talked about his quick wit and chatty, glad-handing style. He was an operator.

He's far from an idiot, though some of his ideas may be idiotic.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi - as per the WP:Consensus and concern expressed here I have made a small alteration to the text in the box - I removed idiots'. 194.138.39.59 (talk) 21:26, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Literally dumbstruck at what idiocy PC has birthed here...! I am not allowed to call terrorists idiots? To mock them instead of gawping at their awesome visitations? Because the UBX has a picture of KSM in it? The man has pleaded guilty. Not guilty of shenanigans ('Thorry, it wath me who thwew that thnowball thwough your window mithter!') -- guilty of plotting the slaughter of thousands of civilians... in direct violation of the Quran's tenets! I am not allowed to call a man like Anders Behring Breivik an idiot? Wouldn't we have to be far more offended by "those dedicated, if somewhat hotspurred young men's job"? They are murderers of children who feel that they are in the right. The UBX starts with the words: "This user feels that..." and it has an important similarity with gay marriage. If you don't like it, don't get one. Trigaranus (talk) 00:29, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Apparently you are allowed to call yourself whatever you want here. Living people that are the subjects of articles here have different guidelines. As I said - that person is a hero to some wikipedia users and you would soon be up in arms if they created user boxs stating that this user thinks KSM is a hero. All that personal opinionated stuff is better left at the wikipedia door. This user thinks A Hitler was a nice guy etc etc.,. It might be better if you nominate it for deletion (user request speedy) than add stuff about care bears linking to people alleged to have committed crimes because that is just not correct or fair to the Care bears - Off2riorob (talk) 00:53, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

(Undent) It's not about political correctness, but rather encyclopedic correctness. If you want to call him an idiot or a Care Bear, then please cough up a reliable source. Why not call him instead a murderer, monster, or clown?[30] He's all of those things, but he's not an idiot or Care Bear. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:30, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Floyd Gadd

I am Floyd Gadd. I do not consider it appropriate for the article on me to continue to appear. For my comments on the article, please see http://www.floydgadd.com/wikipedia.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.81.12.85 (talk) 15:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I read your comments, and partly guided by them, I've removed all of the unsourced material from your article, although some based on archived material still remains. At this point, there's almost nothing in the article. Most third-party coverage of you is very dated, which coincides with what you say (that you've been inactive for "several years"). As a result, I've nominated your article for deletion as not meeting wikipedia's notability guidelines.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Article nominated for deletion. FuFoFuEd (talk) 17:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Rick Perry

On the Rick Perry talk page, there has for a while now been a dispute going on as to whether or not to include information about Rick Perry attending the 2007 Bilderberg conference in the article. User:Sheilakissane, a single purpose account, has repeatedly pushed for the inclusion of this, and for the most part the discussion has been relatively civil. Recently, however, he has broken WP:BLP twice by posting comments on the page that are libelous, where they were promptly removed by User:Dougweller; and WP:NPA twice, where he was warned by User:N5iln. See [31], [32], [33], and [34] for specific instances. While I agree that consensus has not developed yet on the material presented, Sheilakissane has proven to be purely a single purpose account and a WP:TE, and seems to continue base most of his argument on WP:IDHT. He has refused to even address most of the concerns laid out by those editors opposed to adding the material, instead talking about the process as "yellow journalism" (see [35], [36]) or a conspiracy (see [37]).

Relevant sections of the talk page: Talk:Rick Perry#Bilderberg - Moved from WP:RFPP, Talk:Rick_Perry#Bilderberg.2FGlobalist_or_not.3F, and Talk:Rick_Perry#Should_his_biography_include_the_fact_that_he_was_a_Bilderberg_attendee, including its subsection Talk:Rick_Perry#Seeking_Compromise.

I had originally posted this on the wikiquette noticeboard, however I was recommended to try here. Help on determining the next step would be greatly appreciated. Kessy628 (talk) 17:12, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Doug may take care of it himself, but if you want to do something, you could either post a final warning on Sheilakissane's Talk page, or you could request a block now if you think a final warning is unnecessary. I would go through WP:AIV as it's much easier than going to WP:ANI, for example. I didn't check the dates and times, though, so if Sheilakissane has not posted BLP violations since Doug's last warning, I would wait.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Thoro86 / Lakhvir Kaur Singh

The Lakhvir Kaur Singh article has regularly had sourced content deleted by both User:Thoro86 and IP User:78.86.23.142. It's seems highly likely these two are the same user and they've now had 5 warnings between them. The general theme of the edits is to remove information about the case and even making totally unsourced and hugely serious claims regarding the case which are BLP breaches in relation the subject's brother in law.[38][39] They've also stated "fuck who ever wrote this page".[40] Can any action be taken please or do we have to wait for further breaches? I'd ask editors to please add the article to their watchlists as the abuses have been ongoing for some months now. It may also be pertinent to strike all the false claims from the page history. Thanks.--Shakehandsman (talk) 01:35, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Anya Ayoung-Chee

A home movie of Miss Trinidad and Tobago/Universe 2008 having sex was leaked (apparently after the boyfriend put his laptop in for repair) and seems to be currently hosted on various porn sites. The event has received sufficient press coverage to establish the fact. Should we include it in Anya Ayoung-Chee? Your thoughts would be welcome at Talk:Anya Ayoung-Chee. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:46, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

This is still smouldering after a couple of years, and more views would be appreciated in the hope of arriving at some kind of conclusive resolution. The RfC thread is relatively short, clear and civil, with two editors arguing for inclusion and three against. It seems to have come down to this: Is this noteworthy enough, given its limited coverage and impact, to justify any hurt inclusion may inflict? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:15, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Anthony, thanks for your efforts, though I'm guessing that if it had been far less civil that we'd have gotten more interest by now. Such is life I suppose.

Just to clarify, links have been provided to the "limited" coverage on CNNGO, ABC, CBS, a series of articles in a local media RS have been provided, further links to demonstrate coverage by ANI (a major South-asian news agency) can be provided. It is probable that Japanese language media also covered the scandal caused back in 2009. A brief review of the talkpage (and it's archive) and the edit history describes coverage in the US and Australia dating back to November of 2009. At some point in time, due to the number of news sources and their geographical separation, the term "limited coverage" must cease to be an accurate description. 186.45.87.52 (talk) 19:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Neil Steinberg

People who disagree with my columns insert an arrest charge that was dismissed six years ago at the end of my bio. I believe it is irrelevant, vindictive, already mentioned the reference to my book, and should not be the last sentence of my Wiki biography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newzpaperman (talk • contribs) 23:14, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Editing of articles about subjects you are closely related to is highly discouraged. Additionally, your repeated reversions of the material constitutes edit warring (WP:3rr). If you disagree with the material's inclusion, start a discussion on the talk page. Do not continuously remove it. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 23:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

- Several accounts persistently deleting sourced content involving legal unpleasantness--appropriate or censorship? 99.155.206.229 (talk) 23:07, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Rather than edit warring to remove sourced content with which you're uncomfortable--a violation of WP:COI, and unusual practice for a journalist--it would be preferable to use this page and the article's talk page to discuss...the latter of which, I notice, was also blanked. By the way, I'm not from Chicago and am unfamiliar with the subject, so the charge of vindictiveness is in this instant irrelevant. As for the placement of the cited arrest and dismissal of charges, a consensus would be appreciated. With respect to personal life, I'm not big on seeing the information included, but it was covered by a major paper, and it never looks good when someone aggressively tampers with their biography on Wikipedia. 99.155.206.229 (talk) 23:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree with Newzpaperman -- placing the paragraph about the arrest at the end, and even including it at all in a short bio (when it's mentioned in the context of the book) gives it way too much weight. Antandrus (talk) 23:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think he does have a point. The article shouldn't end with that, especially not without any context. People keep shouting "COI, COI," but there is a legitimate undue weight issue. Zagalejo^^^ 23:25, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't disagree, but the problem is the edit warring and obvious conflict of interest. Multiple editors re-added the material, indicating that discussion is needed. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 23:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

And the cited article in Chicago Magazine, now minimized to the point of removal, was devoted primarily to the arrest and related personal difficulties [41]. Given what Mr. Steinberg candidly discussed in that interview, I think we're moving from undue weight to a bit of censorship. The issues surrounding the arrest have received expansive coverage, not the least by the subject himself. It's not vindictive to include them here. 99.155.206.229 (talk) 23:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

But even if something in an article is verifiable, it can still be problematic if presented in an amateurish manner. A short, throwaway comment at the end of the article isn't particularly fair. A magazine article provides all kinds of extra context, and lets you hear things from the subject's perspective. Zagalejo^^^ 23:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The point is it was well-sourced and factual. The world would not have come to an end had it stayed in the article while being discussed. Also, to say that putting it at the end is undue is a bit much when we have a stub article. Finally, putting it in the middle buries it. I'm not weighing in at the moment on where it belongs, but Newz should not have been permitted to remove it, and yet we are effectively rewarding him for doing so rather than sanctioning him for edit-warring and COI.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I reported him on WP:AN3 before this discussion, so he will likely be blocked for edit warring, as he should be. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 23:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that's an overreaction. We shouldn't assume that everyone knows about the three revert rule or other internal procedures. Like it or not, edit warring is probably the best way for a new user to draw attention to problems in an article. Zagalejo^^^ 00:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

He got a slap on the wrist, a 24-hour block that was lifted an hour later with this comment: "Edit warring seems to have stopped, and there are unusual circumstances".--Bbb23 (talk) 15:02, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I agree with Falcon, but I'm big on following procedures. If the assertion that Newz was removing was an actual BLP violation, that might make his behavior acceptable. Otherwise, he should be blocked. Try looking at this diff, for example.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Further troubling is this: This was discussed on the article talk page in 2007 [42]; that page was recently blanked. The attempts to whitewash this don't gibe with Wiki policy, nor with Mr. Steinberg's previous candor in discussing the issue. Perhaps the article generally would profit from expansion, but I disagree with the subject-driven removal of content, and find his edit summary promise to remove such until doomsday unacceptable. 99.155.206.229 (talk) 23:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, try to look at things from his perspective. It's not a question of whitewashing; from what I can tell, it was the manner in which the fact was presented that was bothering him. Zagalejo^^^ 00:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see anything that bad about "the manner" in which it was presented, although I understand the argument in favor of giving it less prominence. On the other hand, I do see something pretty bad about his behavior here.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not our business whether the subject approves of the way the information is presented, unless their concern falls under WP:BLP guidelines. And given the blanking of the talk page as well, I surmise that the only acceptable presentation would be that of which the subject himself approves. I rather think he compromised 'his perspective' when he made it clear that he would exercise final word on his biography. And frankly, I don't find the problematic passage undue--it was terse as the rest of the article. 99.155.206.229 (talk) 00:09, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Not "bad behavior," just unfamiliarity with Wikipedia. I only checked it today because I wrote about the Fire Department, and boom, here's that old slur, back again. What about "neutrality"? What about "greatest care"? The only difference between my changes is that you know who I am. Who are you? Why are you laboring to insert a damaging piece of old information at the end of my biography? That information wasn't there for years. Now it's back, on the same day I wrote about the Fire Department. And it's important ... why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newzpaperman (talk • contribs) 00:21, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

How can it be characterized as a slur? It happened, received prominent coverage, and you have written and spoken candidly. What troubles me is your determination to expunge it. And believe me, I don't live in Chicago, and have no knowledge of what you published today. I don't see neutrality violation. 99.155.206.229 (talk) 00:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

(ec again) Guys, just because something is covered in a citeable source and actually happened doesn't mean it needs to be in the article. Is Mr. Steinberg notable for being a writer, or for having been arrested? Is he a newspaperman foremost, or a criminal? Think how it would be for you if this were an article about you. It's easy to become a policy wonk, and be able to quote chapter and verse, but look at the bigger picture in a world where this entry gets the top Google hit on a person with a real life and a career and a body of written work, which happens to include a book about the incident. Mention of the incident with the book is sufficient in this case -- it's already in the article. Love to hear some other opinions from people who have had careers and had some real-world understanding of what I'm talking about. Antandrus (talk) 00:29, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Bit condescending, don't you think?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Antandrus, I respect your contributions as an administrator. I write for publication too. If I had a dust-up that received as much prominent coverage as this [43] I would be naive to think it wouldn't end up in a biography. Mr. Steinberg has been interviewed about the circumstances, and has written about them. The atmosphere reminds me of Pete Hamill's, wherein his drinking life became common knowledge, and was acknowledged by the author. Anyway, I've said enough about this; the imposition of the subject's will has, to my mind, taken precedence here. To find that discomfiting is not merely the reaction of a policy wonk. 99.155.206.229 (talk) 00:36, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

It's in the biography! It just doesn't END the biography? And it's bad because I care about it? "The imposition of the subject's will?" I thought a Wikipedia administrator -- like the officer in white at the end of "Lord of the Flies" -- had come in an imposed civilization on a brutal anarchy. The motive for ending the bio with that is vindictive. There's no other way to describe it. Nobody is trying to list the achievements of my kids, or the fact that I have been married for 21 years. That's been in the press too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.102.105.179 (talk) 00:45, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree really its the focus on this quite minor issue, no conviction a domestic. The main issue is the low notability of the subject - he isn't really notable enough for a wikipedia biography. Hes a columnist that has written a few minor paperbacks of little note - someone who is in the press because of their work - not a notable person really - and adding such a domestic to his minimal biography gives it undue weight - lets AFD him and get rid of it. Either that, or ... its quite a challenge but - write a decent bio on him and when expanded to include other details of his personal life including the domestic won't be so undue ..he does appear to have discussed his issues with drinking a fair bit - its no secret from what I can see, self declared and all that. Off2riorob (talk) 01:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

My sense is that my observations on this article are seen as officious at least, malicious at worst. Fah. Neither was my intent, and I thought that would be apparent. As a columnist for a major paper, I don't think it's hard to establish his notability. The deleted feature in Chicago mag can be used as a source for expanding the article, and not solely in terms of the disputed content. I'd offer to do it, as I did under a different IP for the Hamill article ~~(incidentally, I requested input and help on that one, and received no response, positive or otherwise, from the community)~~ but I can only imagine the reaction to that.... so color me pedantic. 99.155.206.229 (talk) 01:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I think all to see here is discussion to improve the article, it seems improvement and some expansion would remove any undue issues about this content - Hamill ... do you mean Pete Hamill? Off2riorob (talk) 15:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I appreciate the resolution that was reached here. What rankles are comments by the article's subject vis-a-vis 'children', the promise to exercise final say on the article's content, and ensuing comments above by an administrator re: 'who have had careers and had some real-world understanding.' Of course the subject's sensitivity is understood, but I submit that inexperience on Wikipedia is not an excuse, especially when we're talking about a very experienced scribe. As for Pete Hamill, I see that you and Bbb23 lent a hand there in April. I subsequently rewrote it to fit Wiki guidelines, following a pleasant correspondence with Mr. Hamill explaining my concerns. When I was done I sent the link to him, and received no reply. My supposition is that the sourced version replaced a better written transcript from Mr. Hamill's desk. I'm acutely aware of the occasional conflict between artful prose and sourced content, as well as discrepancies between objective text and suggestions offered by a biography's subject. 99.155.206.229 (talk) 16:38, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Cool - the living subjects of articles do sometimes get upset about content and inaccuracies etc... and we have to assist them as much as possible and listen to them and if they present reliable content corrections we work with them if at all possible ... from my side I don't see any issue at all with your improving and expanding this article in a similar manner. You did a decent work there, well done for that. Any problems move to discussion and we can work them out here with consensus and policy. Thanks Off2riorob (talk) 20:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Trisdee na Patalung

The event in this subject is not true, not famous and doesn't exist in Thailand and Worldwide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OCT553 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

It's a person. Are you saying he doesn't exist? That he's not notable? What?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:07, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

This Subject is not famous and there is no trustful reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OCT553 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

That's only your opinion, and your recent edits to the article are disruptive and have been reverted, along with a warning on your Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:29, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

The Bangkok Post article linked [44] certainly indicates he is real, and Google seems to indicate that he is a conductor too. Our article could probably do with more sources, but I think it is valid. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Unreliable Source. The resource is unreliable resource. He wrote his own Biographies.--OCT553 (talk) 20:46, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what your agenda is, having registered only today and focusing only on this article, but your digging yourself deeper into a hole with your edits and, if you don't stop, your risk a block. I've now posted two warnings on your Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:15, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Pushwagner

The picture purporting to be of Pushwagner is not of Pushwagner but of another person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ncguru (talk • contribs) 21:19, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

The picture is from 1983 - 28 years ago - search engine picture returns for comparisons are here - Off2riorob (talk) 17:20, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Kwame Kilpatrick

The federal prisoner ID number is posted on the lede of the article. Is this allowed?--Cerejota (talk) 14:45, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know, but I don't see why it's needed.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:17, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the prisoner numbers (still in cite URLs, though) and done some other edits to the article. It has a significant amount of unnecessary detail. There are other problems as well, but it's a very long article and would take some time to review thoroughly.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:46, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Joey Arias

Age keeps being changed and overall tone of the article is promotional, not neutral. 96.246.162.192 (talk) 15:49, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the birth date as it was supported only by IMDb.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

shirley temple

i just read the article on shirley temple, under the sub heading of marriages it states that she divorced first husband on dec. 5th 1950 then met future husband in january, 1950 then married mr black in december 1950 this cannot be right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.168.25 (talk) 20:58, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Why not? She met Black before the divorce with her first husband was final, and she and Black married 11 days after the divorce became final. I haven't checked the references.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:48, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I inserted the word "had" to make it flow a little better.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:26, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Good idea.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Stephanie Adams

- Stephanie Adams page is constantly being harassed by an IP user with an obvious "conflict of interest".

This person with an IP address starting with 69 includes both false, questionable, personal information as well as controversial edits that are poorly sourced. According to the biography of living persons mentionings on Wikipedia, "material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should not be inserted and if present, must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous." 71.183.68.120 (talk) 22:49, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

You're both edit-warring. I haven't looked deeply into it, but it doesn't look like a solid enough BLP violation for you to justify being exempted from policy about edit wars.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:56, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

All of the links are from reliable sources from professional writers who worked for professional organizations with editors. The links are from web archive, which AFAIK are allowed on Wikipedia. Simply saying the links don't exist is no cause to delete referenced material.-69.143.17.59 (talk) 23:00, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but the other user is suggesting there was retracted material in the report so its not so cut and dried as that - did you see the other users claims? Please present the external archived links you are wanting to add so as we can evaluate them, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 23:04, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

If this user has proof of a retraction, then they should reference it so we can come to consensus. However they never said the New York Observer article was retracted. Nor the Learning Annex course description. -69.143.17.59 (talk) 23:11, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Not true IP user 69.143.17.59. That NY Press article was removed online because the article was false. This IP user above has constantly vandalised this page and, according to the edits, the subject in the article contacted Wikipedia and had the libellous info both removed as well as crossed out from the edit history. Talk to ErrantX and Rambling Man. Or just take a look at the edit history. There is clearly a bigger issue going on here and a direct conflict of interest by IP user 69.143.17.59. 71.183.68.120 (talk) 23:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

if the article was removed because it was false, as you claim, the provide the evidence. Surely there must be a retraction. This sounds almost like original research. -69.143.17.59 (talk) 23:13, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree. If 71 claims there's a retraction, he must show some proof of it. However, I must point out that I find the material 69 wants to add not particularly noteworthy:

In 2004, Adams taught a course at the Learning Annex titled "How to Marry Rich: The Rich Are Going to Marry... Why Not to You?" New York Press reporter A.J. Daulerio gave the class a negative review. Noelle Hancock who also reviewed the course said "Somewhere, Gloria Steinem just took two steps back". Adams was eventually replaced by another lecturer, Shoshanna Rikon.

We can avoid the whole source issue if the material doesn't belong in the article, even if reliably sourced.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:19, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

What is the criteria to be considered noteworthy? What is noteworthy to create an article is different than the content of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.17.59 (talk) 23:24, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Per guidelines, notability is not required for article content, only for article creation. However, all information that goes into an article has to be sufficiently relevant to the article subject and her notability to justify inclusion. In this instance, the fact that in 2004 she taught a course that was criticized seems but a blip in her life as a Playboy model and not worthy of mention. Seems like it's just thrown in to be negative. This is, of course, a judgment call, and I don't know what other editors think.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

then using that same logic, anything not relevant to her "life as a Playboy model" is also not noteworthy? Eg, the lawsuits, hobbies, etc. -69.143.17.59 (talk) 23:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Stephanie Adams never acknowledged in any interviews or even on her web site that she taught a course at the Learning Annex. The article from the NY Press was removed from their site and her name on the Learning Annex does not exist. This questionable mentioning is also so negative to begin with, it was removed immediately in the past by Wiki editors and seemed to have been removed for a good reason. This particular IP user has a direct conflict of interest and has attempted to vandalise this article too many times. 71.183.68.120 (talk) 23:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see what difference it makes whether she has acknowledged teaching a course. Also, lots of articles are removed from websites for reasons that have nothing to do with retraction. I'd avoid the accusations of conflict and vandalism and just focus on the issue here. I do agree, as I stated above, that the material is mildly negative.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:37, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

This particular IP user has a direct conflict of interest and has attempted to vandalise this article too many times. This particular IP user (69.143.17.59) does indeed seem extraordinarily preoccupied with Adams, but then so do a succession of SPAs (most recently User:OnlyGodTheFatherKnows) and IP numbers (most recently the complainant 71.183.68.120). -- Hoary (talk) 23:56, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Bbb23, to sum it up, I am basically in total agreement with you. 71.183.68.120 (talk) 23:43, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Quick question, can this article be expanded with noteworthy information that pertains more to the subject, such as her modeling career prior to Playboy, her career with Playboy, her authored books and other publications, her interest in astrology, tarot cards, metaphysics, etc? There really are no more updates published about her life and she does state in interviews that she wants to be a more private person now, so my guess is that it might be best to just leave it alone. 71.183.68.120 (talk) 00:04, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Biographies of living people should indeed be handled with dignity and respect. I also made a note on the discussion page a small but important comment about the chronological order of facts. 74.101.6.174 (talk) 11:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The article doesn't cite any interview for the claim that she wants to be a private person. Instead, it cites a press release on her own website. But Googling for her name doesn't bring the impression that reporters or paparazzi are besieging her. -- Hoary (talk) 08:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Now there is a STRONG statement in the article, falsely claiming that she originally identified herself as a lesbian. Wikipedia needs to remove it. 173.56.121.228 (talk) 08:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

See the article's talk page. -- Hoary (talk) 08:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Rigoberta Menchú

I am very concerned that this article on a prominent activist—a Nobel Peace Prize laureate and political candidate—dwells excessively on a debate about her credibility. See the section Rigoberta Menchú#Controversies about her testimony, which is actually the majority of the prose content of the article. Even if the details here merit mention, they are seriously outweighing actual biographical information, and the weight placed on it seems undue. And, as the tags indicate, there is a lack of sourcing throughout the negative section. This article is in serious need of a rewrite, if anyone is willing to take up the challenge. Dominic·t 03:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Much of the section is badly-sourced, and seems to be intended to reach a conclusion that what sources it does provide don't. I think that it accepted that not everything Menchú wrote was entirely factual - but then, what single source ever is? She conflated events reported to her with events she claimed to have witnessed - but this isn't unusual, and given the political situation, the idea that anyone could report events as a neutral observer is frankly ridiculous. The harsh realities of life in Guatamala during the time she wrote about made any minor elaborations and miss-reportings rather irrelevant - the Guatemalan military was engaged in a near-genocidal conflict against much of the population, and nit-picking over whether it was her brother, or a more distant relative, who died of starvation, is beside the point. Her account is probably as close to the truth as we are ever likely to get. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:25, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Without making the same deep evaluation AndyTheGrump makes, the appropriate policy here would be WP:UNDUE - the only sources that make any big deal about Menchu's literary liberties are her political opponents, most relatively neutral sources at worse say the same as Andy, at best dismiss the criticism as irrelevant. While eliminating such criticism is not beyond the scope of a BLP, one should be extremely careful with any claims made - extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and with due weight, as she is not notable for any controversy, and as such this is very small part of the information a reader should get in an NPOV encyclopedia.--Cerejota (talk) 06:19, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I fixed some of that. Frankly, Stoll's book has been the subject of so much commentary that it probably deserves an article of its own. FuFoFuEd (talk) 17:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. It looks much better balanced now. I'm not sure about an article on Stoll's book though - I'll see if I can find sufficient sources discussing it to merit this. AndyTheGrump (talk)

Ken Cuccinelli

Under the heading 'Gay Rights', there is an incorrect statement regarding Governor McDonnell's Executive Directive One.

The incorrect statement is that the Governor's Directive "protects gays and lesbians from being fired for their sexual orientation".

This is not what the Directive states regarding sexual orientation. It states only that "Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution prohibits discrimination without a rational basis against any class of persons. Discrimination based on factors such as one’s sexual orientation or parental status violates the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution." [ found at http://www.dhrm.virginia.gov/documents/ExecutiveDirectiveOne.pdf ]

To be correct the statement would say that the Governor's Directive "prohibits firing because of sexual orientation without a rational basis against that person'.

The incorrect statement describes a protection that is not provided by any Virginia law or policy. Prohibition of firing without a rational basis is not protection. A state employer might state many different 'rational bases' for workplace decisions, including firing. That this analysis is accurate is supported by action of the Virginia Supreme Court in Moore v. Virginia Museum of Natural History ( found discussion on this point at http://www.bilerico.com/2010/05/virginia_supreme_court_to_gays_-_you_have_no_emplo.php )

Please correct this serious error.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwardnvirginia (talk • contribs) 23:01, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi - that bilerico external doesn't look particulary wiki reliable - usage on wiki en - there appears no editorial control? Off2riorob (talk) 23:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I think Edward was citing the blog only to make a point, not to include it in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't think the current wording of the article is flawed - possibly a bit oversimplified, but not a major problem. The key issue is not rational basis, but how much weight a Virginia court will give the executive directive.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

"Discrimination based on factors such as one’s sexual orientation or parental status violates the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution." - seems to be the actual point - I am in agreement that this statement is not actually correct - " the Governor's Directive "protects gays and lesbians from being fired for their sexual orientation". - It doesn't actually do that - the constitution appears to be the thing doing that. Off2riorob (talk) 23:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The governor directed all state agencies not to discriminate against gays based on sexual orientation pursuant to the equal protection clause. Maybe I could reword the phrase in the article so it won't be misunderstood.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Hm, User:ErrantX is good with legal-ish issues, - the governor Executive Directive 1 (2010) doesn't mention gays at all though , just talks about "sexual orientation" - Off2riorob (talk) 23:41, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I've finished rewording it. The sentence doesn't include "gays" in it, just sexual orientation, although it's clearly meant to protect gays and lesbians.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:45, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Dont forget transvestites and pre ops. - Fasttimes68 (talk) 01:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the directive does nothing to protect transvestites and pre-ops, except in the sense that my vague recollection is the directive has some very general, lofty language about protecting everyone.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:45, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Reads like a good interpretation to me, well done. Thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 00:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Revisiting the labelling of David Ogden Stiers as gay

This discussion has been closed. You must start a new topic to address any related issues.

The following is a closed discussion. Please do not modify it.

In March of 2009, a little-known blog published what it claimed was an interview with actor David Ogden Stiers in which Stiers said he was gay. This interview was picked up and referenced by a number of reliable sources. Those sources were used to add the material to Stiers' BLP and to add the categories "Gay actors" and "LGBT people from the United States". I believed, based on an examination of their other content, that the blog was a clearly unreliable source and the mere mention by reliable sources did not (or should not) confer any measure of trustworthiness to that source. Other editors disagreed.

Two things have changed since that time. The gossipboy blog now redirects to a site called hatetrackers.com which appears to list suspected "child sex predators" (although it still makes reference to the gossipboy name on the main page). Also, Recent cases have shown that WP:BLPCAT is now taken more seriously on Wikipedia than in the past.

The basic argument is this: reliable sources are such because they are presumed to exercise editorial judgment and fact-checking (and presumably have an observable history of doing so). If reliable source Newspaper A says simply that unreliable Blog B said something about Actor C, that does not make the statement of Blog B reliable. Reliable source A has not reported the fact or confirmed that it is true, merely reported that Blog B has said it. While this seems obvious to me, it seemed difficult for people to grasp in previous discussions.

Is the single interview in an unreliable source sufficient and appropriate to use as self-identification as gay by Stiers? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that reliable sources quoting unreliable ones doesn't automatically give them validity. It would depend on what sort of fact-checking they did when they picked up the story, is there information on this? I'll go and read the links you posted now but if the info has truly been shown to be unreliable it should obviously be removed. AlbionBT (talk) 19:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

A single interview, unless by a very reliable source, would generally be insufficient for this. A person's sexuality is very personal, and if Stiers wanted this to be public knowledge there would surely be multiple instances of him discussing it. There are not; we must omit the info and the categories. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 22:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Disagree. The source is ABC News, and they don't just write "some blog claims Stiers is gay, but we're not sure", they put it in the headline of their story, as a fact, "'M*A*S*H' Star David Ogden Stiers Reveals He's Gay". So they think it's reliable. Did they do additional fact checking? We don't know, but it's original research for us to decide they must not have done enough fact checking. I see your point that there aren't many sources, but note the phrasing - Stiers reveals this "in the twilight of his career". In other words, he mentions it once he no longer cares, and there aren't many instances because ABC at least thinks that he's no longer that important. --GRuban (talk) 11:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
  - You seem to think that there is more than one source of this information. There is not. ABC explicitly credits the information to gossipboy in the second sentence of the article and then simply quotes chunks of it. I find your misguided reminder about "original research" particularly odd, considering you go on to invent a justification for why Stiers has not repeated this admission. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
    - Heh. You are certainly correct on the last part - we don't know why Stiers didn't have more interviews, that's merely my speculation. But in general we trust sources like ABC News and MSNBC to fact check, and in this case we don't have any evidence that they didn't. Yes, they cite the interview, instead of conducting their own interview, but the way they wrote their story it is clear they are certain enough that the interview did, in fact, happen as stated, and Stiers did outright state he was gay. --GRuban (talk) 18:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

A reliable source does not make an intrinsically unrelible base source reliable by repeating gossip which amounts to a contentious claim about a person. Recall the hoax about Bush's IQ which got repeated in reliable sources - the repetition does not add any veracity to the claim. In the case at hand, we only have one real base source - the blog which clearly fails WP:RS. Stiers as a public person can not succeed in the US in any ciurt action, so the fact he did not sue the blog is irrelevant - the source at the heart is not reliable, so the claim, under current stringent BLP rules, must go. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

First, it's not gossip, it's an interview, the man's own words. Second, some pretty impressive news channels, 2 networks and a respected newspaper, did not consider the base source unreliable, they clearly considered it reliable to publish this clearly contentious information. It is not for us to decide they were wrong. Third - yes, actually, that is exactly how a source becomes considered reliable, by other reliable sources relying on it.--GRuban (talk) 18:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

As an aside, we should remember that WP:BLPCAT refers to the use of categories and does not concern what is written in the text of an article. Will Beback talk 23:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

GRuban, I suggest you take a look at the site as it exists today or read over the example content that I posted during the first discussion. I very much doubt that any responsible news organisation would consider this source to be reliable. That is why they took care to note the original source and absolve themselves of liability. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I just looked at the blog source which is at the heart of this.[45] The interviewer specifically asks the subject why he is giving to interview to the blog rather than a more prominent publication. The subject responds that it's because of a longterm association with a friend of the blogger. Since it was reported without question by MSNBC and ABC, it appears that those news organizations did find the material to be credible. Will Beback talk 01:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

And the 93 IQ hoax about Bush was thus also credible? A poor source does not become reliable just because an entertainment article cites it. And the requirement as to quality of sources is higher in BLPs than for other articles. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I see that it was also reported in several newspapers.[46][47][48][49] Taken together, this assertion seems to be "widely reported".

Also, we're not talking about George Bush's IQ here. This thread concerns David Ogden Stiers' announcement that he is gay. Different things entirely. Will Beback talk 01:50, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Nope - the issue is how many times a poor source gets repeated before making it a good source for a contentious claim. And I suggest that the answer is a lazy eight. [50] CBS News. By your apparent standards, the hoax is now "reliable" I fear. The whole idea of WP:BLP is that biographies must be conservatively written with exceedingly strong sources for any contentious claims. I suggest that the consensus on Wikipedia is now that WP:BLP must be upheld. Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

No one is calling this a hoax. There is no consensus here that these numerous sources are all too poor quality to use for a self-admission. I'll restore the material, but not he categories. Will Beback talk 02:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Hoaxes reported by RSs must be reported by us as true until they are later proved to be a hoax. Otherwise, one could come up with reasons to challenge most of our sources, saying they may be a hoax. Reliable sources decide, and if they decide wrong, we'll be wrong until something changes. Verifiability, not truth, etc. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:21, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Will Beback, why would you restore something labelling someone's sexuality based on a single interview in an unreliable source? WP:BLP has specific cautions pertaining to both sexuality and the use of poor quality sources. If Stiers sexuality was an important element of his career, I could see an argument for including this material, but it is not. Given the circumstances, I am baffled that anyone could defend this. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I would restore material based on what someone says about himself which has been widely reported in newspapers and online sources. Please quote the exact text in WP:BLP which requires us to delete this text: "In March 2009, Stiers came out as gay in an interview published by the blog Gossip Boy. Stiers also has a son from a relationship in the 1960s." The only material I see in BLP is WP:BLPCAT which only refers to categories, templates, and links. Will Beback talk 03:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

So unless there is a specific requirement to delete the material, you will re-add it? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

If there was no good reason for it to be deleted, then it should be restored. WP:BLP does not prevent reporting what people say about their own sexuality, religion, or other personal details. Will Beback talk 03:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Since it's a blog, there's no real evidence that it actually is Stiers own words. The blog's author could have fabricated it. That's one reason blogs are generally not allowed as sources. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

It's been reported in many mainstream media sources. The idea that is fabricated is a bit of a fantasy. Will Beback talk 03:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

So are blogs now considered reliable sources? Or have the mainstream media done some independent verification? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

ABC News, MSNBC, and the Courier Mail are reliable sources. Also, when someone conducts an interview, and the blog reports their responses directly, then it's an enormous presumption of mendacity to assume without any proof, that they simply made up the most important revelation in the interview, and that the subject did nothing to stop it from being published far and wide. Maybe, as Collect seems to believe, the whole thing is an elaborate hoax, but he's going to have to prove that. Will Beback talk 05:21, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

To be technical for a moment, ABC News, MSNBC, and the Courier Mail are news organizations, not sources per se. The stories they write are the sources, and sadly far too often people just stop at the brand name of a news outlet without stopping to identify whether the particular story is well-researched or reliable itself. WP:RS doesn't say "If its from ABC, go ahead and add it without question", but specifically 'Mainstream news reporting is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact'. Is this the reporting of news or simply reporting that a blog said such-and-such? I generally believe any source can be reliable, but if we ignore WP:RS just because we see a brand-name news source, we're doing a disservice to our content. -- Avanu (talk) 06:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Let's say we're writing about a bank robbery. A reporter interviews an eyewitness, whom she reports said, "the robbers fled in a blue car". The suggestion of some here seems to be, "how can we trust this eyewitness, the real source for this information?" That's entirely the wrong approach. The reliability of a source is the combination of three factors: the publisher, the author, and the nature of the claim. ABC is a broadcaster whose news department is known to be reliable. The author we know nothing about, but there's no reason to doubt his or her ability. The claim is not remarkable. That's sufficient for this matter. We're not flatly saying he is gay, we're saying that "he told a blog that he is gay", a fact which was widely reported. That's analogous to the reporter saying, "An eyewitness said the car was blue". Will Beback talk 06:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually in this present case, we have no idea what the motivations or reliability of the 'witness' are. And we often see mainstream news outlets publish things with little to no fact checking. The original website for this is no longer up and there are no other sources that independently confirm what was mentioned in this story. Despite being published in mainstream news outlets, we have zero confirmation that it is accurate and true. The mainstream outlet stories entirely rely on the blog story for their facts and don't mention independently contacting David Ogden Stiers. So this fails the WP:V test. -- Avanu (talk) 06:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The "eyewitness" in this case is the subject, who apparently sought out this blog belonging to a friend of a friend in order to give it a minor scoop, probably to give it some extra hits and income. The blog is not reporting that it thinks the subject is gay, or that it heard rumors that he is gay. It's simply reporting that he told them he is gay, and in his own words.

The gossip.boy blog looks like a small commercial local portal, blog, etc. site that likely had more than one employee. In any case it's setting a pretty low threshold to simply transcribe what someone tells you. Further, it's unlikely that ABC would be scouring Oklahoma gay blogs for juicy gossip on celebrities. More likely, the subject or the bloggers tipped the reporters to the story. That ABC and other news organizations decided to report it meant they believed it was true, they're just giving correct attribution to their source. Reprinting a libel creates a fresh libel. Will Beback talk 07:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

(innumerable edit conflicts) No end of red herrings and irrelevancies here. That Stiers came out in a blog is very much beside the point. Blogs are a fact of life, and celebrities and other notable people sometimes use them to communicate with the world instead of calling news conferences, writing press releases, going on TV, uploading videos to YouTube, granting interviews to magazines, posting announcements on their Facebooks or official websites, tweeting, or whatever; a blog is just one of many forms of communication. While it is understandable that blogs aren't acceptable as secondary sources, it is an utter absurdity to exclude information from an article simply because it originates on a blog. Every piece of news, unless it's based exclusively on a reporter's own observations, originates with a source, and it is not our job as editors to second-guess the reporters as to a given source's reliability. In this case, a variety of news outlets widely considered at Wikipedia to be reliable have reported the information. Years ago. Each of them has had ample time to retract it and run a correction; none has done so. Per Will Beback, Peregrine Fisher, and both letter and spirit of WP:RS, the information is verifiable and belongs in the article. Rivertorch (talk) 07:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd also add that it is relevant to his notability. In the interview he said he had waited this long to come out because of fear for his career. Will Beback talk 07:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

You now assert that his "gayness" is relevant to his notability? The NYT has mentioned him 467 tomes - and in not a single one of the mentions found on that site is he called "gay." WaPo over seventy articles since 1987 - not a single "gay." So "relevant" is it? Not very. How do actually reliable sources feel? [51] Why are we supposed to care that David Ogden Stiers is gay? I suggest no one cares, and that it is thus irrelevant to his biography per WP:RS sourcing. Pardon our yawn.' Claims about sexual orientation are contentious - all but you seem agreed. But it is "relevant" is the response? Not much. Cheers. Collect (talk) 08:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is relevant to his career. Just as if he said that he had had hair implants, or learned to speak German for a role. I dn't really se why you're protesting this so much. It's not a contentious assertion, it's based on an interview with the man himself, and it's widely reported. What's the problem? Will Beback talk 09:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Rivertorch (and others), the concern is not that the source is a "blog" but that it is an unreliable blog reporting something that has not been reported anywhere else before and not repeated since. Please go to the existing site or an archive of the original site and consider whether or not this is a reliable source. Is this a trustworthy source, one that should be used not for uncontroversial facts but to label someone's sexuality? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

All good questions that have been answered in the affirmative for this particular information by the many reliable sources that reported on the interview. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 15:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Snippet from the archive you link to:

The one who better stay out of Salem, Massachusetts, is also an instructor at Transformation Fitness Center. Now as this is located in Edmond, OK, you know city ordinances require it to revolve around church life. TFC is owned by Ministries of Jesus – Healing Spirit, Body & Soul. Anyone else think that Edmond is one of those types of towns that Fox Muldar and Dana Scully would stumble across? Could Lord don’t peek in a window as you might see some pig woman breeding with her sons! Take a clue Mr. and Mrs. Blair --- that episode was banned on television for a reason.

Yeppers -- sounds like a really reliable source indeed. Not. <g> Collect (talk) 15:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

(ec and agree with Collect) Really, people, until he's out and about in public with his publicly acknowledged partner, or makes a statement in recognized mainsteam media (such as an interview on "60 Minutes") this is all blog-based speculation. The phenomenon of repeating something until it takes on the mantle of veracity is nothing new, let's not indulge that phenomenon here. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 15:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Will, if you can't be certain of the source (aka verifiability), then nothing else matters. While Rivertorch makes a reasonable point that it was repeated in several mainstream news outlets, we don't have much evidence that it was news gathering/reporting (independent of the blog), as much as just repetition of something reported by a blog. Also, you make a case above that it is "relevant to his notability". He is not noteworthy for this, but for his work as an actor. You keep asserting that he is the 'witness' here, and he was interviewed, but if this is the case, then why didn't ABC or the others report that they independently confirmed this? If it is an unreliable source, then it might entirely be a fabrication. So in line with the BLP policy, we don't report it. Simple. -- Avanu (talk) 15:18, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The sources I'm suggesting using are ABC, MSNBC, and a couple of newspapers. I trust that these sources would have made a responsible effort to confirm the story before repeating it. They deemed the blog to be sufficiently reliable to use it. No one has retracted their versions of it. the idea that we have to scrutinize the sources of a source is not part of WP:V or WP:BLP. ABC is a reliable source, and that's sufficient. Will Beback talk 00:10, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Verifiability not truth

Someone has already rolled out the "Verifiability not truth" maxim in this discussion. I do not claim to know the "truth" about Stiers' sexual preferences. I do not care what Stiers' sexual preferences are, and I have no political or other interest in seeing him labelled one way or another. I continue to be amazed at the arguments offered here, when the source is so clearly unreliable and the claims made so personal. WP:VERIFY states "all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source appropriate for the content in question". Although this is an interview, and therefore Stiers himself is assumed to be the actual source, WP:VERIFY states:

Exceptional claims require high-quality sources.[5] Red flags that should prompt extra caution include:
   *surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources;
   *reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, or against an interest they had previously defended;

Both of these are true - Stiers has not said that he was gay either before or after this interview, and Stiers has previously said he is not gay (see this interview where because he plays a gay character in a play he is asked "Are you gay?" and he answers "No, I'm not.").

I was hopeful that this could be resolved through discussion of the source itself, but that didn't work last time either and I feel like I am banging my head against a wall here. So, I offer these diffs from an editor who took it upon themselves to call Stiers' publicist when the story first broke: [52] & [53]. I offer no comment, since I think there are all kinds of problems with this approach, but perhaps some editors who are not swayed by reason will read these diffs and reconsider their opinion. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment Based on the diffs you provided, perhaps it would be helpful to contact his agent again. The point is privacy, and how much privacy DOS wants. There's no credible public interest in this, which is not the same as the interest of the public. If someone wants to improve the article, I note there is nothing about his directing (at least two episodes of MASH), and nothing about his long-term orchestra conducting. I find these two points much more in the public interest, and personally interesting as well. This unremitting focus on someone's private life is too tabloidish for an encyclopedia, imo. I do think it reflects the bullying culture within Wikipedia. Something to think about? 99.50.188.77 (talk) 15:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Contacting Stiers agent is really not the way to resolve this. For one thing, if I say I've spoken to them, you have to trust that I am telling the truth about that and that I am not misrepresenting what they said. For another, there are obvious verification issues. I do agree with you both about the other areas of the article that could be improved instead, and, to a certain extent, about the the "bullying culture" although I don't think those are the words I would use. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I read the two links, and they were years ago, and shortly after the story broke. My point about talking to them again was that their view on this may well have changed, and BLP requires that we show sensitivity to the subject's current privacy wishes. 99.50.188.77 (talk) 16:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

ABC is a perfectly reliable source. This whole discussion is absurd. Will Beback talk 20:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Although I understand why you say it, ABC is not a source. It is a media organization. Each story/source should be independently critiqued (although it is far too infrequently done). -- Avanu (talk) 20:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Uh, ABC is a source. A media organization may be a reliable source. ABC is generally considered a reliable source. Beyond that, I'm not sure what your point is.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:42, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

"Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources" Are you saying ABC itself is a published thing? Or is it an organization that publishes things?

"The word 'source' as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings: the piece of work itself (the article, book), the creator of the work (the writer, journalist), and the publisher of the work (for example The New York Times, Cambridge University Press, etc.). All three can affect reliability."

So again, while I get what Will was saying, ABC by itself is not a source, but must be taken together with the other pieces of what Wikipedia means by "source". -- Avanu (talk) 20:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

That's all delightfully academic, but why don't you apply it and say whatever it is you think about this source and this article?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The "creator", as far as we can tell, is that blog. None of the sources we have seen so far show that they independently confirmed the information. I keep trying different Google searches to try and verify something, but I can't find anything yet. Although my 'gut' tells me this is probably accurate, we don't run Wikipedia on 'truthiness'; we go by what we can actually verify. -- Avanu (talk) 21:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, all three elements are the blog, but I thought the issue was whether ABC was a reliable source, not the blog. We're really going in circles, though. Will's point is that because ABC reported the interview, it means they believed it and put their imprimatur of reliability on what otherwise would have been a unreliable source on WP. I should point out that many other reliable sources did the same. Other editors disagree and claim that all the reliable sources that reported on the interview are derivative of the unreliable source. I don't think we're getting anywhere on this issue. My view is it's a close call. Normally, when I see a derivative source like this one, I'm against citing it. However, here we have many reliable sources reporting on it, and not just in passing but extensively as fact. So, I suppose I side with Will.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Will Beback, why do you keep trying to make this discussion about the reliablity of ABC? All ABC did was report that a blog published an interview with Stiers. They took care to identify the source. They did not publish any comments from Stiers or his representatives. If the interview has been held with ABC instead of an little-known, now defunct blog, I would have no problem with the reliablity. But ABC is not the source - the sole source is Gossipboy.com. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Right, so what's the problem with relying on ABC, and the other news companies, as sources? Are they unreliable? The "original source" is not a blog, it's the subject who gave an interview. Will Beback talk 21:19, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, I strongly disagree that an unmarried actor saying he is gay is an "exceptional claim". Will Beback talk 21:21, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Will, how do you know the blog gave the interview? Were you there? You keep mentioning this original source and witness and so on, but you are simply relying on something for which we have no proof. Exceptional claim or not, it was only 'reported' by the blog, unless a mainstream news agency says they also fact checked it, we only have a third-hand report here, and no way to verify it. (By the way, I think this is probably a true story, but WP:V hasn't been met here.) -- Avanu (talk) 21:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Because I trust ABC. Will Beback talk 21:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

You appear to be suggesting that unmarried actors are likely to be gay, but I don't want to misinterpret your words. Is that what you are saying? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm saying that this is not an exceptional claim. Will Beback talk 22:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Stiers had previously said that he was not gay, and has not repeated the statement since. I would say it is the very definition of "exceptional". You earlier stated that you were going to restore the disputed information to the article, but you have yet to do so. Do you still intend to restore it? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I missed that previous statement. Could you please link to it? Will Beback talk 01:47, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, now I see it. The subject explains in the later interview that he used to be in the closet. The answer is simply to report both statements. Will Beback talk 01:49, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

And do you still intend to restore the removed material? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

As things stand now, yes. However I am waiting to see if user:Red Act has any comment. Will Beback talk 22:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The editor who called Stiers' management? Their suppositions they expressed in the talk page discussion from that time do not give me any confidence in their understanding of policy. They previously said they supported including the material but not the gossipboy reference, so I expect they will say the same now. How is their input germaine to your actions? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

That editor seems to know more about this controversy than anyone else. Will Beback talk 00:27, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

You posted a message to Red Act over 48 hours ago. They have made edits since, so I presume they saw your message. Are you still waiting? I would like to let this discussion close, if you are just arguing for the sake of arguing, but if you intend to reinsert the material, I do not wish to have the discussion prematurely archived. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

If there's no more information available then I would restore the material in some form, as it is widely reported and undisputed. Will Beback talk 21:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Utterly amazing how Will Beback trusts a blog when it suits his needs but doesn't trust a recognized expert in a field when it suits his needs. 95.211.27.70 (talk) 23:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know which expert you're talking about. Does it concern this article? Will Beback talk 00:06, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

This is an impasse if ever I saw one.

@ Collect: The 467 NYT mentions aren't terribly relevant. Most of them are reviews and the like; they are passing mentions or deal exclusively with Stiers's professional work. As far as I can tell, no publication has run a lengthy interview or profile of Stiers since he came out.

@ Delicious carbuncle: Inclusion of the information isn't dependent on our perception of the blog's reliability; it's wholly dependent on the accepted reliability of the multiple secondary sources that ran the story. In the absence of any reputable reports that the information is inaccurate, there is no policy-based reason not to include it. The argument you're making to the contrary flies in the face of WP:V. The information has been out there for a long time now. Stiers and those in his employ have had ample time to refute it, and there is no evidence that they have done so.

The diffs you provide vis-à-vis Stiers's publicist are quite interesting but ultimately inconclusive. They also constitute a textbook case of original research. (Since they apparently had little if any direct influence on content, I don't see much of a policy violation, but it wasn't a great idea. By all means, one might contact the publicist, the agent, or the man himself—but only to make the suggestion that they provide clarification directly to a reputable media outlet.)

There is nothing "extraordinary" about the claim. In fact, it is an incredibly ordinary claim. A certain percentage of actors are gay. Not long ago, it would have derailed their careers to come out, so nearly all of them categorically denied being gay when asked. Times change, prejudices slowly fade, and courageous public figures decide to stop hiding and instead be open about themselves. One of three things happened in Stiers's case: (1) he made the decision—unfortunate in hindsight—to come out to a blogger or (2) he spoke openly to someone without realizing his words would be published or (3) he was the victim of a very successful hoax that took in several reputable news sources and went viral on the Web. It is not up to us to attempt to determine which of the three it was; the reliable sources have been reporting it for years now, there's no evidence that Stiers has complained, and that ought to be enough.

@ Avanu: Your argument appears to rely on a novel interpretation of Wikipedia guidelines. The source—in the WP sense of the word—is the secondary source. There are a bunch of those available, including ABC News, The Advocate, the Courier Mail, MSNBC, multiple NBC mirror sites, queerty.com, Yahoo Movies, answers.com, Access Hollywood, and so on. Several clearly meet WP:RS guidelines. There is no basis in policy for second-guessing our accepted reliable sources based on shortcomings we perceive in their original sources; if we did that, not only would we find that precious little WP content was verifiable but we'd also be violating WP:NOR.

It's not just ABC; it's ABC News. They are indeed one of multiple publishers of the story, as well as a secondary creator. As far as I'm aware, the veracity of the original creator (i.e., the blogger) hasn't been called into question—either regarding this story or in general—by any reliable source. If it had been, that might be a different matter.

@ everyone:This is the BLP Noticeboard, and I have yet to read any credible suggestion of a BLP violation. Not even close. But leave aside the cherry-picked snippets of wording and consider the basic aim of the policy: to avoid causing harm to living persons through the inclusion of damaging, unverifiable content. I support that aim strongly. If anyone can provide a sound basis for claiming that including this content is even remotely likely to cause harm to Stiers, I'd be very interested to read it.

Googling "David Ogden Stiers" gay returns more than 85,000 results, led by the ABC News page. Simplifying the search by omitting the word "gay" finds that same ABC News page in third place, behind only Wikipedia and imdb. Apparently, the Web-surfing public considers his coming out to be noteworthy and relevant. My hope is that Wikipedia won't find itself in the position of failing to include significant verifiable content that's available from innumerable other sources.

Sorry if tl;dr. I'm not really here. Rivertorch (talk) 08:38, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Rivertorch, did you take a look at the blog in question (then and now) as I suggested above? If so, what was your evaluation? If not, why not? This isn't an indictment of Wikipedia's sourcing in general, simply of the use of the secondary reporting of a specific interview in a specific blog. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I fail to see how looking at the blog would inform this discussion. In fact, it has been my chief point all along that the reliability of the primary source is irrelevant. Maybe ABC News, MSNBC, and all the other secondary sources got it terribly wrong. Maybe they failed to check their facts. Maybe they took shortcuts and never sought corroboration. Maybe the information is wrong and, despite its being reported as fact all over the place and entering the public consciousness, neither Stiers nor anyone associated with him has bothered to contact a single one of its principal disseminators, any of whom would have run immediate corrections (they do so every day for far lesser errors). Maybe maybe maybe; we can speculate ad infinitum, but it doesn't matter. None of it matters unless we learn of another secondary source that says it matters. As I see it, this is a really basic tenet of WP:V and its accompanying guideline, WP:RS: we rely on reliable secondary sources first, and what they publish trumps anything we may glean from primary sources. Rivertorch (talk) 04:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

What you are saying, in so many words, is that you don't care how obviously unreliable an original source is, so long as a reliable source republishes the information. As an aside, and please don't mistake this for anything other than a personal observation, I can assure you that none of the reliable sources that republished the interview checked any facts or sought any corroboration, because they did not have to. They were not responsible for the content -- Gossipboy was -- and any liability was Gossipboy's. This is entertainment gossip, not politics or business, and is not generally subject to the same level of fact-checking, in part because much of the content comes from PR people and is likely to be fabricated anyway. That said, I find your position to be somewhat ridiculous, but also a valid interpretation of Wikipedia policy. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm relieved to know you find it a valid interpretation of policy. I suspect that if I were to devote considerably more time and effort to explaining my reasoning, and you were to devote sufficient time to reading my explanation, you might find my position somewhat less ridiculous. Since all that is unlikely to happen, it behooves us to stick to policy as closely as possible. That is what I have tried to do here. A couple of further points in response to what you've written. First, your paraphrase "in so many words" doesn't accurately reflect my view. It's not that "a reliable source" is republishing the information; it's that multiple reliable sources are doing so. To me, that is a meaningful distinction, particularly in BLP articles. Also, it is worth noting that even sources we deem to be unreliable may be reliable on some topics, some of the time. As an (imperfect) analogy, consider those anonymous tip lines that law enforcement agencies set up. Most of the calls they get are irrelevant or even misleading, but once in a while they're on the mark. At reputable news organizations, some editorial control and discretion are exercised; reporters don't just decide to reprint rumors and put them online. At ABC News and those other sources, someone found the content credible enough to make the decision to post it. Whether they actually verified it, we cannot know—but then we don't need to. All we need to know is that our reliable sources trusted it enough to run with it, and ideally that's what we should say about it in the article. Rivertorch (talk) 04:30, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Rivertorch, The BLP concern is in calling someone 'homosexual' who doesn't want to be. I'm not saying David Ogden Stiers cares either way; I'm just saying that would be the central BLP concern. Googling and getting 85,000 hits is easy for almost anything. The problem we all keep seeing is that if we try to confirm that Stiers is gay, we can't find one peep on it besides the stories that rely on the blog. The statement "there's no evidence that Stiers has complained" is not the best argument for keeping material in WP. This entire thing circles around Verifiability, and I think Wikipedia 99% of the time just parrots whatever it is given from 'secondary sources', the problem is that many of these sources also just parrot what they are given, so we end up with content that is actually pretty dubious and poorly researched. -- Avanu (talk) 14:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

That is certainly something to consider, but it involves rethinking the foundations of core policy. That isn't germane to this or any specific case. It's way beyond the scope. Rivertorch (talk) 04:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Avanu, which is why I suggested we get an update from Stiers's agent to determine his current privacy views. Relying on a years-old gossip blog and a years-old statement by his agent is absurd. Wikipedia does not exist to repeat every bit of tittle-tattle about someone's private life that they wish to remain private, whether or not it's true. Stiers is NOT required to refute every claim which appears in a gossip blog, and demanding that he do so is equally absurd. It's called 'trawling' or 'fishing'. You sound like a reporter from the late News of the World. They recently learned the difference between public interest and interest of the public. It doesn't matter how many in the news media repeat the original story, we don't have to join them. They all reported on the Obama madrassa story, and the Obama born-elsewhere story, but that doesn't make them true. It was acceptable for ABC to report someone said something, but that doesn't mean we assume it's an incontrovertible fact as reported by a reliable source. If you don't understand the difference, talk to a serious journalist. 99.50.188.77 (talk) 16:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment: The only source that Stiers is gay is the gossip rag; the ABC, etc articles merely reprot that interview and do not confirm the veracity of the claim: hence, we have one non-RS source for gay, vs. Stiers in a RS for not-gay. This is clear-cut. We do not have him in any category, nor do we have any content, which claims he is homosexual. To do otherwise is a clear BLP violation. Sexual preference is a very private matter; if Stiers wanted to be known as gay he would surely be saying so in more than one highly questionable interview which is not acceptable per WP:RS. Case closed; I am horrified that anyone is arguing otherwise. Remember that BLP means to respect the subject's desire for privacy as much as anything else. Stiers has not made it public; if and when he "comes out" in a RS we can revisit this, but not before. To claim that ABC reporting the interview implies some kind of "fact checking" by ABC is not acceptable. We do not know, nor should we guess, whether ABC even bothered to consider it, since they were reporting on the crappy interview. Puppy has spoken. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- We don't know what fact checking ABC News or MSNBC or The Advocate, or the Courier Mail or all the others did. But just as we can't assume they did some, neither can we assume they didn't. Our policy is to trust their reputation, which is, in sum, quite good. In the end, after all, the fact checking we are hoping for would have come down to them asking other sources that also individually wouldn't meet our policy. (For one thing, they would be unpublished and therefore unverifiable.) We are a tertiary source; we exist specifically to reprint secondary sources. Those secondary sources often rely on primary sources that would not, in themselves, meet our various policies. We do not do the research ourselves, we are forbidden to. We rely on reliable sources. These are them. And no offense to the speaking puppy, but I believe our policies also require us to consider these sources as more reliable than she is. --GRuban (talk) 20:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Our policy does not say that we unequivocally trust the reputation of these news organizations without question. If you believe that is what it says, you need to go back and read it again. I'll quote part of it for you again:

The word "source" in Wikipedia has three meanings: the work itself (a document, article, paper, or book), the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work (for example, The New York Times). All three can affect reliability.

Go back and read the entire Verifiability policy, and you will see that it is much more than blind trust of a news outlet with a big name. Only a completely oblivious person thinks the media is perfect or unbiased. People work on deadlines and often many stories get published with barely any factchecking or oversight. Since we can't confirm anything beyond the story that is sourced by the blog, we don't have any verifiability unless we ask the man directly and get an answer in a form that will be accepted here. Continuing to argue for something because you want it to be in the article, without having any way to really prove or verify it is just silly. -- Avanu (talk) 05:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Great, now we're arguing about what Wikipedia:Verifiability is. To quote the policy itself, it is defined as: "whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." This material meets that. "ask the man directly" has nothing to do with it. --GRuban (talk) 18:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

- - We're going in circles, but again RSs determine what's reliable information, and lots have published this info. WP:RS needs to be modified if we don't like the result, since BLP says follow the sources. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 21:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- Woof. WIth all respect, Puppy's bark doesn't determine consensus; we have a whole pack for that. Sexual orientation (not preference) can be a "very private", as you said, or very public. Multiple sources generally considered to be reliable for WP purposes reported that Stiers self-reported his sexual orientation, which means it's no longer private at all. Those reports happened years after the contradictory reports, and they contained an explanation of why there were contradictory reports in the first place. Rivertorch (talk) 04:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

You say there are multiple sources, yet when we subject these sources to scrutiny, we see that they clearly are basing the entirety of their story on the blog material, not on independent reporting. So we really have 1 source - the blog. The story sounds very plausible, and it could very well be true, but it isn't verifiable, and that is the standard here. -- Avanu (talk) 05:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

By that logic, if WP had existed several decades ago, we'd have had to exclude quite a lot of content from the Richard Nixon article because, although it appeared in multiple reputable newspapers, it originated with anonymous informants. Washington Post and New York Times as reliable sources? Nope, the real source is Deep Throat, and we can't verify that. Rivertorch (talk) 10:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Here's what is wrong with your analogy - the defunct blog Gossipboy is not the Washington Post or the New York Times. If the interview with Stiers had appeared in either of those, we would not be having this conversation. On the other hand, we have guidelines for dealing with anonymous sources quoted in reliable sources both in WP:VERIFY and WP:BLP. I think you may have a rather incomplete understanding of the role that Deepthroat played in that particular episode, but I'll leave that for you to deal with on your own. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:26, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Instead it appears in ABC News and MSNBC. You're drawing a mighty fine line, that if an unidentified person is relied on by a national newspaper, that is reliable, but if an identified person is relied on by a national television network, that is not? --GRuban (talk) 18:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Where did I say that an unidentified person should be relied upon by a national newspaper? Please try to read more carefully and I will try to be more careful with my wording. The interview did not appear in ABC News or MSNBC. The interview appeared in Gossipboy and that blog posting was reported by the ABC News and MSNBC. If ABC News had originated the interview we would not be discussing it here (which would be nice, because explaining the same point over and over is getting pretty tedious). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I never claimed my analogy was perfect, but what you identify as wrong with it actually isn't one of its deficiencies. In both cases, reputable news sources (ABC News et al ≈ Wash Post et al) reported infomation that could not be verified by looking at the primary source (Gossipboy ≈ Deep Throat). Very likely neither of us has a complete understanding of that episode, but that's neither here nor there. It was a rough analogy intended to illustrate a point, and apparently it only confused you. Sorry. Rivertorch (talk) 21:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

What part of this do you not understand? The Stiers interview was not with ABC. ABC simply reported that Gossipboy had interviewed Stiers. The "primary source" would be Stiers, not Gossipboy. There is no equivalence in what you are suggesting. Clearly I am wasting my time discussing this with someone who cannot even grasp what the primary source is. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

We rely on secondary sources. ABC is a reliable secondary source. It reported this. Will Beback talk 22:20, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Absolute rubbish. ABC reported that Gossipboy had reported X. The ABC did not report X. This is not a complex journalism construct. If you do not understand the simple, but profound difference, I have real doubts about your ability to edit any reference work.101.118.53.225 (talk) 00:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

To repeat the analogy: If a newspaper prints an story on a bank robbery and it quotes an eyewitness saying the robbers fled in a red car, who is doing the reporting? Would we refuse to include this information since we don't know how reliable this witness might be? No, because the source is the newspaper, which is responsible for everything they print. Will Beback talk 00:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Your analogy is flawed. The scenario you present would still require original reporting and editing since it is a news event. The threshold for entertainment related news is much lower with respect to fact checking. RS organizations like ABC News often cite 3rd parties as their source for hard news and use that cite as a CYA. Especially on election night. Since all of the media outlets point to gossipboy as the primary source, and none of those sources mention any originial reporting or even a whiff of fact checking (eg they dont even mention trying to contact DOS representatives), then this has to be considered "pass through" reporting and the source is still gossipboy. That and this being a BLP warrants the information does not belong until better or corraborting reporting is presented. --Fasttimes68 (talk) 03:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

You won't be the first to have thought that. John lilburne (talk) 00:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Kindly limit your snide remarks to Wikipedia Review. Here on Wikipedia, we have rules requiring civility. Will Beback talk 02:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

This is a really long thread and, as far as I can tell, editors are simply repeating the same positions they adopted early in the discussion. Unless someone objects for a good reason, I'm going to close the thread.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Will Beback has stated, more than once now, that he will be restoring the deleted material back into the BLP in some form. The is little point in closing this now, as the discussion is likely to be re-opened as soon as that happens. I have urged Will Beback to either make his edits or change his mind and allow the discussion to be closed, but he has done neither. While this is frustrating, and has allowed for even more illogical nonsense to be posted here, there seems little we can do if someone chooses to delay doing what they have said they will do. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't consider your objection to be based on a "good reason", but, at the same time, I am uncomfortable overriding it and archiving the discussion. The original problem here was whether to categorize Stiers. You're against doing so. Will is in favor. Currently, Stiers is NOT categorized. If Will chooses to add the categories, you could open another discussion (as you say above). Why continue to argue about it here if it hasn't happened? Anyway, having said that, I'm bowing out because all I'm apparently accomplishing is making this topic even longer.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:23, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I've been proposing restoring the text, not the category. As for this thread, I don't see any consensus that this is problematic material. Will Beback talk 23:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, but what is left to discuss here?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I think everyone has stated their views. I don't see anything left to do here. Will Beback talk 00:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Except close the discussion, but DC won't let me. If it weren't for the language in {{cot}}, I'd do it anyway.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I also propose restoring the text and not the category. As far as I'm concerned, this thread has run its course—and then some. Anything else I say is liable to be misunderstood, just like the last thing I said. Rivertorch (talk) 18:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Will Beback, you have found the time to make other edits to the article and time to make numerous comments here, but despite my urgings to actually make the changes you propose so we can get the issue settled, you have yet to do so. Any idea when you might get around to actually restoring the material you "propose" to restore? If I haven't made myself clear, I would appreciate it if you would make the edits as soon as you are able, if that is still what you intend to do. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand the urgency. If you think it's important to make the edit sooner rather than later go ahead and do it yourself. Will Beback talk 22:39, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

After reading the talk page, it seems that the Wiki article had the DOS information added soon after gossipboy posted the interview. Some editors implied that ABC et al might have used Wikipedia as a fact checker (my words) and used that as justification for running the story. Kind of scary if true, but if that were true it would show what sort how fast information can travel. If the proposed changes were not accurate it would be like letting the genie out of the bottle. -- Fasttimes68 (talk) 11:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Alas -- there have now been a number of cases where lazy journalists for "relaible sources" used Wikipedia as sources. Where the claim regards a "living person" it is more important than ever that we be absolutely scrupulous in such claims. Collect (talk) 11:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

As there seems to be a bit of doubt about the truthfulness of the claims, perhaps Will doesn't want to be the person to actually add it to the Biography. I havent comment here recently/yet but considering the doubt about this claim, let me add my voice to erring on the side of caution and keeping it out until there is some clear statement of verification. Off2riorob (talk) 11:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Based on discussions elsewhere, it appears you have a reputation for bias on this general topic. Have you ever argued in favor of adding text about sexual orientation to an article? Will Beback talk 22:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I have usually argued for both sides of the coin in all situations - thats what I do - look at situations from a neutral point of view position with strong consideration to BLP and subject privacy and relevance to their notability. If you have accusations make a report. Off2riorob (talk) 01:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

You are asserting that you are even-handed but that does not appear to be the case in regard to sexuality. Can you show an occasion where you've argued in favor of including information about someone's sexuality? Will Beback talk 01:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I am the second highest contributor to the George Michael BLP, if that helps my status. Off2riorob (talk) 02:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Not the same thing.[54] Will Beback talk 02:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

As I said - go make your report if you think there's an issue. I edit on a case by case basis. I don't support the inclusion of disputable sexual assertions or labeling into BLP articles. I don't support adding sexual preference to BLP articles unless that persons sexual preference is a part of their notability and is clear and relevant and recent. To get back to this case, there seems to be some disputable claim thats all I know from the discussion - I have only read the comments and as usual in such situations about all things to do with living people I support as per policy - erring on the side of caution and considering privacy concerns regarding such personal claims when they are not part of the subjects notability. If there is a discussion where there is doubt discussed by experienced contributors I would suggest as per BLP in such cases sexual labeling should not occur until the doubt is resolved. What (regarding policy)are you accusing me of? Off2riorob (talk) 03:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm just pointing out that, when you comment on issues related to sexual orientation, you always seem to have the same point of view. Will Beback talk 03:30, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Thats my well known and repeatedly stated view as posted above - clearly there have been a couple of recent cases that there was dispute about, - because it was disputable - and I erred on the side of caution as required by policy. If that is an issue to you I can't do anything to assist you - I stand completely by my previous positions. If there are clear cases policy and guidelines for support I will be supporting inclusion. I also support removing the dated historic lesbian labeling from Stephanie Adams (on the noticeboard also)- she has married a man and has a child and is clearly no longer a lesbian. Off2riorob (talk) 03:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

So you don't really judge these matters on a case-by-case basis. Instead you repeat your "well known and repeatedly stated view", which seems to be that articles should never mention the subject's sexual orientation. Will Beback talk 03:45, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

As I said, on a case by case basis - using my interpretation of policy and guidelines. As you posted [55] this diff], Long term uncited and searched for and unverified and removed, do you see a problem with my edit that you posted ? - To get back to my only comment in this thread , you have been commenting you were going to replace this content regarding the sexual orientation of the subject for a couple of days and not replaced it, is that because there is a degree of doubt to the verifiability? .. or why is it that you have not replaced it? - Off2riorob (talk) 03:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm just saying that I cannot find an example where you have ever added or endorsed adding anything about anyone's sexual orientation, no matter how well sourced.

As for the Stiers article, is there a deadline? Will Beback talk 04:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

In clear cut cases for inclusion of sexuality I have no reason to comment. In disputable situations you will always find me erring on the side of caution and requesting waiting for clearer verification. No there is no time limit, at least you have clarified that you intend to add the content to the article but there is no time limit. Will, I can't follow that and clearly you are just not answering any of my questions.... I will discuss more tomorrow if required - there is no time limit is there, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 04:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Will Beback, this thread is long enough without you trying to wind-up Off2riorob. Over a week ago now, you stated your intention to restore the material. Five days ago, you reaffirmed that intention when I asked that this thread remain open because your change was immanent. Although I cannot know why you have not yet made the edit despite my requested requests, this thread has now deteriorated to the point where I am happy to see it closed. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:46, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree, close the thread. --Fasttimes68 (talk) 16:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)