Talk:Benjamin Levin (academic)

Name of Page
The name of this page should be changed from Benjamin Levin (academic) to Benjamin Levin (child pornographer). He more know for his criminal activity than his academic activity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.120.53.93 (talk) 09:44, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Charges
Why is there nothing here about his arrest on charges of child exploitation? http://www.torontosun.com/2013/07/10/former-wynne-adviser-ben-levin-faces-new-child-porn-charges 198.13.157.113 (talk) 11:20, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

It appears someone keeps removing the properly sourced entries. The Liberals are in an election race right now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.200.63 (talk) 14:20, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Not to worry. Removing well-sourced material (positive or negative) from an article against policy and without a believable explanation is vandalism. In this case it would be vandalism in violation of BLP. Editors with no COI would have a duty to restore first, make inquiries later. --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:32, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * This matter has been raised on Biographies of living persons / Noticeboard. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 04:32, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, that’s where I first heard of this article. --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:38, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Þadius:
 * Wales has said,
 * “I am a strong supporter of BLP not because BLPs can sue people for libel, but because they are human beings deserving of kindness and dignity, even when they may have controversial or difficult life histories.” Legal persons and BLP
 * I used to write police log compilations for a local newspaper. We fact-checked everything so we didn’t worry about getting sued. What did trouble us was the awareness that sooner or later we’d be writing up a suspect’s obituary. Cause of death: suicide. --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:14, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Per long-standing BLP policy, while discussion continues and until there is consensus, the material under discussion should not be put back in the article. Please continue the discussion at WP:BLPN and note that BLP applies to all areas of Wikipedia, not just article pages.--ukexpat (talk) 14:29, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Here’s the well-source material that got removed, ukexpat:"In July 2013 Levin was arrested by the Toronto Police Service sex-crimes unit on child-pornography charges. He maintained he was innocent."
 * Removed, not deleted. Compare BLPREQUESTRESTORE.
 * The BLPN discussion in question suggests consensus is to restore, not remove or delete. Absent consensus to the contrary (1) “the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution” (BURDEN); (2) I’m the editor who added the material; and (3) I’ve provided a reliable source. The material is being timely restored.
 * Note 1. Remove unbiased nonlibelous well-sourced material more than thrice a day and you’re out. 3NN.
 * Note 2. See generally the Jimbo Wales talk comment (supra) about dignity . --Dervorguilla (talk) 17:05, 28 May 2014 (UTC) 17:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * WP:BLPCRIME your "sources" are only about allegations. and your content includes completely inappropriate quotations. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  02:26, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Doom (if I may address you by title), BLPCRIME applies “for people who are relatively unknown”. Would you estimate that Ben Levin is better known than the (vast) majority of us? I really am trying to be neutral here. --Dervorguilla (talk) 06:44, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Your revision removed the most egregious of the quotes, but WP:BLPCRIME still is in effect. There is little evidence in the article that there is / was any significant coverage of Levin outside of the arrest. And as a crime this is unfortunately pretty run of the mill and not encyclopedic weight in and of itself. Petty official accused of doing something bad, looses job. Thats the daily scandal on the evening news, but not encyclopedic. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  10:07, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Ukexpat - you might want to state what you're objecting to. I looked at the last reference you removed, it was cited to Ontario.CA,  prior to that, a source from the globe and mail was removed.  I understand why the source from the varsity was removed,  it was a school newspaper, so therefore not reliable, but Ontario.ca seems to be the official voice of the Ontario governemnt, and I'm not sure about the glboe and mail, hadn't heard of it, so it may or may not be tabloid, but the Ontario.Ca, seems to be reliable and the entry removed said just what was said in Ontario.ca.  So, could you comment on why it was removed ?   Kosh Vorlon     17:13, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Notability
When major metropolitan newspapers and national media refer to someone by their name in the headline that's a pretty good indication of notability. eg: "Benjamin Levin sentencing hearing begins"(Canadian Broadcasting Corporation), "Benjamin Levin sentenced to 3 years in prison on child porn charges" (Toronto Star), "Ben Levin sentenced to three years for child porn" (Toronto Sun). Also, as a former research chair at a major university he also is notable as an academic so I don't think a challenge to this article on the basis of notability has merit. AnonAnnu (talk) 15:01, 30 May 2015 (UTC)